id
int64 17
1.89B
| cases
stringlengths 8
539k
| labels
stringlengths 38
1.25k
| instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|
135,190,955 |
(Virender Singh) Judge sourabh Digitally signed by SOURABH YADAV Date: 2020.02.27 16:35:56 +05'30'P.C in crime no.60/2020 under section 452, 384, 506 of the IPC registered at police station Industrial Area, Dewas.According to the prosecution case, the complainant Govardhan approached the police with a written complaint that after purchasing his house for Rs.30,00,000/-, the petitioner got the sale deed registered in his favour under pressure and threat without paying him full consideration.There was a loan on the house of Rs.22,00,000/-, which the petitioner paid.Further he paid Rs.1,00,000/- cash to him but denied to pay remaining Rs.7,00,000/-, therefore, even after executing the sale deed, he did not vacate the house.On 06.01.2020, the petitioner barged into the house, threatened his entire family for dire consequences and asked him to vacate the possession else he will throw out them alongwith their belongings.He also terrorized them stating that he has long criminal record and nobody can touch him.The police registered the case and is behind the petitioner to arrest him.The petitioner has following criminal record:-HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.5880 of 2020 RameshwarVs.State of M.P.The bail is pleaded on the grounds that the petitioner is a bonafide purchaser.Full consideration amount was paid through cheques or RTGS and after receiving the same, the sale deed was executed in favour of the petitioner but now out of greed he is not vacating the house.There is no allegation that the petitioner is extorting or demanding some money, therefore, the offence under section 384 of the IPC does not constitute.The allegation made by the complainant on the face of it shows that the petitioner is the owner of the house, therefore, if someone enters in his own house, the offence under section 452 of the IPC does not constitute.The petitioner has only asked for possession of the house purchased by him after payment of full consideration.There was no question of threatening or putting the complainant under pressure for any purpose, therefore, he be granted bail.However, the criminal record is not challenged by the petitioner.In reply, learned public prosecutor has pointed out that to constitute offence under section 384 of the IPC it is not mandatory to demand cash.The offence as defined under section 383 of the IPC itself states that if someone is put in fear of injury with the purpose of force him for delivery of some property, it constitute the offence and the allegation made by the complainant clearly shows that he was put in the fear of injury to deliver the possession of the house for which, as per allegation full consideration amount was not paid by the petitioner.Similarly for constituting offence under section 452 of the 3 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.
|
['Section 384 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,353,046 |
JUDGMENT Debabrata Mookerjee, J.The petitioner Adhi Mallick was charged on three counts -- first with having committed an offence under Section 419, secondly with having committed an offence under Section 420 and thirdly with having committed an offence under Section 465, Penal Code.The facts upon which the three counts of charges were attempted to be sustained were briefly these:As a result of this false representation the complainant was induced to part with a sum of money (Rs. 2500/-) and a deed of sale was said to have been executed by the petitioner in favour of the complainant's son.The document was registered in due course.A considerable time afterwards it was discovered that the petitioner had nothing to do with the land in question and that he had perpetrated fraud upon the complainant.A complaint was made which ultimately led to the petitioner being tried upon the three counts of charges indicated above.To these three charges the petitioner pleaded not guilty and his defence appears to be that he had not executed the document in question.At the trial quite a large number of witnesses was examined in support of the three charges framed in the case and the learned Magistrate after having considered the evidence came to the conclusion that the first two counts of charges under Section 419 and under Section 420, I. P. C. could not possibly be sustained.Let the petitioner be discharged from his bailbond.
|
['Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
185,379,952 |
any reasonable doubt from the evidence of eyewitnesses as also G.D. Entry Nos.480, 481 both dated September 12, 2010, the FIR, inquest reports, seizure lists in respect of seizure of blood stained earth, controlled earth, firearm and life bullets, challan sending the dead bodies to Kandi Sub Divisional Hospital morgue.The deceased persons were assaulted with the help of bamboo stick, wooden lathi, sickle/hasua, lathi etc. According to the evidence of PW 1, though bullets were fired from the firearms by the appellants, no injury arising out of such firing was mentioned in his evidence.According to the evidence of PW 4, though he had heard the sound of firing he could not say whether any of the bullets hit the deceased persons.The above evidence was corroborated by the post mortem reports.Regarding the non-disclosure of the names of the appellants in the inquest report by the PW 8 and PW 9, it is submitted by Mr. Roy Chowdhury that the preliminary investigation as recorded in the inquest reports revealed that the commission of offence was by the relatives of the deceased persons due to existence of dispute in between them regarding the land in question.It is also submitted by him that the common object of unlawful assembly of the appellants for commission of murder of the deceased persons was proved from the evidence of PW 1 and PW 11 that after commission of murder the appellants started dancing at the place of occurrence with the dead bodies of the deceased persons.According to him, sufficient opportunity was given to the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants by the learned trial Judge in his order no.38 dated September 1, 2012 granting liberty to him to furnish questions in writing which might have been put to the witnesses in course of their further cross- examination.No step was taken by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants in response thereto nor any objection was raised.So, there was no question of the appellants being prejudice consequent upon alteration of the charges framed against them in view of the provisions of Section 464 of the Cr.P.C.It is submitted by Mr. Roy Chowdhury that all questions relating to incriminating circumstances were asked to the appellants including the place of occurrence while recording their statements under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.It is submitted by him that the prosecution case was proved beyond all reasonable doubts from the evidence on record and the trial was not vitiated since Exbts.-1, 2 and 8 relating to seized weapons had not been proved due to the fault on the part of the investigating agency.Reliance is placed by Mr. Roy Chowdhury on the decisions of Bhupendra Singh & Ors.vs. State of U.P., reported in 2009 (12) SCC 447 and Yogesh Singh vs. Mahabeer Singh, reported in 2016 (10) JT 332 in support of his above submissions.A. Place of occurrence:-In the written complaint, "Budhrapara Paschim Math" District- Murshidabad was described as place of occurrence.The inquest examinations on the dead bodies of all the four (4) deceased persons were conducted at the agricultural land of village-Budhrapara, District-Murshidabad.According to the prosecution case, 8 persons, namely, PW 1, PW 2, PW 3, PW 4, PW 5, PW 8, PW 9 and PW 11, witnessed the commission of offence of murder of the deceased persons.Out of them PW 1 was the FIR maker.According to his evidence, the place of occurrence was the paddy field of the deceased lying and situated within Eroali mouza where they were weeding paddy on September 12, 2010 at 07.15 hours, i.e. the date and time of the incident of murder of the aforesaid four persons.The above portion of evidence that the place of occurrence was the paddy field/agricultural field of the deceased and the incident of their murder took place while they were weeding their above field on September 12, 2010 at the time of incident, was fully corroborated by the evidence of the other 7 eyewitnesses though each of them described the place of occurrence in his own way.According to the evidence of PW 2, the incident occurred while the deceased persons were weeding their land in the contiguous north-east corner of Chhatar Pukur.According to the evidence of PW 3, the incident took place when the deceased persons were weeding their field.According to the evidence of PW 4, the incident occurred when the deceased persons went to weed their field on the date of incident.In cross examination he deposed that the distance of the place of occurrence from Chhater Pukur was 3 bighas.Similarly, PW 5 stated in evidence that the incident took place when the deceased were weeding their field on the date and time of the incident.While there was corroboration of the above evidence with that of the PW 8, he added that it was near Chhater Pukur.Similarly, the evidence of PW 9 was in corroboration with those of the other eye witnesses.He added that he was weeding the field from the western side to eastern side and the appellant came to the place of occurrence from his back side.According to him, the place of occurrence was on the western side of Budhrapara village.While the evidence of the PW 11 was in corroboration with the other witnesses, he added that the he heard the noise from his backside when he was weeding his field from the western side facing eastern side.From the evidence of PW 18, it was evident that the place of inquest examination over the dead bodies of the deceased persons was cultivation fields of Budhrapara.Conjoint reading of the aforesaid evidences revealed that the deceased persons went to their paddy field for weeding.The aforesaid paddy field was lying and situated at the western side of Budhrapara village within Eroali Mouza, P.S.-Khargram, District-Murshidabad and known as Budhrapara Paschim (Western) Math.The place of occurrence was situated near Chhatar Pukur Math.So, the impugned judgement does not require interference in respect of the place of occurrence.Since there was no failure on the part of the prosecution to prove the place of occurrence beyond any reasonable doubt, the decisions of Mamfru Chowdhury (Supra), Syed Ibrahim (Supra), Paresh Chandra Mondal (Supra) and Asraf Biswas (Supra) donot help the appellants .B. Non-disclosure of names of the appellants at the time of preliminary investigation during inquest examinations over the bodies of the deceased persons:-vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in (1975) 4 SCC 153, the question regarding the details as to how the deceased was assaulted or who assaulted him or under what circumstances he was assaulted appeared to be foreign to the ambit and scope of the proceeding no consideration by the Apex Court under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C. Neither in practice nor in law was it necessary for the police who mentioned those details in the inquest report.It was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Amar Singh vs. Balwinder Singh & Ors., reported in (2003) 2 SCC 518 that the basic purpose of holding an inquest was to prepare a report regarding the cause of death, namely, whether it was suicidal, homicidal, accidental or by some machinery.Upon consideration of the evidence on record we find that the PW 18 received the letter of complaint on September 12, 2010 at 10.15 hours in course of his visit at the place of occurrence containing the names of appellants, amongst others, as persons responsible for commission of murder of four deceased persons.After forwarding the above written complaint to the police station for registration of formal FIR, the PW 18 started inquest examinations over the dead bodies of the deceased persons.Therefore, the names of the appellants as assailants came to the knowledge of the PW 18 before starting inquest examinations over the dead bodies.In the inquest reports, though it was recorded that the deceased persons were murdered by their relatives as a result of a dispute amongst those relatives and the deceased persons regarding the cultivation of the land in question, the names of the accused including the appellents were not mention specifically therein.There was no dispute regarding the fact that though PW 8 and PW 9 were the signatories of the inquest reports as witnesses, who were eyewitnesses according to the prosecution case, the names of the appellants were not incorporated in the inquest reports.But PW 8 stated in cross examination that he had disclosed all the facts to the police and had put his LTI on the paper written by the police.He could not say what was written in that paper because he was an illiterate person.In examination in chief, the PW 9 disclosed the relationship of the appellant with Merina, the wife of the appellant Palash Kazi.According to his evidence, after the death of his first wife Chandnehar Bibi the deceased Azizur Rahaman had married Merina on condition that 3 bighas of land would be given to him.Subsequently, Marina married appellant Palash Kazi due to love affairs.The deceased Azizur went to the place of occurrence on the date of incident to take possession of the land in question on the strength of a decree and as per salishi.In his cross examination, he disclosed that the accused were known to him as relatives of the deceased.He further disclosed that he had been interrogated by police near the dead bodies.Admittedly, PW 18 had received the written complaint from PW 1, who was an eyewitness of commission of murder of the deceased persons according to the prosecution case.In view of the above evidence on record, PW 18 was admittedly responsible for non-incorporation of the names of the appellants in the inquest report while recording the report of the preliminary investigation therein.Therefore, in view of the above facts and circumstances of this case, absence of the names of the appellants in the inquest reports could neither be termed to be fatal nor it would warrant a benefit to the accused persons resulting in dismissal of the prosecution case.The decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Mobarak Sk. @ Mobarak Hossain (supra) does not help the appellants in this case in view of the distinguishable facts and circumstances that in the aforesaid case though the names of the assailants had been transpired and they were named in the FIR before commencement of the inquest examinations over the dead bodies, the assailants were mentioned as unknown miscreants in the inquest report unlike the case in our hand.In the case in our hand, though the names of the assailants/appellants were not mentioned in the inquest report, it was recorded that the deceased persons were murdered by their relatives due to a dispute in respect of the land in question.In the case of Thanedar Singh (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court took into consideration the fact that the absence of the details of FIR in the inquest report was indicative of the fact that the prosecution story was still in an embryo state and had not been given any shape in view of the further fact that the FIR came to be recorded later on after due deliberations and consultations and was therefore ante-timed to give it colour of a promptly loded FIR.Needless to point out that the case in our hand, the FIR was registered on the date of the incident and subsequently forwarded to the Court on the next date without any delay and any laches on the part of the investigating agency containing the names of the appellants therein.The post mortem examination was conducted over all the 4 dead bodies on the date of incident with reference to the aforesaid FIR.For the same reason the decisions of Patel Mohan Mulji (Supra) and Fanil Das (Supra) do not come to the aid of the appellants.C. Serious departure from the prosecution case as made out in the FIR, evidence adduced by PW 1 in Court with the evidence adduced in Court by other eyewitnesses as also evidence of medical expert:- Using of the lathi, hansua/sickle as weapons of offence by the appellants for commission of offence in question was common in the evidence of PW 2, PW 3, PW 4, PW 8 and PW 11 who were the eyewitnesses according to the prosecution case.PW 2, PW 4, PW 8 and PW 11 further stated in their respective evidences that the appellants were carrying firearms with them apart from lathi, hansua/sickle.According to the evidence of PW 8 and PW 11, the appellants assaulted the deceased persons with the gun apart from lathi and hansua/sickle.PW 1 only stated that some of the appellants opened fire arriving at the place of occurrence and assaulted the deceased persons with henso.He further stated that appellant Israil Molla and Baral Sk opened fire from their firearms aiming at his father Jamatuddin Sk.Subsequently, appellant Piyarul Sk also opened fire at his aforesaid father.According to the evidence of PW 4, he heard the sound of firing from the place of occurrence at the material point of time.But he could not say whether any of the deceased person sustained gunshot injury.From the evidence of the first I.O. (PW 18) it appeared that on the date of occurrence i.e. on September 12, 2010 in between 14.30 hours to 15.45 hours one improvised pipe gun, one improvised musket, .12 bore live ammunitions and two rounds of .303 live ammunitions were seized from the cultivated paddy field of Budhrapara under Eroarli Mouza situated on the western side of Budhrapara village.The above evidence was corroborated by those of PW 13 and PW 14, the witnesses of the aforesaid seizure lists.According to the evidence of PW 16, the cause of death was due to effect of shock and heamorrhage consequent upon sustaining head injuries and poly trauma.According to his evidence and post mortem report none of the deceased persons sustained gunshot injury.But the cause of death of none of the deceased persons was gunshot injury.D. Denial of fair trial consequent upon denial of extending the opportunity of cross-examining the PW 1 to PW 8 recalling them after alteration of charges on two occasions:-Though the learned Judge was of the view that no new fact or question of law had been incorporated in the charge and it would not be re-examine or cross-examine further to the witnesses who had already been examined liberty was given to either of the parties to file petition by September 11, 2012 i.e. the next date of hearing of the trial mentioning the question for examination or further cross- examination of witnesses who had already been examined relating to modification and alteration of charge only.Or in other words, It would not be justified to set aside the impugned judgement on this ground alone for there is not an iota of material on record showing failure of justice.E. Failure to disclose or incriminating circumstances of the appellants while recording their respective statements under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. causing great prejudice to them thereby:-After considering the respective statements of the appellants recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., we find that identical question nos.3, 4, 5 and 8 were put to all the appellants relating to the date and time and place of occurrence relating to commission of offence, the places where the dead bodies were lying, the manner in which the deceased persons were murdered and the reason behind the commission of the offence, respectively.Coming back to the case in hand it is evident from the aforesaid question no.3 put to all the appellants that according to the evidence of PW 18 the date and time of commission of murder of 4 deceased persons were disclosed.In question no.4 the attentions of the appellants were drawn to the relevant portion of the evidence of PW 18 relating to the places where the dead bodies of the aforesaid 4 deceased persons were lying with reference to the rough sketch map where the aforesaid dead bodies were lying.The dead body of the deceased Jamatuddin was lying in cultivation land of Afsar Sk of village-Budhrapara, dead body of the deceased Ajibur Rahaman, Bajlu Sk were lying in the cultivation land of Yasin Sk and that of the deceased Salam Sk was lying in the cultivation land of Ajibur Rahaman.From question no.5 it is evident that attentions of the appellants were drawn towards the relevant portion of the evidence of PW 1 that the place of occurrence was the paddy field.The commission of offence by the appellants took place at the aforesaid place of occurrence on September 12, 2010 at about 07.15 hours when the deceased persons with their associates including PW 1 weeding their field.The attention of the appellants were also drawn towards the evidence of PW 1 to the effect that at the aforesaid point of time the appellants arrived at the place of occurrence, started firing as also attacked and assaulted the deceased with henso.In view of the above fact it is clear that attention of the appellants were drawn towards each and every incriminating circumstances properly and fairly for offering explanations to record their statements under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. In question no.8 the attentions of the appellants were drawn with regard to the motive behind the commission of offence in view of the dispute relating to the title and possession of the land in question.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision of Wasim Khan vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in AIR 1956 SCC 400 laid down the law relating to the recording of statement of an accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. (previously Section 342 of the Old Act) and the relevant portion of the above decision is quoted below:-We have examined the statement of the appellant recorded under S. 342, Criminal P.C. by the Sessions Judge.At the very commencement of the record of that statement, the Sessions Judge read out the appellant's statement under S. 342, Criminal P.C. before the Committing Magistrate and enquired whether it was correct, to which the appellant replied in the affirmative.The statement of the appellant before the Magistrate is admissible under S.287, Criminal P.C. The Magistrate pointedly asked the appellant as to whether he along with the other accused murdered Ram Dularey and had taken his property to which the appellant replied in the negative.It was not necessary for the Sessions Judge to specifically repeat the same when the appellant admitted his statement before the Committing Magistrate as correct when read out to him.Apart from this, when the statement of the appellant to the Sessions Judge is read as a whole, it clearly shows that the appellant knew what the accusation against him was and he offered and explanations for the disappearance of Ram Dularey from his cart and for his possession of the deceased's goods.There is no justification for supposing that there had been any prejudice caused to the appellant on account of improper or insufficient recording of this statement by the Sessions Judge under S. 342 Criminal P.C."Therefore, on the basis of the aforesaid settled principles of law the impugned judgment does not require our interference upon consideration of the facts and circumstances discussed hereinabove.This appeal stands dismissed.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
186,594,821 |
Thecomplainant in the said case was one Smt. SumanSriram Gholap, the Respondent No.1 herein.In thesaid complaint, the State of Maharashtra was madethe Respondent No.1 through the Commissioner ofPolice, Brihan Mumbai.The Petitioner hereinwas made the third Respondent in the said complaintcase.The facts revealed in the complaint and whichcame to light during the hearing thereof by theMaharashtra State Human Rights Commission, Mumbai,hereinafter referred to as "the Commission",indicate that the complainant, who is a widow, had 3two sons, one Kisan and the other Baban.Sheresides in Sanjay Gandhi Nagar Zopadpatti, Matunga,and works as a domestic servant to earn herlivelihood.Her elder son, Kisan, lives with hisfamily at Vashi at New Mumbai and the complainantlives with her unmarried younger son, Baban, atMatunga.Thereafter,various cases were lodged against Baban and afterhis acquittal in the case filed by the DharaviPolice, he left Matunga and went to reside with hiselder brother at Vashi where he earned a living byselling fruits as a street vendor.On weekends heused to come to see the complainant and on 30thJune, 2002, he had come to Matunga to meet thecomplainant.While he was at his mother's place ofresidence, the Respondent No.4 before the HumanRights Commission, ASI K.R. Kubel, along with some 4other police personnel, came and asked Baban toaccompany them to the police station.He was,however, released on the next day.On 8th August, 2002, at about 8.00 a.m., Babanhad gone to the stall of one Abbas Bhai.According to the complainant, he was assaulted andinjured by the said Abbas Sayyed Ali Kadri @ AbbasAli.The complainant took him with bleedinginjuries to the police station where she was askedto wait by the Duty Officer.In the meantime, thesaid Abbas Ali and his three brothers and somewomen came to the police station and soonthereafter the police personnel came out andstarted assaulting Baban.The petitioner hereintold the complainant to leave the police station.It is the complainant's case that she was alsoabused and forcibly removed from the policepremises while Baban was detained.An hour later, 5the police personnel took Baban to hospital whilethe complainant went home.It is also the complainant's case that when inthe evening she went to the police station toenquire about her son, she saw that he had beenplaced in the police lockup.She was thereafterinformed by Havildar Kubel that her son would notbe released from the police station and,accordingly, next day she went to the Court of theMagistrate at Bandra, where Baban was to beproduced for the purpose of remand.It wasmentioned by the complainant in her complaint thatshe had been threatened by the police officers inquestion not to reveal the incidents of theprevious day, but when Baban was produced shenoticed that he had bandages all over his body andthere were injuries on his back and hand.Thecomplainant was threatened not to make anycomplaint to the Court as otherwise her son would 6be involved in other crimes.Subsequently, Babanwas released on bail on 6th September, 2002, butwas, once again, taken to the police station on 30thSeptember, 2002, and was assaulted allegedly on theground that he had assaulted Abbas Ali's son.Itwas the grievance of the complainant that insteadof recording the complaint made by her or her sonagainst Abbas Ali, the police registered a caseagainst her son at the behest of Abbas Ali andillegally detained him in policy custody till hewas released on bail.She also submitted that thepolice had been harassing her and her sons withoutany cause or justification and appropriate actionshould, therefore, be taken against them.ALTAMAS KABIR, J.In reply to the charges against theRespondents, all the Respondents filed their 7respective replies denying the allegations, and inparticular, in the report submitted by the DeputyCommissioner of Police, Zone V, Worli, Mumbai, itwas mentioned that the complainant's son, Baban,had gone to the shop of Abbas Ali on 8th August,2002, and demanded a sum of Rs.5,000/- as `hafta'.On Abbas Ali's refusal to pay the same, Babanassaulted him with a razor and threatened him thathe would come again the next day.After beingtreated at Sion Hospital, the said Abbas Ali lodgeda complaint with the Shahunagar Police Station, onthe basis of which Crime No.99 of 2002 wasregistered against Baban under Sections 387 and 324IPC, in pursuance whereof Baban was arrested.Thereport of the Deputy Commissioner of Police alsorevealed that Baban was a habitual offender againstwhom several criminal cases had been initiatedunder Sections 326, 114, 379, 452, 342 and even 376IPC between 1992 and 1995 with the Dharavi PoliceStation.As far as the police personnel, including thepetitioner herein, are concerned, they had onlyarrested the complainant's son on the complaintmade by Abbas Ali, who is a food grain merchant atthe Gandhi Nagar Labour Camp, Mumbai, underSections 387 and 324 IPC and they had acted on theinstructions of their superiors.Reference wasalso made to an order of detention which had beenpassed against Baban on 27th February, 2002, and thevarious other crimes registered against him and hisbrother Kisan with the Dharavi Police Station.On the basis of the said allegations, acomplaint came to be filed by the Respondent No.1before the Maharashtra State Human RightsCommission, Mumbai, alleging that instead of 9recording the complaint made by her or her sonagainst Abbas Ali, the Petitioner and theRespondent Nos.3 to 5 showed undue indulgence tothe said Abbas Ali by registering a case againsther son at the behest of Abbas Ali and illegallydetained him in police custody till he was releasedon bail.Upon notice being served, the Petitionerherein and the other Respondents appeared beforethe Commission and filed their respectiveaffidavits, which were considered in detail by theCommission.The Commission noticed that noaffidavit had been filed on behalf of Abbas Ali norwas any oral evidence adduced on his behalf.Furthermore, no attempt was made by any of thepolice officers, including the Petitioner herein,to summon the witnesses to the occurrence accordingto their version.Ultimately, the Commissionobserved as follows :-"On appreciation of the discrepancies and contradictions in unfolding the alleged 10 incident either of extortion or assault by Baban on Abbas Ali, it seems that the entire version presented in defence is nothing but a concoction."On the other hand, the complainant and her sonBaban had stated that when they rushed to thepolice station to lodge a complaint, they wereasked to wait outside.After some time, Abbas Aliand his brothers and some women came to the policestation and they were entertained first by thepolice and though Baban was the victim of theassault, he was illegally arrested.The Commissionalso disbelieved the defence of the policepersonnel that Baban inflicted injuries with arazor on himself having regard to the medicalevidence of Dr. Raju Patel of the Lokmanya TilakGeneral Hospital, which did not support suchtheory.The Commission also took note of theDoctor's evidence that Baban had complained ofchest pain and had been removed to hospital at 2.30a.m.He was treated for tenderness over the left 11anterior chest, which indicated hairline fractureon his ribs.In the said facts, the Commissionhad no hesitation in holding that there had beenviolation of Baban's human rights at the hands ofthe Respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 and the Petitionerherein.On account of the above, the Commissionrecommended as follows :-"(a) the State Government shall pay to the complainant on behalf of the victim of Police atrocity a sum of Rs.45,000/- as compensation and recover the same from the respondents PSI Shri G.G.Navele, PSI Shri J.P. Sankpal, PSI Shri K.R. Kubal equally;(b) that the State Government shall submit within six seeks from the receipt of these directions its compliance report to the Commission."The said order of the Commission was challengedby the Petitioner herein before the Bombay HighCourt, which dismissed the same by the impugnedorder dated 30th August, 2006, indicating that sincethe State of Maharashtra had not challenged the 12order dated 19th October, 2004, passed by theCommission and had also complied with the same,there was no necessity of entertaining the writpetition, particularly, on account of the fact thatan earlier petition filed by the Petitioner hereinwhere he had sought relief challenging the saidorder came to be withdrawn.Appearing for the Petitioner, Mr. K.N. Rai,learned Advocate, submitted that the antecedents ofBaban, the son of the Respondent No.1 herein, wouldclearly go to show that he was a habitual offenderand had been involved in various criminal casesregistered against him as he was creating a reignof terror in the minds of the public in the MatungaRailway Colony, Sanjay Gandhi Nagar, Kunchi KurveNagar, Matunga Labour Camp and areas adjoiningthereto, within the jurisdiction of Dharavi andShahunagar Police Stations, and had even beendetained under the Maharashtra Preventive Detention 13Act by the Commissioner of Police, Greater Mumbai,which order has been confirmed by the AdvisoryBoard.Mr. Rai submitted that the Commission hadoverlooked the affidavits filed by the Petitionerand the Respondent Nos.3 to 5 as well as the reportof the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone V,Worli, Mumbai.Mr. Rai submitted that aggrieved bythe recommendation made by the Commission, thePetitioner had filed Writ Petition No.975 of 2005in the Bombay High Court which was withdrawn onaccount of the understanding given to him on behalfof the State of Maharashtra that it had decided notto implement the order passed by the Commission.
|
['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
188,101,873 |
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by B.PUGALENDHI, J.) This appellant/first accused along with three others have been charged for the offence under Sections 120(B) and 302 IPC in Spl.S.C.No.15 of 2018 on the file of the Sessions Court, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil and the trial Court, by judgment dated 06.02.2018, while acquitting A-3 and A-4, convicted and sentenced the appellant/A-1 and A-2 as follows:lodging the complaint (Ex.P-19) and he is the maternal Uncle of the deceased Nagaraj.The mother of the said Nagaraj died long back and the deceased was in the custody of the defacto complainant Krishnaperumal.The deceased Nagaraj was also a friend of one Vettu Murugan @ Arumugam, who was running a petty shop near to the shop of this appellant / first accused.The electricity connection for the appellant's shop was taken from the Arumugam Shop and all of a sudden, Arumugam disconnected electricity supply to the appellant's shop, which leads to a dispute between Arumugam and the appellant.At the instigation of Arumugam, the deceased Nagaraj assaulted the appellant with an Aruval on 24.06.2009 and caused a grievous injury and on account of which, a case was registered as against the deceased Nagaraj on the file of Aralvaimozhi Police Station for the offence under Section 307 IPC.In view of the registration of the case against him, the deceased Nagaraj was absconding and the de-facto complainant Krishnaperumal supported him by giving some money.On the date of occurrence, on 05.07.2009, Krishnaperumal along with his son Sudhan (P.W.-1) went to Beemanagar cremation yard to meet the deceased and to givehttp://www.judis.nic.in 3/24 Crl.A.(MD)No.164 of 2018 him some money.When they were talking in front of the graveyard, this appellant, along with the second accused, came in a TATA SUMO car bearing registration No.TN41 D5499 to the place of occurrence.On seeing the accused, the deceased Nagaraj, in order to escape from them, ran inside the graveyard.But the second accused caught hold of him and therefore, the deceased fell down and when he attempted to get up, this appellant / first accused attacked him indiscriminately with an Aruval on his head and neck.After the occurrence, the accused fled away from the place of occurrence and thereafter, Krishnaperumal went to Aralvaimozhi Police Station and lodged the complaint (Ex.P.-19).On receipt of the complaint, the Sub-Inspector of Police (P.W.-13), Aralvaimozhi Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.218 of 2009 on 06.07.2009 at about 03.00 a.m. as against the accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence under Section 302 IPC.The FIR (Ex.P-20) was also sent to the Judicial Magistrate Court, Boothapandi through the Head Constable (P.W.-11) and the same was received by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Boothapandi, on 06.07.2009 at about 12.05 p.m.http://www.judis.nic.in 4/24 Crl.The Inspector of Police, Aralvaimozhi Police Station (P.W.-15) on receipt of the case in Crime No.218 of 2009 went to the place of occurrence on 06.07.2009 at about 00.30 hrs.and prepared an observation mahazar (Ex.P-1) and a rough sketch (Ex.P-24) in the presence of Nagarajan (P.W.-2) and one Boopalan.He also recovered a bloodstained gold flake cigarette box (M.O.-4), earth with and without bloodstains (M.O.-6 and M.O.-7 respectively) and cement mortars with and without bloodstains (M.O.-8 and 9 respectively) and two pairs of beedi (M.O.-10) from the place of occurrence in the presence of the said witnesses.He conducted inquest over the body of the deceased in the Government Hospital, Asaripallam on 06.07.2009 at about 09.30 a.m. and the inquest report is marked as Ex.Then, he forwarded the dead body for autopsy to the Government Hospital, Asaripallam through the Constable (P.W.-9).Velmurugan of Kanyakumari Government Medical College Hospital (P.W.-12) conducted autopsy on 06.07.2009 at about 2.45 p.m. and he noted down the following external injuries:http://www.judis.nic.in 5/24 Crl.A.(MD)No.164 of 2018 “1. 7x3xVisceral depth horizontal cut injury seen over the front of neck.It is 8 cm below the symphysis menti .On examination the underlying muscles, vessels, nerves, windpipe and feedpipe out at that sites.2. 9 x 2 x bone deep horizontal cut injury seen over the right side of back of head just closed to the occipital region.3. 17 x 5 cm bone deep horizontal cut injury seen over the back of right side of neck seen 2 cm below the previous injury.On examination, the underlying muscles, vessels and nerves out at that sites.” He gave his final opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and hemorrhage due to cut injuries to the neck.The postmortem certificate is marked as Ex.On 07.07.2009, at about 06.00 a.m., the Inspector of Police (P.W.-15) arrested this appellant / first accused near Kandamedu Colony Church in the presence of Kolappapillai (P.W.-10), Village Administrative Officer and the Village Assistant.The accused gave a confession statement and pursuant to his confession statement, the TATA Sumo car bearing registration No.TN41 D5499 (M.O.-1), a bill hook (M.O.-2) and bloodstained track suit andhttp://www.judis.nic.in 6/24 Crl.A.(MD)No.164 of 2018 T.Shirt (M.Os.-15 and 16) were recovered under a cover of mahazar Ex.P-12 and Ex.The further investigation was taken over by Thiru Srikanth (P.W.-16), Inspector of Police, from 20.09.2009 and he arrested the second accused on 22.11.2009 and recovered a bill hook, pursuant to his confession statement.During the course of trial, 16 witnesses were examined on the side of the prosecution and 29 documents were marked, besides 23 material objects.Except P.W.-1 and other official witnesses, all other witnesses were turned hostile and when thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 7/24 Crl.A.(MD)No.164 of 2018 incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused have denied the same.They have not examined any witness on their side.In conclusion of the trial, the trial Court found the accused Nos.1 and 2 guilty and acquitted the accused Nos.3 and 4 as stated supra.As against the said conviction and sentence, the first accused alone is before this Court with this appeal.3. Heard Mr.Veera Kathiravan, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.R.Alagumani, learned Counsel on record for the appellant and Mr.K.K.Ramakrishnan Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent / State.The learned Senior Counsel, in support of his case, made the following submissions:● The case of the prosecution is solely relied upon the evidence of P.W.-1 and his evidence is not trustworthy.However, the conviction was made based on his solitary evidence;● There is an inordinate delay of 4 ½ hours in lodging the complaint and a further delay of 9 hours in the FIR reaching the Court.The occurrence was takenhttp://www.judis.nic.in 8/24 Crl.A.(MD)No.164 of 2018 place on 05.07.2009 at about 10.30 p.m., and the complaint was lodged on 06.07.2009 at 03.00 a.m. But the FIR reached the Judicial Magistrate Court on 06.07.2009 at 12.05 p.m., with a delay of 9 hours.The delay has not been explained by the prosecution and the Head Constable, who submitted the FIR before the Court has stated that he received the FIR on 05.07.2009 at 10.30 p.m. itself, which would further demolish the case of the prosecution; ● P.W.-1 and his father Krishnaperumal were having mobile phones at the time of occurrence.But they did not take any attempt to inform the police through their mobile phones and the presence of PW1 in the place of occurrence is highly doubtful, since he does not accompany his father Krishnaperumal, while lodging the complaint Ex.P.-1;● The occurrence was taken place at about 10.30 p.m. inside the graveyard and the source of light was not established by the prosecution.According to P.W.-1, he witnessed the dead body with a torch light, whereas, during cross-examination, P.W.-1 would state that he witnessed the occurrence through a street light, which was 200 feet away from the place ofhttp://www.judis.nic.in 9/24 Crl.A.(MD)No.164 of 2018 occurrence.Though a reference was made in the rough sketch (Ex.P-24) regarding the presence of a lamp post, no person from the Electricity Department was examined to substantiate that there was an electric post near the place of occurrence and it was in use at the relevant point of time;● According to the de-facto complainant Krishnaperumal, the first accused alone is said to have attacked the deceased with an Aruval and the second accused had caught hold of the deceased at the time of occurrence, whereas, P.W.-1 has attributed fatal overtact to the second accused also and therefore, he could not be an eye-witness to the occurrence; ● The learned Senior Counsel has also referred about the delay in P.W.-1's statement reaching the Court.P.W.-1 is shown as an eye-witness and he was examined by the Investigating Officer on 06.07.2009 on the date of the FIR, but his Sec.161(3) Cr.P.C. statement reached the Court only on 12.02.2010; ● The weapon (M.O.-2) recovered from the first accused is a Vettu Aruval, which is having a curve on its top.But the injuries on the body of the deceased are flat injuries and the postmortem Doctor (P.W.-12)http://www.judis.nic.in 10/24 Crl.The defacto complainant Krishnaperumal was not examined, since he died during the trial and Krishnaperumal in his complaint (Ex.P-1) stated about the presence of P.W.-1 in the place of occurrence at the time of occurrence along with him.The Investigating Officer has also recovered the bloodstained clothes, a tracksuit and a T-shirt from the first accused pursuant to his confession statement and the presence of blood was also detected in those materialhttp://www.judis.nic.in 12/24 Crl.A.(MD)No.164 of 2018 objects, which were recovered from the accused.Though the other accused, namely, accused Nos.3 and 4 have been acquitted by the trial Court, the evidence of P.W.-1 and the recovery of material objects are clinching evidence available as against the appellant, the trial Court has rightly found this appellant guilty for the offence under Section 302 IPC.The accused No.2 was also convicted along with the appellant.However, he has not preferred any appeal against the said conviction.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently contended that the evidence of P.W.-1 is supported by the recovery of weapon M.Os-2 and 3 and therefore, the evidence of P.W.-1 cannot be brushed aside that his evidence cannot be trusted.The available evidence is sufficient to sustain the conviction and there is no reason to reverse the finding of the trial Court.This Court paid its anxious consideration to the rival submissions made and also perused the available records.But, he was not available during the trial and his son, namely, Sudhan was examined as P.W.-1, who is said to have accompanied his father Krishnaperumal during the occurrence.The occurrence was taken place on 05.07.2009 at 10.30 p.m. in Beemanagar graveyard.According to the Sub Inspector of Police (P.W.-13), the said Krishnaperumal lodged the complaint to him at about 03.00 a.m. on 06.07.2009 by ahttp://www.judis.nic.in 15/24 Crl.After registering the case, he forwarded the printed FIR (Ex.P-20) through the Constable (P.W.-11).But Ex.P-20 printed FIR reached the concerned Judicial Magistrate, only on 06.07.2009 at about 12.05 p.m., with a delay of nine hours.The occurrence was taken place in a graveyard in the night hours.The deceased, who was absconding in a criminal case, met his maternal uncle in the graveyard to get some money and at that time, the occurrence was taken place.In the complaint (Ex.P-1), the de-facto complainant Krishnaperumal states that he saw the dead body with the help of a torch light.Similarly, P.W.-15 in his evidence would admit that he collected the materials objects from the place of occurrence with the help of a torch light and a gas light.The source of light was not mentioned in Ex.However, the source of light was substituted inhttp://www.judis.nic.in 16/24 Crl.According to P.W.-1, he witnessed the occurrence with the source of the street light.But to establish that there was a street light, the prosecution has not examined any personnel from the electricity Board that there was a street light near the place of occurrence and it was in usable condition on the relevant point of time.The dead body was found inside the grave yard and even according to P.W.-1, the occurrence was taken place inside the graveyard in the night hours and in the absence of any source of light, the prosecution has not sufficiently established their case.Though the accused Nos.1 and 2 alone were referred in the complaint (Ex.P-1), subsequently, accused Nos.3 and 4 have been included as if they also accompanied the other accused and have intimidated the deceased.Though P.W.-1 is said to have witnessed the occurrence along with his father Krishnaperumal, in the night hours at the grave yard, he did not accompany his father to the Police Station after the occurrence for lodging the complaint.This conduct of PW1 in not accompanying his father raises serious doubt on hishttp://www.judis.nic.in 17/24 Crl.A.(MD)No.164 of 2018 presence in the place of occurrence at the time of occurrence.According to the de-facto complainant Krishnaperumal, it was the first accused, who caused the cut injuries and the second accused caught hold of the deceased, whereas, P.W.-1 would say that the second accused was also armed with an Aruval and cut the deceased indiscriminately.P.W.-1 was not in a position to account for the injury on the deceased with the overtact of the accused and he did not identify the weapon used by the accused.M.O.-2 aruval, which was recovered from the first accused is a metal one, which is having curve on its top.The injuries, which could be possible through an aruval would be different from the injuries, which could be possible through vettuhttp://www.judis.nic.in 18/24 Crl.A.(MD)No.164 of 2018 aruval.A suggestion was also made to the Doctor (P.W.-12), during his cross-examination and the Doctor admits in his evidence that the injuries found on the deceased are of flat injuries, which could not be mostly possible through a weapon, which is having a curve on its top.On receipt of the said documents, the Magistrate should initial the same, noting therein thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 19/24 Crl.A.(MD)No.164 of 2018 time and date of the receipt of those documents.This would provide the only judicial safeguard against subsequent fabrication of such documents in grave crimes.Therefore, as the Manual of Instructions for' the guidance of Magistrates in the Madras State does not contain any instructions to the Magistrates in this regard, we suggest that the same may be, brought up to date by incorporating in it the circulars which had been issued from time to time for the guidance of the Magistrates.The following are documents of special importance which, in our opinion, should be despatched by the investigating officers without any delay to the Magistrates, and they should bear the initials of the Magistrate with reference to both the time and date of their receipt:The original report or complaint I under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The printed form of the first information report prepared on the.Memo sent by the officers to doctors for treating the injured victims who die in the hospital subsequently and the history of the case treatment.Memo sent by the doctor to the police when a person with injuries is brought to the hospital, or the death memo sent by the doctor to the policehttp://www.judis.nic.in 20/24 Crl.A.(MD)No.164 of 2018 on the death of the person admitted into hospital with injuries.Form No. 91 accompanied by material objects.”P.W.-1 is the solitary eye witness in this case and the entire prosecution rests on his evidence.Therefore, we have to analyze his evidence carefully.As discussed supra, P.W.-1, who is said to have accompanied his father to a grave yard in the night hours, has not chosen to accompany his father to the Police Station after the occurrence while lodging the complaint.Though he was examined as an eye-witness on the date of occurrence, there is an inordinate delay of more than one year in dispatching the statement.The conduct of P.W.-1 in not accompanying his father while lodging the complaint after the occurrence, coupled with the delay in dispatching his statement to the Court and the delay in the Firsthttp://www.judis.nic.in 21/24 Crl.A.(MD)No.164 of 2018 Information Report reaching the Court, raises serious doubt on the case of the prosecution.Moreover, the occurrence was taken place in a grave yard and the source of light has not been established.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in 23/24 Crl.A.(MD)No.164 of 2018 T.RAJA, J.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
19,006,979 |
On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel for the applicant has prayed that the applicant be released on bail.Learned Government Advocate opposing the submissions made on behalf of the applicant has prayed for rejection of the bail application.(AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) JUDGE kafeel Digitally signed by Kafeel Ahmed Ansari Date: 02/11/2018 05:18:58
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,916,569 |
JUDGMENT V.B. Bansal, J.(1) Sushil Kumar @ Sushil Kumar Batra has filed this application for bail for the offences under Section 304/498A and in the alternative Section 306 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code in case Fir No. 536/92, Police Station Paschim Bihar.After the receipt of report of Cfsl the doctor gave his opinion that death was due to Baigon poisoning.Case was registered on the basis of the statement of Vipin Babbar, brother of the deceased,recorded by the S.D.M. It was inter alia stated by the complainant, Vipin Babbar,that his sister Seema was married to Sushil Kumar @ Sushil Kumar Batra on7.3.1991 as per Hindu rites and for about one month everything was normal but,thereafter, her in-laws started taunting her for not bringing sufficient dowry.It was also stated by him that her husband used to taunt her for not bringing different articles and initially she did not disclose this fact to them but when they came to know if it he and his family member consoled her by saying that everything would get settled.He had also narrated about his visits to the house of Seema and having found injury on her forehead and informed by Seema that it was inflicted by her husband with a flower-pot.He has also claimed that Seema came to their house on the occasion of Bhai Dhuj and expressed a desire for not being sent back to the in-laws as she apprehended that she would be killed and that even on an earlier occasion she wanted to come back to the house of her mother but a request was made to her not to do so by Ashok, elder brother of her husband.It was also claimed by him that on 1.11.1992 it was the birth day of her younger sister Renu where Seema and Sushil Kumar @ Sushil Kumar Batra were to participate and at about 8.30 p.m. a telephone was received from Seema that they would not be able to join them and that Renu gave advice to Seema not to feel agitated and that she should not do anything and that about 20/25 minutes later they received a telephone that Seema was lying and that they did not have any vehicle for removing her.He claimed that they reached the house of Seema after about half an hour when Usha, wife of Chander, elder brother of Sushil Kumar @ Sushil Kumar Batra, met them and on persistent enquiry was told that she has been removed to West City Hospital, Mansrover Garden and on reaching there they came to know that she was dead.It was further stated that at that time Sushil Kumar @ Sushil Kumar Batra admitted his guilt and begged to be excused.(3) During investigation of the case, statements of the witnesses were recorded, including those of Smt. Narinder Kumari, mother; Naresh, borther; Ms.Renu, sister, of the deceased and Smt. Sudesh Arora, a relation of Smt. Narinder Kumari.(4) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there has never been any demand for dowry nor was there any harassment caused to the deceased by the petitioner.He has further claimed that it was a love marriage between the petitioner and Seema, who was more educated then the petitioner.He has furthter submitted that the petitioner took great care of his wife and daughter and got huge amount deposited in the name of the minor child and, thus, there could possibly be no question of demand of any dowry from his in-laws since the financial status of the petitioner was much higher than that of the family of his in-laws.He has also submitted that only relations have made false statements and that other relations of the petitioner have already been released on bail.A prayer has, therefore, been made for the petitioner to be allowed bail.(5) This application has strongly been opposed by the learned Counsel for theState, who has submitted that there has been continuous harrassment of the deceased ever since the deceased was married to the petitioner and there were continuous demands for dowry.A prayer has, therefore, beenmade that the application may be dismissed.(6) I have gone through the statement of Vipin Babbar and Naresh Babbar,brothers; Smt. Narinder Kumari, mother of the deceased; as also the statement ofSmt.Sudesh Arora, a relation of Smt. Narinder Kumari.(7) There are clear allegations against the petitioner with regard to harassment,demand of dowry and complaints of having given less dowry by the in-laws ofSeema.It has also come in the statement of the witnesses that the petitioner hadeven inflicted injuries to Seema, which were noticed by Vipin Babbar on his visit to the house of the petitioner.Vipin Babbar and Smt. Sudesh Arora have been stated with regard to the petitioner having admitted before them that he has committed a mistake and begged to be pardoned.There is no doubt that the petitioner has claimed that his financial position is sound and there was no necessity for him to make any demand and that he had even deposited huge amount in the name of his minor daughter, but these facts need to be gone into during trial.Considering all the facts contained in the statements of the witnesses relied upon by the petitioner, I do not find sufficient grounds for the release of the petitioner on bail.As a result the application stands dismissed.
|
['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
192,619,212 |
This Criminal Appeal has been filed seeking to set aside the judgment dated 24.04.2012 in SC No.50 of 2011 by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram.3.The case of the prosecution is that on 09.06.2010 around 1.30 pm, in front of appellant/A-1's house, he had abused the deceased Rajammal in filthy language and said that she was the cause for her brother's death and stabbed her above the left side of her hip with the knife by saying you die and when one Kunjaram came to rescue, cut her at right side forehead A-1 by saying you are the reason for all and you die and A-2 cut the said Kunjaram at her let buttock, while A-1's wife Rajeswari came to rescue her, A-1 attacked her with knife saying that it is ok, either if you die or you are alive and you don't think of living with me and only if your family is gone, he would be peaceful.Subsequently, Rajammal died while she was being taken to hospital.Based on a complaint and after investigation, A-1 was charges for the offence under Sections 294(b), 324, 307 and 302 of IPC and A-2 was charged with 324 r/w 34 of IPC, before the Additional Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram.4.In order to prove the case of the prosecution 15 witnesses were examined as PW.1 to PW.15 and 15 documents were marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.After completion of the prosecutionhttp://www.judis.nic.in evidence, when the incriminating circumstances culled out from the 3 prosecution witnesses put before the accused, they denied the same as false.On the side of the respondents neither oral nor documentary evidence was let in.5.The Additional Sessions Judge, after hearing both side and considering all the materials placed on record acquitted A-1 from the charges under Section 294(b), 307 and 302 and acquitted A-2 from the charges under Section 324 and 302 r/w 34 of IPC and convicted and sentenced A-1 to undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in de fault to undergo two months rigorous imprisonment for having committed the offence under Section 304 (ii) IPC and convicted and sentenced A-1 to undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment for having committed the offence under Section 324 of IPC.6.Challenging the order of conviction, appellant/A-1 had filed the present Criminal Appeal before this Court.7.The learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that there are material contradictions among the prosecution witnesses, particularly, the place of the occurrence.In the FIR it is stated that place of occurrence as in front of the accused house, whereas PW.6 stated that place of occurrence as in front of the godown.Further the Police Station is on the 4 way to hospital, they could have informed the occurrence to the Police, but they straightaway went to the hospital.The entries in AR copy shows that two known persons attacked, but the prosecution has stated that A-1 attacked.Further it is submitted that PW.2 did not state that she was admitted in the hospital after the occurrence.On the other hand she has deposed that her father took the injured persons to the hospital, but she has not stated that she was also admitted in the hospital.Therefore, the evidence of PW.1 cannot be believed.There is a delay in sending the FIR.He would further submit that there was panchayat going on.No other witness had informed the incident to the Police and no public in the area was present.The person who has written the complaint has not been explained and has not been cited as witness, which is fatal to the case of the prosecution.Therefore, there are material contradictions.The trial Court failed to consider all these aspects.8.The learned Counsel has placed reliance on the following judgments:-9.The learned Government Advocate (crl side) would submit that PW.1, PW.2, PW.5 and PW.6 are the eye witnesses, who have clearly spoken about the incident took place.Therefore, the prosecution has clearly established its case.The Doctor who had given evidence also spoken about the injury sustained by the victims.The entries in the accident register also supports that two known persons attacked the victims.The weapons used by the accused also have been recovered and the recovery is also proved in accordance with law.Therefore, the trial Court has rightly rendered the judgment and there is no reason to interfere with the same.10.Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the State and perused the entire material placed on record.11.The case of the prosecution is that on 09.06.2010 around 1.30pm, in front of the appellant's house, the appellant, stabbed the deceased Rajammal above the left side of her hip with the knife, when one Kunjaram came to rescue, he cut her at right side forehead with aruval and A-2 cut the said Kunjaram at her let buttock and A-1's wife Rajeswari came to rescue her, A-1 attacked her with knife.Rajammal died on the way to hospital.Based on thehttp://www.judis.nic.in complaint and investigation, charge sheet was laid and the 6 Additional Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram convicted the accused imposed sentence as mentioned supra.Prior to the occurrence A-1, while was working in abroad his brother one Kanagu died.A-1 was under impression that his wife's family members were the reason for his brother's death.After his return from abroad, the villagers took PW. 2 to her matrimonial home on the date of occurrence i.e., on 09.06.2010 in between the chappal godown and accused house, A-1 and A-2 attacked PW.2, her mother and grand mother.13.Though A-2 was acquitted from the charges, neither the de facto complainant nor the State had preferred any appeal against the acquittal.A-1 has filed the present appeal against the conviction.Further, no appeal has been filed either by the State or de facto complainant for enhancement of the sentence against the appellant.15.A reading of the evidence of PW.1, PW.2 and PW.6, clearly shows the involvement of the A-1 in the offence.Further in accident register it is mentioned that known persons attacked.The prosecution has clearly proved that A-1 used deadly weapon and caused injuries to the deceased and due to the injuries, the deceased died.A defence had been taken that there was no previous motive, only due to sudden provocation, he caused injuries therefore, the trial Judge has come to the conclusion that A-1 has not committed offence under Section 302 and convicted him under Section 304(ii) of IPC.16.Though there is no previous motive, A-1 used deadly weapon namely knife and caused injuries to deceased and due the injuries, she died.Therefore, the trial Judge, has rightly come to the conclusion that A-1 committed offence under Section 304(ii) of IPC.17.In view of the discussion held above, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court.There is no perversity in the judgment passed by the trial Court.There is no merit in this appal.18.In the result this criminal appeal is dismissed.Thehttp://www.judis.nic.in judgment dated 24.04.2012 rendered in SC No.50 of 2011 by the 8 District and Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram is hereby confirmed.1.The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram.2.The Inspector of Police, Peraiyur Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.4.The Additional Pubic Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.5.The Record Keeper (2 Copies), VR Section Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court.http://www.judis.nic.in 9 P.VELMURUGAN, J., dsk Crl.A.(MD)No.92 of 2012 07.01.2019http://www.judis.nic.in
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
195,705,862 |
(i) P.W.1/Kumarasamy and P.W.2/K.Saraswathi are parents of the deceased Kavitha and they are having three daughters and the deceased Kavitha is the third daughter.P.W.3/Premalatha and P.W.4/Sasikala are sisters of the deceased Kavitha.A1/Srinivasan is the husband of deceased Kavitha.A2/Shanmugam and A3/Nirmala are her parental laws.Due to their lawful wedlock, she gave birth to a male child namely, Visweshwaran, who was studying L.K.G. At the time of marriage, 20 sovereigns of gold jewels and house hold articles to the tune of Rs.64,000/- were given to the deceased Kavitha.When the deceased Kavitha was in her matrimonial home, P.W.1 used to contact her daughter over phone regularly.By the time, deceased Kavitha informed that the accused were not happy towards her as she bring inadequate dowry and it would denigrate their prestige in the society.The deceased Kavitha also used to tell about the ill-treatment caused by the accused persons and by no reason, they made quarrel with her.P.W.7/Maniyan, who is the house owner, deposed that he rented his house to the accused family and after their marriage only, they came to reside in his house.P.W.8/Manoharan, who is the friend of A1, stated that he also helped to reunite A1 and her wife, as they were quarreled with each other.P.W.1 also advised her daughter that everything will be alright in due course and to bear this type of trouble till her son is grown up and left to his native place.(ii) On 15.06.2001, P.W.1 along with P.W.2 went to Pothanur inorder to meet his daughter.While so the deceased told about the failure of her matrimonial life and further told that it is highly difficult for her to live with the accused persons.She also told that she was subjected to torture and harassment made by the accused persons.(iii) On 02.08.2005, at 8.00 a.m., A1 contacted P.W.1 over phone and asked him to take his daughter Kavitha to his house, since there was problem arose between them.Then Kavitha contacted P.W.1 over phone and told him that it is highly difficult to live with A1 and she also told about the unbearable harassment caused by the accused persons.On the same day, at 9.15 a.m., A1 again contacted P.W.1 over phone and informed that her daughter Kavitha was hanging in the ceiling of the room in the matrimonial home and committed suicide.(iv) P.W.14/Balakrishnan, who was residing at upper portion of the deceased house, helped A1 to remove the saree, which was used by Kavitha for hanging.Immediately, A1 along with P.W.14 took Kavitha to S.M. Hospital, where P.W.10/Dr.Bhavani Alagan examined her and declared her dead.(v) After hearing the information from A1, P.W.1 along with his relatives proceeded to Pothanur and reached the house of the accused and noticed the dead body of deceased was lying on the floor.Hence, P.W.1 lodged a complaint before Pothanur All Women Police station.(vi) P.W.12/Manimegalai, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Pothanur, received Ex.P1 complaint on 02.08.2005, at 2.00 p.m. and registered a case in Crime No.30 of 2005 under Sections 498A and 306 IPC and prepared Ex.P7 F.I.R. Since the deceased died within seven years from the date of her marriage, P.W.12 sent Ex.P7 F.I.R. along with Ex.P1 complaint to the Revenue Divisional Officer/P.W.16/Karthiga and P.W.17/Deputy Superintendent of Police.(vii) P.W.17/Gopalsamy, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, received the copy of Ex.P7 F.I.R. from P.W.12, took up the matter for investigation.On 02.08.2005, at 2.30 p.m., he went to the place of occurrence and prepared Ex.P2 observation mahazar and drew Ex.P18 rough sketch in the presence of P.W.5/Ramu and P.W.6/Subramani.He took steps to take photograph of the deceased Kavitha.P.W.9/Karthikeyan, Photographer, took photos and the same were marked as Ex.P5 and the negatives were marked as Ex.P6 and the video coverage was marked as M.O.1/Video C.D. On the same day, P.W.17 recovered M.O.2/two pieces of saree used for hanging, and M.O.3 to M.O.7 under Seizure mahazar Ex.P19 in the presence of above said witnesses.(viii) In the meanwhile, P.W.16/R.D.O. went to Coimbatore Medical College Hospital and conducted inquest over the dead body of Kavitha on 03.08.2005 in the presence of Panchayatdars and examined the witnesses and recorded their statements.The statement of P.W.1 and P.W.2 were marked as Exs.P12 and P11 and the statement of Panchayatdars were marked as Ex.Inquest report was marked as Ex.On the basis of the enquiry, P.W.16 sent Ex.P14/R.D.O. report, in which, it was stated that the death is not due to dowry.After inquest, P.W.16 sent the body of the deceased for post-mortem along with Ex.P16 requisition.(ix) P.W.11/Usha, Grade-I, P.C., handed over the body of Kavitha along with Ex.P16 requisition to P.W.13/Dr.Thiraviyaraj, who was the Professor in Kovai Medical College Hospital, for conducting autopsy.P.W.13 gave Ex.P8 post-mortem certificate and sent the viscera for chemical analysis.On the basis of Ex.P10 final report, the Doctor opined that the deceased would appear to have died of hanging.(x) On 03.08.2005, P.W.17 examined the witnesses and recorded their statements.So P.W.8 went to P.W.3's house and had talks.At that time, P.W.1, P.W.2, her paternal uncle, aunt came there and told him that A1 assaulted Kavitha and hence, the problem arose.P.W.8 advised her to join with him.Thereafter, she returned back to her matrimonial home.At that time, mother of P.W.15 questioned Kavitha as to why she was weeping.This factum would prove that the deceased contacted her father over phone on the date of occurrence.11.As per the evidence of P.W.1, in his chief-examination, he deposed that A1 contacted him over phone and told him that there was quarrel arose between them and hence, he insisted him to take her to his house, but A1 did not mention that problem.In the written statement filed by the accused persons, they mentioned that the deceased Kavitha was upset, since her son Visweshwaran did not study well and due to this, there was quarrel arose between them.But A1 never mentioned the above incident to P.W.1, when he contacted him over phone.After A1 made a call to P.W.1, the deceased Kavitha contacted her father over phone and told that it is highly difficult to live with A1 and she also told about the unbearable harassment caused by the accused persons.Accused 1 to 3 were convicted for the offence under Section 498A IPC and sentenced to undergo one year simple imprisonment each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default in payment to undergo six months simple imprisonment each.They were convicted for the offence under Section 306 IPC and sentenced to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment each and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each in default in payment to undergo 1 year simple imprisonment each.Due to the lawful wedlock, she gave birth to a male child.A2 and A3 are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased.On the fateful day, (i.e.) on 02.08.2005, at 9.00 a.m., the deceased unable to bear the cruelty caused by the accused 1 to 3, committed suicide by hanging in her matrimonial home.Thereby the accused 1 to 3 were committed the offence under Sections 498A and 306 IPC.Then, he arrested the accused at 8.30 p.m. and sent them to judicial custody.After completing his investigation, he filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Sections 306 and 498A IPC.4.The learned trial Judge after following the procedure framed necessary charges against the accused.Since the accused pleaded not guilty, the trial Court examined P.W.1 to P.W.17 and marked Exs.The trial Court placed the incriminating evidence before the accused, the accused denied the same in toto.On the side of the accused, they were marked Exs.They also filed written statement, stating that the deceased Kavitha left one suicide note Ex.D1, in which she categorically noted that she was going to take extreme step to commit suicide of her own reason and no one had abetted her for committing suicide.After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court convicted the accused/appellants for the offence under Sections 306 and 498A IPC and sentenced them as stated above, against which, the accused/appellants preferred this appeal.5.Challenging the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that as per the evidence of P.W.8/Manoharan, he carried on mediation between A1 and deceased Kavitha.He went to the house of P.W.3, who is the sister of Kavitha and at that time, Kavitha told him that she wants to live with A1 separately, since A1 is the only son, his parents are not willing to set up the separate family.A1 is not a Government servant and he is doing business and as his character was good, Kavitha was given marriage to him.Since Kavitha was a B.Com., graduate, she wants to join Bank service, which was refused by her in-laws.As per the evidence of P.W.3, in page-21 of the typed set of papers, she was stated that her sister was attempted to commit suicide twice before this incident.It is to be noted that Ex.D1 is the suicide note, which was seized from the place, where the body of Kavitha has been laid down, but the document was not placed before the Court and the trial Court has not considered this aspect.It is further submitted that P.W.1 to P.W.4 are relative witnesses and they are interested witnesses.Most of the independent witnesses deposed that the deceased had committed suicide on her own reason only.There is no evidence to show that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and hence, there is no mensrea for abetment of committing suicide.Therefore, he prayed for allowing of this appeal.6.Resisting the same, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that P.W.1 to P.W.4, who are the parents and sisters of the deceased, are competent persons to speak about the cruelty met out by the deceased.Hence, their evidence are trustworthy and reliable.From their evidence, it is clear that the deceased was subjected to continuous harassment, which forced her to commit suicide.She already attempted to commit suicide twice in her lifetime.Since the deceased committed suicide in her matrimonial home, A1 to A3 are bound to explain as to why she committed suicide, but no explanation has been offered by them.He further submitted that written statement filed by the accused is clearly proved the motive of accused persons and they took xerox copy of Ex.D1 suicide note, in which, date and time were not mentioned.The original suicide note was not marked before the Court, hence Ex.D1 is not an admissible evidence.The learned trial Judge considered all the aspects and came to the correct conclusion.Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.7.Considered the rival submissions made on both sides and the materials available on record.A1/Srinivasan is the husband of deceased Kavitha.A2/Shanmugam and A3/Nirmala are her father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively.Due to their lawful wedlock, she gave birth to a male child namely, Visweshwaran, who was studying L.K.G., at the time of occurrence.Kavitha was committed suicide by hanging on 02.08.2005 in her matrimonial home.9.Now this Court has to decide as to whether deceased Kavitha has suffered continuous harassment in the hands of the accused persons.P.W.7/Manian is the owner of the house, where the accused persons and the deceased Kavitha were residing in the lower portion of the house after their marriage.P.W.14/Balakrishnan was residing in the upper portion.P.W.15/Jayanthi, who was residing at the right hand side of the deceased house, deposed that Kavitha was not mingled with others and during trial, she turned hostile.P.W.8/Manoharan, who knows A1 from his childhood, deposed that the deceased Kavitha is of the habit of being taking seriouly even for small matters.In respect of watching T.V., a problem arose between them, then she was taken to her maternal home.At that time, P.W.2 insisted that A1 and Kavitha should live separately.Since A1 is the only son to his parents, it is not appropriate to make them separate living.Thereafter, A1 took Kavitha to her matrimonial home.P.W.8 fairly conceded that after two years of this settlement, the deceased Kavitha committed suicide.It shows that the occurrence had taken place after four years from the date of her marriage and there was difference of opinion arose between the spouses frequently.10.It is pertinent to note the evidence of P.W.1, who is the father of deceased Kavitha.P.W.1 in his evidence, stated that on 02.08.2005, at 8.30 a.m., A1 contacted him over phone to take her daughter to his house due to quarrel arose between them.Thereafter, Kavitha contacted P.W.1 over phone and told him that A1 causing unbearable trouble and she is not inclined to live there.Within = hour to the telephonic talk, A1 again contacted him over phone and told that his daughter Kavitha committed suicide by hanging herself and died.That factum has been corroborated by P.W.15/Jayanthi, who is her neighbour.In her cross-examination, she stated that on the date of occurrence, she noticed that Kavitha was talking over phone near the Grocery shop and she returned to her house in weeping condition.Within = hour, A1 again made a call to P.W.1 and informed that her daughter was died by committing suicide.It would reveal that on the date of occurrence, there was quarrel between both A1 and the deceased Kavitha.Since Kavitha died in her matrimonial home, the appellants/accused 1 to 3 are competent persons to give explanation for commission of offence.12.As per the evidence of P.W.14/Balakrishnan, who is residing in his brother-in-law's house for rent, deposed that he knows Kavitha and A1 for the past eight months.On 02.08.2005, after hearing noise from the house of the deceased, he went to there and found Kavitha was hanging in a saree on the ceiling of the room.He helped A1 to cut and remove the saree from the neck of Kavitha and then, they took her to S.M. Hospital, where P.W.10/Dr.Bhavani Alagan examined Kavitha and declared her dead.In his cross-examination, he stated that one Ambujam mami informed him that Kavitha contacted somebody over phone in the Grocery shop and she was returned in weeping condition.In such circumstances, his evidence would reveal that he is supporting the accused persons.13.Now this Court has to decide as to whether the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4, who are the relatives of the deceased Kavitha, are reliable.P.W.2 in her cross-examination, fairly conceded that during vacation time, the accused came with car and they visited the temples at Thiruchi.P.W.1 in his evidence, stated that her daughter is not having an habit of writing letters and she used to contact him over phone.In his cross-examination, P.W.1 deposed that Kavitha was not mingled with her neighbours, since the accused persons restrained her to talk with them.As per the evidence of P.W.3, whenever Kavitha used to stay in her house, she was seen worried and told that at the instigation of A2 and A3, A1 often made quarrel with her.At that time, P.W.3 consoled and convinced her that there would be ups and downs in life and assured to see later.As per the evidence of P.W.4, whenever Kavitha used to contact her over phone, she complained that her husband and in-laws caused cruelties and ill-treated her.Considering the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4, they categorically stated that as to how the deceased Kavitha was subjected to cruelty.According to Section 498A IPC, cruelty consists of both mental and physical cruelty.Because of the attitude of A1 to A3, Kavitha got depressed.Furthermore on 02.08.2005, Kavitha was subjected to harassment, due to the quarrel arose between A1 and herself.As already seen that A1 contacted P.W.1 over phone on the date of occurrence and asked P.W.1 to take his daughter Kavitha to his home.The appellants deserve to be acquitted of the charge. "The accused persons in their written statement stated that before handing over original suicide note they took xerox copy of the same.In my opinion, no reliance can be placed on Ex.D1, since there is no evidence to show that the document was written on the same day and it has not fastened sanctity for deciding the case.From the evidence of Doctors, it is clear that the deceased was died due to hanging.While perusing M.O.1/video C.D., it shows that the police entered the room where deceased Kavitha committed suicide.It is true, the appellants/accused 1 to 3 are competent persons to speak about as to why Kavitha committed suicide.Here, P.W.1 deposed that his son-in-law contacted him over phone that due to quarrel arose between them, he asked him to take Kavitha to his house.In his chief-examination, he stated as follows:@ // // Kjyhk; vjphp vdJ kfis Fr;rpahy; moj;Jk; Jd;g[Wj;jp te;jhh;/ 2/8/2005 md;W Kjyhk; vjphp vd;id bjhiyngrpapy; bjhlh;g[ bfhz;lhh; mt;tpjk; mth; vd;dplk; bjhlh;g[ bfhz;L fhiy 8/30 kzpastpy; bjhiyngrpapy; tPl;oy; rz;ilahf ,Uf;fpwJ/ eP';fs; clnd te;J kfs; ftpjhit miHj;J bry;Y';fs; vd;whh;/ mjd; gpwF vdJ kfs; ftpjh bjhiyngrpapy; bjhlh;g[ bfhz;L vjphpfs; jd;id jh';f Koahj bfhLik bra;tjhft[k; jdf;F thHnt gpof;ftpy;iy vd;W Twpdhh;/ mt;tpjk; ngrpa 1-2 kzp neuk; fHpj;J bjhiyngrpapy; bjhlh;g[ bfhz;L vdJ kfs; ftpjh Jhf;F nghl;L bfhz;L ,we;Jtpl;ljhf vd;dplk; jfty; brhd;dhh;/ // // @P.W.15 also corroborated the same by noticing that Kavitha returned in weeping condition after she contacted over phone.P.W.1 also stated in his chief-examination that A1 used to beat her daughter using stick.While considering the evidence of P.W.3, the deceased Kavitha was ill-treated by her in-laws.In the above said circumstances, I am of the view, the deceased Kavitha committed suicide due to the cruelty, which consists of both mental and physical, caused by the appellants/accused.18.In fine, The Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.The fine amount of Rs.5,000/- paid by the appellants/accused, if any, for the offence under Section 306 IPC, is ordered to be refunded.The trial Court is directed to secure the custody of the accused/appellants to undergo the remaining period of sentence.Sessions Court, Mahila Court, Salem.Inspector of Police All Women Police station Pothanur, Coimbatore District.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.The Record Keeper Criminal Section, High Court, Madras
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
196,389,589 |
Case diary is available with the learned Panel Lawyer.This is the first application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C for grant of bail to the applicant, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.121/2020, registered at Police Station Kotwali, Seoni for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 323, 326 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code.The case of the prosecution is that, on 24.02.2020 at about 04:00- 05:00 pm, the complainant accompanying Surendra Baghel were going to Chhindwara Road Bypass.The applicant along within one Bachha were sitting beside the railway track.When the scooter of the complainant stopped functioning, the applicant passed comments.On resistance of the complainant, the applicant stab a knife blow in the abdomen of the victim.The injured was admitted in District Hospital, Seoni.A Dehati Nalishi was registered.Thereafter, the applicant was referred to Nagpur and has remained hospitalized for about 16 days.Consequently, this first application for bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of applicant, is allowed.I t is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one solvent surety in the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before that Court on all dates fixed in the case and for complying with the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.In view of the outbreak of 'Corona Virus disease the applicant shall also comply with the rules and norms of social distancing.The Jail Authority shall ensure the medical examination of the Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Date: 2020.08.28 16:52:57 IST 3 MCRC-18882-2020 applicant by the jail Doctor before his release.The applicant shall not be released, if he is suffering from 'Corona Virus disease'.For this purpose appropriate tests will be carried out.If it is found that the applicant is suffering from 'Corona Virus disease', necessary steps will be taken by the concerned authority by placing him in appropriate quarantine facility.This application stands allowed and disposed of.Certified copy as per rules.(MOHD.FAHIM ANWAR) JUDGE taj Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Date: 2020.08.28 16:52:57 IST
|
['Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
197,666,267 |
Petitioner No.1 also made a promise to the complainant that the latter would be appointed as a Joint Secretary of the said association.Mr. Abhijat, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the complainant, who is present in person in Court today, jointly state that subsequent to the registration of the subject FIR, the parties have entered into an amicable resolution of the dispute that led to the registration of the subject FIR with the aid and assistance of the Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.The terms and conditions of the settlement agreement are encapsulated in an order dated 26.11.2015 of the learned Mediator, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi which is annexed as Annexure-B to the present petition.The salient terms of the settlement agreement dated 26.11.2015 are as follows:-"26.11.2015 Present: Applicant Jagmohan Singh Sahni in person with Sh.Sanjay Aggarwal, Adv.Complainant Sikandar Mann in person with Sh.It is stated by the parties that out of the total amount of Rs.35,00,000/- (Rs. Thirty Five Lacs), Rs.7,85,000/- has already received by the complainant.After discussions, both parties have agreed to settle their disputes as full and final on the following terms and conditions:-It is agreed between the parties that the accused shall pay an amount of Rs.27,15,000/- (Rs. Twenty Seven Lacs Fifteen Thousand only) to the complainant towards full and final settlement of the claim of the complainant.The settled amount of Rs.27,15,000/- shall be paid by the accused to the complainant in four installments as per following schedule.i) Rs.5,15,000/- by way of PDC bearing No.046795 dated 05.12.2015 drawn on Andhra Bank, Patiala Branch, Patiala.ii) Rs.10,00,000/- by way of PDC bearing No.046792 dated 30.12.2015 drawn on Andhra Bank, Patiala Branch, Patiala.Through: Ms. Richa Kapoor, ASC (Criminal) with Ms. Mallika Parmar, Advocate and SI Amit Kumar, PS- Punjabi Bagh, Delhi for R-1 Respondent No.2 in person CORAM:HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL) CRL.M.A.7421/2016 (Exemption) Exemption granted subject to all just exceptions.The application is disposed of accordingly.The present is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) W.P. (CRL) 1433/2016 Page 1 of 6 seeking quashing of FIR No.820/2015, under Sections 420/406 IPC, registered at Police Station- Punjabi Bagh, Delhi, and the proceedings arising therefrom.W.P. (CRL) 1433/2016 Page 1 of 6The brief facts leading to the registration of the subject FIR are that petitioner No.1 approached the complainant who is an amateur wrestler and persuaded him to part with money on the assurance that as the Secretary of the Indian Olympic Association, the former was an influential person, and that if the latter were to submit his bid for a proposed e-tender, it would be awarded to him, leading to untold profits.The present bail application filed by the applicant Jagmohan Singh Sahni has been referred by the Court of Sh.Virender Kumar Bansal, Ld.ASJ (FTC), West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi and has been assigned to me for mediation.Process of mediation explained to the parties.Single and joint sessions were held.Briefly stated the relevant facts as disclosed by the parties are that the FIR bearing No.820/2014 u/s 420/406 IPC was registered at PS Punjabi Bagh against the accused Jagmohan Singh Sahni and Kuldeep Vats.iii) Rs.7,00,000/- by way of PDC bearing No.046796 dated 30.01.2016 drawn on Andhra Bank, Patiala Branch, Patiala.W.P. (CRL) 1433/2016 Page 3 of 6The offences alleged to have been committed in the subject FIR are private in nature and do not have a serious impact on society.In view of the foregoing, since the dispute that led to the registration of the subject FIR has been settled amicably by and between the parties without any undue influence, pressure or coercion no useful purpose will be served by proceeding with the subject FIR and the proceedings arising therefrom.Resultantly, the FIR No.820/2015, under Sections 420/406 IPC, registered at Police Station- Punjabi Bagh, Delhi, and the proceedings arising therefrom are hereby set aside and quashed qua the petitioners subject to their depositing a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) each with the Victims' Compensation Fund within a period of two weeks from today.W.P. (CRL) 1433/2016 Page 5 of 6
|
['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
198,971,647 |
2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:- On 23.08.2006, the complainant P.W.1's sister Mohana, the deceased was taking bath in the pump-set and at the time of changing her dress, A1 came behind her and tried to molest her.Mohana, the deceased informed the said incident to her husband.Again on 26.08.2006 when the deceased and her husband went to their field, at that time, the accused intercepted the deceased and her husband and warned the deceased and P.W.2, her husband that if they made any complaint against the accused, they will not allow the deceased and husband to remain in the village.On the same day evening when they returned from the field, A3 who is mother of A1 abused the deceased by saying as if she had illegal relationship with A1 for the past 6 months.3.P.W.11-Sub Inspector of Police received the report from P.W.1 and registered a case in Crime No.194/2006 under section 306/E/C 34 IPC.P7 is the printed FIR.Thereafter, the investigation was handed over to P.W.12 Inspector of Police.The Inspector of Police went to the scene of occurrence, prepared observation mahazar Ex.P3 and rough sketch Ex.P8 and recovered material object MO1 pesticide poison bottle and he also conducted inquest over the dead body and issued inquest report Ex.But, no ingredients are available to implicate A1 under Section 4b of Women Harassment Act.After examining the medical officer and other witnesses altered the Section of offence into Section 306 r/w 34 IPC and filed the final report.4.On perusal of the final report, the trial Court framed charges under Section 306 r/w 34 IPC and found there are materials available to implicate the accused under Section 4(b) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act. Accordingly, the trial Court framed a second charge under Section 4(b) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act. In order to prove the charges, on the side of prosecution P.W.1 to P.W.12 were examined and exhibits P1 to P9 were marked and MO1 was marked.http://www.judis.nic.in 45.When the trial Court examined the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in respect of incriminating evidence available against them, they denied their complicity in the crime and pleaded innocence.However, they neither chose to examine any witness nor marked any documents.6.The trial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence, found A1 to A3 guilty of the offence under Section 4b of the Women Harassment Act. Accordingly, the trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years with a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo six months simple imprisonment.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellants/A1 to A3 have preferred this appeal.7.Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) for the respondent.Though, the law enforcing agency laid the final report implicating the accused under Section 306 r/w 34 of IPC, however, the trial Court framed a charge under Section 4b of Women Harassment Act of which is unwarranted when no ingredients are available to implicate the accused under Section 4b of the said Act. Admittedly, the deceased committed suicide in the agricultural field, at the relevant point of time, P.W.1 is the brother of the deceased.He was not available in the scene of occurrence or in the said village and he is residing in a village namely Tambaram.The deceased was residing at Siruseri.P.W.1 received information from P.W.2 and he reached the spot and made a complaint before Sub-Inspector of Police and it is also relevant to note that P.W.2 in his evidence he stated that there was initial complaint before the law enforcing agency as if A1 abused the deceased.However, no documents were marked before the trial Court in order to prove the said charge.Therefore, the statement to the effect that the accused abused the deceased is an improved version and cannot be pleaded.Hence, the learned counsel prays for acquittal of the accused.9.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants further submit that based on A3's confession statement, A1 was implicated inhttp://www.judis.nic.in 6 the above said offence.Though confession of a co-accused cannot be a ground to implicate the other accused, that issue was legally settled before the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR 1952 Supreme Court 159, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court clearly held, confession of a co-accused must be corroborated with other evidence and therefore, implicating the accused solely on the basis of confession of A3 is not sustainable.Hence, he prays for acquittal of the accused.10.Per contra, learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) would submit that P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.9, all three prosecution witnesses clearly deposed with regard to the involvement of the accused in the above said crime and the accused persons jointly abused the deceased which led the deceased to commit suicide.11.In the light of the above submissions, now it has to be analysed whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.12.The evidence of P.W.1, the brother of the deceased indicates that the deceased was residing at Siruseri Village and P.W.1http://www.judis.nic.in 7 was residing at Tambaram.On hearing the death of his sister Mohana, he rushed the spot and enquired about the said incident and thereafter, filed a complaint.His evidence further indicates that P.W.1 gathered information from P.W.2 and other local residents with regard to the abuse of the deceased by the accused which led the deceased to commit suicide.13.The evidence of P.W.2, husband of the deceased indicates that on 23.08.2006 at about 5.30 pm., while he was proceeding to agricultural field, found that her wife chased A1 with stones and on enquiry, deceased revealed that A1 abused the deceased while she was taking bath in pump-set in agricultural field.Immediately, after receipt of the information, the said incident was informed to the local President.However, the local President instructed P.W.2 not to give any Police complaint.Thereafter, the accused A1 and A2, on the very next day again abused P.W.2 and deceased.However after 4 days on 27.08.2006 he heard the news as if deceased committed suicide in the agricultural field and the said occurrence was informed by his son, while he was searching his deceased mother in the agricultural field.The son aged about 14http://www.judis.nic.in 8 years informed P.W.2 that the deceased requested her son to take care of his sister and brother and she declared that she will not be alive.14.The evidence of P.W.4 to P.W.8 appears to be hearsay and they do not know what had actually happened when the deceased was committing suicide.15.However, P.W.9, the then village president supported the prosecution case.Admittedly, prior to the deceased committing suicide, there was abuse by A1 in the agricultural field and he tried to catch her.Further, P.W.1 is the brother of the deceased.Admittedly, he is residing in Tambaram and on information, he reached Siruseri Village and gave a complaint before the respondent police.16.It is curious to note that except P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 no other independent witnesses were examined in order to prove thathttp://www.judis.nic.in 9 the deceased committed suicide as she was abused.23.However, I am inclined to convict the accused No.1 under Section 4 of Women Harassment Act to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.10,000/-.The conviction and sentence as against the appellants/A2 and A3 in the judgment dated 09.07.2009 in S.C.No.166/2007 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahilir Neethimandram, Chengalpattu, are set aside.The appellants/A2 and A3 are acquitted from the charges under Section 306 r/w 34 IPC and 4b of the Woman Harassment Act. The bail bond executed by them, shall stand terminated/discharged.The conviction imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahilir Neethimandram, Chengalpattu, in S.C.No.166 of 2007 dated 09.07.2009 as against the appellant/A1 is confirmed, however, thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 13 sentence imposed on the first appellant is modified.The sentence of imprisonment imposed against the first appellant/A1 is reduced from five years rigorous imprisonment to six months rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.10,000/-.The trial Court as well as the Investigating Officer shall take necessary and expeditious steps to secure the custody of the first appellant/A1 to undergo the remaining part of sentence.07.01.2019 Index: Yes/No AT1.The Sessions Judge, Mahilir Neethimandram, Chengalpattu.2.The Government Advocate (Crl.side) High Court of Madras.http://www.judis.nic.in 14 M.DHANDAPANI,J.AT Crl.A.No.401 of 2009 07.01.2019http://www.judis.nic.in
|
['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
23,056,877 |
Shri S.K. Mishra, Advocate for the respondent no. 2/objector.This is 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 RCT No. 00037/2020 registered in the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, District Tikamgarh for the offence punishable under Sections 354-A, 354, 294, 506-B, 323 of IPC.Hence, the application be rejected.Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that at the time of granting interim relief, merit has been considered and there is no change in the circumstances to take a different view, hence, the order dated 13.7.2020 be made absolute.Having considered the contentions of learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the record, in view of this Court, the applicant is entitled to get benefit of anticipatory bail, therefore, the ad interim order dated 13.07.2020 passed by this court deserves to be continued in disposal of the instant case, therefore, the order dated 13.7.2020 is made absolute and this application is allowed, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case.It is directed the applicant/accused Ramesh Kumar Choudhary shall appear before the trial Court within 15 days from today and if he is furnishes surety bond and personal bond each of Rs. 25,000/- for his regular appearance before the Court, he be released on bail.Certified copy as per rules.(J. P. GUPTA) JUDGE vkv /-
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
24,820,359 |
She is aresident of Alagiyapandiyapuram Village.It is alleged that on 19.03.2009,at about 8.30 p.m., when she was taking water in a public tap, the accused 2and 3 came there in a motorcycle.These two accused told her to come withthem for harvest.She declined.Then, it is alleged that both these accusedforcibly took her on the motorcycle.One of the accused drove the motorcycleand the other was sitting along with P.W.1 as pillion rider.As a matter offact, P.W.1 was made to sit between these two accused.They took her to alonely place known as 'Mani Iyer' field.They stopped the vehicle, asked herto get down.She did so.Then, they told her that she should wait there foranother man to come.Accordingly, she waited for about 10 minutes.Theaccused 2 and 3 left the place in their motorcycle.Thereafter, suddenlyfrom darkness, the first accused appeared.He held her hands and took herinto the field.According to her, then, he forcibly removed her dress andhad penile sexual intercourse with her.For about two hours repeatedly, hehad sexual intercourse with her.He also threatened P.W.1 not to discloseabout the occurrence to anybody.At that time, P.Ws.2 and 3, namely, hermother and one Sundar came to the place of occurrence.On seeing them, the first accused fled away from the scene of occurrence.When enquired,P.W.1 told them that the first accused had raped her.Thereafter, she wastaken to All Women Police Station at Manur, where P.W.1 made a complaint.But she was directed to go to All Women Police Station, Tirunelveli.The appellants in these three appeals are the accused 1 to 3 inS.C.No.445 of 2010 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court,Tirunelveli.There were as many as 4 charges framed by the trial Court.Thefirst charge was against the accused 2 and 3 under Section 366(A) IPC.The2nd charge was under Section 376 IPC against the first accused.The trial Court by judgment, dated 16.09.2013, convicted the accused2 and 3 under Section 366(A) IPC, convicted the first accused under Section376 IPC and convicted the accused 2 and 3 under Sections 376 read with 109IPC.The first accused was acquitted of the charge under Section 506(ii)IPC.For the offence under Section 376 IPC, the trial Court sentenced thefirst accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fineof Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year,sentenced the accused 2 and 3 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 yearsand to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorousimprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 366(A) IPC, sentencedthe accused 2 and 3 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to paya fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for oneyear for the offence under Section 376 read with 109 IPC.Challenging thesaid conviction and sentence, the appellants are before this Court with theseappeals.Accordingly, on 20.03.2009, at 6.00 p.m., she made a complaint to All Women Police Station, at Tirunelveli.P.W.17 was the then Sub Inspector of Police attached to the saidpolice station.On receipt of the said complaint, she registered a case inCrime No.3 of 2009 under Sections 366, 376 and 506(i) IPC.P1 is thecomplaint and Ex.Taking up the case for investigation, on 20.03.2009, at 7.15 p.m.,P.W.18 went to the place of occurrence and prepared an observation mahazar and a rough sketch showing the place of occurrence.On the same day, she arrested all the accused and forwarded them to Court for judicial remand.While in custody, the first accused gave voluntary confession, out of which,the motorcycle bearing registration No.P.W.18 examined P.W.1 and sent her for chemical examination.P.W.11 ? Dr.Meena, Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital, examinedP.W.1 on 20.03.2009 at 5.00 p.m. During the examination, she found thatP.W.1 was fully grown and the hymen in her vaginal cavity was absent.Therewere no external injuries found.P11 is the certificate issued byher and Ex.P12 is the Accident Register.During the course of investigation,the first accused was also sent for medical examination.P.W.14 ? Dr.He opined that the first accused was fully grownup and he was capable of performing penile sexual intercourse with a woman.P.W.18 recovered the dress materials of P.W.1 and forwarded the same to theCourt.P.W.6, the Assistant Director of Forensic Sciences Laboratory atTirunelveli, examined the Chudithar top, shawl and the chudithar bottombelonging to P.W.1, which were owned by her at the time of allegedoccurrence.According to P.W.6, there was no spermatozoa found on these dress materials.P.W.14 examined P.Ws.2 and 3, Doctors, collected all thematerials and finally laid the final report against the accused.Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed charges asdetailed above.The accused denied the same.In order to prove the case, onthe side of the prosecution, as many as 18 witnesses were examined and 19 documents were exhibited, besides 5 material objects.Of the said witnesses, P.W.1 is the victim and P.W.2 is hermother.P.W.1 has vividly spoken about the entire occurrence.P.W.2 hasstated that when she went in search of P.W.1 along with P.W.3, she foundP.W.1 coming from Mani Iyer field weeping.She has further stated that atthat time itself, P.W.1 told them that she was raped by the first accused.P.W.5 - Dr.During the courseof investigation, according to her, she was asked to examine P.W.1 and onsuch examination, she gave opinion that P.W.1 had completed 16 years of age as on the date of occurrence.P.W.11 ? Dr.The others are police officials.P.W.18 hasspoken in detail about the investigation done by her.When the aboveincriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C.,they denied the same as false.However, they do not choose to examine anywitnesses on their side nor to mark any documents.Having considered all theabove materials, the trial Court convicted the accused as detailed in thefirst paragraph of the judgment and accordingly punished them.That is how,they are before this Court with these 3 appeals.I have heard the learned Senior counsel for the accused 2 and 3,Mr.V.Panneerselvam for the 1st accused and the learned Additional PublicProsecutor Mr.C.Mayilvahana Rajendran appearing for the State and I have alsoperused the records.The learned Senior counsel appearing for the accused would submitthat the evidence of P.W.1 is highly unnatural and therefore, the same isunbelievable.The learned Senior counsel would point out that evenaccording to the evidence of P.W.1, she was very passive at the time ofoccurrence and she did not make any resistance.This, according to thelearned counsel, would go to show that she was a consenting party.Thelearned Senior counsel would further submit that the medical evidence doesnot corroborate the eye witness account of P.W.1 and thus, the very factum ofsexual intercourse has not been proved.The learned Senior counsel wouldfurther submit that P.W.1 was legally competent to give consent, as she hadcompleted 16 years of age as on the date of occurrence.Thus, according tothe learned counsel, the prosecution has not proved the case beyondreasonable doubt and therefore, the accused are entitled for acquittal.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would, however, opposethese appeals very strongly.According to him, the accused have committed aheinous crime of kidnapping and rape and therefore, they do not deserve anyleniency at the hands of this Court.Therefore, according to the learned counsel, there is no reason todisbelieve the evidence of P.W.1 and to acquit the accused.I have considered the above submissions.Admittedly, P.W.1, as on the date of occurrence, had completed 16years of age and thus, legally she was competent to give consent for sexualintercourse with a man.Thus, the total distance covered from the house ofP.W.1 to the place of occurrence is 3+ kms.But, though thevehicle travelled such a long distance, she did not raise any alarm.She didnot make any resistance at all.After going to the place of occurrence, theaccused 2 and 3 asked her to get down from the motorcycle and told her thatyet another man will come to meet her.Saying so, the accused 2 and 3 leftthe place of occurrence.Had P.W.1 was not a consenting party, immediatelythereafter, she would have rushed towards her house.She has admitted thatshe was very familiar with the place of occurrence.Therefore, nothing wouldhave prevented her from immediately rushing from the place of occurrence,after the accused 2 and 3 had left.It is her further admission that afterthe accused 2 and 3 had left, she was waiting for about 10 minutes withoutany resistance to meet an unknown person and with knowing the purpose.Itwas only after 10 minutes, it is alleged that the first accused came to theplace of occurrence, suddenly from darkness.Even after seeing him, she didnot make any resistance.He took her to a further distance that too to asecluded place, then, started having sexual intercourse with her.It is notin evidence that she resisted in any manner.She did not raise any hue andcry.Not only that, this incident of sexual intercourse was continued for twohours.During cross examination, P.W.1 has categorically stated that shespent two hours with the first accused in the field having sex with the firstaccused repeatedly.This would clearly go to show that P.W.1 was aconsenting party for sex with the first accused.It is in the evidence of P.W.1 that after everything was over,P.Ws.2 and 3 came in search of her.On seeing P.Ws.2 and 3 coming near the place of occurrence, the first accused fled away from thescene of occurrence.This has been so stated by P.W.1 also.It was, only at that time, she told P.W.2that the first accused had sexual intercourse with her.If really, she was not a consenting party, she would havequite naturally resisted.In such resistance for two hours, by allprobabilities, she would have suffered minor injuries, like scratches on herbody.But, according to the Doctor, no such injury was found.Above all, nospermatozoa was even found on her body.In her dress material also, nospermatozoa was found, as has been spoken to by the Assistant Director ofForensic Lab.These facts would also go to further strengthen the case ofthe accused that she was not at all raped by the first accused.From thenarration of the facts, it can be only inferred that P.W.1 was a consentingparty, she went along with accused 2 and 3 and then had sex with the firstaccused for two hours and when, it was noticed by her mother, she startedmaking allegation of rape.This is the only possible inference, which onecould make out from the evidence available in the case.Thus, in myconsidered opinion, the lower Court was not right in convicting the accused.I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against theaccused beyond reasonable doubt.In the result, the criminal appeals are allowed; the conviction andsentence imposed on the appellants are set aside and they are acquitted.Fine amount, if any paid by them, shall be refunded.Bail bond shall standterminated.1.The Sessions Judge (Mahila Court) Tirunelveli.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
30,330,037 |
On 5th January, 1999 at about 3.00 p.m. the deceased Asokan was oneamongst 200 other mourners who had assembled to attend the cremation of anear relative who had passed away and was being cremated at villageVeerappanayakan Patti.Adikesavan (PW-1), Rajendran (PW-4), Vellingiri (PW-5) and Paneer (PW-10) were also among those present at the cremationground.The prosecution case is that, that on account of strained relationsbetween the accused and the deceased arising out of rivalry in relation tosmuggling of sandalwood by the two groups, there was, a few days earlier tothe date of occurrence, a quarrel between them which had turned ugly withthe two groups assaulting each other.The accused were, therefore, lookingfor an opportunity to get even with deceased which opportunity came theirway when the deceased who was a resident of another village joined thefuneral and the cremation ceremony.It so happened that no sooner were themortal remains of the departed soul consigned to flames, Perumal one of theaccused (since deceased) saw Asokan standing near a coconut tree in theformer’s land, and started moving towards him with the remaining fouraccused including the appellants in this appeal.Perumal who had picked upa stick gave a blow to the deceased on the head because of which thedeceased collapsed to the ground.Blood stained liquid oozing from the mouth.Mandible and all the teeth i the lower jaw broken into pieces.Neck – A skin colour contusion over the neck present.T.S. THAKUR, J.This appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 24th August,2006 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Madras at Madurai, wherebyCriminal Appeal No.857 of 2004 filed by the appellants and two othersagainst their conviction for murder and sentence of life imprisonment hasbeen dismissed.Shanmugam (A-1), appellant in the presentappeal, in the meantime picked up a stone and hit the deceased on his facerepeatedly while Mahendran (A-2) caught hold of his legs.Raghu (A-3)squeezed the testicles of Asokan while Ramajayam (A-4), appellant No.2 inthis appeal, assaulted the deceased with a heavy stone on his headexclaiming “with that he must go”.The injuries so inflicted crushedAsokan’s head and killed him on the spot.Adikesavan (PW-1), Rajendran (PW-4) and Vellingiri (PW-5) tried to intervene but were threatened by theaccused persons that they would also meet the same fate.Scared, thewitnesses ran for safety while the accused made their escape good.Thoseattending the cremation also ran away in panic.Adikesavan (PW-1) returnedto the crime scene and found his younger brother lying dead with his headshattered.He informed Sudha (PW-3) about the incident and rushed to Harurto meet his younger brother Ramalingam (PW-2) who accompanied him back tothe crime scene in a car.The incident was then reported at Harur PoliceStation in writing by Adikesavan (PW-1).The police swung into action,conducted an inquest and seized the stick and stones used by the accusedpersons for the assault and the blood stained clothes of the deceased.Achargesheet was eventually filed by the Investigating Officer that led totheir trial before the Additional Sessions Judge, Dharamapuri who recordedthe statements of as many as 11 witnesses produced on behalf of theprosecution.The defence did not choose to lead any oral evidence.The Trial Court eventually came to the conclusion that theprosecution had brought home the guilt to the accused persons andaccordingly convicted them for murder punishable under Section 302 readwith Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life.Aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court theappellants and two other surviving accused persons filed Criminal AppealNo.857 of 2004 before the High Court of Judicature of Madras at Madurai,Perumal the fifth accused having passed away in the meantime.By itsjudgment and order impugned in this appeal the High Court has concurredwith the view taken by the Trial Court and found the conviction andsentence to be perfectly justified upon a reappraisal of the evidenceadduced before the Trial Court.The present appeal filed by two out of thefour accused persons calls in question the correctness of the said judgmentand order of the High Court.We have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable lengthwho have taken us through the evidence on record.The Trial Court as alsothe High Court have both placed reliance upon the deposition of Adikesavan(PW-1) who was an eye witness to the occurrence.The Courts below have alsonoted that while Rajendran (PW-4) and Vellingiri (PW-5) have turnedhostile, they have nevertheless supported the prosecution case in the past.The Courts also found that enmity between the deceased and the accusedpersons on account of smuggling of sandalwood was the motive for thecommission of the crime which motive was satisfactorily established on theevidence adduced at the trial.Internal Examination: Skull – Base of skull fracture in the post cranial fossa crossing the midline.Bain – Congested and contained about 100 ml of clotted blood.No rib fracture.Lungs – Congested.Right – 450 gms.Left – 420 gms.Heart – Congested.Empty 150 gms.Liver – Congested.Intact – 1100 gms.Kidney – Congested – intact – 120 gms.Bladder – Empty.Stomach – contains about 50 gms.Of undigested food.Spleen – Congested – 90 gms.”It is noteworthy that the other two witnesses namely Rajendran (PW-4)and Vellingiri (PW-5) also supported the prosecution case, no matter onlyin part.The fact that the deceased was present at the cremation groundwhere the occurrence took place is proved from their depositions as well.
|
['Section 304 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.
|
135,168,047 |
In each default of payment of fine, two months additional RI was directed.The prosecution's case, in short, is that on 26.10.1995 the prosecutrix (PW-1) was in her house 2 Cr.A.No.2072/1996 situated at Village Sarri (Police Station Bamhani District Mandla).Amarlal (PW-2), Geeta Bai (PW-6) and mother Sukarti (PW-5) were also inside the house.The appellant entered into the house of the prosecutrix and asked for some water.(Delivered on the 27th day of August, 2012) This criminal appeal is preferred by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 1/11/1996 passed by the Special Judge under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short "Special Act") Mandla in Special Case No.51/1996, whereby the appellant was convicted for commission of offence punishable under Sections 323, 451, 354 of IPC read with Section 3(1)(xi) of the Special Act, 1989 and sentenced for one month's simple imprisonment, six months' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- and rigorous imprisonment for six months with fine of Rs.500/-.Thereafter he was provided with the water, but he detained the prosecutrix and pushed her breasts and also held the hand of the prosecutrix.The prosecutrix directed him to go out, but he went inside the room.Ultimately, he was thrown out by Amarlal, brother of the prosecutrix, but the appellant assaulted the victim Amarlal by giving a slap.The prosecutrix had lodged an FIR Ex.P-1 on the next day morning.After due investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the Special Judge, Mandla.2 Cr.The appellant-accused abjured his guilt.He did not take any specific plea in the case, but he has submitted that he was falsely implicated in the matter due to enmity.The learned Special Judge, Mandla after considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution convicted the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Sections 323, 451, 354 of IPC read with Section 3(1)(xi) of the Special Act and sentenced as mentioned above.I have heard learned counsel for the parties.A.No.2072/1996 Rules, 1995 (for brevity "Special Rules") investigation was to be done by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, and the said rule is mandatory, and therefore the investigation done by the ASI K.P.Dubey (PW-7) has no value, hence the appellant cannot be convicted for any offence.A false case has been reported against the appellant on the basis of delayed FIR.In the alternate, it is submitted that the appellant has faced this trial and appeal for last 16 years, and therefore his sentence may be reduced to the period which he has already undergone in the custody.Whether the appellant entered in the house of the prosecutrix to commit 4 Cr.A.No.2072/1996 any crime? And whether sentence imposed upon the appellant can be reduced?4 Cr.The Special Rules, 1995 enacted and applied from June 1995, and therefore when the incident took place in October 1995 it was for the police officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police to investigate the matter, whereas the entire case was investigated by ASI K.P.Dubey (PW-7).According to the prosecutrix (PW-1) the appellant was her uncle due to distant relation.The prosecutrix (PW-1), Amarlal (PW-2) and Sukarti (PW-5) have stated that when the prosecutrix provided a glass of water to the appellant and when she was going back, then the appellant 5 Cr.A.No.2072/1996 stopped her in going to her room.It is also stated by the witnesses that the appellant went to the kitchen even and thereafter the prosecutrix requested him that he was drunken and he may go, but he abused the prosecutrix and also stated that so many persons were visiting to the house of the prosecutrix and providing her a sum of Rs.10-20 and prosecutrix was not allowing the appellant to remain there.However, Geeta Bai (PW-6) turned hostile.The learned Special Judge has erred in convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under 6 Cr.A.No.2072/1996 Section 354 of IPC.5 Cr.There was no right of private defence accrued to the appellant.It is nowhere established that any sudden or grave provocation was given to the victim Amarlal.Due to giving a slap some pain must have been caused to the victim Amarlal.Under such circumstances, it is established that the appellant caused voluntary hurt to the victim Amarlal, and therefore he has committed the crime under Section 323 of IPC.It is true that the prosecutrix was addressing the appellant to be an uncle so that he went inside the house to get some water, then his entry was legal, but thereafter he remained in the house to do some crime.He tried to outrage the modesty of the prosecutrix and also caused voluntary hurt to the victim Amarlal.A.No.2072/1996 years.He is the first offender, and therefore looking to his crime, it would not be proper to send him back to the jail.He gave a slap to the victim Amarlal, and therefore offence under Section 323 of IPC is not so grave.Under such circumstances, it would be proper that the sentence of the appellant may be reduced to the period which he has already undergone in the custody, but some fine amount may be enhanced or imposed.7 Cr.On the basis of above discussion, the instant appeal filed by the appellant is partly allowed.The conviction as well as the sentence directed by the trial Court against the appellant for the offence under Section 354 of IPC read with Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is hereby set aside.The appellant is acquitted from the said charges.The appellant is directed to deposit the remaining fine amount before the trial Court within two months from today, failing which he shall undergo RI for six months for the fine of offence under Section 451 of IPC and one month's RI for the offence under 8 Cr.
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
135,171,992 |
After considering all the facts, CVC had issued an official memorandum to the competent authority on 30.08.2013 as below:The petition is filed seeking for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner herein, who served as an Examiner in the Customs Department and prosecuted for abuse of his official position.The matter centers around mis-declaration of goods, which were fully fitted air-conditioner, but declared as part of air-conditioner and Imported into India through Chennai Port, thereby committing revenue loss to the exchequer of Customs Department.It is an admitted fact that the petition to discharge the petitioner is pending before the trial Court.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that he does not know the fate of the discharge petition, however, he canvasses this writ petition on a different ground.The learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the 2nd respondent stated that the discharge petition has already been dismissed.The learned counsel appearing for the respondents viz., the Commissioner of Customs and ASP, CBI would submit that, the competent authority to accord sanction, after perusal of the materials placed by the Investigation Agency, had expressed doubt regarding the mens rea of the officers and deferred with the opinion of CBI in respect of according sanction.Therefore, vide letter dated 13.08.2013 referred the matter to CVC as per paragraph 11.2(i) of Chapter VII of Vigilance Manual Volume 1 for further action.On receipt of his letter, CVC had gone through the papers and passed the following order on 30.08.2013:-Commission has perused the SP's report and views of Disciplinary Authority and CVO, CBEC thereon.The Commission in agreement with CBI & CVO, CBEC would advise sanction of prosecution and simultaneous RDA for major penalty against S/Sh P.Kathirvel, Asst.Commissioner, Sanjay Kakkar and R.Mani, Appraisers and S.Gugan, Examiner.Thereafter, on 30.09.2013 the sanction order was issued by the Commissioner, the competent Authority, which is legal and permissible in law and there is no grounds survive for quashing the prosecution.Commission has perused the SP's report and views of Disciplinary Authority and CVO, CBEC thereon.The Commission in agreement with CBI & CVO, CBEC would advise sanction of prosecution and simultaneous RDA for major penalty against S/Sh P.Kathirvel, Asst.Commissioner, Sanjay Kakkar and R.Mani, Appraisers and S.Gugan, Examiner.Thereafter, the sanctioning order has been passed by the competent authority on 13.09.2013, wherein he has stated that he had applied his mind and after careful examination of the materials, he accord sanction to prosecute Shri.Hence, this Court hold that on the factual matrix, there is no two sanction orders passed by the same authority, without any material.The earlier communication is only a letter of opinion seeking further course of action has been expressed.Whereas, the second communication is the order issued after complete exercise of application of mind.Therefore, this Court find no merits in the writ petition.Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.No costs.DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.3 The Special Public Prosecutor for CBI, High Court, Madras.W.P.No.3208 of 201826.04.2018
|
['Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
135,172,267 |
[Order of the Court was made by A.SELVAM, J.] This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to call for the records relating to the detention order passed in Memo No.184/BCDFGISSSV/2017 dated 15.04.2017, against the detenu by name, Vinoth @ Vinothkumar, aged 32 years, S/o.Moorthy, residing at No.16, Lal Bahadur Shastri Street, Lakshmi Nagar, Lakebund, Maduravoyal, Chennai- 600 095 and quash the same.The Inspector of Police, T-4, Maduravoyal Police Station, as Sponsoring Authority, has submitted an affidavit to the Detaining Authority, wherein, it is averred that the detenu has involved in the following adverse case:-1.T-4 Maduravoyal Police Station, Crime No.898/2016, registered under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code altered into Sections 120(b), 201, 302 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code;Further, it is averred in the affidavit that on 08.03.2017, one Adhikesavan, aged 31 years, S/o.Subramanian, residing at No.18, Om Sakthi Nagar, Vanagaram, Chennai -95, as defacto complainant, has given a complaint against the detenu, wherein it is specifically stated that the detenu and others have forcibly taken a sum of Rs.1700/- from the cash box of the defacto complainant by showing deadly weapons and consequently, a case has been registered in Crime No.459 of 2017 under Sections 341, 294(b), 336, 427, 397 and 506(ii) of Indian Penal Code and ultimately, requested the Detaining Authority to invoke Act 14 of 1982 against the detenu.The Detaining Authority, after considering the averments made in the affidavit and other connected materials, has derived a subjective satisfaction to the effect that the detenu is a habitual offender and ultimately, branded him as Goonda by way of passing the impugned Detention Order and in order to quash the same, the present petition has been filed by the detenu himself, as petitioner.On the side of the respondents, a counter has been filed, wherein, it is contended to the effect that most of the averments made in the petition are false.Moorthy, residing at No.16, Lal Bahadur Shastri Street, Lakshmi Nagar, Lakebund, Maduravoyal, Chennai- 600 095 is quashed and directed to set him at liberty forthwith unless he is required to be incarcerated in any other case.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
135,179,038 |
The petitioner herein has filed a private complaint statingthat she is dealing/trading in high quality cotton cloths under thename and style of 'Mrrine Overseas' .He promised and assured to pay the value of the goodssupplied to him promptly.Believing the representation and promisemade by the accused, the complainant has supplied goods undernine invoices from 28.11.2006 to 16.12.2006 to the value ofRs.25,30,786/- But, the accused has been postponing the paymentunder one pretext or the other.In fact, many a cheatings were committed in the course of commercial and also money transactions.O P .N o . 1 0 6 9 9 of 2 0 1 7 415 of the Indian Penal Code (illustrations f) is worthy of notice now: "(f) A intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A means to repay any money that Z may lend to him and thereby dishonestly induces Z to lend him money, A not intending to repay it.A cheats."A cheats."This petition has been filed by the complainant under Section482 of Cr.P.C., to set aside the order passed by the V AdditionalDistrict and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore in CRP.No.65 of 2015dated 18.10.2016 confirming the order passed by the JudicialMagistrate No.II, Coimbatore in Crl.MP.No.291 of of 2015 dated04.08.2015 and to direct the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Coimbatoreto take the complaint on file and issue process to therespondent/accused and dispose of the case in accordance with thelaw.She has taken the property ofthe respondent/accused on lease for godown purpose on a monthlyrent of Rs.3200/- and she paid Rs.25,000/- as advance.Theaccused being the owner of the tenanted premises, the husband ofthe complainant and the accused became acquainted.The accusedis carrying on business in Textiles under the name and style of 'SriChitra Tex'.Based on the acquaintance, the accused approached thecomplainant and requested to supply grey clothes (goods) on credit2/19 Crl.O P .N o . 1 0 6 9 9 of 2 0 1 7basis.Subsequently, all of a suddenwithout any intimation, the accused has sold the tenanted premisesto third parties and forcibly evicted the complainant.At the intervention of the well wishers of boththe parties, the accused promised to settle the entire invoiceamount and also refund the rent advance.But, the accused did notmake any payment and hence the complainant has issued alawyer's notice to the accused on 27.04.2009 calling upon him topay the aforesaid amount.After receipt of the notice, the accusedapproached the complainant and requested time for settling theamount.But he did not come forward to settle the amount andhence the complainant has lodged a complaint on 16.05.2012 withDistrict Crime Branch.But no action has been taken on the saidcomplaint.Hence, the complainant has filed Crl.OP.No.16105 of2014 before this court.This court has disposed of the said petitionon 26.06.2014 with a liberty to the petitioner to pursue her remedy3/19 Crl.O P .N o . 1 0 6 9 9 of 2 0 1 7in court of law.Since the accused has made false representationsand forced the complainant to supply the goods under credit basis,he has committed the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC.Hence, the petitioner has filed a private complaint before theJudicial Magistrate No.II, Coimbatore with a request to take thecase on file and issue summons to the accused and punish him inaccordance with law.The learned Judicial Magistrate, No.II, Coimbatore afterrecording sworn statement of the petitioner/complainant, has takenthe case on file in Crl.MP.No.291 of 2015 and conducted enquiryunder Section 202 of Cr.P.C., During enquiry under Section 202 ofCr.P.C., the complainant has examined two witnesses as P.Ws1 andThe learned Judicial Magistrate after considering thecomplaint, statement of the complainant and deposition of P.Ws.1and 2 and the materials produced before him, has dismissed thesaid complaint by the order dated 04.08.2015, under Section 203of Cr.P.C., as the transaction is purely civil in nature.Aggrieved bythe same, the petitioner/complainant has filed a criminal Revision inCRP.No.65 of 2015 on the file of the V Additional District and4/19 Crl.O P .N o . 1 0 6 9 9 of 2 0 1 7Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.The learned V Additional District andSessions Judge, Coimbatore by the order dated 18.10.2016, hasdismissed the said CRP and thereby confirmed the order passed bythe learned Judicial Magistrate, No.II, Coimbatore.Feeling furtheraggrieved, the complainant has filed the present Criminal OriginalPetition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,Heard Mr.V.S.Jagadeesan, the learned counsel for thepetitioner/complainant and Mr.P.M.Duraisamy, the learned counselfor the respondent/accused.He furthersubmitted that for determining the question whether any process isto be issued or what the Magistrate has to be satisfied is whetherthere is sufficient ground for proceeding and not whether there issufficient ground for conviction and therefore he prayed to allow thispetition and set aside the orders passed by the courts below anddirect the trial court to take the complaint on file and issuesummons to the accused and proceed further in accordance withlaw.The learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of hiscontentions relied upon the following decisions:-1.The V Additional District Judge, Coimbatore2.The Judicial Magistrate No.II Coimbatore.PRE-DELIVERY ORDER MADE IN CRL.O.P.No.10699 of 201718/19 Crl.O P .N o . 1 0 6 9 9 of 2 0 1 7 13.05.202019/19
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
135,183,584 |
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that this case was passed over on the request of Sri S.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the informant.Today, learned counsel for the applicant has tried to serve notice on the aforesaid counsel, but he has refused to accept the same.Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Ashok with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 165 of 2019, under Sections- 302, 201 and 120-B IPC, Police Station- Binauli, District- Baghpat, during pendency of trial.Submission is that applicant was not named in the FIR.His name has surfaced in the statement of the wife of the deceased, Asha, wherein she has stated that her husband (deceased) had strained relationship with the applicant.He used to inform her in this regard.After his death, she has given thought about the relationship with the deceased of the applicant and has expressed apprehension that applicant may have caused the death of her husband.(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court.
|
['Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
135,187,159 |
http://www.judis.nic.in 4 N.ANAND VENKATESH.J., uma CRL.OP.No.19488 of 2019 and Crl.M.P.No.9979 and 9981 of 2019This petition has been filed challenging the proceedings initiated by the respondent against the petitioners under Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 506(ii) of IPC @ 294(b), 323, 324, 506(ii) and 448 of IPC.The petitioners shall not dispute the identification of the witnesses.Thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 petitioners shall be present before the Court below at the time of questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C and at the time of passing of the final judgement.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of with a direction to the Court below to complete the proceedings in C.C No.260 of 2018 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.23.07.2019 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No uma ToThe Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thiruvannamalai DistrictThe Sub Inspector of Police Thiruvannamalai Town Police Station, Thiruvannamalai District.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras.
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
13,518,730 |
This is the 4th application for regular bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.His first application M.Cr.Second application M.Cr.C No. 4665/2015 was dismissed on merits vide order dated 8.6.2015 and the 3rd application M.Cr.The applicant has come up with this 4th application seeking regular bail on the ground that the statements of prosecutrix, her father and eye witness ( Bunti @ Narendra Jha Vs.State of M.P. ) 2 M.Cr.12178/2015 have been recorded.Applicant has also claimed regular bail on the ground of delay in trial.Considering the facts that, the earlier second and third applications were decided on merits.Prosecutrix has supported the prosecution version.It would be judicial impropriety to evaluate theevidence at the time of deciding the bail application.Accordingly, application for regular bail is rejected.(S.K. Palo) Judge dcs
|
['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.
|
135,189,271 |
4.4.2016Index:Yes/NoInternet:Yes/NomsrToThe Superintendent of Police (North),Puducherry.The Sub-Inspector of Police,Mettupalayam Police Station,Mettupalayam,PuducherryThe Inspector of Police,CBCID Police,Puducherry.This petition has been filed to direct the 1st respondent to transfer the investigation to the Inspector of Police, CBCID Police, Puducherry in Crime No.51 of 2015 pending on the file of the 2nd respondent.As there was no progress in the investigation, he has come forward with the present petition for the relief stated above.At this juncture, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on instructions, would submit that already investigation is done and charge sheet has been levied before the learned Judicial Magistrate IV, Puducherry for the offence under Section 420 of IPC, r/w.34 of IPC and Section 4 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (banning) Act 1978 and the same was taken on file as C.C.No.606 of 2016 .Recording the submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
135,189,342 |
3 The schema of the facts giving rise to the present five criminal appeals are as under:Thus, it appears that the family members of Arjunan (A1) were holding the post of President of Periakannoor Panchayat Board for about four decades.http://www.judis.nic.in 6 3.2 While so, in the Panchayat elections held in 2011, Krishnan's (P.W.1's) wife Sathya of AIADMK trounced Arjunan's (A1's) wife Kanakavalli and became the Panchayat Board President.In the said elections, Krishnan's (P.W.1's) elder brother Kathiresan (D1), Secretary, AIADMK Youth Wing, worked very hard for the victory of his sister-in-law Sathya.After Sathya became the President, she found that Arjunan's (A1's) family were drawing water illegally from the public tank without the permission of the Panchayat and so, she took steps to disconnect the water supply.3.3 As a counterblast, the defeated side led by Arjunan (A1) were causing pinpricks for Sathya and were preventing her from taking upon any constructive work in the village.One day prior to Pongal festival in 2012, one Chandran of Periyakannoor, who had worked for Sathya's victory in the Panchayat elections, was attacked by Arjunan's (A1's) group, in connection with which, a case was registered against them in Kaalayaarkovil Police Station.http://www.judis.nic.in 7 3.4 About five months down the line, in a public function that was organised by the Panchayat in the Panchayat school, Arjunan (A1), Sathyaraj (A3), Yoganathan (A6), Vijayakumar (A7), Kanakaraj (A14) and Selvam (A15) made an attempt to attack Sathya with deadly weapons, which was thwarted by the villagers and hence, a case was registered against them in Kaalayaarkovil Police Station.3.5 Kathiresan (D1) was living with his family comprising his wife Prema (P.W.12), his son Prasanna (D2) and his daughter Nikila (P.W.9) in Sivagangai Town.3.6 13.11.2012 was a Deepavali day.On that day, Kathiresan (D1) did not come to his native village Pei Pagainjan, to visit his parents and so, on 14.11.2012, he came with his two children by his Toyota Scorpio car (M.O.1) (for brevity “the car”) driven by Boominathan (D3).After spending some time in his natal home, on the same night, i.e. on 14.11.2012, around 9.00 p.m., Kathiresan (D1), his son Prasanna (D2) aged about 12 years, his daughter Nikila (P.W.9) aged about 8 years and his brother Krishnan (P.W.1) were proceeding in their car (M.O.1) from their natal village in Sivagangai District, to Kathiresan's (D1's) Sivagangai Town.http://www.judis.nic.in 8 3.7 Around 9.30 p.m., when their car (M.O.1) was proceeding between Nedunkulam and Ooothikulam, a lorry bearing Regn.TNM 3375 (M.O.2) (for brevity “the lorry”) came straight towards the car (M.O.1) in the opposite direction, as if it was going to collide.Hence, Boominathan (D3), driver of the car (M.O.1), swerved the car (M.O.1) to the left, yet, the lorry (M.O.2) grazed through the car (M.O.1) on the right side and stopped and Boominathan (D3) also parked the car (M.O.1) on the left side.3.8 At that time, Arjunan (A1) and some named others, came by three motor bikes and some others jumped down from the lorry (M.O.2) and came towards the car (M.O.1).On the exhortation of Arjunan (A1) to eliminate everyone in the car (M.O.1), the group, armed with weapons, started to attack the car (M.O.1) and its inmates and attempted to set them on fire.3.9 In that process, Arjunan's (A1's) gang started attacking Kathiresan (D1), who had come out of the car (M.O.1).Krishnan (P.W.1) saw the attackers and when he was chased, he escaped and hid himself in a nearby bush.The attackers mercilessly attacked andhttp://www.judis.nic.in 9 killed Kathiresan (D1), his 12 year old son Prasanna (D2) and Boominathan (D3), driver of the car (M.O.1), besides inflicting serious knife injuries on the 8 year old Nikila (P.W.9).of kerosene near the body of Kathiresan (D1) (M.O.7) By that time, Nikila (P.W.9) was rushed to the Government Hospital, Sivagangai, for treatment by ambulance.3.12 The two white colour plastic cans (M.Os. 4 and 7) were sent through the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sivagangai to the Tamil Nadu Forensic Science Laboratory and the same were examined by Visalakshi (P.W.48), who, in her evidence as well in her report (Ex.P.65), has stated that the liquid found in the plastic can (M.O.4) was petrol mixed with diesel and the one in the plastic can (M.O.7) is found to be diesel.She has also stated that both petrol and diesel are inflammable liquids.http://www.judis.nic.in 11 3.13 Shankar (P.W.55) requisitioned the services of the police photographer (P.W.46), finger print expert (P.W.35) and forensic sciences expert (P.W.44) to collect the clue materials.The bodies of Kathiresan (D1), Prasanna (D2) and Boominathan (D3) were sent to the Government Hospital, Sivagangai.Police pickets were posted around the area to maintain law and order and to prevent any disturbance to the crime scene.He prepared the observation mahazar (Ex.P.5) in the presences of witnesses, viz., Thangavelu (P.W.20) and Dinesh Kumar (not examined).In the observation mahazar (Ex.P.5), the above facts noted by him were stated.He also prepared the rough sketch (Ex.P.78).3.14 From the place of occurrence, Shankar (P.W.55) seized the following articles under the cover of mahazar (Ex.P.6):➢ Toyoto Scorpio Car bearing Regn.TN 69 M 2988 – (M.O.1) ➢ Red Cell brand black colour mobile phone (M.O.3) ➢ Samsung brand red colour mobile phone (M.O.5) ➢ Union Bank ATM Card (M.O.6) ➢ A 10 litre plastic kerosene can of white colour with about ½ litre petrol in it in open condition (M.O.4)http://www.judis.nic.in 12 ➢ A 5 litre plastic kerosene can of white colour with about ¼ litre petrol in it in open condition (M.O.7) ➢ A back case of grey colour of Nokia mobile (M.O.8) ➢ Blood stained tar and aggregate taken from the tar road where Kathiresan's (D1's) body was found (M.O.9) ➢ Blood stained tar and aggregate taken from the tar road where Boominathan's (D3's) body was found (M.O.10) ➢ Blood stained grass and soil taken from the place where Prasanna's (D2's) body was found (M.O.11) 3.15 Prithiviraj (P.W.46), police photographer, came to the place of occurrence and took photographs which were marked as Ex.He has stated in his evidence that he had also photographed some finger prints at the request of the police.3.16 M. Vijayan (P.W.35), Deputy Superintendent of Police, Finger Print Bureau, came to the place of occurrence at 23.40 hrs.on 14.11.2012 and examined the car (M.O.1) and lifted six finger prints (P.1 to P.6) and had them photographed.Vijayan (P.W.35) has also stated in his evidence that the police photographer helped him to take photographs of the chance finger prints.http://www.judis.nic.in 13 3.17 On the orders of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Shankar (P.W.55), conducted inquest on the body of Kathiresan (D1) and the inquest report was marked as Ex.Senthur Pandian (P.W.52) conducted inquest on the body of Prasanna (D2) and the inquest report was marked as Ex.Raja Somasundaram (P.W.53), Inspector of Police, Sivagangai Town Police Station conducted inquest on the body of Boominathan (D3) and the inquest report was marked as (Ex.P.77).Heart intact.Cavity empty, both lungs intact on c/s pale stomach intact.Contained about 400 gms.of partially digested food particles.Intestines, liver, spleen both kidneys and all other organs severe intact on c/s found pale.Bladder empty.Spine and long bones intact.Hyoid bone intact.Thorux and abdomen: Rib cage intact.Heard intact cavity empty on c/s pale.Lungs intact and pale stomach intact contained 300 gms.of partially digested food particles present.Intestines, liver, spleen, both kidneys andhttp://www.judis.nic.in 15 all other organ intact on c/s pale.Bladder empty.Spine and long bones intact.Chest & abdomen:ON c/s.Ribs intact.Heart cavity empty.Lungs intact on c/s.Found pale stomach intact contained 400 gms.of partially digested food material.Liver, kidneys, spleen intact on c/s.Pale bladder empty.All other organs on c/s pale and intact.Spine and long bones intact.PM was concluded on 10.20 a.m. On 15.11.2012.http://www.judis.nic.in 16 Time of death: 12-14 hrs.before commencement of PM Cause of death:Hyporolemic shock due to haemorrhage caused by deadly head injuries sustained by the individual.” 3.20 Nikila (P.W.9) was rushed to the Government Hospital, Sivagangai, for treatment, where, she was examined by Dr. Gopi Saravanan (P.W.33), who, in his evidence as well in the copy of the Accident Register (Ex.P.36), has noted the following six injuries:➢ Lacerated wound measuring 10 x 5 x 5 (cm) in the frontal area of the head ➢ Lacerated wound measuring 10 x 5 x 5 (cm) in the parietal area ➢ Lacerated wound measuring 10 x 5 x 5 (cm) in the occipital area in the right parietal bone ➢ Fracture in the skull in the left parietal region ➢ Lacerated wound measuring 5 x 1 x 1 (cm) in the parietal area ➢ Laterated wound measuring 10 x 3 x 1 (cm) in the parieto occipital region 3.21 As regards the history of assault, it is stated in the evidence of Dr. Gopi Saravanan (P.W.33) and in the copy of the Accident Register (Ex.P.36) as follows:“Alleged H/o assault by 5 persons with aruval at 10.10 p.m. Near Oothikulam Bus Stop.”http://www.judis.nic.in 17 3.22 Dr. Gopi Saravanan (P.W.33), in his evidence, has stated that Nikila (P.W.9) was accompanied by a lady Constable and she (P.W.9) told him that she was attacked with an aruval by five persons at 10.10 p.m. near Oothikulam Bus Stop and that he gave her first aid and referred her to the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, for intensive treatment.However, Nikila (P.W.9) was rushed to Meenakshi Mission Hospital, Madurai, a private hospital with the state-of-the art facilities, where, Dr. Muthu (P.W.36) examined her at 12.20 a.m. on 15.11.2012 and noted sutured injuries, since Nikila (P.W.9) was already given first aid at the Government Hospital, Sivagangai.3.23 Dr. Bhagath Singh (P.W.37), Neuro Surgeon of Meenakshi Mission Hospital, Madurai, had the scan of Nikila's (P.W.9's) head portion taken and noted 11 injuries in her head region.Nikila's medical reports were marked as Exs.Dr. Bhagath Singh (P.W.37) issued discharge summary (Ex.P.54).He also issued Wound Certificate (Ex.P.55), where, he has stated that injuries 1 to 5 were simple in nature and injuries 6 to 11 were grievous in nature.3.24 On the order dated 17.11.2012 passed by the Additional Director General of Police, Crime Branch, C.I.D, (Ex.P.80), the case was transferred from the Sivagangai Taluk Police Station to the CB- CID, Madurai, for investigation.Dayalan Tamilselvan (P.W.57), Deputy Superintendent of Police, took over the investigation of the case and started examining the witnesses.He would, hereinafter, be referred to as “the I.O.”.3.25 The following chart will show the date of arrest/surrender of each accused and the property recovered from the accused pursuant to the confession under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and the mahazar (panchanama) for it:http://www.judis.nic.in 19 Accused Date of arrest/surrender/police Seized Object Seizure custody taken/details of Mahazar anticipatory bail granted Arjunan-A1 Arrested on 26.11.2012 Ex.P.8 Nokia Cell Phone (M.O.12) Agniraj -A2 Surrendered on 29.11.2012 before Ex.P.26 Aruval (M.O.21) J.M. Pudukkottai – Custody taken Ex.P.29 Hero Honda bike on 05.12.2012 (M.O.24) Sathyaraj-A3 Surrendered on 29.11.2012 before Ex.P.27 Aruval (M.O.22) J.M. Pudukkottai – Custody taken on 05.12.2012 Palpandi-A4 Surrendered on 04.12.2012 before Ex.P.22 Aruval (M.O.17) J.M. No.II, Sivagangai – Custody Ex.P.24 Hero Honda bike taken during 07.12.2012 to (M.O.19) 10.12.2012 Sivakumar-A5 Surrendered on 07.12.2012 before Ex.P.23 Knife (M.O.18) J.M. No.II, Sivagangai – Custody taken on 10.12.2012 Yoganathan - Surrendered on 29.11.2012 before Ex.P.28 Long size aruval A6 J.M. Pudukottai – Custody taken (M.O.23) during 03.12.2012 to 05.12.2012 Vijayakumar - Arrested on 07.12.2012 at 8 a.m. Ex.P.19 Lorry (M.O.2) A7 Suresh @ Arrested on 26.11.2012 at 9 a.m. Ex.P.12 Aruval (M.O.16) Lenin Kumar A8 Karandhamalai Anticipatory bail granted on -- --3.26 The finger prints of the accused arrested in this case were lifted by Jerry Louis (P.W.59) and were sent to Vijayan (P.W.35) for comparison.After comparing the chance finger prints with the finger prints of the accused, Vijayan (P.W.35) has given his report (Ex.P.47), wherein, he has stated as follows:“The chance print marked as P1 is identical with left thumb finger print of Akkiniraj (30/12), S/o Arjunan (A2) The chance print marked as P5 is identical with right index finger print of Sathiyaraj (25/12), S/o Akkinipandi (A3)http://www.judis.nic.in 21 The remaining chance prints marked as P2, P3, P4, P6, N7 and N8 are not identical with any one of the finger prints of above said sixteen accused.” The photographs and the chance finger prints were marked as Ex.3.27 At this juncture, it may be relevant to recapitulate that Janakiram (P.W.44), Assistant Director, Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, had examined the car (M.O.1) and had the paint flakes taken from it.http://www.judis.nic.in 22 3.28 Accordingly, Hemalatha (P.W.49), Scientific Officer, Tamil Nadu Forensic Science Laboratory, has, in her evidence as well in the report (Ex.P.68), given the following opinion:“The yellow paint streaks on item 1a & item 1b and the yellow paint coatings on the flakes, item 2 and item 4 are similar.Hence, the yellow paint streaks on item 1a and 1b could have come from the lorry TNM 3375 from where the paint flakes items 2 and 4 were reported to have been collected.Items 1a,1b and the unexponded portion of items 2 to 5, packed under this office seal, are returned herewith.” 3.29 Kavitha (P.W.50), Motor Vehicle Inspector, Grade II inspected the car (M.O.1) on 11.12.2012 at the request of the police and gave her report (Ex.P.69), wherein, she has noted as follows:“Front LHS and RHS side view mirror broken Front LHS door moving glass broken Front LHS door moving glass frame broken Rear RHS window fixed glass broken Rear RHS moving glass broken Rear RHS tyre mudguard scratches Front RHS door damage and scratches Rear RHS door damage and stratches Front extra pumber sctraches” 3.30 Likewise, she examined the lorry (M.O.2) and noted as follows in the Inspection Report (Ex.P.70).9) 12 A12 & A19 to Section 212 IPC for harbouring Agniraj A21 (A2), Sathyaraj (A3), Yoganathan (A6), Vijayakumar (A7) and Muthukumar (A13) after the attack 13 A12 & A19 to Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC A21 for abetment.When questioned, the accused pleaded “not guilty”.http://www.judis.nic.in 25 3.33 To prove their case, the prosecution examined 58 witnesses, marked 114 exhibits and 46 material objects.On behalf of the accused, 13 exhibits were marked, however, none was examined.500/-, in default to undergo 1 month R.I.S. 3(1) of the TNPPDL Act 1 year R.I. and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo 1 month R.I.S.302 r/w 149 IPC (3 counts) Life imprisonment for each count and fine of Rs.1,000/-for each count, in default, to undergo 1 month R.I. for each count.P.115 to P.142 were marked.She has further stated that on 14.11.2012, around 9.00 p.m., her husband called her and told her that he is returning to Sivagangai Town.That apart, she has statedhttp://www.judis.nic.in 39 that only from her husband, she knew that the accused were inimical towards him.He (P.W.Our house is situate at Weekly Market Road, Pillaiyar Kovil Street, Sivagangai.My grandfather Ganesan and grandmother Chellammal are residing at Pagainjan Village.One aunt, one elder uncle and 3 younger uncles were born with my father.My mother is working as a Teacher in T.Pudur School, Sivagangai.My father was in the political party of Jayalalitha.On Children's Day in the month of November, my father, the driver, my elder brother Prasanna and I went to Pagainjan Village in our car about 5 p.m. As my mother had more work, she did not come with us.We used to go to Pagainjan Village to celebrate Deepavali.As we could not go at that time, we went there on the next day.We celebrated there bursting crackers and worshipped there and took our food.At that time, four persons hacked my father, who got down from the front seat of the car, with sickle.Kittu uncle, my elder brother and I were sitting in the centre seat.Thereafter, they damaged the glass window of the car.Inasmuch as all the five instant criminal appeals are directed against the judgment dated 29.09.2015 passed by the Sessions Court, Sivagangai in S.C. No.72 of 2013, they are considered and decided by this common judgment.2 The three murders, which are the subject matter of these appeals, appear to have occasioned on account of rivalry between members of two political parties, viz., Communists and AIADMK, as is manifest from the evidence on record.When they attempted to set fire to the car (M.O.1), men in police uniform were sighted and so, while some of the attackers fled the scene in the lorry (M.O.2), some others left the place in motor bikes.3.10 On the complaint (Ex.P.1) lodged by Krishnan (P.W.1), Senthoor Pandian (P.W.52), Special Sub Inspector of Police, Sivagangai Taluk Police Station, registered a case in Cr. No.446 of 2012 at 23.30 hrs.on 14.11.2012 under Sections 147,148,307, 302 and 120-B IPC and Section 3 of the TNPPDL Act against thirty accused and prepared the printed FIR (Ex.P.75), which reached the jurisdictional Magistrate on 15.11.2012 at 6 a.m. 3.11 Shankar (P.W.55), Inspector of Police, took over the investigation and went to the place of occurrence and noticed the following, which find place in the observation mahazar (Ex.P.5) and the photographs (Ex.P.61 series):http://www.judis.nic.in 10 ➢ Damaged car (M.O.1) ➢ Body of Kathiresan (D1) and his son Prasanna (D2) on the road to the right side of the car (M.O.1) ➢ Body of the driver Boominathan (D3) lying on the road on the rear side of the car (M.O.1) ➢ Scratch mark on the right side body of the car (M.O.1) due to grazing over of another vehicle with yellow paint scrappings ➢ a 10 litre while colour plastic can without cap containing around ½ litre petrol near the driver's seat (M.O.4) ➢ a 5 litre white colour plastic can without cap containing about 250 ml.3.18 Requisition was given for post-mortem and Dr.Banugopanar (P.W.34) conducted autopsy on the bodies of the deceased and issued post-mortem certificates, viz., Ex.P.38 qua Boominathan (D3), Ex.P.39 qua Prasanna (D2) and Ex.P.40 qua Kathiresan (D1).3.19 Dr. Banugopanar (P.W.34), in his evidence as well in the post-mortem certificates (Exs.P.38-P.40) found the following injuries:(1) 15 x 10 x 8 (cm) deep crushed lacerated injuries with contused and abraded margins over the right frontal, temporal, parital and occipital region exposing skull bone pieces and extruding brain matterhttp://www.judis.nic.in 14 (2) 3 x 2 x 1 (cm) laceration over right ear lobe (3) 3 x 2 (cm) abrasion over left cheek Internal examination:Head and Neck: Communited fractures due to crush injury bone pieces mixed with brain substances with clotted blood involving Rt temporal parital and occipital bones of skull with intra cranival blood collection about 300 ml.Hyoid bone intact.Thorax and Abdomen: Rib cage intact.Viscera sent for toxicological analysis.Time of death: 12-16 hrs.prior to the commencement of PM Cause of death: Hyporolemic shock and haemorrhage due to deadly injuries sustained by the individual.”b) Ex.P.39 qua Prasanna (D2):“External examination of injuries:(1) 10 x 3 x 4 (cm) laceration over left occipital (2) 6 x 2 x 3 (cm) laceration over occipital region around midline (3) 4 x 3 x 3 (cm) laceration over right occipit (4) 6 x 2 x 1 (cm) laceration over left parietal region (5) 1 x 1 x 1 (cm) laceration below the chin (6) 5 x 1 (cm) abrased contusion linear in shape over left side chest (7) 6 x 1 (cm) linear contusion over left side chest (8) 7 x 1 (cm) linear contusion over right side of chest Internal examination:Head and Neck: Communited fractures over both parietal and occipital bone of skull with blood clots.Lacerated brain substance 6 x 3 x 2 cm with contused margins.Visceras sent for toxicological analysis.Time of death: 12-15 hrs.before commencement of PM Cause of death: Hyporolemic shock and haemorrhage due to deadly head injuries sustained by the individual.”c) Ex.P.38 qua Boominathan (D3):“External examination of injuries:(1) 10 x 7 x 7 (cm) laceration over the left and right parital and occipital region with underlying clotted blood (2) 6 x 2 x 2 (cm) laceration over right temporal regions of scalp (3) 2 x 2 x 1 (cm) laceration behind the left ear in occipital region of scale (4) 3 x 2 x 1 (cm) laceration over right side jaw (5) Contusions 7 x 6 cm over both side of face bilateral periorbital swellings (6) 1 x 1 x 2 (cm) stab injury above left collar bone (7) 1 x 1 x 1 (cm) stab wound above right collar bone (8) 1 x 1 x 1 (cm) stab wound above right collar bone lateral to (No.7) wound (9) 5 x 3 x 2 (cm) laceration and 2 x 1 x 1 cm lacerations over back of right hand.All erderiorities on external examination intact.Internal examination:Head & Neck: Communited fractures over both parital, temporal and occipital bones with clotted blood.Lacerated brain substance with confused margins of both temporal, parital and occipital regions with intra cranial blood and blood clots about 150 ml seen.Hyoid bone intact.Viscera sent for toxicological analysis.This was sent through the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sivagangai to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory vide letter dated 18.01.2013 (Ex.P.67).After the arrest of Vijayakumar (A7), pursuant to his disclosure, the lorry (M.O.2) was seized on 07.12.2012 by the police and was examined by Janakiram (P.W.44) on the same day.Janakiram (P.W.44) took the paint flakes from the lorry (M.O.2) and the same were sent through the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sivagangai, to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory vide letter dated 26.03.2013 (Ex.P.66) with a request to compare, examine and analyse the paint flakes taken from the car (M.O.1) and the lorry (M.O.2) and send a report.3.31 After examining the witnesses and collecting various reports, the I.O. (P.W.57) completed the investigation and filed final report in P.R.C. No.3 of 2013 before the Judicial Magistate No.II, Sivagangai against 21 accused.Since the CB-CID had deleted the names of many of the accused named by Krishnan (P.W.1) in the complaint and whose names figured in the FIR, notice was issued to Krishnan (P.W.1) for his objections, if any.Krishnan (P.W.1) did not file any protest application, however, filed a memo (Ex.D.10) stating that he has no objection in the deletion of some of the accused in the charge sheet.3.32 After the appearance of the accused, the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. were complied with and the case was committed to the Court of Session in S.C. No.72 of 2013 for trial.The Court of Session framed the following charges:When the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. about the incriminating circumstances appearing against them, they denied the same.3.34 After considering the evidence on record and hearing either side, the Trial Court, by judgment dated 29.09.2015, acquitted A12 to A21 of all the charges, however, convicted and sentenced A1 to A11 as follows:Provision of law under which Name of the accused Sentence convicted Arjunan (A1) S.147 IPC 1 year R.I. and fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo 1 month R.I.S.3(1) of the TNPPDL Act 1 year R.I. and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo 1 month R.I.S.302 r/w 149 IPC (3 counts) Life imprisonment for each count and fine of Rs.1,000/-for each count, in default, to undergo 1 month R.I. for each count.S.302 r/w 149 IPC (3 counts) Life imprisonment for each count and fine of Rs.1,000/-for each count, in default, to undergo 1 month R.I. for each count.Vijayakumar (A7) S. 148 IPC 2 years R.I. and fine of Rs.S.302 r/w 149 IPC (3 counts) Life imprisonment for each count and fine of Rs.1,000/-S.302 r/w 149 IPC (3 counts) Life imprisonment for each count and fine of Rs.1,000/-S.302 r/w 149 IPC (3 counts) Life imprisonment for each count and fine of Rs.1,000/-S.302 r/w 149 IPC (3 counts) Life imprisonment for each count and fine of Rs.1,000/-3.35 Assailing the aforesaid judgment dated 29.09.2015 passed by the Trial Court, the instant criminal appeals have been filed as tabulated hereunder:http://www.judis.nic.in 31 Crl. A. (MD) Appellant(s) Prayer No.290 of 2015 Agniraj (A2) Challenging their conviction and Sathyaraj (A3) sentence Paulpandi (A4) Challenging his conviction and 291 of 2015 Yoganathan (A6) sentence Arjunan (A1) Sivakumar (A5) Vijayakumar (A7) Challenging their conviction and 292 of 2015 Suresh @ Leninkumar (A8) sentence Karanthamalai (A9) Ganesan (A10) Jeyakumar (A11) Krishnan Challenging the acquittal of A12 230 of 2016 (P.W.1/de facto complainant) to A21 Challenging the acquittal of A12 242 of 2016 State to A21 4 During the hearing of these appeals, this Court observed that some additional evidence were required to be taken in this case under Section 391 Cr.P.C. and accordingly, P.W.59 to P.W.65 were examined and Exs.The finger prints taken by him, along with opinion sheet, photographs and report were marked as Exs.6 P.W.60 to P.W.65 were witnesses who were examined to show the reason for deleting Premkumar, Chandran, Murugan, Muthupandian and Kalyana Sundaram respectively from the final report.Aravind (P.W.65) was examined to say that he collected the call data records from the mobile service providers concerned.The accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with regard to the evidence of P.W.59 to P.W.65 and they denied the same.7 The prosecution have proved beyond reasonable doubt that a murderous assault took place on 14.11.2012 between 9.00 p.m. and 9.30 p.m. on the Sivagangai – Ilayangudi Main Road near Oothikulam, in which, Kathiresan (D1), Prasanna (D2) and Boominathan (D3) were murdered on the spot and Nikila (P.W.9) suffered a murderous assault, but, providentially survived.http://www.judis.nic.in 33 8 The question is whether A1 to A11 are the perpetrators of the crime.In a case based on direct evidence, motive pales into insignificance.However, the prosecution have alleged certain motive against the accused, which requires to be considered at the outset.9 It is the case of the prosecution that Arjunan (A1) was a member of the Communist Party and he and his father were holding the post of President of Periakannoor Panchayat Board continuously until their family lost in the Panchayat elections to Sathya, wife of Krishnan (P.W.1) and the sister-in-law of Kathiresan (D1).After the loss, Arjunan (A1) and his group members were continuously creating troubles for the newly elected President and there were several skirmishes between them.To prove this fact, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of Krishnan (P.W.1), his brother Ramesh (P.W.11), Prema (P.W.12-wife of Kathiresan-D1) and Sekar (P.W.19), Vice President of the Panchayat Board.The aforesaid witnesses have stated that Arjunan's (A1's) family were continuously holding the post of Panchayat Board President for about four decades and Arjunan's (A1's) wife Kanakavalli was defeated by Krishnan's (P.W.1's) wife Sathya in the 2011 Panchayat elections.http://www.judis.nic.in 34 10 Krishnan (P.W.1) has stated that Arjunan (A1) and his group were preventing his wife from carrying out any developmental work in the village; in the year 2012, one day prior to Pongal festival, the accused assaulted one Chandran of Periakannoor, who had worked for the victory of his wife Sathya in the elections, in connection with which, a case was registered in Kaalayarkovil Police Station; five months thereafter, there was a function in the Government school at Periakannoor, in which, Arjunan (A1), Selvam (A15), Vijayakumar (A7), Sathyaraj (A3), Yoganathan (A6) and Kanakaraj (A14) came there armed with weapons to attack his wife and in this connection, a case was registered against them in Kaalayarkovil Police Station; on the next day, two persons, viz., Muthukumar and Balaji belonging to his camp were attacked by Sathyaraj (A3) and Sivakumar (A5), in connection with which, a police case was registered; a computer was found missing from the Panchayat school and a mike set was also found missing from the local temple, in connection with which, a complaint was given to the Kaalayarkovil Police Station; Sathyaraj (A3) and Yoganathan (A6) were working under a Panchayat contractor by name Jayakumar as Operator and Supervisor, respectively, of the pumping station; they both were removed because there were lot of complaints against them from the public.http://www.judis.nic.in 35 11 Sekar (P.W.19) has stated that he is an AIADMK functionary and in the year 2012, his wife took the contract for the maintenance of the Periakannoor Pumping Station falling within the Panchayat and since there were several complaints against Sathyaraj (A3) and Yoganathan (A6) who were working as Operator and Supervisor respectively under the erstwhile contractor Jayakumar, they were axed.12 The learned counsel for the accused had extensively cross- examined Krishnan (P.W.1) on the aspect of motive.They have not denied that Arjunan (A1) belonged to the Communist Party.In fact, in the cross-examination, it has been suggested that there was a communal clash between the uppercaste, to which Krishnan (P.W.1) belongs and Dalits, for which cause, Arjunan (A1), though a caste Hindu, but, being a member of the Communist Party, had gone in support of the Dalits.It is also on record that Arjunan (A1) is also a relative of Krishnan (P.W.1) and not a stranger.The defence have also not denied the fact that Arjunan's (A1's) father was the President of the Panchayat Board for a long time, following which, Arjunan (A1) became the President and his wife succeeded him, until she was defeated in the 2011 Panchayat elections.http://www.judis.nic.in 36 13 The learned Senior Counsel for the accused contended that the Panchayat elections are not fought on party lines and therefore, the motive alleged that there were disputes between AIADMK and Community Party stands negated.But, we cannot ignore the fact that party politics plays a pivotal role in Panchayat elections, though candidates will not contest on official symbols of recognised political parties.The accused have not denied the fact that Arjunan's (A1's) wife lost to Krishnan's (P.W.1's) wife nor have they denied the fact that Kathiresan (D1) was the Secretary of AIADMK Youth Wing of Sivagangai District.14 As regards the incident that took place in the Panchayat school, the defence have suggested to Krishnan (P.W.1) that Arjunan (A1) came for the meeting and a quarrel ensued, in which, Arjunan (A1) was assaulted by Krishnan's (P.W.1's) group, in connection with which, a case was registered against Krishnan (P.W.1) and his wife in Kaalayarkovil Police Station.Krishnan (P.W.1) has accepted this.The defence contended that the complaint given by Krishnan (P.W.1) against Arjunan (A1) was closed by the police and the complaint given by Arjunan against Krishnan (P.W.1) and his wife had culminated in ahttp://www.judis.nic.in 37 prosecution, which is pending.This only confirms that there was vicious enmity between Krishnan's (P.W.1's) group and Arjunan's (A1's) group and therefore, it cannot be stated that Arjunan's (A1's) group did not have any motive against Krishnan's (P.W.1's) group.15 The learned Senior Counsel for the accused further contended that the evidence on record shows that the motive was primarily against the wife of Krishnan (P.W.1) and therefore, there is no reason for the accused to attack Krishnan's (P.W.1's) brother Kathiresan (D1).The evidence on record shows that Kathiresan (D1) was a prominent AIADMK functionary in the district, inasmuch as, he was the Secretary of the Youth Wing of the party and in the Panchayat elections, he had worked hard for the success of Sathya, his sister-in- law, who was competing against the wife of Arjunan (A1).Though Panchayat elections are not officially conducted on political lines, yet, it is common knowledge that mainstream politicians will field their womenfolk in such elections and ensure that they emerge victorious.The evidence on record establishes that there was vicious enmity between Arjunan (A1) group and Kathiresan (D1) group, post the 2011 Panchayat elections.http://www.judis.nic.in 38 Presence of Krishnan (P.W.1) along with Kathiresan (D1) at the time of occurrence:16 It is the case of the prosecution that Krishnan (P.W.1) also travelled along with his brother Kathiresan (D1) from their native village to Sivagangai Town on the fateful day, which has been strongly refuted by the defence.The learned Senior Counsel for the defence contended that Krishnan (P.W.1) was not there at the time of occurrence and that he was planted there subsequently.17 13.11.2012 was a Deepavali day.It is the case of the prosecution that on 14.11.2012, Kathiresan (D1) came with his family members sans his wife Prema (P.W.12), to his native village and after having dinner there, he was returning to Sivagangai Town by car (M.O.1).Prema (P.W.12), in her evidence, has stated that on 13.11.2012, they were not able to go to the village and hence, on 14.11.2012, her husband and her two children went by car (M.O.1) driven by Boominathan (D3).She has further stated that as she had to go to school, she did not accompany them.Concededly, Prema (P.W.12) was working as a school teacher in Sivagangai.In the cross-examination, she has stated that she has been working as a teacher for about 22 years and knows very less about politics, despite which, the accused have cross-examined her elaborately and asked her about her husband's friendship with Ministers.18 Krishnan (P.W.1) and Nikila (P.W.9) have stated in their evidence that Kathiresan (D1) came to his native village with his two children on 14.11.2012 and after having dinner, he (P.W.1) also joined them in their return journey to Sivagangai Town by the same car.Ramesh (P.W.11) has corroborated this evidence and has stated that Krishnan (P.W.1) also joined them.The presence of Krishnan (P.W.1) at the scene of occurrence at and around that time has been spoken to by Lourdu Prabhu (P.W.2), the eyewitness and Elango (P.W.3), Senthilvel (P.W.4), Arogyaprabhu (P.W.6) and Selvaraj (P.W.7), who are all witnesses, who came to the place of occurrence shortly after the attack.19 For the present, we may keep the evidence of Krishnan (P.W.1), Lourdu Prabhu (P.W.2), Nikila (P.W.9) and Ramesh (P.W.11)http://www.judis.nic.in 40 in the back burner and analyse the evidence of Elango (P.W.3), Senthilvel (P.W.4), Arogyaprabhu (P.W.6) and Selvaraj (P.W.7).20 Elango (P.W.3) has stated in his evidence that he is working as Head Constable, Grade-I in Ilayangudi Police Station; on 14.11.2012, he, along with Dharmendran, Police Constable 666 (not examined) produced an accused who was arrested, in Ilayangudi P.S.Cr.No.529 of 2012 before the Judicial Magistrate, Devakottai, who was in charge of the Ilayangudi Court, between 2.30 p.m. and 2.45 p.m.; the Magistrate remanded the accused and the accused was lodged in the Sub Jail at Sivagangai around 8.30 p.m. and 8.45 p.m.; thereafter, they came to the bus stop for taking a bus to Ilayangudi, but, did not get any bus; at that time, they saw a Tata Magic van going towards Ilayangudi and hence, requested the driver (P.W.6) to give them lift upto Ilayangudi; the driver (P.W.6) obliged and they were proceeding towards Ilayangudi; around 9.40 p.m., when they were near Oothikulam, he saw a Scorpio car parked on the right extreme margin and a lorry parked on the left extreme margin on the opposite side; since they thought that it was an accident, the driver of their vehicle slowed down; at that time, a person with a stick came near their vehicle and asked them to move without stopping;http://www.judis.nic.in 41 therefore, the driver of the TATA Magic van (P.W.6) did not stop and proceeded a little further; however, they asked the driver to stop the vehicle and decided to go back to see what it was all about; hence, the duo, Elango (P.W.3) and Dharmendran (not examined), went near the car (M.O.1) and on seeing them in police uniform, the assailants who were there, went away in the lorry (M.O.2) and by four motor bikes; on going near the car (M.O.1), they found three dead bodies around the car (M.O.1); within a short time, a person came running to the place and started wailing on seeing the three dead bodies and told them that the deceased were his brother, his nephew and their driver.Elango (P.W.3) has further stated that he informed the Deputy Superintendent of Police about the incident; they stopped a Maruti car, which was passing by at that time and asked the occupants in that car to inform the ambulance; while all this was happening, within five minutes, a B.L.S. Private bus came on the same road from Ilayangudi, from which, five Police Constables who were travelling, got down and joined him; soon thereafter, more police reinforcements reached the spot.http://www.judis.nic.in 42 21 Arogyaprabhu (P.W.6), in his evidence, has stated that he is the driver of Tata Magic van; on 14.11.2012, around 9.00 p.m. to 9.15 p.m., while he was proceeding towards Sathamangalam, two Constables stopped his vehicle near Ambedkar statue in Sivagangai and asked for lift saying that they will get down en route; they got into his van and around 9.45 p.m., when his van reached Oothikulam, he saw a car on the right side of the road and a lorry on the left side of the road and thought that an accident had taken place; he saw three dead bodies around the car and a man wearing a white shirt weeping.22 Selvaraj (P.W.7), has, in his evidence, stated that he is the Conductor of B.L.S. Bus Service and on 14.11.2012, the bus was proceeding from Sooraanam towards Sivagangai on its last trip for the day and around 9.50 p.m., near Nedungulam, he saw a damaged car and thought that an accident had taken place; there were twelve passengers on board, of which, five were policemen, who boarded at Ilayangudi and were going towards Sivagangai; out of curiosity, he stopped the bus and got down along with five Police Constables who were travelling in the bus and found three dead bodies around the car and a man sitting and wailing; thereafter, he took the bus and proceeded further on the journey.http://www.judis.nic.in 43 23 Senthilvel (P.W.4), Police Constable, Grade-I, attached to Armed Reserve, has stated that on 14.11.2012, he was posted on bandobust duty at the office of the Thasildar, Ilayangudi and after that, he came to Ilayangudi Police Station and reported to the Deputy Superintendent of Police and on his orders, he was returning to his battalion in Sivagangai by B.L.S. Bus Service; along with him, there were five other Constables attached to the Armed Reserve, viz., Rajamani, Anbarasu, Tamilarasan, Anbuselvan and Saravanan; when the bus crossed Nedungulam and reached Oothikulam, the driver stopped the bus on seeing a car parked on the left side; he (P.W.4) and the other Constables alighted and saw a Scorpio car parked in the left margin of the road with three dead bodies around it and a girl weeping near a dead boy; he also saw a man sitting there and weeping.24 The learned Senior Counsel for the accused contended that there are discrepancies in the evidence of these four witnesses, viz., Elango (P.W.3), Senthilvel (P.W.4), Arogyaprabhu (P.W.6) and Selvaraj (P.W.7), inasmuch as Ilango (P.W.3) has stated in his evidence that when the Tata Magic van slowed down near the place ofhttp://www.judis.nic.in 44 occurrence, a person with a stick asked the driver to move away, whereas, Arogyaprabhu (P.W.6) has, in his evidence, stated that two persons who were standing there, asked him to keep moving.In our opinion, this cannot be termed as a serious discrepancy at all.The general tenor of the evidence of Elango (P.W.3) and Arogyaprabhu (P.W.6) is that Elango (P.W.3) and the other Constable asked for lift around 9.00 p.m. from the Ambedkar statue at Sivagangai and Arogyaprabhu (P.W.6) obliged them.When the van of Arogyaprabhu (P.W.6) neared the place of occurrence, a damaged Scorpio car was seen and naturally, out of curiosity, the van slowed down.According to Elango (P.W.3), one person with a stick asked them to move away, but, according to Arogyaprabhu (P.W.6), two persons asked them to keep moving.Perhaps, Elango (P.W.3) had noticed only one person and Arogyaprabhu (P.W.6) had noticed two persons.But, the fact remains that the Tata Magic van did not stop there itself, but, proceeded a little away and on the instructions of Elango (P.W.3) and Dharmendran (not examined), Arogyaprabhu (P.W.6) stopped the van and Elango (P.W.3) and the other Constable walked near the car (M.O.1).Naturally, on seeing the policemen in uniform, the accused would have taken to their heels.Had Elango (P.W.3) and Arogyaprabhu (P.W.6) been planted by the police, they would have been made tohttp://www.judis.nic.in 45 identify the accused themselves.But, they had not identified the accused.Elango (P.W.3) and Arogyaprabhu (P.W.6) stayed at the spot until the police reached there after receiving information and therefore, the I.O. would have had no difficulty in knowing about them.Similarly, Selvaraj (P.W.7), Conductor of B.L.S. Bus and Armed Reserve Constable Senthilvel (P.W.4) who travelled in the bus, also came to the place of occurrence en route from Ilayangudi to Sivagangai side.Thinking that an accident had taken place, the bus stopped and six Constables got down from the bus and found three dead bodies and a man weeping.The Constables also remained in the place.Shankar (P.W.55), Inspector of Police (the first I.O.) has stated that when he came to the place of occurrence, Elango (P.W.3), Dharmendran, Constable 666 (not examined), Senthilvel (P.W.4), Armed Reserve Constable, Arogyaprabhu (P.W.6) and the other four Constables who travelled by B.L.S. Bus with Senthilvel (P.W.4), werehttp://www.judis.nic.in 46 there.He has recorded all their statements even before the CB-CID took up the investigation.The contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the accused that only one Constable was examined and the other five Constables who travelled in B.L.S. Bus were not examined and therefore, the evidence of Senthilvel (P.W.4) and Selvaraj (P.W.7) is not worthy of acceptance, cannot be countenanced.Evidence has to be weighed and not counted, and proof of a “fact' is dependent on the quality and not the quantity of witnesses.26 The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the accused contended that Senthilvel (P.W.4) did not speak about the presence of Elango (P.W.3) in the place of occurrence.In our opinion, Elango (P.W.3) was a regular Law and Order Constable, who was attached to Ilayangudi Police Station, whereas, Senthilvel (P.W.4) was attached to Armed Reserve battalion of Sivagangai.However, Elango (P.W.3) has stated in his evidence that after he had come to the spot, a B.L.S. bus came from Ilayangudi side, from which, five Constables alighted.It must be noted that Elango (P.W.3), Senthilvel (P.W.4), Arogyaprabhu (P.W.6) and Selvaraj (P.W.7) have not named any accused nor given the name of Krishnan (P.W.1), because, they did not know either the accused or Krishnan (P.W.1) earlier.They have only stated about thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 47 presence of three dead bodies around the car (M.O.1) and a man wailing saying that his brother and his brother's son had been killed.27 From a reading of the evidence of Elango (P.W.3) and Arogyaprabhu (P.W.6), it is seen that they were passing through that road at the time of occurrence and on seeing Elango (P.W.3) and Dharmendran (not examined), who were in police uniform, the attackers fled; within a very short time, after Elango (P.W.3) and Arogyaprabhu (P.W.6) went near the car (M.O.1) and found three dead bodies, one person came there and started wailing after seeing the three dead bodies and the injured girl.As observed, that person is obviously Krishnan (P.W.1), for, unless he had accompanied the deceased and had fled on the commencement of the attack and hid himself nearby, he could not have come to the place of occurrence in such a short time.It will be ludicrous to infer that he was clairvoyant and anticipating the attack, he descended at the place of occurrence from out of the blue.Therefore, the man identified by Elango (P.W.3) and Arogyaprabhu (P.W.6) is obviously Krishnan (P.W.1) and none else.To recapitulate, Elango (P.W.3) and Arogyaprabhu (P.w.6) were the first to come near the car (M.O.1).It may be worthwhile to extract Elango's (P.W.3's) evidence on what he saw:http://www.judis.nic.in 48 “....We went and saw.There were one person clad in shirt and dhoti and another person clad in shirt and pant with cut injuries on the right side of the Scorpio car.A young boy with cut injuries was found on the left side of the car and near the canal.A person came from the left side of the Scorpio car.On seeing him crying, we asked him for the details, for which, he said that the deceased were his brother, driver and his brother's son.A whispering sound was heard near the left side of the Scorpio car.The person who came there took that child and was weeping.We came to know about the incident through him....” The aforesaid statements are res gestae evidence relevant under Section 6 of the Evidence28 It is Krishnan's (P.W.1's) case that on seeing the accused attacking, he took to his heels and came back from the hideout only after the attackers left.This can be called as the natural conduct of a man who is under siege by a gang with lethal weapons and who had just then witnessed the death of his brother and nephew, besides his brother's driver, by the fatal blows caused by the said gang.Therefore, albeit the evidence of Krishnan (P.W.1), Lourdu Prabhu (P.W.2) and Nikila (P.W.9), the prosecution have satisfactorily proved through the evidence of Elango (P.W.3), Senthilvel (P.W.4), Arogyaprabhu (P.W.6) and Selvaraj (P.W.7), who are all not interested witnesses, but chance witnesses, that contemporaneously, Krishnan (P.W.1) came to the place of occurrence and started wailing on seeing the dead bodies of his brother, Kathiresan (D1), his nephew Prasannahttp://www.judis.nic.in 49 (D2), driver Boominathan (D3) and his brutally attacked niece, Nikila (P.W.9).Thus, through the evidence of Krishnan (P.W.1), Lourdu Prabhu (P.W.2), Elango (P.W.3), Senthilvel (P.W.4), Arogyaprabhu (P.W.6), Selvaraj (P.W.7) and Nikila (P.W.9), the prosecution have established beyond doubt that Krishnan (P.W.1) accompanied the deceased in the car (M.O.1) and was available when the attack began.Evidence of Krishnan (P.W.1):29 Much argument was advanced before this Court by the defence to persuade this Court to disbelieve the evidence of Krishnan (P.W.1).The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the accused contended that in the complaint (Ex.P.1) given by Krishnan (P.W.1), he has totally named 28 persons, who had got down from the lorry and had come in three motor bikes and had mounted the attack with deadly weapons; however, after the CB-CID took over the investigation, they filed a closure report with regard to 15 persons named in the FIR and further, in the final report, they have indicted only A1 to A11 as the persons who had mounted the attack; that apart, Krishnan (P.W.1) has accepted the final report by saying that he has no objection in the deletion of the fifteen names vide Ex.The learned Senior Counsel further contended that in the complainthttp://www.judis.nic.in 50 (Ex.P.1), Krishnan (P.W.1) has implicated Suresh @ Lenin Kumar (A8) as the person who had attacked Kathiresan (D1) and had not named the persons who had attacked Prasanna (D2), Boominathan (D3) and Nikila (P.W.9), whereas, in the evidence before the Court, he has given the overt acts of each of the accused and therefore, his evidence is not worthy of credence.30 The learned Senior Counsel for the defence further contended that the FIR in this case had reached the Magistrate very late.Krishnan (P.W.1) has stated that after the incident, he was in such a state of fear and shock that he was not even able to write the complaint; therefore, on his narration, his friend Nixon Anand (P.W.15) wrote the complaint (Ex.P.1) and gave it to the police.Nixon Anand (P.W.15), in his evidence, has stated that the news about the death of Kathiresan (D1) reached the village and he informed the same to Thangapandi, the local Councillor, who is an advocate as well and together, they went to the place of occurrence.Nixon Anand (P.W.15) has further stated that he went along with Krishnan (P.W.1), Thangapandian and Anbumani to the Taluk Police Station, where, he wrote the complaint since Krishnan (P.W.1) was in a state of shock.http://www.judis.nic.in 51 31 The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants took this Court through the cross-examination of Nixon Anand (P.W.15) and the evidence of Senthoor Pandian (P.W.52), Special Sub Inspector of Police, who registered the FIR and pointed out certain discrepancies.They submitted that Senthoor Pandian (P.W.52) received information about the offence at 9.45 p.m. and he came to the place of occurrence and saw the three dead bodies, Krishnan (P.W.1), two Constables, viz., Elango (P.W.3) and Dharmendran (not examined) and when he asked Krishnan (P.W.1), he (P.W.1) told him (P.W.52) that Arjunan's (A1's) group had attacked the deceased and had even attempted to set them on fire; Senthoor Pandian (P.W.52) also saw the kerosene can near the bodies of the deceased; he informed his superior officers who also rushed to the place of occurrence; his superior officers instructed him to register the case on the complaint given by Krishnan (P.W.1); therefore, he went to the police station and thereafter, Krishnan (P.W.1) came to the police station at 11.30 p.m. and gave the complaint (Ex.P.1); but, in the cross-examination, Nixon Anand (P.W.15) has stated that when he went along with Krishnan (P.W.1) to the police station, the Sub Inspector was there and he asked them as to why they had come, for which, he stated that they had come for giving a complaint; they took a paper from the Sub Inspector andhttp://www.judis.nic.in 52 wrote the complaint and gave it to him.He has not stated the name of the Sub-Inspector who spoke to him.32 In matters of appreciation of evidence, particularly in a case of this nature, it is necessary to restate the line of enquiry that must be pursued by this Court.(See Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab [AIR 1956 SC 460 : 1956 Cri LJ 827] .) The doctrine is a dangerous one, especially in India for if a whole body of the testimony were to be rejected, because a witness was evidently speaking an untruth in some aspect, it is to be feared that administration of criminal justice would come to a dead stop.Witnesses just cannot help in giving embroidery to a story, however true in the main.Therefore, it has to be appraised in each case as to what extent the evidence is worthy of acceptance, and merely because in some respects the court considers the same to be insufficient for placing reliance on the testimony of a witness, it does not necessarily follow as a matter of law that it must be disregarded in all respects as well.The evidence has to be sifted with care.The aforesaid dictum is not a sound rule for the reason that one hardly comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain a grain of untruth or at any rate exaggeration, embroideries or embellishment.(See Sohrab v. State of M.P. [(1972) 3 SCC 751 : 1972 SCC (Cri) 819] and Ugar Ahir v. State of Bihar [AIR 1965 SC 277 : (1965) 1 Cri LJ 256] .)” 36 Krishnan (P.W.1), in his evidence, has stated about the previous motive and coming to the incident on 14.11.2012, he has stated that he joined his brother to go to Sivagangai Town and while they were proceeding in the car (M.O.1), a lorry (M.O.2) came in the opposite side near Oothikulam area and tried to collide head on; the driver managed to avert the collision, despite which, the lorry (M.O.2) grazed through the body of the car (M.O.1); so, Boominathan (D3) stopped the car (M.O.1) in the left margin and Kathiresan (D1), whohttp://www.judis.nic.in 58 was seated in the front seat near Boominathan (D3), got down from the car (M.O.1); at that time, Kathiresan (D1) asked Boominathan (D3) to put on all the car lights, perhaps, with an intent to assess the damage which the car (M.O.1) had been subjected to; immediately thereafter, from the lorry (M.O.2), Vijayakumar (A7) jumped down from the driver's seat with a can and along with him, Sivakumar (A5), Suresh @ Lenin Kumar (A8), Jayakumar (A11), Kanakaraj (A14), Rajamani (A16) and Madanagopal (A18) also jumped with weapons and simultaneously, four motor bikes came there, in which, Arjunan (A1), Agniraj (A2), Sathyaraj (A3), Palpandi (A4), Yoganathan (A6), Karandhamalai (A9), Ganesan (A10), Muthukumar (A13) and Bose (A17) landed there; Arjunan (A1) exhorted his group to attack, in pursuance of which, Suresh @ Lenin Kumar (A8) started breaking the glass panes of the car (M.O.1); Agniraj (A2) also broke the glass panes of the car (M.O.1) with an aruval and started attacking Kathiresan (D1) indiscriminately; he (P.W.1) opened the car door and ran for cover; he heard Sathyaraj (A3) saying that none in their family should be spared; he (P.W.1) ran and hid himself in a nearby bush and witnessed the occurrence.He has further stated that he saw Sathyaraj (A3) also attacking Prasanna (D2), Palpandi (A4) and Sivakumar (A5) attacking Boominathan (D3) and Yoganathan (A6)http://www.judis.nic.in 59 attacking Nikila (P.W.9).He has also stated that the other accused also joined the attack.37 The evidence of Krishnan (P.W.1) has been generally corroborated by Lourdu Prabhu (P.W.2), who, in his evidence, has stated that he hails from Veeramangalam Village and knows both Krishnan (P.W.1) and the accused; he (P.W.2) and his friend Abdul Rahman (not examined) were proceeding to Sivagangai by motorbike from Veeramangalam and en route, around 9.30 p.m., while they were near Oothikulam, they saw Kathiresan's (D1's) car being grazed through by a lorry coming on the opposite side and thereafter, he saw Vijayakumar (A7) jumping from the driver's seat of the lorry with a can and proceeding towards the car; along with Vijayakumar (A7), he (P.W.2) also saw Suresh @ Lenin Kumar (A8) and Jayakumar (A11) getting down from the lorry with weapons; at the same time, four motor bikes came, in which, Arjunan (A1), Agniraj (A2), Sathyaraj (A3), Yoganathan (A6), Karandhamalai (A9), Ganesan (A10), Palpandi (A4), Sivakumar (A5) and others came there; at that time, the lights, both inside and outside the car, were on; he (P.W.2) hid himself behind a tree and saw the incident; he saw Suresh @ Lenin Kumar (A8) and Agniraj (A2) breaking the glass panes of the car; whenhttp://www.judis.nic.in 60 Kathiresan (D1) alighted from the car, Agniraj (A2) and Sathyaraj (A3) attacked him with knives and Sivakumar (A5) attacked Boominathan (D3); he also saw Krishnan (P.W.1) running from out of the car.He has further stated that the gang pulled out Nikila (P.W.9) and Yoganathan (A6) attacked her on her head with a knife; Sathyaraj (A3) and Vijayakumar (A7) poured kerosene around the car and at that time, a Tata Magic van was coming from Sivagangai and Suresh @ Lenin Kumar (A8) and Karandhamalai (A9) asked the driver of the van to keep moving; however, the van stopped a little away and from there, two policemen came; on seeing them, the group fled in their motor bikes and lorry (M.O.2).It is pertinent to point out that in the chief-examination itself, Lourdu Prabhu (P.W.2) has stated that after seeing the gory incident, he got scared and was worried about his own safety and so, he did not tell anyone and he went to Coimbatore; after the arrest of the principal accused, he came to the village on 24.12.2012 for Christmas and after hearing the sermon in the church, he decided to appear before the police and tell them everything.38 The learned Senior Counsel for the defence vehemently attacked the evidence of Lourdu Prabhu (P.W.2) by contending that when he was so close to the family of Krishnan (P.W.1), his conduct inhttp://www.judis.nic.in 61 telling the police as to what he had seen, only on 26.12.2012, i.e., nearly after a month and a half from the date of the incident, appears improbable and unbelievable.Some start shouting for help.Onehttp://www.judis.nic.in 64 Boominathan was the driver of the said car.Thereafter, about 9 p.m., my father, Kittu uncle, driver, my elder brother and I came to Sivagangai in the same car.When we were coming, the vehicle got shaken and stopped.There was a yellow colour lorry on the right side.Then, they hacked the driver.They hacked my brother.They hacked me also.I do not know the names of the persons who hacked us.The witness identifies Chellam, Kanagaraj, Ganesh, Muthukumar and Palpandi, who are standing 2, 3, 5 and last on the row from the left side and 3rd from last.I was unconscious and when I regained consciousness, I was undergoing treatment at Meenakshi Hospital, Madurai.When I regained consciousness after I was hacked, Kittu uncle who accompanied us, was found missing.My grandfather, my mother and uncle were with me in the hospital.After the treatment, we came to the house.On the next day, after we came from the hospital to the house, police came to our house and asked for details.I have told them all the details.My father, driver and my elder brother have gone to see God.” 42 The contradictions in the Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of Nikila (P.W.9) were put to her, but, she has really not understood much about it.She was asked whether she wore new clothes for Deepavali, for which, she has stated that she did not.She was asked whether she had non-vegetarian food and she has stated in the affirmative.She has further stated that after they started from her grandpa's house, she fell asleep.http://www.judis.nic.in 65 43 Much argument was advanced at the Bar on the aforesaid answer given by Nikila (P.W.9) by contending that when Nikila (P.W.9) had fallen asleep, she could not have witnessed the occurrence at all.One must approach the evidence of Nikila (P.W.9) without abandoning common sense.It is true that even as per her own evidence, Nikila (P.W.9) had fallen asleep after getting into the car (M.O.1).But, in the impact of the lorry (M.O.2) grazing through the car (M.O.1), save and except Kumbakarna anybody would have woken up from slumber and it is pertinent to point out that the lorry (M.O.2) had grazed through the car (M.O.1) on its (M.O.1's) right side, where, Nikila (P.W.9) was seated.Even assuming for a moment that Nikila (P.W.9) did not wake up even after the car (M.O.1) being grazed through by the lorry (M.O.1), to think that she would have been dozing off even when the car (M.O.1) was being physically attacked, one has to be a moron in intelligence.In fact, she has clearly stated “When we were coming, the vehicle got shaken and stopped”.Had her evidence been recorded as is done in POCSO Act cases, with the help of experts from the Child Welfare Committee, more information about the accused would have come.The child had innocently pointed out at Palpandi (A4), Ganesan (A10), Muthukumar (A13), Kanakaraj (A14) and Selvam (A15) as the persons who attacked her.Had she been tutored, she would havehttp://www.judis.nic.in 66 implicated all the accused as the persons whom she found at the place of occurrence.The child has been made to go near the 21 accused standing in the dock without even a screen being placed between her and the accused as is done in the POCSO Act cases and was asked to identify the accused.Therefore, we have no reasons to disbelieve the evidence of Nikila (P.W.9) qua Palpandi (A4), Ganesan (A10) and Muthukumar (A13).In the ultimate analysis, having anxiously perused the evidence of Nikila (P.W.9), we find her testimony to be natural and commends our acceptance.44 The learned Senior Counsel for the defence contended that there is no proper evidence to show as to who had called the 108 ambulance and who had carried Nikila (P.W.9) to the hospital.He also contended that during investigation, the police have recorded the statement of Palpandi S/o Karuppiah Thevar in order to prove the fact that he had called the 108 ambulance, but, the said Palpandi was not examined.It is pertinent to point out that a very strange procedure has been adopted before the Trial Court by marking the Section 161 (3) Cr.P.C. statement of Palpandi as Ex.D.6 through Shankar (P.W.55), the first Investigating Officer.The fact remains that immediately after the incident, police reinforcements were rushed to the place, ambulance was pressed into service and Nikila (P.W.9) was rushed to the Government Hospital, Sivagangai, where, Dr. Gopi Saravanan (P.W.33) examined her at 10.50 p.m. on 14.11.2012, as could be seen from his evidence as well the Accident Register copy (Ex.P.36).She was conscious, but, drowsy.Even to the doctor, she has stated that she was assaulted by five persons near Oothikulam Bus Stop.Thankfully, the defence had not ventured to make an outrageous suggestion to the child that she had inflicted the injuries on herself and got admitted to the hospital! Therefore, we find no good reason to disbelieve the evidence of Nikila (P.W.9).A gang of ten known persons armed with lathis and knives, with whom “A” and “B” share enmity, come towards them.Though Nikila (P.W.One cannot expect an accused to be a simpleton to use a vehicle with pucca records for the commission of an offence.The fact that the chassis number and the registration number of the lorry (M.O.2) are varying vis-a-vis the R.C. Book is itself a powerful circumstance to show that the lorry (M.O.2)has been procured for a criminal activity.The lorry (M.O.2) was discovered only after the arrest of Vijayakumar (A7) on his showing at a place near C.K.S. Engineering Workshop and thereafter, the services of Janakiram (P.W.44), Assistant Director, Forensic Science Laboratory was requisitioned to take the paint flakes from the lorry (M.O.2) for chemical examination.The lorry (M.O.2) was also examined by Kavitha (P.W.50), Motor Vehicles Inspector and her notings have been referred to in paragraph no.3.29 (supra).This clinches the presence of Agniraj (A2) and Sathyaraj (A3) at the scene of occurrence.After the car (M.O.1) halted, the accused who jumped from the lorry (M.O.2), joined hands with the accused who came by motor bikes and mounted the attack on the inmates of the car (M.O.1).Krishnan (P.W.1) and Lourdu Prabhu (P.W.2) had seen the accused armed with dangerous weapons and attacking the car (M.O.1) and the inmates.55 The Trial Court has disbelieved the evidence of Arogiasamy (P.W.8), Pandi (P.W.17) and Muthukumar (P.W.18) who are said to have heard the accused conspiring to eliminate the deceased.We plodded through the evidence of Arogiasamy (P.W.8), Pandi (P.W.17) and Muthukumar (P.W.18) and found the same to be unbelievable.Hence, the acquittal of A1 to A21 for the charge under Section 120-B read with Section 302 IPC cannot be disturbed.He has further identified Vijayakumar (A7) and another person who was not in the Court, as those who had accompanied Subramanian (A21).Ex consequenti, all the five criminal appeals stand dismissed.The Trialhttp://www.judis.nic.in 78 Court is directed to secure the presence of those accused who are on bail and commit them to prison to undergo the remaining period of sentence.[P.N.P.J.] & [B.P.J.] 21 .03.2019 cad Index : Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking orderhttp://www.judis.nic.in 79The Deputy Superintendent of Police CB-CID MaduraiThe Sessions Judge SivagangaiThe Public Prosecutor High Court, MadrasThe Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court MaduraiThe Record Keeper Vernacular Records Section Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Maduraihttp://www.judis.nic.in 80 P.N.PRAKASH, J.and B.PUGALENDHI, J.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
135,189,542 |
Heard on bail application.Case has been perused.The applicants are apprehending their arrest in connection with crime No.521/2014 registered at Police Station Pichhore District Shivpuri for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 323, 324 of IPC.As per prosecution case, the incident has occurred on 03-10-2014 at about 9:30 pm and on the next day FIR was lodged by Mukesh Lodhi that applicant and other co-accused persons armed with Lathi and Axe after committing house trespass beaten him and when Vinod, Nathuram and Haricharan came to rescue him they were also beaten.Prayer for anticipatory bail was made on the ground that for the incident prompt report was lodged by Rajaram against the complainant party which was registered at crime No.520/2014 for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 294 and 506/34 2 M.Cr.It is also submitted that applicants No.1 and 2 (Rajpal and Kashiram) have received injuries as they were beaten by the complainant party.Fifty Thousand Only) each with one solvent surety to the satisfaction of concerning Investigating Officer then they be released on bail, subject to compliance of the conditions enumerated under section 437(2) of Cr.P.C.Accordingly, application is allowed.C.C. as per rules.
|
['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
133,368,120 |
applicant-State in M.Cr.Heard on admission.Judgment, under challenge, being the same, this common order shall govern the disposal of aforementioned appeal and application for leave to appeal.Cr.A. No.2106/10 has been preferred under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the Code"), whereas M.Cr.C. No.11210/10 is an application, under Section 378(3) of the Code, against the judgment dated 11/8/10 passed by II Additional Sessions Judge, Sohagpur, District Hoshangabad, in Sessions Trial No.227/08, whereby the accused persons have been acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 307 in alternative 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short), while all the accused persons, except Suresh and Bharat, have been convicted under Section 324 of the IPC, whereas accused Bharat has been convicted under Section 323 of the IPC on two counts, and sentenced accordingly.Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 25/5/08 at about 7.30 a.m., when complainant Satyanarayan was removing rooftiles from his house, accused Vinay and Bharatji, respectively armed with Baka and Lathi arrived at the spot, abused and objected on removal of the same.Thereafter, Vinay inflicted Baka blows on the head, shoulder and back of Satyanarayan, whereas, Bharatji dealt Lathi on his back, legs and cheek.As Dheeraj, Hakam and Brajmohan came forward to intervene, Madan wielded Lathi twice on the left arm of Dheeraj, while, Narmada Prasad inflicted Baka blow on his head, and, Hakamsingh was assaulted by Vinay and Narmada and when Brajmohan came forward to rescue, he was also assaulted with Baka.Learned counsel for the appellant, as well as learned Government Advocate, while making reference to the evidence on record, submitted that the learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and the accused persons should have been convicted under Section 307 of the IPC.According to them, the accused persons, also ought to have been convicted under Section 325 of the IPC for causing fracture on the hands of Maansingh.Having regard to the arguments advanced by the parties, we have gone through the impugned judgment and evidence on record.Moreover, offence under Section 325 of the IPC is also not made out, as neither in the First Information Report (Ex.P/1) nor in the evidence of complainant Satyanaryan, there is any description about the injuries received by Maan Singh.Dr. N. Hasan (PW13) has deposed that Maan Singh had received fracture on his left ulna bone and second metacarpal bone as per X-ray reports (Ex.P/30 & P/32).However, Maan Singh, in his evidence, has not attributed the said injuries to any of the accused persons.Moreover, in the medical examination, Dr. Rekha Singh (PW12), vide report (Ex.P/27), had only noticed bruises corresponding to the aforesaid injuries.We agree with the findings recorded by the trial Court.It is well settled that the judgment of acquittal should not be disturbed unless the conclusions drawn on the basis of evidence brought on record are found to be grossly unreasonable or manifestly perverse or palpably unsustainable.The appeal, as well as the leave application, being devoid of any merit and substance, stand dismissed.Copy of the order be retained in the connected M.Cr.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
133,369,268 |
1.Government of India rep.2.The Chennai Port Trust rep... Respondents in both W.Ps.Since the challenge is on such technical ground, this Court, does not propose to consider the merits of the petitioners claim or the factual defence raised by the petitioners and the consideration in these Writ Petitions is confined to the technical plea raised by the petitioners.5.The allegation against the petitioner in W.P.No.4449 of 2011 is that while functioning as Superintending Engineer (Ore Handling) during the period from March, 1988 to February 2004, failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty in as much as (a) he suppressed the file containing the note suggesting to recover the way leave charges from M/s Ruchi Infrastructure Ltd. (M/s Ruchi) for the period 2002, from 22.10.2004 to 18.2.2004 with the intention to cause undue gain to the said Company; (b) he permitted M/s Sesa Goa Ltd. to operate from the port land allotted to them earlier without any allotment order or agreement during the period from 7.8.2000 to 5.6.2003, and failed to bring it to the notice of higher authorities as a result of which the Chennai Port Trust was put to loss of Rs.87,79,269.60 ps.towards the short fall and wharfage charges.as they did not remove the piper line till October 2002, a demand was sent for remitting the licence fee for the year 2002, including the pipeline in the container terminal berth.M/s Ruchi stated that the pipelines have been disconnected from the Container berth and wayleave fees for the remaining pipelines is only to be charged.The Chennai Port Trust did not accept the contention of M/s Ruchi and a draft letter to the said effect was prepared by the Junior Administrative Officer on 22.10.2002, which have to be addressed to the company.The allegation is that the petitioner did not take any action on the file thought it has been put up to him repeatedly.Prior to his transfer and posting as Superintending Engineer (W), the petitioner put up a note on 8.2.2004 in the file stating that since the file is opened and is alive, since 1996, action may be taken in a fresh file and may be closed as D.Dis.The Superintending Engineer who took over subsequently, initiated action in the matter and recovered the amount due from M/s Ruchi.Therefore, it is alleged that the conduct of the petitioner keeping the file for two years without taking action caused undue gain to M/s Ruchi and therefore, he has contravened clause 3(1)(i) (ii) of the Conduct Regulations In respect of the second charge it is stated that M/s Sesa Goa Ltd. was allotted a plot by the Chennai Port on six occasions from 20.5.1998 to 1999 and thereafter, have been allowed to operated without any specific permission issued by the Chennai Port Trust.It is further stated that there was a short fall in export from M/s Sesa Goa Ltd. during the period 7.8.2000 to 5.6.2003 and they made exports during the said period and they had made a short fall in export for which an amount of Rs.87,79,269.60 was leviable.When a demand was issued to M/s Sesa Goa Ltd. to pay, they refused to comply with the demand, stating that there are no agreements in force after 1998-99 and also refused to execute any agreement, with retrospective effect.Thus, M/s Sesa Goa Ltd. continued to operate the plot without any agreement or order of allotment and they have failed to pay the short fall owing to which the charge was issued to the petitioner for having failed to maintain absolute integrity and caused loss of Rs.87,79,269.60 and contravened the Conduct Regulations.6.The list of documents by which the articles of charge were proposed to be sustained were enclosed as annexure III to the charge sheet.The petitioner submitted an interim reply dated 27.8.2008 followed by another reply dated 3.10.2008, denying and disputing allegations made in the charge sheet.and the petitioner availed the same and appeared before the Chairman and put forth his case.Thereafter, on 31.10.2008, the petitioner submitted his written submission and it is only in the said written submissions, the petitioner stated that in terms of Regulation 56 of Pension Regulation,departmental proceedings shall not be instituted in respect of an event which took place four years before institution of such proceedings and that the petitioner having retired in April 2004, on superannuation, the proposed enquiry has been initiated about 4 1/2years after his retirement, as the incident in question is alleged to have taken place between 22.10.2002 and 18.2.2004 in respect of charge No.1 and between 7.8.2000 and 5.6.2003 in respect of charge No.2, hence proceedings instituted (charge sheet) nearly after 4 years and 7 months in respect of charge No.1 and nearly 5 years and 3 months in respect of charge No.2 are untenable.7.Without prejudice to these contentions, the petitioner submitted a detailed reply on merits and requested the Chairman to exonerate him from the charges.Thereafter the petitioner by communication dated 15.2.2011, from the enquiry officer was informed that the first hearing of the enquiry is to be held on 25.2.2011 at 3 p.m. in the Office of the Deputy Chairman .J.E.Sivaramakrishnan ... Petitioner in W.P.No.4449 of 2011S.Kannan ... Petitioner in W.P.No.4450 of 2011COMMON PRAYER Writ Petitions filed under Article 206 of Constitution of India for issuance of writ of certiorari to call upon the records of the 2nd respondent in Letter No.VI/Con.34/04/S dated 16.09.2008 and consequently the communication of the 3rd respondent in No.DY CPT/ Enquiry/GA/2011 dated 15.02.2011 and quash the same.For petitioners : Mr.Vijay Narayan, Sr.Counsel (in both Wps) for Mr.T.Gowthaman For Respondents : Mr.P.Balakrishnan, CGC R1 (in both Wps) Mr.P.M.Subramaniam -R2 & R3 COMMON ORDER Since the legal issue raised in both the Writ Petitions are identical, with the consent of the learned counsels appearing on either side, the Writ Petitions are taken up for disposal.8.In so far as the petitioner in W.P.No.4450 of 2011, it is alleged in the charge sheet that the petitioner while functioning as Chief Mechanical Engineer during the period 21.6.2001 to 30.6.2004, failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty inasmuch as he permitted M/s Sesa Goa Ltd to use the plot alloted by Chennai Port Trust earlier, without any specific allotment order and agreement and without fixing minimum guarantee throughput (MGT), with the intention to cause undue gain to M/s Sesa Goa Ltd., and the said act of commission /omission contravenes the conduct regulations.In the statement of imputation of misconduct it is stated that in the year 1996, the Government of India de-channalised the Iron Ore export and private exporters were licensed to export iron ore and the Port trust allotted plots to private companies for exporting iron ore.M/s Sesa Goa Ltd was one of the firms which was allotted a plot from 1.6.1997, for various periods.A condition was imposed in the allotment letter regarding minimum guarantee throughput (MGT).The last of such allotment made to M/s Sesa Goa Ltd. was for a period 10.7.1998 to 9.7.1999, the agreement stipulated a MGT of 6 lakhs MT.It is further stated that thereafter no allotment order was issued or agreement executed with M/s Sesa Goa Ltd. though they continued in possession of the plot.During the period from 26.8.2001 to 7.6.2002, M/s Sesa Goa exported 578025 MTs.of iron ore against the MGT of 6 lakhs MTs revealing a shortage of 21917 MTs and during the period from 10.7.2002 to 5.6.2003, they exported 589940 MTs against the MGT of 6 lakhs MTs revealing a shortage of 10060 MTs.and the total short fall is 32035 MTs for which they were liable for shortfall charges of Rs.13,74,177.60, when a demand was sent to M/s Sesa Goa Ltd. they failed to pay the amount on tlhe ground no agreement was entered into and there was no allotment order specifying the MGT.Therefore, it is stated that on account of the acts of Commission/omission, the petitioner has failed to maintain absolute integrity and caused loss of Rs.13,74,177.60 and thus contravened the Conduct Regulations.9.The petitioner by letter dated 24.9.2008 addressed to the Chairman while denying the charges expressed his desire to be heard in person, the petitioner stated that the Port is not required to enter into agreement with an exporter and the exporter pays to the port as per scale of rates specified for the respective Cargo and there is no guarantee throughput or agreement from MMTC , the major exporter of iron ore since inception of the iron ore berth.Therefore, the petitioner stated that no loss of funds arises and charge is baseless.10.Thereafter the petitioner submitted his reply to the charge memo on 3.11.2008, stating that the charge memo issued after 4 years of his retirement has caused mental agony to the petitioner.The petitioner also referred to the personal hearing with the Chairman on 20.10.2008 and the explanation offered to him and the petitioner proceeded to offer his written explanation to the charge.While concluding the petitioner referred to clause 56 (ii)(b) of the Pension Regulations and stated that the event stated in the charge sheet took place during the period from 26.8.2001 to 5.6.2003 and the charge sheet was received on 18.9.2008 after five years and 3 months and the charge is not valid and it is untenable.With the above submissions the petitioner requested him to be exonerated from the charges.11.Thereafter, by proceedings dated 15.2.2011, the enquiry officer directed the petitioner to appear for enquiry on 25.2.2011, at 3.30 p.m in the office of the Deputy Chairman, at that stage of the matter the petitioner filed the Writ Petition.The interim order was extended on 9.4.2011 and thereafter, the matter was adjourned from time to time and was heard finally by this Court.In response to the said communication the Chief Vigilance Officer, Department of Shipping addressed the Secretary to Government of India, by letter dated 26.11.2008, referring to the Ministry's earlier letter dated 19.2.2008, giving directives to issue charge sheet based on the draft charge sheet already prepared by CBI Vide their report dated 31.10.2005, Further it was stated that charge sheet has already been given to the petitioners on 16.9.2008, and personal hearing was given by the Chairman on 20.10.2008 and the petitioners have also given their written explanations.All the relevant papers were placed before the Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Shipping for reference.21.The learned counsel by referring to the counter affidavit submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are serious and the files relating to the transactions were missing and the old file was abruptly closed and a fresh file on the same subject was opened, simultaneously indicating the follow up action to be taken on the pending issues, without bringing forward the subject which was pending action in the old file.With the above submission the learned counsel sought to sustain the impugned charge sheets.Thus, both the petitioners as well as the respondents have focused on the expression "event" occurring in Regulation 56(2) to substantiate their respective contention.Much earlier, CBI, have registered an F.I.R. against the petitioners and three others on 28.9.2004 i.e. shortly after the petitioners retired from service.Mr.P.C.Pariday was appointed as the enquiry officer.
|
['Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
133,380,271 |
Correction Application No. 01 of 2020 Sri Ravindra Prakash Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Bhaiya Ghan Shyam Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State are present.
|
['Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
133,389,807 |
This petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.748 of 2015 registered by the first respondent police for offences under Sections 120(b), 380, 471(A) and 406 of IPC, as against the petitioner.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner wouldhttp://www.judis.nic.in 1/6 submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and she has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.748 of 2015 for the offences under Sections 120(b), 380, 471(A) and 406 of IPC, as against the petitioner.Hence, she prayed to quash the same.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the investigation is almost completed and the respondent police have only to file final report.Heard Mr.K.Prabakar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent and Mr.M. Guruprasad appearing for the second respondent.Criminal complaints cannot be quashed only on the ground thathttp://www.judis.nic.in 4/6 the allegations made therein appear to be of a civil nature.If the ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused are prima facie made out in the complaint, the criminal proceeding shall not be interdicted."In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash the First Information Report.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.However, considering the crime is of the year 2015, the first respondent is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.748 of 2015 and file a final report within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate, if not already filed.13.07.2020 Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non Speaking order gvhttp://www.judis.nic.in 5/6 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.1.The State rep.By Inspector of Police, Crime Branch, B6 - Police Station, Coimbatore.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.O.P.No.7315 of 2017 13.07.2020http://www.judis.nic.in 6/6
|
['Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
105,688,931 |
2. undisputed fact of the case is that Mahendra Kumar Patel (since deceased) was husband of petitioner/applicant.This criminal revision u/s 397(2)/401/482 Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (hereinafter referred to for short 'Cr.P.C.') has been filed in order to quash the order dated 6.3.2012 passed by 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No.201/2010 (State of M.P. v. Abid and 10 others) by which learned trial Court has framed the charge u/s 306 of IPC against the applicant.Due to dispute between them so Mahendra Kumar Patel committed suicide on 27.1.2009 by consuming some poisonous substance, while getting disturbed by her taunts and bad activities.On intimation to police, PS Gohalpur (Jabalpur) has registered Marg intimation and inquest was made.Post mortem of the dead body was performed and viscera was preserved.From the report of FSL poisonous substance was found.Suicidal note was also found and it was examined by expert and it was found to be of 2 Criminal Rev No.604/2012 deceased.From the suicidal note it is revealed that wife of petitioner/applicant was having illicit relations with one Abid and another man Arvind to whom she was keeping relations even after given repeated warning and advice; and she was also not giving lift to deceased.Once when she was pregnant she aborted her pregnancy without consent of her husband.She had not good relations with her husband and in-laws i.e. family members of husband.She also made a complaint in Vidhik Pariwar Paramars Kendra.She did not want to live with husband.2 Criminal Rev No.604/2012I have heard both the sides and perused copy of impugned order presented by learned counsel for the applicant and documents on record.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that no prima facie case u/s 306 of IPC is made out against the applicant as there is no instigation.Petition stands disposed of.(M.A.SIDDIQUI) JUDGE Ag/ 5 Criminal Rev No.604/2012
|
['Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
105,692,397 |
(a) The deceased in the present case is Macchindra.PW 4 Suresh was the brother of Macchindra.Suresh was residing with his family at Miraj and Macchindra along with his wife and parents was residing at Vadgaon.The house of Macchindra was situated in Dattanagar locality in Vadgaon.The house of the appellant was on the western side of the house of Macchindra.It was situated at a distance of about 40 feet.There was a dispute in relation to the open space between the house of Macchindra and the appellant.(b) On 12.4.2008, Suresh had gone from Miraj to stay in his newly constructed house in Dattanagar at jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 11 ::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 03:53:18 :::::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 03:53:18 :::cri apeal (j) 1150-09.doc Vadgaon.At that time, Macchindra came to his house and told him that there was a dispute with the appellant in relation to fixing of door on the western side of his house.Suresh then told Macchindra that he would come to his house the next day morning.(c) On 13.4.2008, Suresh went to the house of Macchindra at about 7.00 a.m. They started demolishing the western side wall of the house in order to fix a door frame therein.One Jalindar (PW 7) and Macchindra were doing that work.Suresh was standing beside them.The wall was demolished to an extent which was sufficient to fix a door frame.At that time, the appellant came to the spot from his house.He started abusing them.The appellant then caught hold of Macchindra and gave him fist and kick blows.Thereafter, the appellant took out a knife and jfoanz vkacsjdj 3 of 11 ::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 03:53:18 :::::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 03:53:18 :::cri apeal (j) 1150-09.doc stabbed Macchindra on the abdomen with the knife.Suresh raised hue and cry.The appellant then ran away.(d) Macchindra was taken to Civil Hospital at Sangli.Thereafter, investigation commenced.After completion of investigation, charge sheet came to be filed.There are two eye witnesses in the present case i.e PW 4 Suresh and PW 7 Jalindar.PW 4 Suresh has stated that he was residing with his family at Miraj and Macchindra along with his wife and parents was residing at Vadgaon.cri apeal (j) 1150-09.doc side of the house of Macchindra.It was situated at a distance of about 40 feet.There was a dispute in relation to the open space between the house of Macchindra and the appellant.Suresh has further stated that on 12.4.2008, he had gone from Miraj to stay in his newly constructed house in Dattanagar at Vadgaon.At that time, Macchindra came to his house and told him that there was a dispute with the appellant in relation to fixing of door on the western side of his house.Suresh then told Macchindra that he would come to his house the next day morning.Suresh has further stated that on 13.4.2008, he went to the house of Macchindra at about 7.00 a.m. They started demolishing the western side wall of the house in order to fix a door frame therein.One Jalindar (PW 7) and Macchindra were doing that work.Suresh was standing beside them.The wall was demolished to an extent which was sufficient to fix a door frame.At that time, the appellant came to the spot from his house.He started abusing them.The jfoanz vkacsjdj 6 of 11 ::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 03:53:18 :::ORAL JUDGMENT [PER SMT.V.K. TAHILRAMANI, A.C.J.] :By the said judgment and order, the learned Session Judge convicted the appellant for jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 11 ::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 03:53:18 :::::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 03:53:18 :::cri apeal (j) 1150-09.doc the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.2000/-, in default S.I. for two months.The prosecution case briefly stated, is as under:In due course, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.Charge came to be framed against the appellant under Sections 302, 323, 452 and 504 of IPC.The appellant pleaded not guilty to the said charge and claimed to be tried.His defence was that of total denial and false implication.After going through the evidence adduced in this case, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated in paragraph 1 above, jfoanz vkacsjdj 4 of 11 ::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 03:53:18 :::::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 03:53:18 :::cri apeal (j) 1150-09.doc hence, this appeal preferred by the appellant against his conviction and sentence.We have heard the learned Advocate for the appellant and the learned APP for the State.After giving our anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced by the learned Advocates for the parties, the judgment delivered by the learned Sessions Judge and the evidence on record, for the reasons stated below, we are of the opinion that the appellant assaulted Macchindra with a knife in the abdomen and caused his death.The house of Macchindra was situated in Dattanagar locality in Vadgaon.The house of the appellant was on the western jfoanz vkacsjdj 5 of 11 ::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 03:53:18 :::::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 03:53:18 :::::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 03:53:18 :::cri apeal (j) 1150-09.doc appellant then caught hold of Macchindra and gave him fist and kick blows.Thereafter, the appellant took out a knife and stabbed Macchindra on the abdomen with the knife.Suresh raised hue and cry.The appellant then ran away.Macchindra was taken to Civil Hospital at Sangli.Medical treatment was started, however, Macchindra expired at about 1.00 p.m. Then Suresh lodged F.I.R.The evidence of PW 7 Jalindar is on similar lines as that of PW 4 Suresh.In addition to the evidence of two eye witnesses i.e PW 4 Suresh and PW 7 Jalindar, reliance is also placed by the prosecution on the evidence of PW 6 Vijay.Vijay has stated that on 13.4.2008 at about 8.00 a.m., he heard shouts, hence, he came out of his house.At that time, he saw the appellant running away towards southern side of village with a knife in his hand.Jalindar then went to the spot and he saw Macchindra lying there with bleeding injuries on the abdomen.jfoanz vkacsjdj 7 of 11 ::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 03:53:18 :::::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 03:53:18 :::cri apeal (j)Dr. Yug Mohit Choudhary, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that even if, it is accepted that the act of the appellant of assaulting Macchindra on the abdomen with a knife resulted in the death of Macchindra, the case would not fall under Section 302 of IPC but it would fall under Section 304 Part II of IPC.He pointed out that the evidence on record shows that when the incident occurred, a quarrel was going on between the appellant and Macchindra.This has been deposed about by PW 4 Suresh and PW 7 Jalindar.Dr. Choudhary pointed out that the appellant gave just one blow with knife on the abdomen of Macchindra which is clear from the evidence of PW 4 Suresh as well as PW 7 Jalindar.He submitted that if the appellant had intended to cause the death of Macchindra, the appellant would not have stopped after giving just one blow to Macchindra but the appellant would have continued to assault Macchindra.The fact that the appellant did not do so shows that the appellant did not jfoanz vkacsjdj 8 of 11 ::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 03:53:18 :::::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 03:53:18 :::cri apeal (j) 1150-09.doc have any intention to cause the death of Macchindra.Dr. Choudhary further submitted that the assault was not pre-It takes two to make a fight.In this case, the evidence shows that the parties had worked themselves into a fury on account of the quarrel going between them.::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 03:53:18 :::We say so on the basis of the weapon used, the part of the body where the injury was inflicted, the force used while assaulting and the nature of injury.The injuries, as seen from the evidence of PW 5 Dr. Sadakale, are extensive in nature.Considering the evidence on record, we are of the view jfoanz vkacsjdj 10 of 11 ::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 03:53:18 :::::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 03:53:18 :::In our view, custodial sentence of eight years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default, R.I. for one month would meet the ends of justice.The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 03:53:18 :::
|
['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
105,699,269 |
The subscriber of the Mobile No. 8860777265 & 8882648132 has disclosed that he had provided the information of both the complainants to the alleged persons Surender @ Bitta Bail Appln.213/2020 Page 2 of 5 (present petitioner) & Jitender @ Kale who were lodged in the jail at the time of commission of offence.He also disclosed that he has provided the contact information to the accused persons as they promised him of goods share in the extortion amount.During further course of investigation, one Anil Kumar who was also in touch with the alleged mobile number was also examined who stated that accused Surender @ Bitta (present petitioner) & Jitender @ Kala are his relatives and accused Surender @ Bitta (present petitioner) called him from the alleged mobile number.This is an application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 371/2019 under Sections 387/120 B IPC registered at Police Station Burari.Briefly stated, the present FIR was registered on the basis of the complaint of Subhash (Complainant), filed by him at Police Station Burari vide DD No. 76 B. It is alleged by the Bail Appln.213/2020 Page 1 of 5 complainant in his complaint that he had received a call from Mobile No. 8448343324 on his mobile No. 9211114831 at around 3:10 p.m. in which the caller claimed himself to be a member of Tillu Tajpuria Gang and allegedly demanded an extortion money of Rs 20 Lakhs till Tuesday and if he would fail to make the payment, they will kill him.Bail Appln.213/2020 Page 1 of 5After the registration of the present FIR bearing No. 371/2019 U/s 387 IPC investigation went underway and during investigation CDR and CAF were obtained and it was revealed that the SIM of service provider Airtel has been obtained on the fake ID and was used from Tihar Jail.Bail Appln.213/2020 Page 2 of 5I have heard the Ld. counsel for the petitioner, Ld. APP for the state and have also perused the status report filed by the state.213/2020 Page 3 of 5 be denied bail on the ground of his criminal history.Bail Appln.213/2020 Page 3 of 5On the other hand, it is urged by the Ld. APP for the state that the allegations against the petitioner are grave and serious in nature.She further argued that the petitioner is involved in making extortion calls to the complainant from Tihar Jail.APP further submitted that the petitioner is himself a criminal and is a history sheeter of P.S. Alipur and active member of Tillu gang.She further argued that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for the recovery of mobile/SIM Card used in the offence and for obtaining the voice sample of the petitioner for comparison with the recorded voice of the person who had called the complainant and made a demand for extortion.Having heard the counsel for the petitioner as well as Ld. APP for the State, I find that the allegations against the petitioner are grave and serious in nature in regard to making extortion calls to the complainant from Tihar Jail while he was in custody in other case.It has been argued by the Ld. counsel for the petitioner that there are some un-answered questions as to who has provided the cell phone to the petitioner inside the jail and Bail Appln.213/2020 Page 4 of 5 how can inmates make extortion calls when they are behind the bars.Bail Appln.213/2020 Page 4 of 5Now this is for the petitioner to answer during the course of the interrogation and in case other persons are found involved, the law then will take its own course against them.There is no dispute with regard to the propositions of law laid down in the judgment Satlingappa Mhetre Vs.State of Maharashtra and Ors., ("supra") relied upon by the Ld. counsel for the petitioner but each case revolves around its own peculiar facts and circumstances.Recovery of the mobile phone and the SIM card are to be effected and the voice samples of the petitioner are also to be taken for comparison.One also cannot lose sight of the fact that as per the investigation the petitioner is a habitual criminal and a history sheeter and member of notorious Tillu gang.As per the IO NBWs have also been obtained against the petitioner.No ground for bail is made out, the application is, therefore dismissed.Nothing stated hereinabove shall tantamount to the expression of any opinion on the merits of the case.RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, J MARCH 19, 2020 Sumant Bail Appln.213/2020 Page 5 of 5Bail Appln.213/2020 Page 5 of 5
|
['Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
105,701,189 |
1. Rule.Rule made returnable forthwith.With the consent of the parties, the applications are taken up for final hearing.Present proceedings are filed under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code for relief of quashing of First Information Report bearing Crime No.93/2017, registered in Vazirabad Police Station, Dist.Nanded for the offence punishable under section 384 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code.The complainant Balaji Dharmaji Boddawar, who is serving as Office Superintendent in the office of the District Vocational Education and Training Officer, Nanded, lodged the first information report on 2/7 ::: Uploaded on - 12/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2018 01:27:33 ::: apln1915&2660-17.odt17.03.2017 alleging that since last four months he used to take apple vinegar medicine, 15 Ml.daily alongwith water for heart disease.While the complainant was taking the medicine in office, accused Gopal Ingale recorded video shooting on his mobile and forwarded the said video on the mobile of accused Bharat Satwaji Khanderao.Thereafter, the accused Bharat Khanderao and Ashok Gaikwad prepared a compact disk (CD) of the said video shooting and shown the same to the Principle Secretary of the concerned Department at Mumbai alongwith representation falsely stating that complainant used to drink liquor in the office and also used to abuse and harass them and therefore he may be suspended immediately.::: Uploaded on - 12/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2018 01:27:33 :::It is alleged that on 14.03.2017, the complainant had been to Anuradha Palace at about 07.00 p.m. to meet his friends.At that time, the accused Bharat Satwaji, Gopal Ingale and Ashok Gaikwad, who are colleagues of complainant, came there and told the him that they had created a C.D. of the video which was recorded while he was drinking liquor in office; 3/7 ::: Uploaded on - 12/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2018 01:27:33 :::::: Uploaded on - 12/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2018 01:27:33 :::apln1915&2660-17.odtpursuant to which departmental enquiry is going on against him and if complainant wants that they should not write anything against him, he should pay Rs.5 to 10 thousand to them.Complainant told them that at present he don't have money and would see tomorrow and left.It is alleged that on 15.03.2017, at about 1.00 p.m, accused Ashok Gaikwad made a phone call to the complainant and asked him that accused Gopal Ingale and Bharat Khanderao wanted the complainant to pay Rs.5/10 thousand for not giving statement against the complainant and asked the complainant to pay the money immediately.The complainant requested him not to do so, tried to convince him and put his mobile off.After some times thereafter, again Ashok Gaikwad made a call on the mobile of complainant and threatened him that if the amount is not given immediately, they would give statements against him.It is alleged that since the complainant was not desirous of giving money, the complainant had cut the phone call of accused and then he made a call from his another mobile handset which was having call recording facility and thereby recorded all conversation with the accused persons and prepared a C.D. of the same.4/7 ::: Uploaded on - 12/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2018 01:27:33 :::::: Uploaded on - 12/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2018 01:27:33 :::apln1915&2660-17.odtThereafter, the complainant lodged a complaint of extortion against the accused and produced the said C.D. On the basis of the said complaint, crime as referred above came to be registered against the accused persons/applicants.During investigation, the Investigating Officer has recorded statement of witnesses Sunil Jayram Kapure, Puran Chavan to whom the complainant has narrated the incident dated 14.03.2017, so also prepared the panchanama of Mobile conversation between the accused and complainant.The mobile conversation shows that there had been talk about the demand of money from the complainant.Investigating Officer Shrikant Bharate, PSI, ATS Mumbai filed affidavit on record.The Investigating Officer has further stated that the Mobile Numbers of accused persons and complainant were sent to Cyber cell to obtain call 5/7 ::: Uploaded on - 12/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2018 01:27:33 ::: apln1915&2660-17.odtDetail Record.During Police custody of the accused, samples of voice of all the three accused and also the sample of voice of the complainant Balaji Boddawar were recorded in Digital Voice recorder in presence of two witnesses by expert from Nanded and were sent to Forensic Laboratory.Report of Regional Forensic Science Laboratory shows that the voices of accused Ashok Gaikwad and accused Gopal Ingale are positive.::: Uploaded on - 12/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2018 01:27:33 :::It is alleged in the FIR that the accused Ashok Gaikwad made a phone call to the complainant and put him under fear of making statements against him and asked the complainant to pay them Rs.5/10 thousand for the accused persons.Offence of extortion punishable under Section 384 IPC is registered against the accused persons.To establish the offence punishable under section 384 I.P.C., following ingredients need to be there:(1) the accused must put any person in fear of injury to him or to any other person; (2) the putting of a person in such fear must be intentional; (3) the accused must thereby induce the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable property;(4) such inducement must be done dishonestly.6/7 ::: Uploaded on - 12/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2018 01:27:33 :::::: Uploaded on - 12/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2018 01:27:33 :::apln1915&2660-17.odtOn perusal of the first information report and evidence on record, prima facie, it appears that the accused persons, made a call to the complainant and put him under fear of making false statement against him and asked him to pay Rs.5/10 thousand.In view of seriousness of the allegations, it is not desirable to prevent the police from making further investigation and to reach to the conclusion.This Court finds no reason to interfere in the matter at this stage.Criminal applications stand dismissed.::: Uploaded on - 12/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2018 01:27:33 :::
|
['Section 384 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
105,705,434 |
A copy of this order be supplied to the Legal Aid Officer, SALSA, Gwalior who is directed to communicate this order to the District Education Officer, Block Education Officer of the district/block concerned to verify as to whether petitioner has complied with condition No.8 or not and submit report once every month.In case, report regarding condition No.8 is not filed or report is found to be wanting in any manner then Registry is directed to list this matter as PUD before appropriate Bench.The petitioner has gracefully volunteered to donate Rs.3000/- (Rs. Three Thousand Only) in the account of the High Court Bar Association, Gwalior for the purpose of assistance and rehabilitation of those members of the Bar, who are facing financial distress due to Lockdown and restrictive functioning of the courts owing to ongoing Covid-19 pandemic.This Court has no manner of doubt that the office bearers and the Senior members of the Bar shall ensure that the donation reaches the rightful and deserving claimants.Registry is directed to communicate this order to the DM and Superintendent of Police District Shivpuri.A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for information.DN: c=IN, o=High Court Of Madhay Pradesh Bench Aman Tiwari Gwalior, ou=all, 2.5.4.20=70c6eef55d043fbd523acacb7d1ef4b0609a375 10b8e1527bc41da9009c41f72, postalCode=474011, st=MADHYA PRADESH, cn=Aman Tiwari Date: 2020.10.15 15:51:23 -07'00'
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
105,706,098 |
In compliance of the Court dated 10.04.2019, Geeta Bai Sahu, Wife of Tulsiram Sahu, Anganwadi Worker, Anganwadi Center, Jhagra, District Seoni is brought by Shruti Sharma, Sub Inspector, Police Station Keolari, District Seoni.The case of the prosecution is that, on 13.02.2019 at about 11:00 pm, the prosecutrix, aged about 16 years 8 months was found to be disappeared from her residential house situated at Village Jhagra under the jurisdiction of Police Station Keolari, District Seoni.A missing person's report was lodged by her father Tivdi Sahu against some unknown person.Her medical examination was conducted.In view of the aforesaid, prayer has been made to enlarge the applicant on bail.Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/ State on the other hand has opposed the application and submitted that the applicant has forcefully taken the prosecutrix and committed sexual intercourse with her against her will; hence, prima-facie found involved in such Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Date: 26/04/2019 04:42:04 The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh MCRC-12008-2019 (ANKIT KUMAR THAKUR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) 3 a heinous crime.In view of the aforesaid, he is not entitled to be released on bail.Geeta Bai Sahu, Anganwadi Worker, Anganwadi Center, Jhagra is present in the Court and submitted that she has issued the certificate in which date of birth of the prosecutrix was shown to be 26.07.1999 on the basis of Immunization Register maintained by Anganwadi Center.Consequently, this first application for bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of applicant, stands dismissed.(Mohd. Fahim Anwar) Judge taj.Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Date: 26/04/2019 04:42:04
|
['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
105,711,180 |
Shri Vaibhav Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Milind Phadke, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Heard on I.A.No.7342/2016- which is an application under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of custodial sentence of appellant No.1 Amjad s/o Babu Khan.The appellant has preferred this application against the judgment dated 09.12.2011 passed by ASJ-Manawar, District-Dhar in Sessions Trial No.263/2010, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC and sentenced to undergo 3 years R.I. with fine of Rs.2,000/- and under S.302, 302/34 of IPC life imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- in default of payment of fine 4 years R.I.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant has falsely been implicated in the matter.The trial Court without evaluating the evidence wrongly found appellant guilty for the offence u/S.498-A and S.302, 302/34 of IPC.From the record, it appears that there is no eyewitness of the incident.From the prosecution evidence, it is also appeared that at the time of incident appellant was not at home.Learned trial Court only on the basis of suspicion wrongly found appellant guilty for murder of his wife Nilofer.Hence, counsel prayed for grant of suspension of jail sentence since the appeal is likely to take time.On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposed the application and submitted that from the statement of prosecution witnesses, it is clearly proved that appellant, who is husband of the deceased Nilofer used to harass her.From the postmortem report of Nilofer (Ex.P/1), it is appeared that Nilofer died due to asphyxia and after that her dead body was burnt for hiding the evidence of murder by the appellant.Hence counsel prayed for rejection of the application.We have gone through the record and arguments advanced by the counsel of both the parties.It is appeared from the record that appellant, who is the husband of deceased Nilofer used to harass her and she died in the house of appellant.It is also reveals from the postmortem report (Ex.P/1) of deceased Nilofer that she died due to asphyxia and after her death her dead body was burnt for hiding the evidence of murder.So looking to the facts and circumstance of the case, we do not find any ground to allow the application.Accordingly, I.A. No.7342/2016 stands rejected.Certified copy as per rules.
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
105,716,279 |
mb In the High Court at Calcutta Civil Revisional Jurisdiction Appellate Side C.O. 2086 of 2017 Ruhi SahinaSyed Masidur Rahman Ms. Ujjaini Chatterjee, Mr. Pinak Kumar Mitra ...for the petitioner In this application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 the petitioner wife has prayed for, transfer of Act VIII Case No. 18 of 2017 filed by the opposite party husband and pending before the Court of the learned District Judge, South 24- Parganas at Alipore to the Court of the learned District Judge, Paschim Medinipur.In this application, it is the case of the petitioner that after being compelled to leave the matrimonial home, she along with her minor son are presently residing with her parents at Medinipur.She had already filed a criminal case under Sections 478A/323/427/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the opposite party-husband and the same is pending before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 6th Court, Paschim Medinipur, which is being contested by the opposite party-husband without any difficulty.She is facing great hardship to contest the Act VIII Case No. 18 of 2017 by travelling the long distance of about 135 kilometers, each way, between Medinipur and Alipore, in the city of Kolkata.Considering the averments made in the application, I am satisfied that the petitioner has made out a prima facie case for interim protection.Accordingly, there shall be an interim order directing stay of all further proceedings in Act VIII Case No. 18 of 2017 (Syed Masidur Rahman vs. Ruhi Sahina) pending before the Court of the learned District Judge, South 24-Parganas at Alipore, till the disposal of this application.The petitioner is directed to serve a copy of this application, together with a copy of this order, on the opposite party by speed post with acknowledgement due.The petitioner shall file an affidavit of service on the next date of hearing.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
105,721 |
The state has filed this appeal since the third learned judge of the High Court to whom the case had been referred under Section 392 of the Criminal Procedure Code, in view of difference of opinion between the two learned judges hearing the criminal appeal, held that the respondent -accused cannot be convicted of murder or for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.The criminal appeal was allowed by the impugned order of the High Court following the opinion given by the third learned judge.The respondent and the deceased were husband and wife.The marriage between them had been solemnised nearly 16 years before the death of the wife.They had three children.There were frequent quarrels between them on account of the respondent's association with another lady who was living in the neighbourhood.On 30th May, 1988 there was a quarrel between husband and wife, she was kicked and given beating by the husband.According to the prosecution the husband lifted her thereafter since she had become unconscious and he carried her to nearby land, doused her with kerosene and set her ablaze.She died due to burns.P.W. 1, the brother of the deceased reported the matter to the police wherein he expressed the opinion that his sister had committed suicide.The case was sought to-be proved against the respondent on the basis of circumstantial evidence.The court of sessions convicted respondent under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment.The appeal of respondent before the High Court was heard by a division bench.The two learned judges found that the respondent throttled the deceased and when she fell unconscious, he carried her to the by lane under the impression that she was dead, doused her with kerosene and set her ablaze.Up to this there was no difference of opinion between the two learned judges.There was, however, difference of opinion regarding the nature of offence committed by the respondent.One of the learned judges was of the view that the respondent had been rightly convicted and sentenced by the trial court.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
187,127,396 |
A s prayed by learned counsel for the applicant, this first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C filed in respect of Crime No.370/18, registered at Police Station Chanchoda, District Guna for the offences punishable under Sections 327,307,34of IPC and 25/27 of Arms Act, stands dismissed as withdrawn.(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE Binu BINU PILLAI 2018.08.21 18:27:56 -07'00'
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
187,138,299 |
The trial Court has examined the evidence, which has come on record, and found that in fact the prosecution failed to prove its version as the witnesses, which were relevant, did not appear in the witness-box.No order as to costs.
|
['Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
187,141,574 |
Heard learned counsel for the applicant.This is an application for suspension of substantive sentence and bail.The applicant /accused is convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Special (POCSO) Case No.170/2016 for the offence punishable under section 354-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment (R.I.)for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- .Applicant is further convicted for the offence punishable under section 452 and sentenced to suffer R.I. for three years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-.He is further convicted under section 8 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to suffer R.I. for three years and to pay fine of Rs.2000/-.All the substantive sentences are to run concurrently.The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant 1/2 ::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2018 02:23:00 ::: 10Appln.odthas deposited the entire amount of fine in the trial Court.Learned counsel further submits the applicant was on bail during the pendency of the trial and he has not misused the liberty of bail.Learned APP opposed the application for bail::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2018 02:23:00 :::The applicant has presented the appeal and the entire evidence is to be reassessed.The applicant be released on his furnishing P. R. Bond of Rs.20,000/- with one surety in the like amount.Bail to be furnished before the trial court.Criminal application is disposed of.(K. L. WADANE, J.) JPC 2/2 ::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2018 02:23:00 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2018 02:23:00 :::
|
['Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
187,141,743 |
The case of prosecution, in short, is as under:-A).He referred to his family and stated that he is residing at Bambrul (Raniche), Tq-Pachora and works at the field of one Onkar Narayan Wagh.::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2016 00:59:49 :::About 8-10 days back accused No.1 Yuvraj along with his colleagues was sitting near board of Sambhaji Brigade and when complainant was passing, accused No.1 Yuvraj told him as to on whose assurance he has become arrogant and had abused him.Complainant had told him that he had not become arrogant on the assurance of any body.Subsequently on 30th November 2002 complainant after finishing work, had gone home and then to his sister Kasturabai and was returning back.On the way, he met friend Sultan Rasul.They were going by road and were in front of Keli group of Chandrakant Wagh.Time was about 8.30 p.m. Accused No.1 Yuvraj was there and he was under influence of liquor.He again told complainant as to on whose assurance he has become arrogant and started abusing loudly saying "SALYA CHAMTYA CHUMTYA".He ::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2016 00:59:49 ::: cria460.05 4 started giving abuses on the basis of caste.::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2016 00:59:49 :::Hearing him, his friends Dagadu Bajirao Gavali (accused No.4), Arun Ramu Gavali (accused No.2) and his relative Pundlik Ramchandra Gavali (accused No.3) came there and started threatening the complainant and abused him by calling him "CHAMTYA" and saying that he had become arrogant and they knew on whose assurance he had become arrogant.All the four accused persons started calling him "CHAMBHARDYA" and saying as to how he will reside in the village.The accused claimed that they will see him and gave dirty abuses and slapped and boxed him on face and head.refers to Sultan Rasul, Ramlal Baburao Lohar (PW-2), Jagdish Padame intervening and having seen the incident.Complainant claimed that the villagers had tried to explain to him, but however as the accused were not in condition to understand, he was filing the complaint late.He had invisible injury and wanted to go to the doctor.::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2016 00:59:49 :::cria460.05 5 B).The same was investigated by Sub Divisional Police Officer Tejbahadur Singh (PW-6).The State has filed this Criminal Appeal against acquittal of Respondents - original accused Nos.1 to 4 (hereafter referred as "accused Nos. 1 to 4") under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ("Act" in brief).The accused were acquitted also of offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("I.P.C." in brief).He recorded Spot Panchnama.He procured caste certificates of the complainant and the accused.Caste certificate Exhibit 30 of the complainant had been issued by PW-4 Tahsildar Preetam Tayade.The investigating officer PW-6 Tejbahadur Singh claimed that accused persons were Hindu Marathas.The statements of witnesses were recorded.After investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed and the accused were prosecuted.The defence of the accused persons is that of denial.According to them, in the village there are two political groups.One is of M.L.A.Onkar Wagh who belongs to a political party ( I will refer to that as "R.C. Group") and they have ::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2016 00:59:50 ::: cria460.05 6 been workers of another political party (to which I will refer as "S-S" Group) and thus out of political vengeance, the complainant who was labourer of the M.L.A., has filed false case and the witnesses examined are also of the same group.::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2016 00:59:50 :::Trial Court considered the evidence of seven witnesses who were examined by the prosecution and found the accused persons not guilty of any of the offences.The trial Court held that the investigation had not been done by Police Officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police appointed in terms of Rule 7 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 ("Rules" in brief).It also found that the F.I.R.Trial Court, on the merits ::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2016 00:59:50 ::: cria460.05 7 of the evidence, found that reading F.I.R. with the evidence of complainant PW-1 Suresh as well as witness PW-2 Ramlal did not disclose consistent evidence.The ocular evidence did not match with the medical evidence also.The evidence of doctor regarding the injury of the complainant was not acceptable.Trial Court found that it was not ruled out that due to political rivalry the accused had been implicated which was a possibility.There was no evidence of abusing beyond what was claimed as abuses on the basis of caste and there was no evidence regarding criminal intimidation and so Section 504 and 506 of I.P.C.::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2016 00:59:50 :::were not made out.Trial Court found that no independent witness had been examined and for such reasons concluded that the offence was not established and acquitted the accused persons.I have heard learned A.P.P. for State and the counsel for Respondents - original accused.::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2016 00:59:50 :::The learned A.P.P. has taken me through the oral and documentary evidence which was brought on record.According to the learned A.P.P., there was no material that the accused persons belonged to rival political group.No caste certificate of accused No.1 Yuvraj appeared to have been collected.Learned A.P.P. submitted that although the caste certificates of the accused were not proved as such but the evidence of the investigating officer that the accused persons were Marathas was not denied in the cross-The A.P.P. submitted that the F.I.R.refers to the abuses on the basis of caste of the complainant who was "Chambhar" and thus Scheduled Caste and thus even if he did not record his caste ::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2016 00:59:50 ::: cria460.05 9 in the F.I.R., that would not make any difference.::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2016 00:59:50 :::According to A.P.P., there were only suggestions regarding political rivalry and it was double edged weapon.There was no proof that the complainant and the witnesses were members of any particular political group.The A.P.P. accepted that the complainant was person who was employee of M.L.A. Onkar Wagh.The complainant was employee of M.L.A. Onkar Wagh and thus due to political rivalry, the complainant was made to file false case and the trial Court rightly acquitted the accused persons.No independent witness had been examined and the evidence on record was not consistent.::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2016 00:59:50 :::"In the present case, the accusation is mainly under section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act. It may be possible that due to groupism in village there may be rivalry between different persons from different grounds false accusations cannot be ruled out particularly when in a case first informant for unexplained and obscure reason, waited for days to lodge a complaint /FIR in respect of alleged offence punishable under Atrocities Act. Section 3(1)Therefore, there must be acceptable evidence beyond reasonable doubts in respect of intentional insult or intimidation for humiliating a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in any place within the public view."::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2016 00:59:50 :::The learned counsel for the Respondents -"The case that all the witnesses are from the same political party, they knew the complainant for many years, but they came to the spot due to co-incidence, does not appear to be probable in nature.If as per ::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2016 00:59:50 ::: cria460.05 12 the case of complainant, there were other farmers and crowd had gathered there and there was Dhaba and one Munna, hardly at the distance of 100 fts.from that place and there were other buildings, these witnesses ought to have been examined by the prosecution."::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2016 00:59:50 :::In Para 7 of the Judgment, it was observed as under:-"In the present case, the complainant is totally silent about the caste of the accused persons.So also in her evidence, the complainant has not stated the caste of the accused persons.As stated earlier the caste of the accused persons has not been brought on record by the prosecution.In the absence of essential facts in the evidence of the witnesses especially the evidence of the complainant, it cannot be said that any case is made out under the SC & ST Act."::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2016 00:59:50 :::cria460.05 13 .The counsel for the Respondents -original accused also relied on the case of Govind Janabha Kumbhar and others vs. State of Maharashtra reported as 2011(6) LJSOFT 111 and observations in Para 4, which read as under:-"Rule 7 of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 mandates that an offence punishable under the provisions of the SCST Act has to be investigated by an officer not below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police.In this case, most of the investigation seems to have been carried out by a Police Head Constable and some final touches were given by a Police Sub-Inspector, who was not examined before the trial Court.Thus, as far as the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the SCST Act is concerned, the investigation itself was vitiated.The object of directing investigation to be carried out by a senior police officer was defeated and a rag-tag charge-sheet was sent to the trial Court.Therefore, the ::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2016 00:59:50 ::: cria460.05 14 conviction of appellant No.1 Govind for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the SCST Act cannot at all sustained."::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2016 00:59:50 :::I have gone through the evidence in this matter.I am keeping in view the Judgments referred to by the learned counsel for the Respondents - original accused.Without going into the technicalities that in the F.I.R. caste of the complainant and caste of the accused persons was not mentioned, and without going into the ::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2016 00:59:50 ::: cria460.05 15 technicalities whether the investigation was by an authorized police officer (and if accused could be said to be prejudiced), I find that in the present matter on the merits of the evidence itself, the acquittal recorded by the trial Court is correct and cannot be said to be perverse.::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2016 00:59:50 :::I will make brief reference to the evidence which has come on record.The complainant gave reason in the complaint for delay that the villagers were trying to explain to him but as the accused do not understand, he was filing the complaint late.Again, these contents of the F.I.R., have not been proved in the oral evidence.No material was brought of people in the village making efforts to make the two sides understand.::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2016 00:59:50 :::cria460.05 16 Thus, the delay in filing of the F.I.R. was not at all explained in the evidence.The F.I.R. claims at different places and in the evidence it has been stated by the complainant Suresh as well as his witness PW-2 Ramlal that accused persons after referring to the caste of complainant as "CHAMTYA CHUMTYA" were asking as to on whose assurance he had become arrogant.The F.I.R. states that they even declared that they knew as to on whose assurance the complainant had become arrogant.Although such evidence is given, no material regarding alleged arrogance because of which such incident took place, has been brought on record.Thus, the cause or motive for the accused persons picking up quarrel has not been deposed to by the witnesses.The F.I.R. claimed that the four accused persons abused the complainant and slapped and boxed him on his face and head.The F.I.R. claimed ::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2016 00:59:50 ::: cria460.05 17 that the complainant has invisible injury and wanted to go to the doctor.Against this, the evidence of PW-1 Suresh while referring to the accused persons, makes no reference to presence of accused No.2 Arun Gavali as one of the participants in the incident.Against such evidence of the complainant, there is other set of evidence in the form of deposition of PW-2 Ramlal, who claimed that accused No.2 Arun Gavali was also there and like the other three accused similarly abused the complainant.One set of evidence does not fit into the other set of evidence.In oral evidence the complainant claimed that the accused persons beat him on his face by slaps.He did not claim that he was also boxed.He deposed that he had invisible injury to his head.Against this, PW-2 Ramlal claimed that accused No.3 Pundlik and accused No.4 Dagadu beat the complainant by slaps.::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2016 00:59:50 :::In the delayed medical examination of the complainant Suresh, PW-7 Dr. Ramkrishna Teli recorded that the complainant had the following ::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2016 00:59:50 ::: cria460.05 18 injuries:-::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2016 00:59:50 :::"1. Nailed abrasion with tenderness left maxillary region.There was occipital tenderness with swelling on left side."The doctor claimed that the above injuries were possible by hard and blunt object.Although the doctor claimed that the injuries were of within 48 hours, he accepted in cross-examination that he had not recorded the colour of injuries.He accepted that colour of injuries would show the age of injuries.He accepted that the medical certificate does not bear signature of the patient.The doctor in his evidence claimed that the two injuries were possible if 5-6 persons gave beating.The trial Court has rightly questioned such evidence.Although the complainant has not deposed and the doctor did not find any bleeding injury, PW-2 Ramlal claimed that the complainant had received bleeding injuries.::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2016 00:59:50 :::Admittedly, the complainant was employee of M.L.A. Onkar Wagh.Complainant accepted that his friend Sultan was also working for the M.L.A.He tried to deny and thus pleaded ignorance that Onkar Wagh belonged to R.C. Group.The investigating officer PW-6 Tejbahadur Singh, however, accepted that this Onkar Wagh was M.L.A.from R.C. Group.Complainant admitted in cross-examination that Rajendra Wagh is son of this M.L.A. Onkar Wagh.He further admitted that on the day of evidence this Rajendra Wagh and Chandrakant Wagh had come along with him to the Court.Complainant admitted that PW-2 Ramlal was his friend.The evidence of PW-2 Ramlal shows that when the incident occurred, he was sitting in Keli group belonging to Chandrakant Wagh.PW-2 Ramlal admitted that since childhood he was acquainted with Chandrakant Wagh and Rajendra Wagh.Even the ::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2016 00:59:50 ::: cria460.05 20 Panch PW-3 Anil Wagh who was examined to prove Spot Panchnama Exhibit 27, admitted in cross-::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2016 00:59:50 :::examination that his father was chairman of Patpedhi belonging to Chandrakant Wagh.He accepted that in the recent elections panel of one Sagar Wagh of S-S Group had contested with Onkar Wagh of R.C. Group.It would be too much of coincidence that the complainant and his witness PW-2 Ramlal and Spot Panch PW-3 Anil Wagh have got some or the other connection leading to the M.L.A.This is not to say that the M.L.A. had anything to do with the incident but only thing relevant for ::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2016 00:59:50 ::: cria460.05 21 decision of this matter is that the delayed complaint of complainant and his witnesses do not rise above suspicion in the light of defence.::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2016 00:59:50 :::Looking to the fact that there is evidence to show that there were even other people alleged to have been present at the time of incident and near the spot and there is also residence of one Mahadu Wani, and none of the independent witnesses of incident have been examined, it would be risky to rely on the oral evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 to convict the accused persons.There is no substance in the submissions of the A.P.P. on the basis of which acquittal could be reversed into conviction.The ::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2016 00:59:50 ::: cria460.05 22 view taken by the trial Court is a possible view.::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2016 00:59:50 :::There is no substance in the Appeal.The Appeal is dismissed.[A.I.S. CHEEMA, J.] asb/SEP16 ::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2016 00:59:50 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2016 00:59:50 :::
|
['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.
|
187,143,538 |
Certified copy/ e-copy as per rules/directions.(Anand Pathak) Judge Rashid RASHID Digitally signed by RASHID KHAN DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT Of M P BENCH GWALIOR, postalCode=474011, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=23377d7d214c811801fc322b576ca4ed1954237 KHAN f6324416af3985b5e9940ed42, serialNumber=111cc474a72b078dc9a89f3cb13bb668fd 8e0e91beda3cb721bbd836d768b09c, cn=RASHID KHAN Date: 2020.08.28 11:38:34 +05'30'Matter is heard through Video Conferencing.The applicant has filed this first bail application u/S.439 Cr.P.C for grant of bail.Applicant has been arrested on 05.06.2020, by Police Station- Karera, District Shivpuri, in connection with Crime No.315/2020, registered for offence under Sections 376, 456, 506-B of IPC.It is the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that false case has registered against him and he is suffering confinement since 05.06.2020 whereas charge-sheet has been filed.Earlier applicant given his shop on rent to the prosecutrix and when he asked to vacate it, then result is registration of offence.It is further submitted that on 22.05.2020, he made a complaint to SHO, Karera, District Shivpuri about the incident and report was against prosecutrix.On 27.05.2020 wife of applicant also made a complaint on which false cognizable offence report under Section 155 of Cr.P.C. was registered and in retaliation thereof, on 04.06.2020 prosecutrix lodged this complaint.Applicant is a peaceful resident of his vicinity and HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 2 M.Cr.C. No.29957/2020 (Ramvaran Vs.He would not move in the vicinity of complainant party in any manner.He would not be a source of embarrassment or harassment to the complainant.He further undertakes to install Arogya Setu App.Under these grounds, prayer for bail has been made.2 M.Cr.Learned PL for the State opposed the prayer and prayed for its dismissal.C. No.29957/2020 (Ramvaran Vs.If it is found that the applicant has violated any of the instructions (whether general or specific) issued by the Central Govt./State Govt. or Local Administration, then this order shall automatically lose its effect, and the Local Administration/Police Authorities shall immediately take her in custody and would sent her to the same jail from where he was released.3 M.Cr.This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant:-The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 4 M.Cr.C. No.29957/2020 (Ramvaran Vs.State of M.P.)4 M.Cr.The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;The applicant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.The applicant will inform the SHO of concerned police station about his residential address in the said area and it would be the duty of the Public Prosecutor to send E-copy of this order to SHO of concerned police station for information.Application stands allowed and disposed of.E- copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance, if possible, for the office of this Court.
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
187,147,745 |
None for respondent No.2-the complainant.Learned Panel Lawyer has made an open court statement that the complainant-respondent No.2 had been duly informed regarding the filing and hearing of this appeal through the concerned police station.She is found absent when the appeal is taken up for consideration.With the consent of learned counsel for the parties present, this appeal is finally heard at the motion stage after admitting it.The appellant has filed this appeal under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short the Act) being aggrieved by the order dated 25.01.2017 passed by the Special Judge (Atrocities) Sagar, whereby he dismissed the appellant's bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., which is numbered as 58/2017, filed for grant of bail in Crime No.264/2016 registered against him at Police Station Khurai, District Sagar.Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 27.09.2016 the complainant Guddi Bai, who is respondent No.2 herein, lodged an oral FIR stating that her daughter-prosecutrix aged about 17 years and 5 months has gone missing since 26.09.2016 from her residence at Chironji Mohalla of Khurai town and that she doubts that Rajesh Bediya, resident of village Kaurasa has enticed away the prosecutrix.The police registered a case against him for the offences punishable under Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC.On 17.12.2016, the police recovered the prosecutrix from the company of accused-appellant Dharmendra Sahu.Later on, the police recorded the case diary statement of the prosecutrix, whereupon the police registered a case against the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 342, 506, 376(1) (n) of the IPC and 3 r/w 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and 3(1)(w) (i) and 3(2)(5) of the Act, deleting the name of said Rajesh Bediya as an accused.The learned Special Judge (Atrocities) dismissed the appellant's bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. vide the impugned order on the grounds that the appellant had kidnapped the minor prosecutrix; that he committed rape upon her and that if he released on bail, he would temper with the evidence.Hence, this appeal.He submits that in the course of investigation, on 27.12.2016 the police got the prosecutrix's statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. After referring to the said statement, he submits that the prosecutrix has recorded her age therein as 17 years and 5 months.Thus, she is on the verge of majority, and she is mature enough to know her own interest very well.He submits that if the statement of the prosecutrix is taken into consideration, then no offence is made out against the appellant whereunder the case is registered.He submits that the appellant is a permanent resident of Khurai town and that he has no criminal antecedents.He submits that the appellant is aged about 26 years and that if he remains in jail for a longer time, then he may come into contact with hardened criminals of jail, which will adversely impact upon his future life.Upon these submissions, he prays for grant of bail to the appellant allowing this appeal and setting aside the impugned order of rejection of bail.Learned Panel Lawyer has opposed the prayer.On due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions raised on behalf of the parties by their counsel and perusal of the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C., but without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case for grant of bail to the appellant.Hence, I allow this appeal setting aside the impugned order.It is made clear that the trial court shall not be influenced by any observations made in this appeal directly or indirectly while framing the charge(s) against the appellant.Accordingly, this appeal is finally disposed of.Certified copy as per rules.(RAJENDRA MAHAJAN) JUDGE sp/-
|
['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.
|
187,150,844 |
These complaints related to murders of Sikh men and violence to their property in the riots which erupted in the Raj Nagar area (under the jurisdiction of Police Post Palam Colony, Police Station Delhi Cantt.) post the assassination on the 31st October, 1984 of the then Prime Minister Smt. Indira Gandhi.We note that these were five out of several such complaints received at the Police Post Palam.Concerned with inter alia the progress of the investigation and the cause into the large scale violence in 1984, the Government of India appointed several commissions including, inter alia Marwah Commission, 1984; Justice Ranganath Misra Commission of Enquiry, 1985; Dhillon Committee, 1985; Ahuja Committee, 1985; Kapur Mittal Committee, 1987; Jain Banerjee Committee, 1987; Potti Rosha Committee, 1990; Jain Aggarwal Committee, 1990 and the Re: SC No.33/86 Page 3 of 85 Narula Committee, 1993 to examine different aspects of the matter.Re: SC No.33/86 Page 3 of 85Vide Notification No.441(E) dated 8th May, 2000 of the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Government of India had appointed a Commission of Inquiry under the Chairmanship of Mr. Justice G.T. Nanavati with the following terms of the reference :The terms of reference assigned to the Commission were as follows :(a) to inquire into the causes and course of the criminal violence and riots targeting members of the Sikh community which took place in the NCT of Delhi and other parts of the country on 31st October, 1984 and thereafter.(b) the sequence of the events leading to and all the facts relating to such violence and riots;(c) whether these heinous crimes could have been averted and whether there were any lapses or dereliction of duty in this regard on the part of any of the responsible authorities/individuals;(d) to enquire in the adequacy of the administrative measures taken to prevent and do deal with the said violence and riots;(e) to recommend measures which may be adopted to meet the ends of the injustice;(f) to consider such matters as may be found relevant in the course of the inquiry."Re: SC No.33/86 Page 4 of 85On 9th February, 2005, the Nanavati Commission presented its report to the Union Home Minister.In a discussion in the Lok Sabha on the 10 th of August 2005 and the Rajya Sabha on the 11th of August 2005 regarding the report of the Justice Nanavati Commission of Inquiry into 1984 Anti-Sikh riots in Delhi, the then Prime Minister and Home Minister had given an assurance that wherever the Commission has named any specific individuals as needing further examination or re-opening of case, the government will take all possible steps to do so within the ambit of law.The assurance was thus restricted only to cases where certain individuals had been named in the report of the Justice Nanavati Commission.After examination of the matter, a communication dated 24th October, 2005, (exhibited as Ex.PW8/A before the trial court trying SC 26/10), was issued by the then Special Secretary (H), Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India inter alia directing as follows :The matter has accordingly been examined and it is observed that the Report of Justice Nanavati Commission, inter alia, contains recommendations regarding investigation/reinvestigation of the cases against (a) Shri Dharam Das Shastri, (b) Shri Jagdish Tytler, and (c) Shri Sajjan Kumar.I am enclosing a copy of the Report of Justice Nanavati Commission alongwith the relevant extracts of the Report against these three persons.Re: SC No.33/86 Page 5 of 85It has been decided by the Government that the work of conducting further investigation/re- investigation against (a) Shri Dharam Das Shastri,(b) Shri Jagdish Tytler, and (c) Shri Sajjan Kumar as per the recommendations of the Justice Nanavati Commission should be entrusted to the CBI."SC No. 33/86 relates to a complaint made by Baljit Kaur on the 4th of November 1984 by going to police post Palam Colony and making a statement (Ex.PW2/A) which was recorded by S.I. Ram Niwas (PW-2) and signed by Baljit Kaur.A copy of the FIR was handed over by ASI Maha Singh (PW-3) to Constable Ram Niwas (PW-4) for being handed over to S.I. Ram Niwas (PW-2) for investigation.In her statement (Ex.PW2/A), Baljit Kaur had stated that on 1st November, 1984 at about 3:30 pm, a mob of 400 - 500 persons had come at her house and had broken the window leaves and had set on fire and had thrown bricks at her father and her mother; that her father had fallen down and she had said that her father had died whereupon these persons had left.She further stated that her father regained consciousness and she had hidden him in the bathroom and on the next day i.e. 2 nd November, 1984, some persons came 5-6 times and after checking, they had gone back.When they came seventh time, Re: SC No.33/86 Page 17 of 85 they saw her father whose hair had been cut.On seeing this, some of these persons said that he had become a Hindu and should be spared but one Mahinder Singh Sharabi, the resident of same locality, said that her father was Sardar and he gave a "phersa" blow which he was having in his hand, in the stomach of her father.After that, other persons also beat her father and brain material of her father had come out of skull.These persons had sprinkled petrol on her father and had set him on fire and put cot and beddings etc. over him.Baljit Kaur further stated that these persons had removed the handle of the hand-pump and taken away with them so that the fire could not be extinguished.As a result, her father, who was working as an UDC in the Accounts Office in the Air Force at Dhaula Kuan, was completely burnt.Baljit Kaur and her brother had gone to Subroto Park Air Force Camp from there she had come to police station and given her statement.Re: SC No.33/86 Page 17 of 85S.I. Ram Niwas (PW-2) has claimed that he visited the place of occurrence and prepared a site plan (Ex.PW2/D).During investigation, S.I. Ram Niwas (PW-2) took into possession burnt bones and ashes, which were sealed in a parcel with the seal of "RNT" vide memo Ex.PW2/A duly signed by him at point 'A' and also witnessed and signed by Constable Ram Niwas (PW-4) at point 'B' which was deposited in the malkhana.Thereafter, the investigation of this case was transferred Re: SC No.33/86 Page 18 of 85 to the Special Investigation Team and on 8 th December, 1984, the investigation was handed over to S.I. Arjun Singh (PW-1) who was posted in Special Investigation Team, South District.Re: SC No.33/86 Page 18 of 85Paramjit Singh (PW-6) was the police photographer who had taken photographs of the house being House No.He had proved the negatives of the photographs (Ex.In this case, the informant had lodged an FIR on Re: SC No.33/86 Page 53 of 85 29th November, 2004 at police station Tikari at 8:00 pm that the accused persons came armed with various weapons and took away her husband Brahamdeo Yadav, the deceased, and threatened the family members not to come out from their house.The deceased was taken towards the house of Krishna Yadav and he was found dead the next morning having several injuries.831/2013, 851/2013, 861/2013, 1099/2013 and 710/2014 (challenging the judgment dated 30th April, 2013 in Sessions Case No.26/10 arising out of RC 24/2005-SIU-I/SIC- 1/CBI/ND) ld. counsels for the private parties have relied upon judgments in Sessions Case No. 31/86 dated 29th April, 1986; Sessions Case No.32/86 dated 17th May, 1986; Sessions Case No.11/86 dated 28th May, 1986; Sessions Case No.10/86 dated 15th July, 1986 and Sessions Case No.33/86 dated 4 th October, 1986 shocking our judicial conscience and compelling us to invoke our jurisdiction under Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. Without opining on the merits of any of the submissions made therein or the veracity of the evidence led in SC No.26/10 or on the legal merits of the prosecutions, trials and judgments in SC Nos.31/86, 32/86, 11/86, 10/86 and 33/86 we set out some essential facts, statutory provisions and legal principles which have compelled us to make the present order.2. Post the assassination of Smt. Indira Gandhi, Late Prime Minister of India, in the riots with erupted in Delhi, FIR No.416/84 was registered at P.S. Delhi Cantt.on 4 th November, 1984 on the basis of a statement given to the police by Smt. Baljit Kaur, daughter of Late Shri Avtar Singh.Re: SC No.33/86 Page 2 of 85Several other complaints pertaining to deaths and other offences in the Raj Nagar area of Delhi Cantt.were received during investigation of FIR No.416/84 and clubbed in the same FIR.These included complaints on 15th November, 1984 by Jagir Kaur (subject matter of SC No.31/86); on 18th November, 1984 by Sampuran Kaur (subject matter of SC No.32/86); on 15th November, 1984 by Swaran Kaur (subject matter of SC No.11/86); on 19th November, 1984 by Daljit Kaur (subject matter of SC No.10/86).The complaint made on 4th November, 1984 by Baljit Kaur (registered as FIR No.416/84) was the subject matter of SC No.33/86).The Government of India had also decided that the work of conducting the investigation/re-investigation as per the recommendations of the Justice Nanavati Commission be entrusted to the CBI.The relevant records, as available with the Ministry, were forwarded to the CBI with the direction that additional records and information required in connection with the investigation, be obtained from the Delhi Police.The CBI registered the FIR No.RC24/2005-SIU-I/SIC- 1/CBI/ND and investigated the same.Chargesheet No.1/10 dated 13th January, 2001 was filed against eight accused persons, namely, Sajjan Kumar, Balwan Khokhar, Mahender Yadav Capt.Bhagmal (Retd.), Girdhari Lal, Krishan Khokhar, Maha Singh and Santosh Rani @ Janta Hawaldarni.It appears that some other accused persons, namely, Ishwar Chand Gaur @ Chand Sharabi, Dharamveer Singh Solanki, Balidan Singh and Raj Kumar @ Raja Ram had died before the trial.By the order dated 24th May, 2010, charges were framed under different provisions of the IPC against six of the surviving accused persons, as Maha Singh and Santosh Rani @ Janta Hawaldarni had also died prior to framing of the charge.So far as the allegations are concerned, the charges related to commission of offences committed on the 1 st and 2nd of November, 1984, more specifically detailed as hereunder :instructions by him to the members of the mob.02.11.1984 Capture and murder of Narenderpal, 6.30-7 am Raghuvender and Kuldeep Singh.Attack on house of Jasbir Kaur and murder of her husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law.V. 02.11.1984 Sajjan Kumar addressed and after 9 am instigated/instructed a gathering near police post Palam Chowk.The CBI had also filed Crl.L.P.No.385/2013 seeking leave to assail the acquittal of one of the accused person.Leave was granted on 27th August, 2013 and the matter came to be registered as Crl.During the course of hearing of these appeals, Mr. R.N. Sharma, ld. counsel for the appellant (in Crl.On this statement, S.I. Ram Niwas (PW-2) made his endorsement (Ex.PW2/B) which was sent by him to the police station Delhi Cantt.on the basis of which formal FIR No.416/84 (Ex.Mahinder Singh Sharabi was arrested on 8th December, 1984; accused Ram Kumar was arrested on 11th February, 1985; the statement (Ex.PW1/C) of one Surjit Kaur was recorded on 22nd December, 1984 and consequently supplementary statement (Ex.The composite final report dated 25th March, 1985, extracted above, was filed in the case.Thereafter, the case was committed for trial to the Sessions Court.The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges.In support of its case, the prosecution examined the following nine witnesses :PW6/A and Ex.PW6/B) and positives (Ex.PW6/C and Ex.PW6/D).Re: SC No.33/86 Page 19 of 85The trial court has noted that these photographs had been taken after about three weeks of the incident.Scientific Officer Shri K.K. Arora (PW-7) had proved his report as Ex.PW7/A while the Principal Scientific Officer Shri K.V. Sambasivarao (PW-8) had proved his report as Ex.PW8/A. Head Constable Balbir Singh (PW-9) was the Malkhana Moharrer who proved the malkhana register entries (Ex.PW9/A and Ex.PW9/B).Opportunity was given to the accused to explain the incriminating circumstances under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. No evidence was produced.By the judgment dated 4 th October, 1986, the trial court acquitted the accused persons of the charges holding as follows :In this case, Baljit Kaur and Surjit Kaur were the most important witnesses regarding the incident but both of them have not been produced by the prosecution.PW1 S.I. Arjun Singh has stated that PW Surjit Kaur was untraceable and he cannot produce her in the court.Summons of Surjit Kaur and Baljit Kaur were issued for 27-5-86 but they were received back unserved and according to the report, they were untraceable.The I.O. was also allowed to take dasti summons.On 10-7-86 P.W.s Baljit Kaur and Surjit Kaur appeared but both these witnesses sought adjournment on the ground that they wanted to engage some lawyer and they wanted that 14-7-86 be fixed for their evidence so that by that time, they could engage their lawyer.Hence, the case was Re: SC No.33/86 Page 20 of 85 adjourned to 14-7-86 for prosecution evidence.But on 14-7-86 Surjit Kaur and Baljit Kaur did not appear and remained absent.Hence, their warrants were issued.In spite of issuing of their warrants/process, several times, subsequently they did not appear.In spite of sufficient opportunity given to the prosecution, the prosecution failed to produce PWs Baljit Kaur and Surjit Kaur.Re: SC No.33/86 Page 20 of 859. P.W.1 S.I. Arjun Singh has stated that Ram Kumar accused is Barbar by profession and his name has not been mentioned in the FIR, but in the case diary, his name was there.Accused persons were having no comity against the deceased or against the complainant.Thereafter, warrants were issued.During the trial, the persons examined as eye-witnesses, resiled from their previous statements recorded during investigation.Additionally, faulted and biased investigation as well as a "perfunctory trial" were said to have marred the sanctity of the process undertaken to bring the culprits guilty of the heinous offences to book.On the 27th of June 2003, the trial court acquitted the accused persons of commission of offences with which they were charged.The State filed an appeal on 7th of August 2003 against the judgment of the trial court which the Supreme Court observed, was not up to the mark and not in conformity with the required care.The NHRC moved the Supreme Court and its special leave petition was directed to be treated as writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.Additionally, Zahira along with an organization - Citizens for Justice and Peace filed a Crl.Rev.No.583/2003 before the High Court of Gujarat questioning the legality of the trial court judgment.The State of Gujarat additionally filed applications under Sections 391 and 311 of the Cr.P.C. seeking permission to adduce additional evidence as well as for examination of certain persons.Another application was filed to bring on record a document and to treat the same as corroborative piece of evidence.By an order dated 27th June, 2003, the Gujarat High Court upheld the judgment of the trial court and also rejected the prayers made in the two applications.This order was the subject matter of the challenge before the Supreme Court.Summons were issued to this eye-witness on 27th April, Re: SC No.33/86 Page 45 of 85 2003 for examination on 9th May, 2003 which could not be served on the ground that he had left for his native place in Uttar Pradesh.Therefore, summons were issued on 9 th June, 2003 for recording his evidence on 10th June, 2003 giving only one day's time to him to appear.This could also not be served for the same reasons.Ultimately, the public prosecutor prayed for dropping him as a witness which was granted by the trial court.Though the witness was present, the public prosecutor dropped him on the ground that he was not mentally fit to depose.The Supreme Court had observed that when such an application was made by the prosecution for dropping him on the ground of mental deficiency, it was the duty of the ld. trial court to at least make some minimum efforts to find out as to whether he was actually of unsound mind or not by getting him examined by a Civil Surgeon or a doctor from psychiatric department.So far as motive for committing the crime was concerned, it was alleged that litigation between the two sides was the cause of the offence.Charges were framed on the 10th of August 2007 against the accused persons.The ld. trial judge recorded on various dates that the witnesses were not present.Finally, an order dated 17th May, 2008 was passed directing the matter to be posted on 23 rd May, 2008 for orders under Section 232 of the Cr.P.C. On this date, the court recorded the judgment of acquittal.Against this judgment, the informant preferred a revision petition being Crl.It is not disclosed as to on whose instance the site plan was prepared and what were the photographs taken of? No effort has been made to trace out either the dead bodies or the stolen materials.No statement of the eye-witnesses, including relatives or any other neighbours or other public persons who may have been present has been recorded.A.No.1099/2013) and a copy of the judgment dated 4 th October, 1986 in SC No.33/86 shall be placed in the file along with the present order.(viii) For the reasons set out above, we appoint Mr. Sumeet Verma, Advocate as Amicus Curiae in this matter.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
187,158,532 |
Heard Sri J.P. Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri V.P. Mishra and Sri Ravindra Kumar, learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.Sri Ravindra Kumar, learned counsel for the informant states that he has no instructions in the matter.He further states that he has not given any no objection certificate in favour of Sri Mishra to appear in the matter.At the same time, he does admit that he has no instructions in the matter.Accordingly, the matter has been proceeded with.The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant- Afroz with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No-540 of 2018, under Sections-363, 366, 376 I.P.C. & 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station-Dehligate, District-Aligarh, during pendency of trial.4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, at present:Bail Application No. 11973 of 2020 (Vijay Pratap Verma Vs.State of U.P.) has, while enlarging the applicant (in that case) on bail vide order dated 09.04.2020, imposed certain conditions.The order reads thus:"Looking to impediments in arranging sureties because of lockdown, while invoking powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, we deem it appropriate to order that all the accused-applicants whose bail applications came to be allowed on or after 15th March, 2020 but have not been released due to non-availability of sureties as a consequence to lockdown may be released on executing personal bond as ordered by the Court or to the satisfaction of the jail authorities where such accused is imprisoned, provided the accused-applicants undertakes to furnish required sureties within a period of one month from the date of his/her actual release."Order Date :- 3.9.2020 S.Chaurasia
|
['Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
18,642,230 |
Case diary is available.Heard on this first application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the applicant in Crime No.543/2017 registered at Police Station Nishatpura, Bhopal, under Sections 380 and 457 of the Indian Penal Code.The case of the prosecution is that, in the intervening night of 25/26.07.2017 a theft occurred in the residential house of complainant Gufran situated at MIG, Tanki, Vivekanand Nagar under the jurisdiction of Police Station Nishatpura, Bhopal.On the morning of 26.07.2017, when the complainant and his family members have reached their house, they found that some jewelry items of gold and silver, cash Rs.17,000/- and three pieces of un-stitched clothes were stolen after breaking the doors of the house.Complainant Gufran had lodged the report against unknown person.Later on, during the course of investigation applicant and other co-accused persons have been arrested.The applicant has admitted the commission of theft.On his information some of the stolen articles have been recovered from the possession of the applicant.The recovered property has been identified during the course of identification proceedings.On that basis, crime under the aforementioned offence has been registered against the applicant.In view of the aforesaid, prayer has been made to enlarge the applicant on bail.Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/ State on the other hand has opposed the application.Consequently, this first application for bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of applicant-Ramkishan Prajapati, is allowed.It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one solvent surety in the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before that Court on all dates fixed in the case and for complying with the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.(Mohd. Fahim Anwar) Judge taj.Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Date: 19/03/2019 03:27:49
|
['Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
186,423,734 |
I am a laborer.I hail from Mohalla Eman Jayi Jalal Nagar near Hafiz Mian Dargah, Shahjahanpur, UP.I was at home along with my elder brother Rahis and my children last night i.e. on 11.03.2011 at 9 O'Clock.Our acquaintance Shahdab had also come and all of us had dined together.My younger son Sahil had asked for bread to eat.I had declined the request and told him that he had eaten his dinner and would be served bread the next day.However, as he had persisted, I had sent my elder son Sameer Khan to get bread from Lucky's shop located nearby.Shahdab also got up and followed him.We waited for Sameer for a long time but he did not return.When I went outside to search for him (Sameer), the shop had closed.I, thereafter, went to Shahdab's workshop searching for Sameer, but I did not find Shahdab there.When I came back home, my brother Rahis told me that Shahdab had come in my absence and at that time his face and neck had blood stains while his knee and pants were soiled.Naresh Malik Dt. 12.03.2011"A1609/2014 Page 2 of 20The first information was communicated to Police Control Room at about 9.10 a.m. on 12th March, 2011 and got recorded in form No.1, Ex.P-X, to the effect that a dead body of a child, aged about 8-10 years, who was missing, was lying near Tyagi Property Dealers.At about 10.52 a.m. on the same date, the Police Control Room was informed by the police officer who had visited the spot, that dead body of one Sameer, son of Mohd. Moin Khan, aged 8 years with injuries on his head, possibly caused Crl.A1609/2014 Page 3 of 20 by a stone, has been found.One Shahdab was the purported perpetrator.The beat constables at about 10 a.m. had taken Shahdab with them.Crime Team had been called to the spot.A1609/2014 Page 3 of 20DD entry No.14A Ex.PW2/A was recorded at police station Aman Vihar at 9.16 a.m. on information communicated by the Police Control Room regarding recovery of a dead body of a small child.The said DD entry was marked for verification to ASI Sajjan Singh and Constable Manjeet, who have deposed as PW10 and PW12, respectively.They have in seriatim stated that on visiting the spot, they had seen dead body of a child in a vacant plot in a pool of blood with head injuries.At that time, father of the deceased, his uncle and the accused, i.e. the present appellant Shahdab, along with others were present.They had then informed the SHO, and Inspector Naresh Malik along with police officers had reached the spot.At the said spot, blood stain earth, blood stained stone, one pair of chappal (slipper) and a pocket diary were lying.Inspector Naresh Malik had called the Crime Team with a photographer, who then reached the spot and had taken photographs.Mohd. Moin Khan, father of the deceased had produced Shahdab, who was taken into custody by Inspector Naresh Malik vide arrest memo Ex.PW10/B, which was signed by PW10 at point A. Crl.A1609/2014 Page 4 of 20A1609/2014 Page 4 of 20Constable Manjeet (PW12) identified the clothes worn by Shahdab marked Ex.P-5 (colly.), other materials, like small stone pieces marked Ex.P-8 (colly.), a big stone Ex.P-9, earth control Ex.P-10, slipper Ex.P-11 and pocket diary Ex.In his cross-examination, ASI Sajjan Singh (PW10) clarified that the IO had arrived at about 10 a.m. and the Crime Team had reached the spot at about 10.15 a.m.The Investigating Officer Inspector Naresh Malik's (PW19) deposition is in sync and he affirms that on reaching the spot, i.e. the vacant plot, he had seen dead body of a boy having deep wounds on his head and his face was smudged with blood and soil.The name of the deceased, it was learnt, was Sameer, son of Mohd. Moin Khan, aged 9 years.The dead body was semi nude and the pants worn by the deceased were withdrawn.Blood stained earth, slippers, pocket diary and other incriminating materials found at the spot were sealed and seized.PW19 had recorded statement of Mohd. Moin Khan marked Ex.PW1/A, endorsed the Rukka Ex.PW19/A, prepared the site plan marked Ex.19/B and had sent the dead body to the mortuary.FIR marked Ex.PW2/B was registered.He had arrested Shahdab vide arrest memo Ex.PW10/B signed by him at point D. The appellant Shahdab was examined at the Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Crl.A1609/2014 Page 5 of 20 Hospital vide MLC Ex.PW8/A and Ex.PW19 had also taken into possession the clothes worn by the appellant i.e. black T-shirt, vest, trouser, two under garments etc. On 13th March, 2011, he had prepared the inquest papers (Ex.PW19/D) and had made a request for conducting the post mortem.He had identified the clothes worn by the appellant, which were marked Ex.P-1, clothes worn by the deceased, which were marked Ex.P-5 (colly.) and other articles found at the spot.A1609/2014 Page 5 of 20The arrest memo (Ex.PW10/B) records the time of arrest as 2.50 p.m. on 12th March, 2011, which is after the FIR was registered at about 12.20 hours.This delay in arrest would not, however, negate the fact that the appellant had been detained at the spot itself as is apparent from the PCR form marked Ex.P-X and the ocular testimony of ASI Sajjan Singh (PW10), Constable Manjeet Singh (PW12) and Inspector Naresh Malik (PW19).The Crime Team report Ex.PW5/A was recorded between 10.15 a.m. to 11.15 a.m. on 12th March, 2011 and was proved by SI Vishesh Kumar (PW5), the Crime Team Incharge, who has deposed that a PCR call Crl.A1609/2014 Page 6 of 20 was received by him at about 9.40 a.m. and on visiting the spot, he had seen dead body of a child, aged about 9 years.On inspection, he found that the child had suffered head injuries and one big blood stained stone along with some small stones were lying at the spot.Blood stains could also be noticed on the wall and slippers of pink colour were lying near the dead body.A pocket diary was also found there.A1609/2014 Page 6 of 20Photographs marked Ex.PW3/A1 to Ex.PW3/A18 and negatives of the same marked Ex.PW3/B1 to Ex.PW3/B18 were taken by Ct.Post mortem report (Ex.PW7/A) opines that the cause of death was cranio cerebral damage and asphyxia consequent upon blunt force impact to the head and neck.The said injuries were ante mortem and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.Dr. Manoj Dhingra, who had conducted the post mortem along with Dr. Deepak Sharma, is the co- author of the report Ex.PW7/A. Dr. Manoj Dhingra had appeared and deposed as PW7 and has reiterated his observations.The said MLC also records bruises on both sides of face, but these as noticed below, could be on account of beating given to the appellant.On the question of involvement of the appellant and the manner in which the appellant was apprehended, we would like to rely upon the testimonies of Mohd. Moin Khan @ Ballu (PW1), the father; Rahis Khan (PW14) and Hanif (PW11), two brothers of PW1; and Sumit Sharma @ Lucky (PW18), the shop owner.Mohd. Moin Khan (PW1) has deposed that at about 10 p.m. on 11th Crl.A1609/2014 Page 8 of 20 March, 2011, he, Rahis (PW14) and Shahdab had taken meals and drinks.PW1's younger son, Sahil wanted to eat bread and on his insistence, he had sent his elder son, Sameer to fetch bread from Lucky's shop.The appellant, present there, had followed Sameer.Since, Sameer did not return, Mohd. Moin Khan (PW1) in his search, had proceeded to Lucky's shop which he found had closed.PW1 had thereafter searched for Sameer in the nearby area and then at the factory of Shahdab, who was also missing and on inquiry it was learnt that Shahdab had not returned.Thereupon, PW1 returned to his residence and came to know from Rahis (PW14) that in his absence, Shahdab had come there and Rahis had noticed mud stains on his knees and legs and blood on his face and had questioned Shahdab about it.Shahdab had proclaimed that he had got involved in a grapple.Rahis had then queried Shahdab, about the grapple, upon which Shahdab had left making an excuse.Mohd. Moin Khan (PW1) and others had searched for Sameer at night, but neither Sameer nor Shahdab could be traced.In the morning, at about 5 a.m., Lucky opened his shop.They had then made inquiries from Lucky, who affirmed that Sameer had come to his shop with Shahdab, and had purchased a packet of chips.Shahdab had taken Sameer with him in his lap.Lucky had stated that he did not notice Crl.A1609/2014 Page 9 of 20 anything thereafter as he was busy.Mohd. Moin Khan (PW1) after this conversation with Lucky, suspected Shahdab and went straight to his factory and rang the door bell.After some delay, a lady opened the door.Shahdab came out subsequently.On being queried about Sameer, Shahdab claimed that he had left Sameer after purchasing chips.Shahdab, however, was incoherent and on being repeatedly questioned by Mohd. Moin Khan (PW1) and Rahis (PW14) gave ambiguous and unsatisfactory answers.On PW1 persistence that his son would never go with a stranger, and on being confronted that Lucky had affirmed having seen Sameer with him, Shahdab broke down, wept and confessed that he had killed Sameer.In the meanwhile, PW1's brother Hanif also reached there.Shahdab took them to a vacant plot and pointed towards Sameer's dead body.Blood and mud were found on the face of Sameer.Blood could also be seen nearby.One big stone was lying there.Mohd. Moin Khan (PW1) became nervous and hysterical on seeing his son Sameer.Shahdab was apprehended by Hanif and others and was beaten up.A call was made to the police, who arrived and took Shahdab in their custody.Police had recorded his statement Ex.PW1/A) and the court deposition, on whether Shahdab was physically confronted with Lucky and had then confessed or Shahdab had confessed earlier when he was orally confronted with the version given by Lucky.PW1 has explained that the dead body of Sameer was lying at a distance of 200-300 yards from his house and at a distance of 60- 70 yards from the nearest house.It is noticed by us, from the photographs, that the body was not visible from the road, and the vacant plot in question had a boundary wall.Thus, Mohd. Moin Khan (PW1) has affirmed that at about 5 a.m. on 12th March, 2011, after he had spoken to Lucky, it became apparent that Shahdab was with Sameer and after making purchases, the two had left together.PW1 had then proceeded to the house of Shahdab, at about 5.30 a.m. At about 7.00-7.30 a.m., dead body of Sameer was found.The police had arrived at the spot much later at about 10 a.m. Thus Shahdab had confessed and accepted his guilt, much earlier and before the police came to the spot.A1609/2014 Page 10 of 20A1609/2014 Page 11 of 20A1609/2014 Page 11 of 20PW1 had purportedly identified the diary Ex.P-12, which was found lying at the spot, claiming that the same belonged to Shahdab.However, we would not like to place reliance on this assertion, as the said statement was made on 24th January, 2013 when the witness was recalled for further examination.The core and main version given by PW1 gets substantial support and affirmation from the in seriatim testimony of Rahis (PW14), Hanif (PW11) and Lucky (PW18).PW14 affirms that he, Mohd. Moin Khan (PW1) and Shahdab were present in the house of PW1 and his nephews, Sameer and Sahil were also there.Shahdab and PW1 had taken dinner and drinks.Sahil had insisted on having bread after dinner, and thereupon PW1 had asked Sameer to fetch bread from the nearby shop of Lucky.Shahdab had followed Sameer.Sameer did not return and Mohd. Moin Khan (PW1) had gone out to search for him.During PW1's absence, Shahdab had returned to the jhuggi and Rahis (PW14) had inquired about Sameer from him.PW14 had noticed blood on the face of Shahdab and mud stains on the knee portion of his pants.Shahdab had then proclaimed that he got involved in a grapple and had left.They had searched for Sameer at night, but neither Sameer nor Shahdab could be found.In the morning, when Crl.A1609/2014 Page 12 of 20 Lucky (PW18) opened his shop, his brother Mohd. Moin Khan had spoken to him.He had learnt that Mohd. Moin Khan (PW1) and Hanif, had interacted with Shahdab and had made pertinent queries about Sameer.Subsequently on learning facts, he had gone to the spot where the dead body of Sameer was lying.Police was called and photographs were taken and exhibits/evidence were collected.Rahis (PW14) identified the clothes worn by Sameer as Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2 and the clothes worn by the appellant Shahdab were marked Ex.PW1 had gone in search of Sameer after about half an hour, and Shahdab had returned to PW1's residence 10-15 minutes after PW1 had left in search of Sameer.PW14 had not gone with PW1 in the morning and had reached the spot at about 8.30-9.00 p.m. PW14 has accepted that Shahdab had not confessed anything in his presence, but this would make any difference, for PW14 was not present with PW1 in the morning when he had interacted with the appellant and had then proceeded to the vacant plot.PW14 had interacted with the appellant subsequently.A1609/2014 Page 12 of 20Hanif's (PW11) deposition is relevant on the aspect of confrontation with Shahdab.PW11 has testified that at about 10 p.m., he learnt from his Crl.A1609/2014 Page 13 of 20 brother (PW1) that Sameer was missing and had also learnt from Rahis that Shahdab, who was earlier present in the house, had returned and there was blood on his face.At night, they had searched for Sameer, in vain.In the morning, they had proceeded to the shop of Lucky, and learnt that Shahdab had Sameer in his lap when they came to his shop and had purchased a packet of chips.The two had left together.They had then gone to the house of Shahdab and had inquired about Sameer.Shahdab became perplexed, when questioned about the purported grapple on the previous night.He was then confronted with the fact that Rahis had seen him with blood stains on his face.He could not give proper replies and faltered.Shahdab was confronted with Lucky's version and told that they would confront him with Lucky.On this, Shahdab apologized and confessed that he had murdered Sameer in the vacant plot situated in front of the kiryana shop.Shahdab had led them to the plot in which the dead body of Sameer was lying in a pool of blood.Sameer's pant was withdrawn upto knees.Crowd had gathered and Shahdab was beaten up.He was rescued by the neighbours.Someone called the police, who arrived and took the dead body of Sameer to the hospital.Hanif (PW11) identified the recoveries made at the spot including the clothes worn by Sameer marked Ex.P-5 Crl.A1609/2014 Page 14 of 20 (colly.), blood stained earth Ex.In his cross-examination, PW11 asserted that the witness had met Lucky in his shop next day at about 10-11 a.m. and at that time Mohd. Moin Khan (PW1) was not with him, but other relatives were with him.He has accepted that he had gone to the house of Shahdab at about 5.30 a.m. on 12th March, 2011 and they had knocked at the door and only after about an hour someone had opened the door.These facts, however, had not been told by him to the Investigating Officer.The statement made by PW11 that he had met Lucky at his shop "next day" at about 10.00-11.00 a.m., would be incorrect and unacceptable as the police was first intimated about the occurrence at 9:10 a.m. when the recording was made at the police control room.The answer reflects hazy recollection and that PW11 had got confused or the answer was possibly to a different question.PW11's categorical deposition is that he had gone to the house of Shahdab at about 5.30 a.m. and they had visited the shop of Lucky earlier in the morning and not after a gap of about 4-5 hours.Reference to the meeting with 10-11 a.m. on the next day, apparently would be in reference to another meeting Crl.A1609/2014 Page 15 of 20Sumit @ Lucky (PW18) is equally assertive in his statement and has affirmed that the appellant had visited his shop with Sameer on 11th March, 2011 and had purchased a packet of chips for Rs.5/- and a gutka.Shahdab was drunk at that time.Thereafter, the two had left together towards main road mandir side.He had closed his shop and proceeded to his house.PW18 affirms Mohd. Moin Khan (PW1) early morning visit at 5:30 a.m. PW1 was then disturbed and had inquired about his son, who was missing since the previous night.PW18 has narrated that he had seen Sameer with Shahdab.Subsequently, he had heard commotion and noise, as dead body of Sameer was found lying in a vacant plot.The pant of Sameer was withdrawn.Several persons were present.The appellant was also there and was beaten up.The aforesaid testimonies would indicate that the following facts stands proved beyond a pale of doubt:-(i) Appellant Shahdab had dinner and drinks with Mohd. Moin Khan (PW1) in his jhuggi, where Rahis (PW14) was also present.(ii) On insistence of younger child Sahil, Mohd. Moin Khan (PW1) had asked his elder son Sameer to fetch bread from the nearby shop of Lucky (PW18).(iii) Shahdab had left the jhuggi immediately thereafter and followed Sameer.A1609/2014 Page 17 of 20A1609/2014 Page 17 of 20(iv) Sameer did not return to his residence.(v) Lucky (PW18) has deposed that Shahdab and Sameer had come together to his shop that night and at that time Sameer was in the lap of Shahdab.Shahdab had purchased a packet of chips and a gutka from his shop.Thereafter, both of them had left together.(vi) This was the last time Sameer was seen alive by any witness or known person.Sameer went missing.(vii) Mohd. Moin Khan (PW1) had searched for Sameer at night and had gone to the shop of Lucky (PW18), but the same was closed.PW1 had also gone to the residence/factory of Shahdab, but Shahdab could not be traced.(viii) Rahis (PW14) has stated that Shahdab had returned during Mohd. Moin Khan's absence to the jhuggi at night and at that time PW14 had noticed blood on his face and mud on his pant.On being questioned, Shahdab had stated that he had a grapple with someone and had left thereafter.(ix) Mohd. Moin Khan (PW1) spoke to Lucky (PW18) at about 5.00/5.30 a.m., and came to know that both Shahdab and Sameer had come to his shop and both of them had left together.(x) Mohd. Moin Khan (PW1) proceeded straight to the house of Crl.A1609/2014 Page 18 of 20 Shahdab at about 5.30 a.m. On pointed questioning, Shahdab was unable to answer and then confessed his guilt.Hanif (PW11) was with Mohd. Moin Khan (PW1) at that time.A1609/2014 Page 18 of 20(xi) Lucky (PW18) had heard Shahdab apologise.(xii) Shahdab took them to the vacant plot, where the dead body of Sameer was found.Blood had spilled all over and the head of Sameer had been smashed.By order on sentence dated 8th May, 2014, appellant Shahdab stands sentenced to life imprisonment, fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months.Section 428 of the Code Crl.A1609/2014 Page 1 of 20 of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C., for short), it is observed, would apply.A1609/2014 Page 1 of 20The FIR itself is a graphic and we would like to reproduce the English translation of the same in entirety:-"Mohd. Moin Khan alias Ballu S/o.Bashir Khan, R/o.House of Pappu, A-Block, Bhagya Vihar, Near Chhath Puja Rani Khera, Delhi, Age- 35 years made his statement as under:"I have been residing at the aforesaid address on rent along with my younger brother Hanif and my children Sameer and Sahil for about three years.When Rahis had enquired what had happened, he (Shahdab) got perturbed and had replied that he had a quarrel and went away making some excuse.We had searched for Sameer but could not trace him and we Crl.A1609/2014 Page 2 of 20 could not locate Shahdab also.In the morning, when I inquired from the shopkeeper Lucky, he told me that at around 9 O'Clock in the night Sameer had come there with Shahdab and Shahdab had bought chips for Rupees five for Sameer and he had taken Sameer with him.For these reasons I suspected Shahdab and went to his workshop again where Shahdab was present but he was curt with us and when we asked him about the quarrel, he could not say anything with whom he had quarreled.When we told him that he would be confronted with Lucky, he caught our feet and started begging and sought apology and told us that he had killed Sameer in the night itself.He took us to the vacant plot in front of the ration shop where we saw dead body of my son Sameer.His pants had been pulled down and he was half naked.His face was smeared with blood and soil and a large amount of blood had spilled and his head was badly smashed.A crowd had assembled there and a few persons present started beating him (Shahdab) but some others from the neighbourhood saved him.My brother Hanif called the police.You have recorded my statement.I heard the same and it is correct.Sd/-LTI of Moin Khan Attested by Insp.Similar depositions have been made by SI Vishesh Kumar (PW5), Ct.Sanjiv Kumar (PW15), Ct.Madan Mohan (PW16) and HC Harpool Singh (PW17).Hanish Kumar (PW3).The injuries in the opinion of Dr. Manoj Dhingra (PW7) were caused by blunt force impact on the head and neck.The aforesaid facts, prove and establish beyond doubt that the deceased was inflicted injuries causing cranio cerebral damage and had Crl.A1609/2014 Page 7 of 20 suffered asphyxia causing his death.This is a case of homicidal death amounting to murder under Section 300 IPC.A1609/2014 Page 7 of 20In his cross-examination, Dr. Manoj Dhingra (PW7) had accepted that no abnormality was noticed over the genital organ of the deceased and no injury was noticed around anus.We record and notice that the appellant has been acquitted from the charge under Section 377 IPC.However, the MLC of Shahdab Ex.PW8/A and Ex.PW19/C1 records as under:-"Abrasion with scab formation (0.1 cm 0.1 cm) over corona glands (of superior aspect) of penis."The State or victim has not preferred any appeal against the said acquittal.PW1/A and the FIR in question marked Ex.PW2/B was registered.A1609/2014 Page 8 of 20A1609/2014 Page 9 of 20A1609/2014 Page 10 of 20 Mohd. Moin Khan (PW1), who has stuck to his originally narrated stand and version.There is a minor variation, between the statement (Ex.P-6, blood stained piece of wall Ex.P-7, blood stained three small stone pieces Ex.P-8 (colly.) and one big stone Ex.A1609/2014 Page 13 of 20A1609/2014 Page 14 of 20However, others had saved him.Police came to the spot.PW18 identified the T-shirt and pant worn by the appellant as Ex.PW8/P-1 (colly.).Lucky (PW18) has not stated that Mohd. Moin Khan (PW1) and Hanif (PW11) had brought Shahdab to his shop or that the appellant Crl.However, PW18 in his examination-in-chief has accepted that the appellant was seeking pardon from Mohd. Moin Khan (PW1) @ Ballu and other persons, who were present there.This deviation and divergence in the testimony of Lucky (PW18) and Mohd. Moin Khan (PW1), to our mind, is not of such nature as to destroy or negate the prosecution case or to reject their primary narration implicating the appellant.PW18 in his cross-examination has reiterated that he had seen the appellant Shahdab and Sameer together at night.The testimony of PW18 matches and is same as per the statement Ex.PW1/A, i.e. the first information.A1609/2014 Page 16 of 20(xiii) Police was informed and Shahdab was arrested from the vacant plot itself.The FSL report marked Ex.PW19/H and J confirms presence of human blood on the pant worn by the appellant, but the blood group could not be ascertained.We have looked at the photographs marked Ex. A-1 to A-18, which would show that body of Sameer was found inside and adjacent to the boundary wall.This shows the reason why the body of Sameer was not visible to the passersby and could not be found at night or in the early morning.The aforesaid two factors noticed in paragraphs 23 and 24 above would corroborate the ocular testimonies of Mohd. Moin Khan (PW1), Crl.A1609/2014 Page 19 of 20 Lucky (PW18) and uncles Rahis (PW14) and Hanif (PW11), which when read together would lead to only one conclusion that the appellant alone and no one else, who was guilty and has committed the offence charged.A1609/2014 Page 19 of 20Appellant Shahdab in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. averred that he had been falsely implicated in the case.Most of the answers professed lack of knowledge, or complete denial claiming that the assertion were incorrect.Shahdab claimed that he had not taken Sameer with him anywhere and had not seen him on the date of the incident.The police had falsely implicated him to work out a blind murder case.He even professed having helped Sameer's parents in the search.For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in the present appeal.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
186,424,471 |
Case Diary is available.This is first application under Section 439 of CrPC for grant of bail.The applicants have been arrested on 31/08/2017 in connection with Crime No.62/2017 registered at Police Station Satanwada, District Shivpuri for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 332, 353, 186, 506/34, 333 of IPC.It is submitted by the counsel for the applicants that according to the prosecution case, on 24/08/2017 at about 06:00 am the complainant and other employees of Forest Department found that 30-35 buffaloes were grazing in the forest area and, therefore, when the complainant and other employees of Forest Department were taking away the buffaloes, then all the four accused persons came there and stopped the forest officials from taking away the buffaloes.The forest officials were abused and the complainant Maniram was beaten and the applicants took away the buffaloes.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.
|
['Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
186,428,801 |
Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.' for short) forquashing of police case bearing Criminal Case No. 154/2005, whichis pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, (J.M.F.C.)Majalgaon and which is filed in C.R. No. 259/2004 of MajalgaonPolice Station.The case is filed for offences punishable undersections 420, 465, 468, 471, 34 etc. of Indian Penal Code(hereinafter referred to as 'IPC' for short).Both the sides are heard.2) A private complaint was filed by present respondent No.2 - Ramsukh Jethaliya for aforesaid offences in the Court of J.M.F.C.,Majalgaon and in that matter, order was made under section 156 (3)of Criminal Procedure Code and after making investigation,chargesheet is filed by police against the present applicants.In thecomplaint, allegations were made by the original complainant thatfalse record of measurement of land was created by the accusedpersons and that record was produced in the Court of Civil Judge, ::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2018 01:10:09 ::: Cri.No. 2300/2005 3Senior Division, Beed in the matter filed by one of the accused inrespect of the same land.The complainant realised that false recordis prepared.He first moved the authorities to make inquiry andcorrect the record.The Collector, Beed directed inquiry and inquirywas made by Tahsildar, Majalgaon.Tahsildar made report aftermaking inquiry that after joining hands with some staff members ofT.I.L.R. office Majalgaon, accused No. 1 had prepared false record ofmap with the intention to grab the property which was alreadyacquired by the Government.In the inquiry, show cause notice wasalso issued to the present applicants and they were givenopportunity to explain the things.Inquiry revealed that manipulation was donein the map by the applicants by joining hands with the staff ofT.I.L.R. office and so, the record was forged one.Submissions madeshow that departmental inquiry was made against the staff andpenalty was also imposed on them for their misconduct.::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2018 01:10:09 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2018 01:10:09 :::Office of T.I.L.R. made it clear thatthe said map was not correct and then corrected map was taken onrecord by T.I.L.R. office.The superior measurement was also tried, ::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2018 01:10:09 ::: Cri.No. 2300/2005 5but nobody was there to pay the fees and so, for ascertaining theboundaries of the portion which remained with the applicants, themeasurement was made again and the boundary marks were fixed.The decision in that regard was taken and it was informed to theapplicants.The submissions made do not show that this decision ofthe authority was challenged by the applicants.::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2018 01:10:09 :::In the result, the application standsdismissed.
|
['Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
186,432,525 |
Jail authorities and State Government are directed to follow the guidelines issued by the Health Ministry in the wake of Novel Corona Virus, before and after releasing the appellant.Certified copy as per rules.Heard on I.A. No.11910/2020, an application for taking documents on record.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that Sundarlal, who is father of the appellant has filed his affidavit.On due consideration, I.A. No.11910/2020 is allowed.Necessary documents are taken on record.The appellant has filed this second appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereafter referred to as "SC/ST Act" ) being aggrieved by the order dated 31.07.2020 passed by the Special Judge (Atrocities), Khandwa, whereby the learned Special Judge has dismissed the application filed by the appellant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.His earlier application for bail was dismissed as withdrawn.T h e appellant is in jail since 22.11.2019 in connection with Crime No.212/2019 registered at Police Station Ajak, District-Khandwa for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376 (2) (n) of the IPC, Section 5/6 of POCSO Act and Section 3 (2) (v) of the SC/ST (POA)The case of the prosecution against the appellant, in short, is that the appellant allured the prosecutrix, who was minor at the time of incidence.The appellant took her with him on the pretext of marriage and developed sexual relations with her.Consequently, she became pregnant.The prosecutrix is a member of Scheduled caste.Signature Not SAN Verified Perused the affidavit filed by father of appellant along with this petition, Digitally signed by SMT POONAM MANEKAR Date: 2020.11.06 14:43:11 IST 2 CRA-4285-2020 in which it has been stated that the prosecutrix is pregnant and he is ready to keep her with his family.Whenever she attains the age of majority, they will perform marriage of the prosecutrix with the appellant.Family members of the prosecutrix have no objection on it.Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents.Consequently, this appeal for bail under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.It is directed that the appellant-Bramjeet shall be released on bail and on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) 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 Cr.P.C.
|
['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
186,436,332 |
And In the matter of : Swapan Biswas & Ors. ... Petitioners.Mr. Robiul Islam Mr. Debabrata Mondal Mr. Suman Das Adhikary... for the Petitioners... for the State.Defence counsel submits that a quarrel arose as the petitioner drove his tractor over the grains put to dry on the road by the de- facto complainant.This resulted in assault and both parties poured acid on each other which is evident from the annexure of the petition.A negotiation was arranged which failed and it is thereafter that this complaint was filed.As both the parties have 2 suffered acid burn injuries, the petitioners and the de-facto complainant are equally placed and the petitioners, therefore, are entitled to orders.The statement recorded under Section 161 Cr. P. C. at pages 6, 7, 9 and 10 be looked into.Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected and the application is, thus, dismissed.Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.( Patherya, J.) ( Debi Prosad Dey, J. ) 3
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 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.
|
186,437,610 |
This application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to set-aside the impugned order dated 19.8.2019 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.3, Ghaziabad in Criminal Case No.8703 of 2016 (State Vs.It was also directed that till then no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.Protection was also granted to the applicants for three months in terms of order dated 11.4.2018 passed in the first applications moved under section 482 Cr.P.C. by the applicants before this Court.Only protection was granted from coercive process issued against the applicants.APPLICATION U/S 482 No.37503 of 2016 :- To quash the impugned charge sheet dated 3.11.2016 as well as the order taking cognizance dated 16.11.2016 passed by A.C.J.M. (Court No.3), Ghaziabad in Criminal Case No.8703 of 2016 (State Vs.Suraj Tomar & others) in connection with Case Crime No.717 of 2016, under Sections 498A, 323, 326, 307 I.P.C., Police Station Sihani Gate, District Ghaziabad.Further prayer has been made to stay the proceedings in Criminal Case No.8703 of 2016.""CRL.Suraj Tomar & Ors.) under Sections 341, 504, 506, 147, 427 I.P.C., Police Station Kasna, District Gautam Budh Nagar (connected Criminal Case No.285 of 2017)."Hence, both the applications are being decided by the common judgment.It is contended on behalf of learned counsel for the applicants that marriage of Smt. Kiran Tomar - opposite party no.2 (in Application No.37503 of 2016) took place with Suraj Tomar on 5.12.2003 according to Hindu rites and out of the said wedlock two daughters, namely, Km.Himadri and Km.Darshna were born on 11.9.2005 and 23.10.2007 respectively.Applicant no.1 (in Application No.37503 of 2016) is the wife of Sri Kishan Pal Tomar (who happens to be father of Suraj Tomar) and father-in-law of Smt. Kiran Tomar.Applicant no.2 Anu @ Smt. Anuradha (in Application No.37503 of 2016) is elder daughter of Sri Kishan Pal Tomar.She was married on 21.11.1999 and has been residing with her husband and children at Neem Ka Gate, Old Bus Stand, Bharatpur, Rajasthan.Applicant no.3 Puja @ Smt. Pushpanjali (in Application No.37503 of 2016) is the younger daughter of applicant no.1 and was married on 17.02.2010 and has been living with her husband, children and family members at Jam Nagar, Gujrat.It is next contended that for the last about 13 years there was no dispute or any allegation of commission of any type of cruelty or harassment of Smt. Kiran Tomar.It is next contended that because of the displeasure and the attitude of opposite party no.2 she started misbehaving with her husband and other family members.A written complaint dated 01.06.2016 was filed by K.P. Tomar at Police Station Sihani Gate, District Ghaziabad and as a counterblast opposite party no.2 had also lodged an FIR dated 04.06.2016 against all the accused persons on the basis of absolutely false and concocted allegations and false story of commission of offence under Section 498-A, 323 I.P.C. which was registered at Police Station Sihani Gate, Ghaziabad against all the applicants and in order to give colour to false and concocted FIR, preparation of false injury report was manipulated in the District Hospital (M.M.G. Hospital), Ghaziabad.It is further contended that the FIR lodged by opposite party no.2 was got scribed by her brother and it was a counterblast to harass and pressurise the applicants.Prima facie, offence under Section 498-A, 323 I.P.C. against the applicants is not made out.The alleged injury report is false and manipulated with the help of the police to harass the applicants.It is further contended that reconciliation in mediation had failed and the reconciliation proceedings had been dropped.Further opposite party no.2 managed the preparation of false treatment papers and report dated 10.6.2016 from hospital at Sanjay Nagar, Ghaziabad alleging some pain in neck and change of voice and got herself referred to LLRM, Medical College, Meerut.It is next contended that from the very beginning the behaviour of opposite party no.2 against the applicants and her husband was very rude, cruel and harassing.It is next contended that as per prosecution, statement of Smt. Kiran Tomar could not be recorded without any reason for a longer period and was lastly recorded on 22.08.2016 much after the expiry of a period of two and half months under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by the Investigating Officer wherein a developed and new version was added in her statement.It is next contended that all the proceedings in the case diary were prepared on a single date by the Investigating Officer.Opposite party no.2 did not sustain any injury so as to attract the commission of any offence under Section 326 I.P.C. Prima facie, there is no ingredient, material or evidence to show the commission of any offence under Sections 323, 498-A or 307 I.P.C. or any other cognizable offence against the applicants.Investigating Officer has submitted charge sheet under Sections 498-A, 323 by wrongly enhancing Sections 326 and 307 I.P.C.The family members of the husband were forced to file an application on 1.6.2016 for their protection to the SHO, Police Station Sihani Gate and later on filed applications to National Commission for Women, New Delhi on the basis of which proceedings were started by the authorities.It is further contended that having come to know the steps being taken by the parents of the applicant and as a counterblast Smt. Kiran filed a false report dated 4.6.2016 against the entire family members of the applicant fabricating false and concocted story and roped the applicants along with sisters as well as aged mother in a false case crime no.717 of 2016, under Sections 498-A, 323 I.P.C. and after manipulation got a charge sheet filed in this case under Sections 498-A, 323, 326 and 307 I.P.C. It is next contended that against the FIR this court stayed the arrest and use of coercive measures against the mother and both sisters vide order dated 27.7.2016 passed in Crl.Writ Petition No.17091 of 2016 and the applicant husband was got arrested and sought bail and was accordingly granted bail vide order dated 14.9.2016 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad.Further to harass the husband and his family members, Smt. Kiran with the planning of her brother filed number of litigations, details of which are given as under :-(i) Case Crime No.717 of 2016, now pending as Crl.Case No.8703 of 2016, State Vs.Suraj Tomar & others, under Section 498-A, 323, 326, 307 I.P.C.(ii) A frivolous petition under Section 7(1) of Guardianship and Wards Act being Misc.Case No.28 of 2016, Smt. Kiran Tomar Vs.Suraj Tomar was filed on 09.09.2016 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Gautam Budh Nagar.(iii) Another application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. being Misc.Case No.197 of 2016 on 5.7.2016; Smt. Kiran Tomar Vs.Suraj Tomar was filed before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Gautam Budh Nagar, which is pending disposal.(iv) Suraj Tomar has filed a divorce petition on 29.8.2016/1.9.2016 under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act being divorce case no.1332 of 2016 (Suraj Tomar Vs.Smt. Kiran Tomar) in the court of Family Court, Ghaziabad, which is also pending disposal.(v) In the divorce case no.1332 of 2016, opposite party no.3 in order to stall the proceedings of that case, filed an application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act on 13.12.2016 again claiming huge sums to the tune of Rs.55,000/- per month under false grounds which was registered as Misc.Case No.219 of 2016; (Smt. Kiran Tomar Vs.Suraj Tomar) and is also pending disposal.(vi) Husband had also filed a separate application on 6.8.2016, being Misc.Case No.49 of 2016 (Suraj Tomar Vs.Smt. Kiran Tomar) which is pending in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Ghaziabad.It is next contended that opposite party no.2 Smt. Kiran without any right or authority had wrongly and illegally taken both the daughters with her and also got their schools changed.The father (Suraj Tomar) was even not permitted to see or meet them and when on 2.9.2016 Suraj Tomar had gone to see his daughters in Pragyan School, Smt. Kiran with the help of her advisers got lodged a false FIR registered against her husband as well as against Gajendra Tomar, real uncle of her husband and also roping some other persons as not named.The presence of witness Anuj Yadav was scribed with full consultation keeping the false story with concocted facts on the basis of Tahrir under Sections 341, 504, 506, 147, 427 I.P.C. at Police Station Kasna, District Gautam Budh Nagar against the applicants and four unnamed persons.It is next contended that without doing any fair investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed impugned charge sheet in the matter on 17.11.2016 and the cognizance was taken on 13.01.2017 which is quite wrong, illegal and clear abuse of process of law.It is lastly contended that impugned charge sheet has been filed without conducting any fair and independent investigation.The submission of charge sheet is based on tainted investigation; Investigating Officer never recorded the statement of witnesses.The statement of applicant no.2 is wrongly shown to have been recorded at a far away distance.In support of this argument he has filed information provided under Right to Information Act which is annexed as Annexure-4 to the affidavit filed in support of the application filed by opposite party.It is next contended that submission as raised by learned counsel for the applicants is disputed defence which is not to be seen at this stage.All questions are to be decided by adducing evidence by both the parties during trial.It is next contended that the charge sheet has been filed on the basis of materials collected during investigation.The statement of the guard as well as staff of the school in which the daughters of Smt. Kiran are studying has been collected during investigation.Further statements of the minor daughters including the guard of the school have already been taken by the Investigating Officer.So far as challenge to the medical records are concerned, on the basis of statements of the doctors, who attended the victim, recorded during investigation and on the basis of material, prima facie, charge sheet has been submitted and the Judicial Magistrate has already taken the cognizance and summoned the accused for further trial.All the discrepancies or inconsistencies with regard to the investigation as raised by the learned counsel for the applicants are not to be decided in petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.Having considered all the facts and circumstances of the case as also submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, I find that all the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie cae is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur Vs.State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs.Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Crl.) 426, State of Bihar Vs.P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Crl.) 192 and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs.The disputed defence cannot be considered at this stage.Moreover, the applicants have got a right of discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. through a proper application for the said purpose and they are free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the trial court.However, under the facts and circumstances of the case, if discharge application is moved before court below within 15 days, the court shall decide the discharge application within 30 days thereafter.Till then no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.With the aforesaid observations, both the applications are hereby dismissed.It appears that applicants moved discharge application before the court concerned, which was rejected vide order dated 5.7.2018 observing that offences levelled against the applicants are exclusively triable by the Court of Session, hence provision of Section 239 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked.It further appears that against the order dated 5.7.2018 passed by the Magistrate concerned, applicants again approached this Court invoking jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C. through application u/s 482 No. 24948 of 2018 and a coordinate Bench of this Court passed the following order on 25.7.2018 :"Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 05.07.2018 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.3, Ghaziabad in Crl.Case No. 8703 of 2016 (connected with Case Crime No. 717/2016) u/ss. 498A, 323, 326, 307 IPC, PS.It is also evident from the record that against the order issuing non-bailable warrant against the applicants on 22.7.2019, applicants had also approached this Court invoking jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C. through Application u/s 482 No. - 28933 of 2019 and a coordinate Bench of this Court passed the following order on 26.7.2019 :"Vakalatnama filed by Sri Nirvikar Gupta, Advocate, on behalf of applicants and vakalatnama filed by Birendra Singh Khokher, Advocate, on behalf of opposite party no.2 are taken on record.Supplementary affidavit dated 26.07.2019 filed on the applicants, is taken on record.Heard Sri Nirvikar Gupta, learned counsel for the applicants, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State/opposite party no.1, Sri Birendra Singh Khokher, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and perused the record with the assistance of leaned counsel for the parties.The learned counsel for the applicants after advancing his arguments at some length, gave up his challenge to the aforesaid impugned non-bailable warrant dated 22.07.2019 and impugned criminal proceedings against the applicants and requested to grant some protection against non-bailable warrant dated 22.07.2019, so that applicants may seek appropriate remedy available to them.Order Date :- 26.7.2019"In the present application, first prayer of the applicants is to set-aside the order dated 19.8.2019 whereby the learned court below has invited objection on the application moved by the applicants to commit the case to the Court of Session through counsel.Second prayer is to direct the court below to commit the case through counsel.Order dated :- 08.01.2020 / ss
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
186,443,099 |
The prosecution's case, in short, is that, on 14.4.2017, the prosecutrix, who was below 17 years of age at that time, went to the house of Shashikant Patel.Father of the prosecutrix came there in search of her and found her with the applicant Abhishek in objectionable position.He rebuked the prosecutrix by uttering filthy words and asked her to go home.Thereafter, the prosecutrix left for home.Later on, the prosecutrix was found in hanging condition in the upper story of her house and died due to hanging.The matter was informed to the police.Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused case diary of crime No.52/2017 and documents collected by the prosecution during merg enquiry No.4/2017, it appears that body of the deceased was sent for post-mortem.In the post- mortem report, some fluid and clotted blood was found in the hymen.Margines of the hymen were raptured and torned at 7 O' Clock position seen mucosa congested ecehymous and congestion seen at the vaginal orifice and opined that torn of hymen was within 24 hours of her death.Doctors opined that before her(Passed on the 04th day of December, 2019) The applicant has filed this criminal revision under Section 397/401 of the Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by order dated 11.10.2017 passed by the learned Special Judge designated for trial of offence under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as 'POCSO Act') in Special Case No.65/2017, whereby charges of offence punishable under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, in alternate, under Sections 376 (1) of IPC and Section 305 of IPC were framed against the applicant.-:- 2 -:-Criminal Revision No.3146 of 2017The police registered merg No.4/2017 under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C. and during investigation in that merg, it was found that the applicant forcibly committed rape upon her and the prosecutrix was left with no option but to commit suicide.FIR was registered against the applicant at Crime No.52/2017 for offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC and Sections 3/4 and 6 of POCSO Act and later on offence under Section 306 of IPC was added.After due investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the Special Court.After hearing both the parties, the learned Special Judge framed the charges of offence punishable under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, in alternate, under Sections 376 (1) of IPC and Section 305 of IPC against the applicant.3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned trial Court has not properly considered the evidence available on record.The applicant has not committed rape upon the prosecutrix.No ingredients of Section 107 of IPC is made out in the case on the basis of the evidence collected by the-:- 3 -:-Criminal Revision No.3146 of 2017 prosecution.The prosecutrix committed suicide when she was caught with the applicant by her father and her father rebuked her for the same.The applicant has not instigated the prosecutrix to commit suicide.No ingredient of abetment was found.When no prima facie evidence is available with the prosecution to establish the case, the applicant is liable to be discharged.However, the learned trial Court instead of discharging the applicant, framed charges against him, therefore, it is prayed that this revision be accepted and the applicant be discharged from the aforesaid charges by setting aside the impugned order.-:- 4 -:-Criminal Revision No.3146 of 2017 death, she was under sexual assault.On the direction of FSL officer, doctors after examining the private parts of the deceased, prepared vaginal smear slide and found stains on the clothes of the prosecutrix.Vaginal slide and stained under-garments of the prosecutrix were sent for DNA test.No semen spot was found on the under-garments of the prosecutrix.In the vaginal smear slide, no male profile was detected in the DNA test which shows that no sexual intercourse was committed with the prosecutrix by the applicant.On a perusal of the statement of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. and during merg enquiry, some of the witnesses have stated that the prosecutrix was in relation with the applicant but none of the witnesses has stated that the applicant committed rape upon the prosecutrix.Even the prosecutrix did not narrate the fact of rape to her family nor to her friends and anyone.From a perusal of DNA report, which is annexed with the case diary, it is clear that no male profile was found in the vaginal slide or on the under-garments of the prosecutrix.On the basis of DNA report, which is a scientific method, presence of only female DNA profile in the vaginal slide and under-garments of the prosecutrix, clearly not establishes the fact that applicant committed sexual intercourse with prosecutrix.From a perusal of statement of Shyamu Patel, father of the prosecutrix, it is apparent that when he saw prosecutrix with the applicant, the applicant was not committing rape upon her.He has categorically stated that when he saw the prosecutrix, she was-:- 5 -:-Criminal Revision No.3146 of 2017 only standing near the applicant and he asked the prosecutrix to go home, then the prosecutrix left for home and the applicant remained in the house.This witness has not stated anywhere that he saw the applicant and the prosecutrix in objectionable position or in the stage of committing intercourse.This witness also not stated that prosecutrix narrated factum of rape committed by applicant.Thereafter, the prosecutrix was found hanging in her house.
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 228 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
315,073 |
The facts relevant for the disposal of the petition are as follows:-The first petitioner is the daughter of Mr. Ajay Acharya and Mrs. Neerja Acharya.According to the aforesaid FIR, the father of the first petitioner Mr.During his illness his friend, Mr. Jaswinder Pal Sethi, the second respondent, started visiting him at his residence C-4-D/39-B, Janakpuri, New Delhi.Smt. Neerja Acharya came at the door step of the bathroom and threatened the first petitioner to follow the directions of the second respondent.It was on a subsequent date viz. April 7, 1997 that bailable warrants were issued for securing the presence of the petitioners.On April 7, 1997 APP was present for the State and Shri Anupam Sharma was present for the accused persons.ORDER Anil Dev Singh, J.It is alleged that the mother of the first petitioner, Smt. Neerja Acharya, developed illicit relations with the second respondent, They started living as husband and wife even during the life time of Mr.Ajay Acharya.Despite the fact that Mr. Ajay Acharya was suffering from lever problem, the second respondent forced him to drink liquor with a view to get rid of him.After the death of Mr. Ajay Acharya, the second respondent shifted to C-4-D/39B, Janakpuri, New Delhi and has been residing since then with Smt. Neerja Acharya.As per the further allegation contained in the FIR, the second respondent was having evil eye on the first petitioner and was making obscene gestures to her.On October 7, 1995 when the first petitioner went to the bathroom to take her bath the second respondent forcibly entered the same.Upon this, the first petitioner raised an alarm.Smt. Neerja Acharya also caught hold of the hands of the first petitioner and the second respondent tried to perform "dirty act" with the first petitioner.At that time the paternal grandmother of the first petitioner, Smt. Shyamla Acharya came to her rescue and extricated her from the second respondent and her mother.The police registered the FIR and investigated the same.After investigation, charge sheet was filed against the second respondent and Smt. Neerja Acharya in the Court of the first respondent.Two actions have been attributed to the first respondent which according to the petitioners amount to Contempt of Court: (i) The first respondent on April 7, 1997 issued bailable warrants against the petitioners in the sum of Rs. 3000/- along with notices under Section 350 of the Code of Criminal Code for their non-appearance in the Court with a view to secure their presence even before framing of charges against the accused in gross violation of the procedure laid down in the Code of Criminal Procedure; and(ii) On July 15, 1997 when the petitioners appeared before the first respondent, she started scolding & threatening them and asked them to withdraw the complaint, and told them that if they do so, they will receive a sum of Rs. 7 lakhs from the second respondent.When the petitioners refused to accept the offer made by the first respondent, they were harassed, humiliated and ill treated by her.The petitioners having become nervous due to aggressive behaviour of the first respondent, requested for an adjournment to consider the offer.On the next date when the petitioners appeared before the first respondent, she offered a draft of Rs.1 lakh to the petitioners with the promise that the balance sum of Rs. 6 lakhs shall be paid to them at a later date.On the refusal of the petitioners to accept the offer, they were again threatened and humiliated by the first respondent.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.Besides, accused were also present on bail.However, petitioners and Head Constable Shish Pal were absent despite service.Therefore, bailable warrants along with notices under section 350 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were issued for securing the presence of the petitioners and Head Constable Shish Pal.On that date only one witness, PW-1 could be examined.Thus the contention of the petitioners that the bailable warrants were issued along with notices under Section 350 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to secure their presence before the framing of charge, is misconceived.The allegation has been made recklessly without consulting the record.We also fail to comprehend as to how one could move under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 or the Article 215 of the Constitution of India in such a situation or even in a situation depicted by the petitioners in regard to issuance of bailable warrants against the petitioners for their appearance.The other allegation of the petitioners that on July 15, 1997, the petitioners were asked to withdraw the complaint since the second respondent was willing to pay a sum of Rupees seven lakhs to them and they were harassed, humiliated and ill treated by the first respondent on their refusal to accept the offer, is also misconceived.This reads as follows:-The order shows that both counsel for the State as well as the defense were not present and the matter was adjourned due to their non-appearance.In the rejoinder, it is admitted that on July 15, 1997 the case was adjourned due to the non-availability of the Public Prosecutor and due to this, their statements were not recorded.Significantly, in the rejoinder, the petitioners neither talk of any offer made by the first respondent to them on July 15, 1997 nor do they talk of any harassment or humiliation caused by her to them on that date.According to para 7 of the rejoinder, the problem started on July 21, 1997, the date fixed for recording the statements of the petitioners.The para so far as it is relevant to the point in issue reads as follows:-The real problem started on 21.7.1997, the date fixed for recording the statement of the petitioners.The petitioners were present in the Court so was the Public Prosecutor but still as per the order sheet dt. 21.7.1997 the Contemner No.1 who was earlier in a great hurry to record the statement of the petitioners for the obvious reasons, did not record any statement on the said date.It is submitted that it was on 21.7.1997 the Contemner No.1 offered an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioners and the said 'balance' would be paid later."From the rejoinder it appears that the petitioners do not seem to be aggrieved of any action of the first respondent taken on July 15, 1997 as they themselves are saying that their statements could not be recorded due to the non-availability of the Public Prosecutor and it is not stated that an offer was given to them on July 15, 1997 and the petitioners had taken time to consider the same because of the harassment, humiliation and ill treatment meted out to them by the first respondent.There is a clear difference between the stand taken by the petitioners in the petition and the rejoinder.Order dated July 21, 1997 passed by the first respondent reads as follows:-"21.7.97 Present: APP for the State.The order nowhere records any direction of the first respondent for placing the FDR on record of the judicial file.The noting appearing on the left hand side of the order is obviously an office noting.
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
31,507,546 |
The petitioner shall not make any endeavour to contact the prosecutrix or her family.11.05.2018 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL) BAIL APPLN. 2278/2016The allegations in the FIR are that one of the co-accused brought the prosecutrix to Delhi for the purpose of getting her employment and kept her in a house and 2-3 days thereafter he BAIL APPLN.2278/2016 Page 1 of 3 misbehaved with her, whereafter, he left her and when she tried to get back to her house in the village, the said co-accused once again brought her back.Thereafter, she was taken to a house in Gurgaon for the purpose of getting employment, where she worked for over two years.It is alleged that the co-accused and the petitioner used to take her salary and did not give the same to her.It is stated in the FIR that she wanted the police to get her salary from these individuals.BAIL APPLN.2278/2016 Page 1 of 33. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and the only role ascribed to the petitioner is that he used to accompany the co-accused to the household in Gurgaon, where she was employed as a household help and take her salary.Without commenting upon the merits of the case and on perusal of the record, I am satisfied that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail.In view of the above, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, not BAIL APPLN.2278/2016 Page 2 of 3 required in any other case.Petitioner shall not do anything which may prejudice either the trial or the prosecution witnesses.BAIL APPLN.2278/2016 Page 2 of 3The petition is disposed of in the above terms.SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J MAY 11, 2018 st BAIL APPLN.2278/2016 Page 3 of 3BAIL APPLN.2278/2016 Page 3 of 3
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
31,511,109 |
By subsequent BAIL APPL.2626/2014 Page 1 of 8 order dated 03.07.2015 the said interim order was made absolute and the petition for grant of anticipatory bail was favourably disposed of.BAIL APPL.2626/2014 Page 1 of 8The order dated 4.12.2014 would show that during the hearing, the petitioner had submitted, in order to demonstrate his bona fides, his willingness to deposit the amount of money which the complainant claimed to have been wrongfully forfeited, also assuring that he would cooperate in the investigation.Against such backdrop, the petitioner was directed to deposit the disputed amount of Rs.2,10,00,000/- in two equal instalments in the form of fixed deposit receipts in the name of the petitioner with the investigating officer, the timeline for such instalments having been specified.Subject to such direction being complied with and the petitioner appearing before the investigating officer as and when required and further to take certain other steps, it was directed that no coercive steps shall be taken against him till next date of hearing.BAIL APPL.2626/2014 Page 2 of 8The subsequent proceedings would show that by 10.2.2015, the petitioner had handed over a fixed deposit receipt in the sum of Rs.50,00,000/- which had been deposited with the investigating officer, the petitioner being allowed further time to make arrangement for the remaining amount.On 5.3.2015, the parties informed the Court that they had entered into a settlement in terms of which the petitioner had agreed and had undertaken to pay Rs.2,10,00,000/- to the complainant with interest @ 8 per cent per annum for the entire period.BAIL APPLN.2626/2014 BAIL APPL.Having regard to the allegations made in the FIR, copy of which has been submitted and the result of the investigation carried out thus far, as summarised in the status reports, the allegations against the petitioner have been narrated as under:-"It has been alleged by the complainant that he was approached by one Nitin Aggarwal, who claimed himself as approved purchaser in the record of DLF, of a land measuring 624 sq. yards located at village Titarpur, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi and showed a letter dated 07.05.10, issued by DLF whereby it has been claimed that DLF would sell the land to any third party upon the recommendation of Nitin Aggarwal.Thereafter, he took the complainant to the residence of Sh.Kailash Nath Gupta.It was represented to the complainant that the plot is free from all encumbrances.BAIL APPL.2626/2014 Page 5 of 8As per the said agreement, complainant made payment of Rs.3.10 crore, out of which 2.10 crores was received by Nitin Kumar and 1 crore allegedly was received by Kailash Nath Gupta against duly issued receipt.Investigation reveals that the present petitioner in conspiracy with other accused persons namely Kailash Nath Gupta and Sidharth Gupta conspired to induce the complainant to make investment against the proposed transaction.However, the accused persons even after taking huge amount from the complainant, did not get the sale deed executed in favour of present petitioner Nitin Aggarwal & Siddharth Gupta.Another agreement to sale dated 24.08.2011 was executed between DLF Limited and present petitioner Nitin Aggarwal.Thereafter, the sale deed was executed by DLF Limited in favour of Nitin Aggarwal & Siddharth Gupta.A sum of Rs.25,00,000/- was remitted into the account of present petitioner Siddharth Gupta by one Vijay Luthra, who is the friend of the complainant, against the proposed transaction.However, the said amount was later returned by the petitioner during the course of proceedings in a cheque bouncing case.The accused persons utilized the amount taken from the complainant and one Rajni Jain, the complainant of FIR No.135/13, P.S. EOW and got the sale deed executed in their favour.The present petitioner Nitin Aggarwal is the registered owner of half portion of the property in question.Later on, Sidharth Gupta's father Kailash Nath agreed to cancel the agreement to sell executed with the complainant with issuance of cheques against the investment made by the complainant.The cheques were dishonored on presentation.This application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) was moved on 01.12.2014 in the context of allegations made in investigation being carried out into First Information Report (FIR) No.136/2013 under Sections 406/420/120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) of Police Station Economic Offence Wing (EOW) (North-West), registered at the instance of Om Prakash son of Dwarka Dass (the first informant).By order dated 4.12.2014, interim protection against coercive action was granted in favour of the petitioner.It is necessary to take note of the afore-said order dated 25.05.2017, in extenso, as under:-He had moved this Court by Bail Application No. 2626/2014 in December, 2014 invoking Section 438 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for anticipatory bail.The said application came up on 04.12.2014 when the complainant (the first informant) also appeared with counsel.On the joint submission of both parties, the fixed deposit receipt of Rs.50,00,000/- earlier handed over to the investigating officer was allowed to be released to the complainant upon liquidation.Suitable directions in this regard were issued.Time was granted for the balance money to be paid.Against this backdrop, the interim order dated 4.12.2014 was made absolute and directions were passed for the petitioner to be released on bail in the event of being arrested thereby disposing of the application for anticipatory bail.The subsequent proceedings arising out of, inter alia, the three captioned applications would show that the settlement did not reach fruition.The amount which was outstanding as on the date of the anticipatory bail order being passed was not paid.On 2.12.2015, in the context of Crl.M.A. 16769/2015 whereby the prayer was made for cancellation or vacation or modification of the order dated 3.7.2015, it was conceded by the petitioner that he owed an amount of Rs.1,70,00,000/- as on said date, it being the BAIL APPL.2626/2014 Page 3 of 8 balance amount with interest accrued till then thereupon.He gave assurances to pay the said amount in instalments, such assurances having been accepted though with a direction that he would submit an understanding supported by an affidavit, which, however, was never filed.BAIL APPL.2626/2014 Page 3 of 8By application Crl.By his application Crl.M.A. 4361/2017, the petitioner seeks enlargement of time.Earlier, by his application Crl.M.A. 5178/2016 he had raised questions as to the merits of the allegations in the FIR and, inter alia, prayed for directions to the complainant to pay back the amount of Rs. 1.4 crore which has been paid to him pursuant to orders of this Court in these proceedings.Having heard the learned counsel on both sides, this Court is of the view that the purported settlement, as indicated to the Court on various dates, some of which have been referred to above has not worked out.The petitioner continues to be unwilling to pay the balance amount.Though he has tried to show having taken certain steps, including by handing over title deeds of certain property, but this Court cannot be converted into forum for recovery.Since the complainant is now no longer ready to accede to the request for further time, the petitioner himself having made submissions touching upon the merits of the allegations in the FIR, his argument being that the dispute is civil in nature which has been given a colour of criminality, the continuation of the anticipatory bail order dated 3.7.2015 would not be just or fair.2626/2014 Page 4 of 8 Heard for some time.BAIL APPL.2626/2014 Page 4 of 8The record of the said writ petition shall be called for.No coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner till then.It is made clear there shall be no adjournment."The application has been taken up for hearing afresh pursuant to the directions in the above order.The learned senior counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the complainant as also the Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent/State have been heard at length.Thereafter, an agreement to sell dated 03.08.2010 was executed by Nitin Aggarwal, the present petitioner in respect of half of the plot admeasuring 624 sq. yards for total sale consideration of Rs.6.25 crores.Even during the course of proceedings u/s. 138 N.I. Act, Kailash Nath, the father of present petitioner issued further cheques of M/s. Oil & Oil Seeds Exchange Ltd. in BAIL APPL.2626/2014 Page 6 of 8 which he is one of the Directors.The same were also dishonored on presentation."BAIL APPL.2626/2014 Page 6 of 8It has been pointed out in the course of submissions that the letter dated 07.05.2010 which was primarily used for the purpose of inducing the complainant to part with money has been found during investigation to be forged document, there being no corresponding record in the office of DLF and the signatory of the said document having demitted office in 2010 itself.But then the record gathered from the complainant during investigation shows also that the said party had also sent legal notices around the same time putting across the counter version, the controversy also surrounding the fact that in the document dated 07.05.2010 there was reference to arrangement with DLF concerning a plot of land measuring 624 sq. meters only whereas what had been offered to be sold to the complaint was a plot of land with area of 624 sq. yds.The petitioner's arguments that the facts alleged in the FIR primarily represent a civil dispute to which a colour of criminality has been given, cannot be accepted, in as much as his writ petition BAIL APPL.Even otherwise, such contentions cannot be accepted in the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly in the teeth of the evidence gathered showing that the document dated 07.05.2010 was forged and fabricated, it having used by the petitioner to induce the complainant to part with money.BAIL APPL.2626/2014 Page 7 of 8The submissions of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that since the investigation is more or less complete and report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. is likely to be filed in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate in near future also does not appeal to this court as a good reason to enlarge the petitioner on bail in view of his conduct during these proceedings as noted at length in the order dated 25.05.2017 extracted above.For the foregoing reasons, the interim protection stands withdrawn.The petition is dismissed.2626/2014 Page 8 of 8
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
31,512,461 |
The petitioners prefer the instant Criminal Original Petition invoking the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 of CrPC seeking to quash the Charge Sheet in C.C.No.35 of 2010 on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Kothagiri.The petitioners case is that the above charge sheet came to be filed laying charges of offence under Section 341 and 506 (i) IPC against them, in pursuance of a false and malafide complaint dated 09.04.2010 preferred by the 2nd respondent namely Mr.K.Dharman, which came to be registered as Crime No. 152 of 2010 on the file of the 1st respondent police.2.According to the petitioners the above complaint of 2nd respondent as well as the corresponding final report filed is patent illegality and sheer abuse of process of law, since the allegations leveled against them are obviously absurd and fanciful.3.The factual matrix involved in the case is that the petitioners as well as the 2nd respondent defacto complainant are native of Jackanrai Village, Nilgiris District.The sum and substance of allegation is that they prevented the villagers from attending the 2nd respondents fathers funeral ceremonies by intimidating with the threat of Ex-communication.Therefore the above complaint was filed by the 2nd respondent and on investigation the 1st respondent charge sheeted the above C.C.No.35 of 2010 under Section 341 and 506(i) IPC against the petitioners.4.According to the petitioners, complaint on hand is an utter false and the same was lodged due to some previous enmity with the 2nd petitioner and with a malafide intention to harass the petitioners.They never involved in any misdeeds as averred in the complaint.In fact the 2nd respondent family members very often indulged in quarreling for petty matters with the co-villagers.They never obstructed or prevented any person from attending the funerals of the 2nd respondent father and the story is absolutely fanciful projected for the purpose of harassing the petitioners.5.I heard Mr.However none of the alleged villagers have preferred any complaint against the petitioners.
|
['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.
|
3,152 |
9. dusty.JUDGMENT S.K. Agarwal, J.This revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 18.2.2002, passed by the court of Sh.S.N. Gupta, ASJ, Delhi, while setting aside the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 420 read with 511 IPC and reducing the sentence awarded to petitioner under Section 471, from one year to six months RI and fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default S.I. for three months, in case FIR No. 54/90, under Sections 420/468/471 IPC, P.S. Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi.2. Facts in brief are: that on or about 23.10.89 petitioner produced a domicile certificate bearing No. 1413 dated 5.8.89 purported to have been issued by Sub-divisional Officer, Haldwani (Civil); knowing the same to be a forged document for seeking some exemption in height for selection as sub-inspector in Delhi Police; and claimed himself to be a person belonging to hill area.Before the petitioner could be appointed, on a suspicion being raised, certificate was got verified and the same was found to be forged.Case was registered and after investigation challan was filed.The trial court, vide judgment and order dated 1.11.2002 held the petitioner guilty under Sections 471 and 420 read with 511 IPC and sentenced him to undergo RI for one year with fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default, S.I. for three months.The sentence awarded was reduced from one year R.I. to six month R.I. for the offence under Section 471 IPC with fine of Rs. 5,000/-.The conviction for offence under Sections 420/511 IPC was set-aside.3. Learned counsel for petitioner did not press the revision on merits and prayed for a lenient view on sentence.He submits that petitioner suffered pain and agony of trial for about 12 years; he did not derive any advantage on the basis of forged domicile certificate purported to have been issued by Sub-divisional Officer, Haldwani (Civil); he is above 35 year old having three minor school going children; and he has already undergone sentence of about one and half month.Therefore, he prays that he be released on probation under Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 or the sentence be reduced.In this case, report of the Probation Officer was also called.It confirms that petitioner has three minor children, i.e., two daughters aged about 13 years, 10 years studying in 7th and 5th standard, and one son aged about 3 years.The economic condition of the petitioner is poor; father of petitioner is retired army personnel getting Rs. 3000/- as pension.It is stated that the petitioner was running "Kirana" shop.Taking into consideration the nature of the offence and report of Probation Officer and the fact that petitioner has suffered pain and agony of trial for about 12 years, a case for release of the petitioner on probation is made out.In view of above, revision petition is partly allowed.Petitioner is ordered to be released on his entering into a bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one local surety in the like amount to keep peace and be of good behavior, for two years,and to appear and receive sentence whenever called upon during the said period.With the above modification, revision petition stands disposed of.
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
31,521,442 |
As per prosecution story, complainant Pinki Jatav lodged an FIR in the Police Station Nagda on 11.11.2019, at 21.54, against the present appellants and 5 others.According to the complainant, on 11.12.2019, near about 6.00 p.m., she was standing in front of her house situated at Chetanpura, Nagda.Appellants and five others were causing a nuisance by selling liquor.When she objected, they threatened to rape her.Thereafter she went inside her house.Vinod was standing outside her house.Sunil and Sharif were carrying sticks and after the complainant coming out of her house then Jeetu caused injury by the sword below the knee of the left leg.Vinod gave repeated blows on her leg as well as on hand by the iron rod.Lakhan, Sharif and Yunus assaulted her by kicks and fists, thereafter another accused Chandni W/o Jeetu also came there and assaulted her by kicks and fists and someone out of them touched her private parts.This is a repeat (Third) appeal filed under Section 14-A (2) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act by appellants - Sunil S/o Laxminarayan and Sharif Khan S/o Salim Khan, who have been arrested by Police on 13.12.2019 in Crime No.599/2019, Police Station Nagda Mandi, District Dhar concerning offence under Sections 452, 147, 148, 324, 323 read with 149 and 506 of the IPC, 25 of the Arms Act and Section 3(1)(r)s) & 3(2)(5A) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the order dated 08.01.2020; whereby learned Special Judge, Ujjain has rejected an application for release on bail.Hence, the present appellants have filed this Third repeat bail application.2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing and perused the case diary.Sunil, Yunus, Lakhan and Sharif came inside her house.Jeetu was armed with a sword and Sunil was carrying a stick and told her to come THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.3598/2020 Sunil and Sharif Khan V/s.State of M.P. and another -: 2 :- outside the house.Thereafter her son Aditya and sister Chandni came to rescue her.All the accused left the spot threatening her see dire consequences.Police registered an FIR under Sections 452, 147, 148, 324, 323 read with 149 and 506 of the IPC, 25 of the Arms Act and Section 3(1)(r)s) & 3(2)(5A) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and arrested all the accused.-: 2 :-Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants did not cause any injury.There is an allegation of assaulting by kicks and fists and for that offence under Section 323 of IPC is made out which is a bailable offence.There is no recovery of deadly weapons from them.There is no evidence to corroborate the present appellant so far as the offence under Section 452 of IPC is concerned.The appellants have no criminal antecedents.The trial is held up because of the lock-down due to corona epidemic.Hence, the appellants are entitled to bail.On the other hand, the learned Panel Lawyer opposes the prayer for grant of bail by submitting that PW-1 in her statement has THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.3598/2020 Sunil and Sharif Khan V/s.State of M.P. and another -: 3 :- specifically made allegations against them, hence, they are not entitled to bail.-: 3 :-I have perused the case diary.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, specially the court's statement of (P.W.-1) and the period of custody and delay in the trail, without commenting on the merits of the case, it would be appropriate to enlarge the appellants on bail.It is directed that on furnishing a personal bond by the appellants in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) each, with one solvent surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of concerned trial Court, they shall be released on bail, subject to the condition that they shall make themselves available to the Police, as and when required during the investigation and will also remain present before the trial Court as and when directed in that behalf.as per rules.
|
['Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
31,530,306 |
Allowed md.CRM No. 8352 of 2018 Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 20th September, 2018 in connection with Chapra Police Station Case No.190/2018 dated 9.7.2018 under Sections 498A/326/328/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In Re:-Ramjan Mondal and others ... Petitioners Mr. Prabir Majumder, Advocate ..for the Petitioners Mr. Imran Ali, Advocate Md. Kutubuddin, Advocate .. for the State The petitioners seek anticipatory bail in connection with Chapra Police Station Case No.190/2018 dated 9.7.2018 under Sections 498A/326/328/34 of the Indian Penal Code.Notwithstanding the charges against the petitioners, there is a statement of the victim given to the doctor to the effect that the victim had consumed the poison.The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed subject to the conditions as indicated above.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioners subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J. ) 2
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
155,271,544 |
Heard on this first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail.The applicant is in jail since 03.02.2020 in connection with Crime No.30/2020, registered at Police Station-Tendukheda, District Narsinghpur for the offence under Sections 456, 354, 354A, 354D and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.The case of prosecution in short is that, the applicant outraged the modesty of the prosecutrix who was 18 years old.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case.After investigation charge-sheet has been filed and trial will take considerable time for its final disposal, therefore, counsel for the applicant prays to enlarge the applicant on bail.Learned counsel for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the application and prays for its dismissal.Having heard learned counsel for the parties, on perusal of statement of prosecutrix under Section 164 of Cr.P.C and conclusion of trial would take considerable time, without commenting on the merit of the case, this Court is inclined to release the applicant on bail.Certified copy as per rules.(VISHNU PRATAP SINGH CHAUHAN) JUDGE Digitally signed by BIJU b Date: 2020.03.05 12:55:21 +05'30'
|
['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.
|
155,276,174 |
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.The applicant is in custody since 19.01.2015 relating to Crime No.30/2015 registered at Police Station Basoda, District Vidisha (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Section 306 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.306 of IPC is made out against the applicant.Actually, guilt of her uncle and cousin is shifted upon the applicant without any basis.Applicant is in custody since 19.01.2015 without any substantial reason.Consequently, the applicant prays for bail.Learned Public Prosecutor, opposes the application.
|
['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,552,807 |
Bearing in mind the settled proposition, we propose to deal with the rival contentions.The complainant-P.W. 2, Syed Gafur, was the proprietor of Star Welding Workshop, Buldhana.This concern used to undertake the job of welding of various departments including of the Municipal Council, Buldhana.The accused, Nainprakash Adalkhiya, at that time was the Chief Officer of the Municipal Council and admittedly a public servant.In the month of October 1979, the complainant P.W. 2 Syed Gafur had to recover total amount of Rs. 11,000/- towards the payment of remuneration for the services rendered to the Municipal Council.According to him, part payment of Rs. 3,250/- was made by cheque by the Municipal Council on 12-10-1979, for which he was required to pay Rs. 500/- to the accused Chief Officer.On 17-10-1979, the complainant approached to the Chief Officer-accused, for the release of balance payment.Accused to the complaint at that time made a demand of Rs. 800/- for doing the needful.The complainant assured the accused about making of payment next day evening.The complainant (P.W. 2) thereupon approached to P.W. 4 Shivkumar Godbole, who was at that time the member of the Municipal Council and narrated to him the incident of demand.P.W. 4 Godbole advised the complainant to report the matter to the Anti-Corruption Department.P.W. 2 complainant then went to Akola and reported the matter to P.W. 8 Inspector Choube.As instructed by P.W. 8 Choubey, the complainant reduced the complaint in writing (Exh. 21).Inspector Choube directed the complainant to come to his office on the next day i.e. on 18-10-1979 along with the currency notes of Rs. 800/-.The complainant accordingly on 18-10-1979 presented the 11 currency notes (Articles 1 to 10).Numbers of the Currency Notes were noted.The constable applied the phenolphthalein powder.Necessary instructions to the panch and complainant were given.After completing requisite formalities, pre-trap panchanama (Ex. 37) was drawn.The complainant P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 Mankar along with the raiding party thereafter proceeded to Buldhana.The accused accepted the same by right hand.As instructed, thereafter, the complainant gave the agreed signal.The raiding party reached inside the drawing room.The Inspector Choube asked the panch P.W. 3 whether the accused has accepted the amount.On receiving the answer in affirmative, Inspector Choube asked the accused to produce the amount.The accused was reluctant.He denied of having accepted the bribe.Inspector Choube then warned him that in case of failure to produce the amount, they would take search.The accused even then was reluctant.Inspector Choube then took a search of the accused.However, currency notes were no found.There were rumours of rampant corruption in the Transport Office.Inspector Shri Choube was in the Department of Anti-Corruption.In para 8 of his deposition, he has narrated the actual incident.According to him, he along with the complainant entered into the drawing room of the accused.The accused at that time sat on the cot and two iron chairs were in front of the said cot.He further stated that bed was also placed on the cot where the accused was sitting.He deposed.The accused then told him, all right, his work will be done.The accused then asked the complainant as to who I was ? The complainant told him that I was working as apprentice in his workshop.The accused then told him, all right, pay the amount.The complainant then took out the notes from the left pocket of his manila by his left hand and handed over the same to the accused.JUDGMENT A.A. Desai, J.On reaching Buldhana, the complainant and panch Mankar first went to the workshop of the complainant.The complainant took his daughter with him and thereafter proceeded to the house of the accused.In the drawing room of house of the accused, the complainant and the panch sat on the chairs whereas the accused was sitting on the cot.On making demands by the accused, the complainant handed over the currency notes (Article 1 to 11).Inspector Choube then enquired from the panch as to where the accused was sitting.The panch pointed out the cot.On removing the pillow which was lying on the cot, Inspector Choube found the currency notes.After completing necessary formalities of preparation of the solution and testing the hands of the accused, the complainant, the pillow cover and the bed-sheet, as per the version of P.W. 3, post-trap panchanama i.e. Exhibit 40 was drawn.After taking necessary steps, charge sheet was filed.The defence of the accused was of denial.According to him, he was implicated owing to political vengence, since P.W. 4 Godbole was cherishing a grievance against him.His specific defence was that while complainant and the panch witness were sitting in drawing room of his house, he went inside.When he returned back, the complainant shook his hands as a gesture of Diwali greetings.Fingers of his right hand therefore came in contact with powder.In the meanwhile, according to the accused, perhaps the complainant might have kept those currency notes tainted with phenolohthalein powder beneath the pillow lying on the cot.The learned Special Judge observed that the prosecution case suffers from variance and contradiction on the material aspects.He, therefore, disbelieving the prosecution story recorded the finding of acquittal.However, he has disowned the same in his substantive testimony.He deposed that he was not required to pay any bribe amount at any time.This can did admission, according to the learned Special Judge, has created a doubt about the very inception of the prosecution case.The learned Special Judge made a pertinent omission from consideration and also in approach that P.W. 2 complainant while in the dock realised from case and subsequently turned hostile.His tendency to oblige the accused was writ large.The complainant (P.W. 2) in the complaint (Ex. 21) has averred that "on 17-10-1979, I went to the house of Adalkhiya, the Chief Officer, where he asked him to give Rs. 800/-".The complainant, however, in his substantive testimony at page 77 stated that he went to the office of the accused/Chief Officer.The complainant with a definite design tried to resale from his own complaint.Meeting with accused before 8.00 A.M. could ordinarily be possible for the complainant at his residence.Statement in Ex. 21, therefore, appears more near the truth, which the complainant specifically asserted to be correct in his testimony.Reason being the complainant then physically could not reach from Buldhana to Akola on the same day during the office hours of the Department.P.W. 8- Inspector Choubey has specifically stated that the complainant reached to his office on 17-10-1979 at 4.30 p.m. The claim of the complainant of his meeting with P.W. 4 Godbole at 4.30 p.m was with an oblique motive.In normal course he could reach from Buldhana to the office of P.W. 8 at Akola at 4.30 P.M. - if the incident of demand has occurred in the morning hours.We have, therefore, definite reason to believe that the demand was made on 17-10-1979 at the residence of the accused and version in the complaint (Ex. 21) is correct.The defence then tried to assail the lodging of complaint on the ground that it was politically motivated and was at the instigation of P.W. 4 Godbole.He on his own, narrated the incident to him.Mr. Godbole (P.W. 4) then advised him to report the matter to the Anti-Corruption Department.Certainly (P.W. 4) Godbole has not concocted the story of demand for lodging the complaint.The complainant in his testimony tried to oblige defence by saying that Godbole (P.W. 4) accompanied him to Akola and was present when he lodged the report.P.W. 4 Godbole specifically denied the suggestion of giving company or his presence at the time of lodging the complaint.No such suggestion was made to P.W. 8 Inspector Choube with whom complaint Ex. 21 was lodged.Moreover, it is pertinent to note in the cross-examination by the defence, the complainant has answered that, "It is not true that I have lodged my complaint at the instance of Shivkumar Godbole (P.W. 4)".In view of this, the attack as tried to be made is false and baseless.We now proceed to deal with the aspect of demand.The complainant though turned hostile is unequivocal as regards the demand of bribe made on 17-10-1979 by the accused.The complainant fortified his version by saying that he was shocked on receiving demand from the accused and, therefore, met P.W. 4 Godbole and disclosed the same.P.W. 4 renders complete corroboration on this aspect.P.W. 3 Panch Shri Mankar also ascertained the truth of complaint Ex. 21 to whom the complainant testified the demand by the accused.We have carefully gone through the authority.In the case before the Supreme Court, the complaint was lodged after 10 days.In the instant case, the complaint was immediately lodged on the same day when demand was made and the same did not suffer from any fallacy as discussed.It is tried to be submitted that the staff in the Transport Office including P.W. 3 was apprehensive of him.Panch was under control and influence of Inspector Choube.(B) While proceeding from the workshop towards the house of the Chief Officer, on the way, they met Inspector Shri Choube, However, the complainant (P.W. 2) denied this version.(C) P.W. 2 while proceeding towards the house of the Chief Officer carried his small daughter.We may mention here, that there is no dispute about entry of the panch along with the complainant in the house of accused and sitting there along with him.P.W. 2 (P. 71) agreed to suggestion saying that, "It is true that I and panch Mankar then entered into his house.It is true that the accused then sat on the cot, while I sat on the iron chair which was placed near the western wall and panch Mankar sat on chair, which was placed near southern wall of the house."The complainant again requested the accused to issue the cheque of remaining bill early.Thereupon the accused told him that the work of many other persons was pending.The complainant then told him that he had come prepared as per his say.The accused took those notes by his right hand."The complainant was cross-examined on various aspects at length.With the assistance of the learned Counsel, we have gone through the entire cross-examination with due caution.He stood the searching cross-examination.He asserted in cross-examination that the conversation between the accused and complainant was in Hindi and he heard it.He also asserted in reply to the suggestion that in the beginning the complainant requested the accused to issue cheque regarding his bills early.On the contrary, according to us, narrating the minute details of the aspect further fortify the credibility of this witness.The defence in cross-examination could not bring any contradiction or omission amounting to contradiction or variance in the substance of the version regarding the acceptance of bribe.This witness according to us, is completely trust worthy.We may further add that in lengthy cross-examination of this witness in para 24, the defence gave a specific suggestion to which he has answered, "It is true that the accused demanded the money and extended his hand.It is true that thereafter the complainant took out the money from his pocket of his manila and gave the same to the accused." The piece of evidence as brought on record by the defence has strengthened the testimony as reproduced above.Besides this, we find a corroboration to the version of the panch from the result of test of the figures and also of the bed-sheet and pillow.His version is further supported by the facts that the currency notes recovered from the place where accused was sitting and the number of which tallied with the first panchanama (Exhibit 27).We, therefore, hold the respondent/accused is guilty for having committed an offence punishable under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and section 5(1)(d) read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 for having demanded on 17-10-1979 bribe amount of Rs. 800/- for discharging his official duties and accepting the same on 18-10-1979 at about 8 p.m.We have heard Mr. Sirpurkar, the learned Counsel appearing for the defence, on the question of sentence.He has further stated that the accused suffered agony since 1979 as he was under suspension.In the submission of Mr. Sirpurkar, that the accused should be let off only by imposing a fine.We have also heard the learned Counsel for the State.According to Mr. Jichkar, A.G.P., as per the penal provisions laid down under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 the accused could not be let off only on imposing a fine.He, in the submission of Mr. Jichkar, A.G.P. is liable to be sentenced.Considering the various aspects as canvassed by the learned Counsel, we pass the following order.Appeal No. 173 of 1986 is allowed.The respondent accused Nainprakash S/o.The accused respondent shall surrender to his bail within a period of one month from the date of this judgment.
|
['Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
15,528,081 |
A.1536/2013 Page 1 of 8Briefly stated, the prosecution case as set up in the charge-sheet was that on 06.08.2010, PW-9 (Insp.Surenderjeet Kaur) along with Insp.Brijesh Mishra was on patrolling duty in the area.When they reached at Police Booth Division No.IV at around 03.30 p.m. Smt.Meera Naidu - victim's mother and Bapi Mondal, her maternal uncle met her and produced a missing report (Ex.PW-9/A) lodged by them at Police Station Sonarput, West Bengal about 'X' (assumed name).PW-3 (SI Jaswant Singh) also reached the spot.Kotha No.5211 GB Road was raided.The victim 'X' was recovered from the said kotha.After recording her statement (Ex.PW-1/A), the Investigating Officer lodged First Information Report. 'X' was medically examined; she recorded her 164 Cr.P.C. statement.Statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded.On 09.08.2010, the appellant was arrested from the said 'kotha'.South 24 Pargana.In her Court statement as PW-1, she disclosed that in the evening, the 'lady' had taken her to the 'kotha' to hand over her custody to the appellant.She was kept in the 'kotha' run by her where she forced to have sexual intercourse with different persons; she used to give her beatings Crl.Number of other girls were found at the time of raid in the said 'kotha'.How many girls were found present at the spot is not clear.PW-9 (Insp.Surenderjeet Kaur), the Investigating Officer admitted in the cross-examination that no documentary proof of ownership of 'kotha' No.5211 was collected during investigation.The earnings allegedly retained by the appellant due to prostitution were not recovered.In the cross-examination, he disclosed that this mobile number was in the name of his sister Meera Naidu.He was unable to recollect the number from where the call was received.The Investigating Agency also did not verify as to whom the said mobile belonged.Challenge in this appeal is a judgment dated 25.09.2013 of learned Addl.Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.16/2012 arising out of FIR No. 94/10 PS Kamla Market by which the appellant - Padma was held guilty for committing offences punishable under Section 368 IPC and Sections 5 & 6 Immoral Traffic (Prevention Act), 1956 (in short 'ITP Act').By an order dated 27.09.2013, she was sentenced to undergo RI for seven years with fine `5,000/- under Section 368 IPC; RI for ten years with fine `2,000/- under Section 5(d) of ITP Act; and, RI for seven years with fine `3,000/- under Section 6 of the ITP Act. The sentences were to operate concurrently.Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant for committing offences punishable under Sections 363/366/368/373 IPC; under Section 109 IPC read with Section 376 IPC and Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of ITP Act. In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined ten witnesses.In 313 Cr.P.C. statement, the appellant pleaded false implication and denied her complicity in the crime.After considering the rival contentions of the parties and on appreciation of the evidence, the Trial Court, convicted the appellant for committing the offences under Section 368 IPC and Sections 5(d) & 6 of ITP Act and acquitted her under Sections 363/366/373 IPC, Section 109 IPC read with Section 376 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of ITP Act. It is pertinent to note that the State did not challenge her acquittal under the said Sections.A.1536/2013 Page 2 of 8I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file.At the outset, it may be mentioned that the prosecution was unable to establish the exact age of the victim on the day of incident.The Trial Court in the impugned judgment was of the view that the prosecution was unable to prove if 'X' was minor.The prosecution had only produced Transfer Certificate (Ex.PW-9/H) to establish the victim's age.However, it could not produced or examine any witness to prove its authenticity.No ossification test to ascertain her approximate age was conducted.The plea that the victim was of 16 years of age was not accepted by the Trial Court.The prosecutrix belonged to village Acharya Praful Nagar, Distt.South 24 Pargana, West Bengal.In her complaint (Ex.PW-1/A), she informed that on 02.07.2010, she had gone to witness a 'mela' in her native village along with her two friends Suchitra and Sovik.At the 'mela', they met two boys and thereafter all of them came at Suchitra's house.Suchitra and Sovik left her alone with the said 'boys'.She was confined in the room by the said two 'boys'.Thereafter, on next day, she was brought to Delhi by Howra train.The said two 'boys' took her in a TSR to some place where a lady met her; she took her upstairs to a kotha where she was forced to indulge in prostitution.It is, however, unclear if she was convicted or acquitted in the said case.The victim did not name the two 'boys' who had allegedly met her in the 'mela' and had brought her to Delhi.She did not give their broad Crl.A.1536/2013 Page 3 of 8 features for identification purpose.The Investigating Agency was unable to establish their identity and to bring them to book.The Trial Court in the impugned judgment was constrained to record her displeasure for not making sincere efforts to apprehend the said two 'boys'.The fact remains that the victim never raised hue and cry about her alleged kidnapping or abduction.She travelled in a crowded train for about two days covering a long distance to reach Delhi.She stayed at the said 'kotha' for about two months.At no stage, she attempted to contact her parents.The story presented by her to have gone to a 'mela' along with her friends Suchitra and Sovik and then roaming with the two boys on motorcycle creates serious doubt.The Investigating Agency did not ascertain as to where the prosecutrix was confined by the said two boys.The motorcycle on which the victim and the two boys had travelled was not seized.She did not object when allegedly she was asked to wear a 'burka' to travel in the train.She did not object when she was taken to a stranger lady who in turn left her at the 'kotha'.A.1536/2013 Page 4 of 8 on her refusal to obey her.The victim, however, did not explain as to why the appellant was not named in the initial statement (Ex.PW-1/A).Only in her 161 Cr.P.C. statement recorded on 09.08.2010, the victim named the appellant to be the perpetrator of the crime.In the cross-examination, she gave an inconsistent version that on the day of her recovery from the 'kotha' she had informed the police appellant's name who used to compel her to do prostitution.The Investigating Officer admitted that on 06.08.2010 at the time of raid on the 'kotha', the appellant was not present there.Admittedly, she could be arrested only on 09.08.2010 on the X's identification from the said 'kotha'.Again contradictory version has been narrated about the date and place of appellant's arrest.The police officials have claimed that the appellant was arrested from the 'kotha' on the victim's identification on 09.08.2010 in the evening hours.The victim in her examination-in-chief stated that on 09.08.2010, she accompanied the police to kotha No.5211 GB Road from where the appellant was arrested vide arrest memo (Ex.PW-1/B).In the cross-examination, she introduced a new story and informed that on 09.08.2010, she had gone to the police station during day time and the appellant was already present there.Changing her version she again stated that the appellant came there later on.Upon being questioned by the Court, she stated that she did not remember whether the accused was already present in the police station when she reached there or not.Apparently, the victim is not very sure if the appellant was arrested on her identification, and if so, where and at what time.A.1536/2013 Page 4 of 8Victim's statement has not been corroborated by any other independent public witness.Soon after her recovery from the said 'kotha' 'X' was medically examined vide MLC (Ex.PW-6/A).As per MLC, no external injuries whatsoever were found on her body.It ruled out if the victim was tortured or subjected to beatings prior to her recovery.A.1536/2013 Page 5 of 8Another glaring feature of the case is that no clinching evidence emerged on record to ascertain if the appellant had any nexus with the 'kotha' i.e. if it was owned by her or she was running it on her own and if so, since when.She admitted that during investigation it was revealed that Baby had taken it on rent from one Begum Rather, owner of the premises.She elaborated that after her arrest, Baby gave the premises to the accused to supervise and management.Baby was not the owner of the premises, she was its 'manager'.No evidence has come on record to show as to when Baby was arrested in some other case or when the supervision and management of the 'kotha' was handed over by her to the appellant.The Investigating Officer did not record statement of any witness to substantiate her version.She merely stated that this information was based upon the disclosure by the accused.It Crl.A.1536/2013 Page 6 of 8 has come on record that in July, 2010 in a raid at the said kotha No.5211 at GB road, its owner Baby was arrested.Undisputedly, the victim was brought in the said 'kotha' in July, 2010, so it cannot be inferred with certainty that the appellant was in-charge of the said kotha when 'X' was brought there.The prosecution has not furnished outcome of the said FIR against Baby.Admittedly, at the time of raid, the appellant was not present at the 'kotha'.The prosecution has not explained as to who else was controlling the affairs of the 'kotha' in her absence.The prosecution did not gather any evidence as to who in the absence of the appellant used to take care of inmates of the 'kotha'.A.1536/2013 Page 6 of 89. PW-2 (Bapi Mondal), victim's maternal uncle disclosed that after getting a call on his mobile No.9836306531 on 25.07.2010, they had arrived in Delhi.When they reached GB road after 3 or 4 days of the receipt of information and made a call to the said individual, it was not answered.When his sister Meera Naidu started weeping, some police officials came and enquired about her crying.They narrated the facts to police who took them inside a building where 'X' was recovered.PW-2 (Bapi Mondal) and Meera Naidu did not contact the police soon after arriving at Delhi.This witness was confronted with statement (Ex.PW-2/DA) on various facts which did not find mention therein.No explanation has been given for material omissions.The Crl.A.1536/2013 Page 7 of 8 prosecution did not examine victim's mother.Narrating a different version, PW-9 (Insp.Surenderjeet Kaur) stated that when they were present on patrolling duty, Smt.Meera Naidu - victim's mother and her maternal uncle Bapi Mondal met her and produced a missing report (Ex.PW-9/A); they expressed their apprehension about the presence of 'X' at G.B.Road.A.1536/2013 Page 7 of 8Considering the above referred discrepancies, inconsistencies and omissions, appellant's conviction on the uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix was considered deficient by the Trial Court to base conviction under Sections 363/366373 IPC, Section 109 IPC read with Section 376 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of ITP Act. The appellant deserves benefit of doubt.Resultantly, appellant's appeal is accepted.The conviction and sentence are set aside.The appellant shall be released forthwith if not required to be detained in any other case.Trial Court record be sent back immediately with the copy of the order.A copy of the order be sent to the Superintendent Jail for information / compliance.(S.P.GARG) JUDGE AUGUST 01, 2016 / tr Crl.A.1536/2013 Page 8 of 8A.1536/2013 Page 8 of 8
|
['Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,552,812 |
2.The necessary facts for the disposal of this appeal can be stated thus:The first deceased Senthilkumar was there.P.W.1 and Kuppusamy were chatting for some time.At that time one Angappanadar, the brother of the first accused, came there.Both Angappanadar and Kuppusamy were talking about their financial dealings, in which there was quarrel arose.The said Angappanadar was shouting that he should not return the money.The first deceased Senthilkumar and the others intervened and pacified them.Angappanadar, adumbrating that he could not make payment, took the suri knife and threatened the said Kuppusamy.Consequently, the said Kuppusamy went to the respondent police station and gave a complaint.The said Angappanadar was arrested and he was put under custody.The first accused and his son-in-law the second accused were aggrieved over the same.b)On 29.05.2003 at about 8.00 a.m., the first deceased Senthilkumar and his father the second deceased Chidambaram were reading newspaper at Vinayaka Tex and P.W.1 was also there.At the time when one Ponnusamy went outside to get tea, both the accused entered into the room, where both the deceased and P.W.1 were reading paper.A-1 asked what happened to his brother Angappanadar.P.W.1 replied that pursuant to the quarrel with Kuppusamy, his brother Angappanadar was arrested and sent to prison.Immediately, A-1 told both the deceased that they have instigated Kuppusamy to give false complaint and they were responsible for sending his brother Angappanadar to prison.Both the accused further uttered that if you are allowed to be free, you will be going on doing like this and hence you should be finished off.So saying, A-2 attacked P.W.1 on his head.At that time, P.W.3, Sengodu, came from outside.Senthilkumar, the first deceased, intervened to stop the accused from committing the crime.Immediately, the second accused attacked the first deceased on different parts of his body.The first accused also joined with him.On seeing this, the second deceased Chidambaram intervened.At that time, both the accused cut him indiscriminately.On hearing the alarm, the other witnesses entered into the room.On seeing this, A-1 and A-2 along with the weapons of crime fled away from the place of occurrence.c)P.W.1 and the two deceased were taken to Lotus Hospital, Erode, where the Doctor medically examined Senthilkumar and declared him dead.An information was given to Sivagiri Police station.P.W.17, the Sub Inspector of Police, went to the hospital and recorded the statement of P.W.1, which was marked as Ex.The other deceased Chidambaram, who was under treatment in the said hospital, also died.P.W.1 was given further treatment.P.W.17, after recording Ex.P.1, proceeded to the respondent police station and registered the case on the strength of Ex.P.21, the express F.I.R. was despatched to the Court.d)P.W.18, the Inspector of Police of the said circle, took up the investigation, proceeded to the Lotus hospital and conducted inquest on the dead body of Senthilkumar in the presence of the witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared Ex.P.22, the inquest report.Further, he conducted inquest on the dead body of Chidambaram in the presence of the witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared Ex.P.23, the inquest report.He also recovered material objects under a cover of mahazar.He sent the dead body of both the deceased to the Government Hospital for the purpose of autopsy.e)P.W.18 proceeded to the scene of occurrence and made an inspection in the presence of the witnesses.He prepared Ex.P.4, the observation mahazar and Ex.P.26, the rough sketch.The scene of occurrence was photographed through P.W.12, the photographer.M.O.12 (series) photos and M.O.13 (series) negatives were marked.He recovered material objects from the place of occurrence under a cover of mahazar.f)P.W.7, the Doctor attached to Government Hospital, Erode, on receipt of the requisition, has conducted autopsy on the dead body of Senthilkumar and issued Ex.P.6, the post-mortem certificate, wherein he has opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries sustained.Equally, he conducted post-mortem on the dead body of Chidambaram and issued Ex.P.7, the post-mortem certificate, wherein he has opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries to vital organs.g)On 29.05.2003 at about 9.15 a.m., P.W.8, the Doctor medically examined P.W.1 and the injuries found on him were noted in Ex.P.8, the wound certificate.On the same day at 12.45 hours, A-1 went to the Government Hospital and P.W.11, the Doctor medically examined him and at about 1.05 p.m., A-2 was medically examined by P.W.11, who has issued Ex.P.14 and Ex.P.15, the accident registers respectively.P.W.18, the Investigating Officer arrested both the accused in the presence of the witnesses.They came forward voluntarily to give confessional statements, which were recorded in the presence of the witnesses.The admissible part of the confessional statements of A-1 and A-2 were marked as Exs.P.17 and P.18 respectively.(The judgment of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) This appeal challenges a judgment of the Additional District and Sessions Division, Fast Track Court No.1, Erode made in S.C.No.155 of 2004, whereby the first appellant stood charged under Section 302 IPC (2 counts) and the second appellant stood charges under Sections 307 and 302 IPC (2 counts), tried and found guilty as follows:A-1 and A-2 - 302 IPC (2 counts) - Life imprisonment each for each counts and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-for each counts, in default to undergo 6 months R.I.A-2 - 326 IPC - 5 years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo 6 months R.I. The sentences were to run concurrently.Pursuant to the same, A-1 produced bloodstained aruval and lungi, which were recovered under a cover of mahazar and A-2 also produced bloodstained lungi, shirt and also aruval, which were recovered under a cover of mahazar.Both the accused were sent to judicial remand.h)On the strength of the complaint given by A-1, a case came to be registered in Crime No.72 of 2003 and it was also taken up for investigation along with this case.The Investigating Officer made a request for subjecting the material objects for chemical analysis.Accordingly, all the material objects were subjected to chemical analysis by the Forensic Science Department, which resulted in three reports, namely Ex.P.11, the Chemical Analyst report and Ex.P.12 and Ex.P.13, the Serologist Reports.On completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed the final report.3.The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and necessary charges were framed.In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined 18 witnesses and marked 27 exhibits and 19 M.Os.On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, which they flatly denied as false and no defence witness was examined.The trial court, after hearing the arguments advanced and looking into the materials available, took the view that both the accused were guilty of murder on two counts and A-2 was also found guilty under Section 326 IPC and awarded punishments as referred to above.Hence this appeal at the instance of the appellants.4.Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellants, the learned counsel would submit that the prosecution examined 4 witnesses as eyewitnesses.P.W.1 was the injured witness and P.Ws.2 to 4 were the eyewitnesses.From Ex.P.1, the report and the evidence of P.W.1, the injured witness, it would be quite clear that the other witnesses could not have been in the place of occurrence at the time of occurrence.Even according to Ex.P.1, P.W.3 and one Ponnusamy came inside after the occurrence was over and when the accused was running outside.Hence these witnesses could not have seen the occurrence at all.So far as the other two witnesses are concerned, it would be quite clear from the evidence that these two witnesses came to the occurrence place later.Further according to P.W.1, there were five persons found at the time of occurrence, namely accused two in number, P.W.1 and the deceased two in number and thus, it would be indicative of the fact that no one else could have been present and hence P.Ws.2 to 4 could have come to the place of occurrence later and therefore, their evidence was of no use to the prosecution case.They belonged to different community and that the persons belonging the community of the accused were suppressed by the other community and therefore, the conduct of the first accused in taking tea by sitting in the bench was questioned.At that time, a quarrel arose and following the same, the occurrence has taken place.Hence it would be quite clear that it was the deceased persons who commenced the quarrel and they were the aggressors and when the accused persons were about to be attacked, the accused have exercised private defence and in exercising the private defence, both the deceased died and under these circumstances, the occurrence has happened only in exercise of private defence and hence the act of the accused cannot be taken as one done intentionally or voluntarily or deliberately.In the said incident, the accused sustained injuries and they were medically examined and the accident registers were also marked by the prosecution.Thus, it would clearly indicate that at the time of occurrence, the accused persons also sustained injuries, but the prosecution did not give proper explanation, which could be accepted by the court of law.Under these circumstances, the right of private defence was the way, in which manner the occurrence has taken place, which was well explained by the defence.When the prosecution has also come with a theory, the trial court has to weigh as to which theory is more possible and probable.In the instant case, the theory that was put forth by the accused was actually more probable and in exercise of private defence, the other persons sustained injuries, which ended in death.Under these circumstances, it has got to be considered.7.Added further the learned counsel that the first accused is the father-in-law and the second accused is the son-in-law, who is having two daughters and they have got to be married.The first deceased Senthilkumar and the second deceased Chidambaram succumbed to injuries.The Investigating Officer, after conducting inquest on the dead body of both the deceased, sent the dead bodies to the Government Hospital for the purpose of autopsy.P.W.7, the Doctor attached to Government Hospital, Erode, has conducted autopsy on the dead body of both the deceased and issued Ex.P.6 and Ex.P.7, the post-mortem certificates in respect of the deceased Senthilkumar and Chidambaram respectively, wherein he has categorically opined that both the deceased died out of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries sustained.That part of the evidence put forth by the prosecution that both the deceased died out of homicidal violence was never questioned by the appellants at any stage of proceedings.Hence without any impediment, it could be safely recorded so.It is a settled proposition of law that in a given case like this where one of the eyewitnesses happened to be an injured witness, unless and until a strong circumstance or reason brought or noticed by the court, the evidence of an injured witness cannot be discarded.P.W.1 was in the place at the time of occurrence and he was attacked by A-2 with aruval and he sustained injuries.He was medically treated by P.W.8, the Doctor, who has opined that the injuries could have been caused by a weapon like aruval.Even according to the defence, P.W.1 was present at the place of occurrence and he was the aggressor and thus, it would clearly indicate the presence of P.W.1, who also sustained injuries.11.At this juncture, the contention put forth by the learned counsel for the appellants is that P.Ws.2 to 4 could not have seen the occurrence at all for the reasons recorded above.This Court is able to see on analysis of the evidence that when the occurrence has taken place, where first and second deceased were being attacked, P.W.3 on hearing the sound came inside and he could see the occurrence.So far as the other witnesses are concerned, it is true, as could be seen from the available materials, they could not have seen the occurrence.Thus, the evidence of those witnesses put together would clearly indicate that the accused persons have attacked both the deceased indiscriminately at the place of occurrence.12.The other contention put forth by the learned counsel for the appellants that it is true, the occurrence has taken place, but P.Ws.1 and the deceased 1 and 2 were the aggressors and the origin of the occurrence was the mischief act committed by the first deceased Senthilkumar cannot be countenanced.A reading of the complaint would clearly indicate that it was the first accused, who went to the place of occurrence with the weapons of crime, putting them in a bag and came to the place of occurrence.Thus, it would be indicative of the fact that he came to the place of occurrence with an intention to commit the crime and A-2 also joined him.It is pertinent to point out that the occurrence has not taken place at or about the tea stall, but at Vinayaka Tex, where both the deceased were reading newspaper.The place of occurrence was inspected by the Investigating Officer and he prepared observation mahazar and also rough sketch, which have been marked in that regard and witnesses have also been examined and the place of occurrence was found to be at Vinayaka Tex.Under these circumstances, now the defence theory what was contended before the lower court and equally here also that these accused persons were about to be attacked and in apprehension of danger to the body and life, they exercised private defence and in exercising the private defence, they attacked both the deceased and P.W.1 and caused injuries, cannot be believed in view of the available evidence.In the instant case, even as per the complaint given by A-1, he was in inimical terms with Senthilkumar and hence, the prosecution has brought forth motive for the occurrence.Apart from that, even in the earlier case registered in Crime No.71 of 2003, it has been clearly stated as to how A-1 and A-2 sustained injuries.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
155,289,424 |
/307/332/333/353/427/435 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act and Section 9 of the Maintenance of Public Order Act.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.
|
['Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
15,529,273 |
Through: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for the State with ASI Virender Kumar from PS- Mayapuri.Mr. Irfan Ahmed, Advocate for complainant + BAIL APPLN.Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complaint was lodged by one Sanjay Khattar, who alleged that on 09.07.2017, at around 7:00 pm, when he along with his wife was selling goods on patri opposite shop Deepak electronics/shop belonging to his brother Deepak Khattar/petitioner, a scooter of one Deepak's customer was parked on part of the patri and on request made to the said customer by the complainant, it was made to be parked at some distance.On this, Sanjay Khattar got agitated and started abusing them and then asked his son namely Praveen Kumar and Lokesh Kumar/petitioner to kill them.After which, scuffle took place between them and Deepak Khattar/petitioner along with his sons beaten up the complainant .It was alleged that Lokesh Kumar/petitioner also attacked him by giving fist blow on his ribs and attacked his wife as well.It was further alleged that they were even threatened by them when they were taken to the hospital for medical treatment.CRL.M.C. 849/2017 & connected matters Page 3 of 62001/2017 & CRL.M.A. 16824/2017 DEEPAK KHATTAR ....Petitioner Through: Mr. K.K. Manan, Sr.with Mr. Ankush Narang, Mr. Manveen Dhanjal, Ms. Shivani Kant and Ms. Prateksha, Advocates.Through: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for the State with ASI Virender Kumar from PS- Mayapuri.Mr. Irfan Ahmed, Advocate for complainant CRL.M.C. 849/2017 & connected matters Page 1 of 6 CORAM:CRL.M.C. 849/2017 & connected matters Page 1 of 6HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGALBy way of the present petition filed under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code,1973 (hereinafter referred as 'Cr.P.C.), the petitioner seeks grant of anticipatory bail in respect of FIR No. 186/17, under Section 323/308/506/34 of The Indian Penal Code,1860(hereinafter referred as 'IPC'), registered by P.S. Mayapuri, New-Delhi.Thereafter, the complaint was lodged against the petitioners under Section 323/308/506/34 of IPC.Hence, the present petition.The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the present FIR filed against the petitioner is false and fabricated; that the petitioners were victim of circumstances as the complainant tried to hit Deepak Khattar /father of Lokesh with a hammer on his head CRL.M.C. 849/2017 & connected matters Page 2 of 6 and on failure to do so, hit him on the foot; that the Deepak Khattar /father of Lokesh/petitioner also sustained injury and got examined himself vide MLC No. 5965 on 09.07.2017; that perusal of the CD shows that the petitioners are no where seen hitting the complainant; that the complainant has been giving threats to the petitioners to implicate them in false cases and even complaint has been filed by Deepak Khattar/petitioner at P.S Mayapuri on 12.07.2017; that the complainant has already been discharged from the hospital and the injuries are simple; that there is a delay of 3 days in filing the present FIR; that the petitioner is not required for any custodial interrogation.Hence, the present petition should be allowed.CRL.M.C. 849/2017 & connected matters Page 2 of 6Per Contra, the learned APP for the State for contends that benefit of anticipatory bail should not be accorded to the petitioner as the offence is of serious nature.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.After giving careful consideration to the entire facts and circumstances of the present case, it is observed that the petitioners herein is involved in a serious crime in association with each other.It was specifically alleged by the complainant during lodging of FIR that when the scuffle took place, Deepak Kumar/petitioner asked his sons namely Lokesh Kumar/petitioner and Praveen Kumar to brutally beat them and kill the complainant and his wife, as he will further manage things.Thereafter, Praveen Kumar got lathi, Lokesh Kumar/petitioner caught him with his hands and CRL.M.C. 849/2017 & connected matters Page 3 of 6 Praveen attacked him on his head by lathi.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
155,301,787 |
In other words the charge-sheet submitted by the police in a non-cognizable offence shall be treated to be a complaint and the procedure prescribed for hearing of complaint case shall be applicable.
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 2 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
155,302,553 |
06.11.2020 Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non Speaking order rts To The Judicial Magistrate, Tambaramhttp://www.judis.nic.in Page 4 of 5 CRL.O.P.No.22327 of 2019 R.PONGIAPPAN, J.Page 4 of 5rts CRL.O.P.No.22327 of 2019 06.11.2020http://www.judis.nic.in Page 5 of 5Page 5 of 5This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking relief to set aside the order dated 13.06.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram in Crl.M.P.No.3294 of 2018 and direct issuance of process to the respondents/accused.Heard Mr.There was no representation for the respondents.Before the Court below, the petitioner being a complainant filed a complaint against the respondents 1 & 2 under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., alleging that the respondents 1 & 2 are committed the offence under Section 500 of IPC.The said complaint has been taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram in Crl.M.P.No.3294 of 2018 and after hearing the petitioner alone, the said complaint has been dismissed by observing that the notice dated 08.01.2018 sent by the accused and the reply notice dated 22.01.2018 sent by the complainant did not disclose the offence under Sectionhttp://www.judis.nic.in Page 2 of 5 CRL.O.P.No.22327 of 2019 499 of IPC.Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner is before this Court seeking relief to set aside the above referred order.Page 2 of 5Now on perusal of the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram, it has been passed without either recording sworn statement from the complainant nor getting report from the concerned jurisdictional Police officer.Therefore, the said procedure adopted by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram is in violation of Section 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C.Upon receipt of the complaint, it is the duty of the Magistrate to follow the procedure contemplated either under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., or 202 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, basically the impugned order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram is in violation of the said procedure.Therefore, for the above reason alone, the impugned order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram is liable to be set aside.http://www.judis.nic.in Page 3 of 5 CRL.O.P.No.22327 of 2019Page 3 of 5Accordingly, the order dated 13.06.2018 passed in Crl.M.P.No.3294 of 2018 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram is set aside.The learned Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram is directed to pass orders in the complaint filed by the petitioner after complying the procedure laid down either under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., or 202 of Cr.P.C.With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition is ordered accordingly.
|
['Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
155,304,421 |
The State is aggrieved by the order dated 18th March, 2017 to the extent that the main accused Anjum Khanna - respondent No.1 has been discharged.Kusum Dhalla, learned APP for the State has submitted that the complainant 'R' (name withheld to conceal her identity) has specifically stated not only in the FIR but also in her statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC and under Section 164 CrPC that her consent to have physical relations was obtained by the respondent No.1 on promise to marry.Later on, from someone she came to know that the respondent No.1 was already married.It has been submitted that while passing the impugned order on discharge, the learned Trial Court has not correctly interpreted the ratio of Dilawar Balu Kurane vs. State of Maharashtra 2002 (1) JCC 172, hence the impugned order to the extent of discharge the respondent No.1, may be set aside and respondent No.1 may be directed to face trial.The respondents, in addition to the oral submissions, have also filed written synopsis.(ii) No physical relations were ever there.(iii) The chargesheet contains e-mails and SMS showing that the complainant owed money to the respondent No.1 and the financial transactions have been verified at the stage of seeking anticipatory bail.The brief facts necessitating the disposal of present petition are that on 2nd April, 2016 the complainant lodged the report that the respondent No.1 Anjum Khanna promised to marry her and made relations with her.She also stated that later on through someone she came to know that he was married and when she confronted him on this issue, he admitted that he was already married but informed that he would take divorce from his wife and marry her.The physical relations continued even after the respondent shifted to Bangalore.He even took money from the complainant to pay his wife to settle the divorce issue.In her statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC also, the complainant stated about her consent for physical relations being CRL.REV.P. 504/2017 Page 4 of 11 obtained on promise to marry.She also stated that later on she came to know through someone that the respondent No.1 was already married and when she questioned him on this issue, she was told that he was in the process of taking divorce from his wife and will get divorce in September, 2015 and then marry her.The only contention of the prosecutrix in the entire case has been that accused had told her that he will take divorce from her earlier wife and thereafter he will marry the prosecutrix.Even, to this extent, there is no allegation of the prosecutrix that, since the accused, had promised her to marry", therefore, she had established physical relations with him.The prosecutrix is silent CRL.REV.P. 504/2017 Page 6 of 11 about the absence of her consent or her consent being forcefully obtained by the accused or obtained by the accused under mis-conception or mis-guidance.Admittedly, prosecutrix was aware since beginning that accused is already married, as is clear from her complaint and allegation that accused took money from her for giving divorce to his wife.'For the reasons stated in the application, 26 days' delay in filing the revision petition is condoned.Application is disposed of.The State has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 397/401 CrPC feeling aggrieved by the order dated 18th March, 2017 whereby respondents/accused persons have been discharged for the offence punishable under Section 376/506 IPC in case FIR No.347/2016, PS Hari Nagar.As against respondent No.2 Mona Katyal (wife of main accused Anjum Khanna/respondent No.1), in the chargesheet it is mentioned that during investigation no proof in respect of the offence punishable under Section 506 IPC could be collected against her.She was not CRL.REV.P. 504/2017 Page 1 of 11 even arrested in this case.CRL.REV.P. 504/2017 Page 1 of 11Mr.C.P.Malik, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the reasons given by learned Trial Court for discharging the accused persons are based on appreciation of the three different statements made by the complainant/prosecutrix i.e. the original complaint and statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC CRL.REV.P. 504/2017 Page 2 of 11 and other material placed on record.It has been submitted that the complainant was an educated lady and since beginning she knew that the respondent was already married.Hence there was no occasion for respondent No.1 to obtain her consent for physical relation by concealing his marital status.Hence, no prima facie case for framing the charge for commission of the offence punishable under Section 376/506 IPC was made out.CRL.REV.P. 504/2017 Page 2 of 11In the written synopsis filed by the respondents, following submissions have been made:-(iv) Even as per the complainant, physical relations were not established forcefully or by extending any threat.(v) The allegations of extending threat by respondents no.1 and 2 are unspecific and false.(vi) The respondents have rightly been discharged relying on the decision of Dilawar Balu Kurane vs. State of Maharashtra 2002 (1) JCC 172 as the facts of the case did not give rise to grave suspicion against the respondents.CRL.REV.P. 504/2017 Page 3 of 11(vii) The complainant has made various improvements in her original complaint and subsequent statements recorded under Section 161 and 164 CrPC to cover her deficiencies.(viii) Forged hotel bills have been placed on record by the Investigating Officer.(ix) The complainant failed to answer the ten questions served on her in the form of questionnaire by the Investigating Officer.(x) The purported CD filed by the prosecutrix is not supported by the certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act.Subsequently she came to know that no divorce proceedings were pending.CRL.REV.P. 504/2017 Page 4 of 11Almost on similar lines, the complainant made the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.The learned Additional Sessions Judge while passing the impugned order on discharge has discussed the testimony of the complainant/prosecutrix as under:-In the present case, in the entire complaint lodged by the prosecutrix as well as the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 CrPC she has no where stated that physical relations, which were established between her and accused Anjum Khanna, were either without her consent or they were made against her wish or Will.In the entire FIR as well as in the statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. of the prosecutrix, she has no where stated that accused Anjum Khanna had used any force against her on any person was p[ut under fear of death or hurt due to which physical relations were forcibly established by the accused.It is also not the case of the prosecutrix that at the time of establishing physical relations, she was not in the position to convey her consent or that she was unable to give any consent.A bare reading of complaint as alleged by the prosecutrix clearly shows that on 18/04/2014, accused came to her house for the very first time and established relations with her.She has not stated that these relations established by the accused were either forceful or against CRL.REV.P. 504/2017 Page 5 of 11 her wishes.The only force exerted by the accused, as per complaint, is for coming to the house of prosecutrix when her mother allegedly was not at home.She had specifically stated that she refused the accused to come to her house but he stated that he will go back within some time and he insisted to come to her place.But prosecutrix has not uttered even a single word at any point of time that physical relations were established between her and accused forcefully by the accused or by putting her under fear of death or by making her incapacitated to give consent or against her wishes.In the absence of any such allegation/averment regarding the consent of the prosecutrix being absent or the act of the accused being forceful, I am of the opinion that allegations as made against accused Anjum Khanna does not fall within the definition of term 'rape', as described in section 375 IPC.CRL.REV.P. 504/2017 Page 5 of 11Further, in the complaint, prosecutrix had staetd that accused had called her to Bangalore and told her that he had seen a house where they will be living after marriage and in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she had specifically stated that she had stayed with the accused in resort for 3-4 days at Bangalore and she had also stayed with him in rented flat at Bangalore.On both occasions, prosecutrix has again not stated that she was forced to live with the accused or physical relations were established with her by the accused against her wishes or that accused had committed any sexual assault upon her at either of these places.The learned Trial Court was only required to consider whether a prima facie case for framing a charge under Section 376/506 IPC is made out against respondent No.1 and not to appreciate the evidence as if arriving at the conclusion as to whether the material placed was sufficient to base the conviction.As the impugned order dated 18th March, 2017 to the extent of discharging respondent No.1 of the offence punishable under Section CRL.REV.P. 504/2017 Page 10 of 11 376/506 IPC has been passed against the settled legal position, the same is set aside.The respondent No.1 shall face trial for the offences complained of.
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
155,305,570 |
ORAL JUDGMENT [Per A.H. Joshi, J.]:Criminal Appeal No. 284 of 1997 is preferred by accused - Gautam, who was convicted in Sessions Trial No.65 of 1997 for offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II and Section 324 of Indian Penal Code.Other two accused ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:07:52 ::: 3 Babarao and Damduji were tried in said trial, but were acquitted.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:07:52 :::Accused Damduji died during pendency of appeal and appeal has abated to his extent.Criminal Appeal No. 372 of 1999 is preferred by State claiming conviction of acquitted accused and for enhancement of sentence by conviction for offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code.The accused persons were tried for offence [a] punishable under Section:-302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code for knowingly killing Raju alias Bhaurao Tatoba Urkude of Bhugaon on or about 30th December, 1992 between 7-00 and 7-30 p.m.;[b] 324 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code for causing a bleeding injury to Tatoba Urkude of Bhugaon; and, [c] 323 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code for voluntarily causing hurt to Vijay Tatoba Urkude of Bhugaon.Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties.The case was commenced with First Information Report lodged by PW 2 - Vijay Tatobaji Urkude, reporting that on 30th December, 1992 around between 7-00 and 7-30 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:07:52 ::: 4 p.m., the accused persons assaulted complainant's brother Raju, did him to death and caused injury to his father etc. PW 2 - Vijay and PW 3 - Tatoba approached the Police Station at about 9-00 p.m. FIR was recorded at about 10.30 p.m., accused were called and arrested etc.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:07:52 :::According to prosecution :-[a] Accused Gautam had used scissors, a deadly weapon, for assaulting.[b] The assault resulted into injuries on the person of Raju.Prosecution has examined in all thirteen witnesses as follows:-[a] PW 2 - Vijay T. Urkude and PW 3 - Tatoba Bhagwan Urkude are the eye-witnesses, who are related to the victim.Vipinchandra Harishchandra Tirpude and PW 13 - Dr. Prabhanjana Singh Dindayalsingh are medical witnesses as to injuries etc. [e] Other witnesses pertain to process of investigation.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:07:52 :::After considering the evidence, the Learned Sessions Judge found as follows:-[a] The delay in lodgment of FIR was not fatal.[b] Recovery of weapon was not proved.[c] There are slight deviations in the oral evidence relating to the location of injury, however, it will not matter in the background that presence of accused is proved.[d] There is a history of free fight and there are cross-complaints.belonging to PW 3 - Tatoba is admittedly found on the scene of offence.[f] Considering the dispute, which was apparently going on, it would be a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and, therefore, a case under Section 304-II of Indian Penal Code.[g] Assault on PW 3 - Tatoba was an offence under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code.[h] The versions of witnesses PW 2 - Vijay and PW 3 - Tatoba contain certain discrepancies which have to be accounted to their being rustic villagers.The Judgment and Order of conviction is challenged by the prosecution in the State appeal, urging that considering the injury on vital part of the body, and that accused had arrived at the scene of offence with a clear intention to commit murder, the conviction for offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code was ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:07:52 ::: 6 liable to be ordered and, therefore, by modifying the conviction and sentence, the accused be convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, and be accordingly sentenced.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:07:52 :::Learned Adv., for the accused persons, in contrast, claimed total acquittal, and for that purpose has urged as follows:-[a] Use of scissors is completely ruled out, for the reasons, namely :-[1] ig Medical evidence goes to prove that scissors were not used.[2] The injury was caused by the weapon having both sides sharp, while scissors have one side sharp and one blunt when opened, and both sides blunt when closed.[3] The FIR does not mention scissors as a weapon.[4] Even the learned Sessions Judge has held that scissors were not proved due to absence of signature of the accused on memorandum, and as the Panch witnesses have turned hostile.[b] Even according to the complainant, the accused had not reached the place of offence duly armed.[c] Admittedly, one of the accused told the other to come with weapon, and he lateron brought the weapon.[d] Admittedly, there was a dispute between the parties relating to the boundary of ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:07:52 ::: 7 the plot.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:07:52 :::[e] PW 2 - Vijay and PW 3 - Tatoba alleged that they had stated before the police that the accused were equipped with scissors and they are not able to explain as to why police have not recorded the same in their respective statements.This omission is proved by questioning the witnesses as is apparent from the cross- examinations of PW 2 - Vijay and PW 3 - Tatoba as well as the Investigating Officer.[f] While loss of life of Raju and injury to PW 3 - Tatoba is a fact, the fact, namely accused were first called and FIR was later recorded, emerges to be the only conclusion.[g] The deviation in the statements of PW 2 -Vijay and PW 3 - Tatoba cannot be simply ignored by branding these witnesses as rustic witnesses.In the result, worth of their testimonies as eye-witnesses loses its weight.[h] Be it that the witnesses are rustic, if their version is otherwise not proved and corroborated, however, factual they may be narrating, it would not be adequate to convict the accused persons, since the version of the witnesses cannot be said to have been proved beyond reasonable suspicion.[i] The suspicion accrues in positive terms when independent witnesses fervently relied upon by the prosecution do not support the prosecution.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:07:52 :::In order to test respective submissions, this Court has scrutinized the evidence of star witnesses, i.e., PW 2 - Vijay and PW 3 - Tatoba.In the testimonies of both these witnesses, what is seen common is as follows:-[1] There were disputes between the party of the complainant and all the accused.[2] The very cause of arrival of the accused at the place of offence is abusing by the [3] complainant's sister.The version of PW 2 - Vijay narrates the incident of earlier dispute between the female members of the families and as to how the incident occurred.He even claims that he went to police station and gave a report.[4] PW 3 - Tatoba also claims that he gave a report.[5] In the cross-examinations, both these witnesses admit bringing of scissors and assault by it, as stated by them to police [Para 8 of deposition of PW 2 -around between 8-00 and 8.30 p.m. [8] Their statements were recorded forthwith, yet the FIR is registered at 10-00 p.m. ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:07:52 ::: 9::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:07:52 :::This Court has considered respective submissions and has appreciated the evidence.There could be other circumstantial evidence considering the limitations of ocular evidence, since independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution.Be it that, the case of the prosecution is based on truth, and as the accused had punctually been apprehended by the Police Station, i.e., within even two hours from the time of occurrence of incident, they had no opportunity to screen the evidence by destroying the weapon.The failure of police to locate the weapon and prove its seizure in said background creates suspicion ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:07:53 ::: 10 about the commission of offence by only the accused persons.At least a positive conclusion that the accused persons have committed offence by weapon allegedly used cannot be reached against them.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:07:53 :::The best evidence which accused could never have denied is their blood-stained clothes which were seized by the police.Prosecution has, however, failed to prove this crucial evidence.Admittedly prosecution is not reply even in this Court as to why the witnesses were not in a position to brought forward to prove the nexus of the clothes with the accused.It is even otherwise not shown that in absence of proof of clothes being those worn by the accused and blood stains thereon being that of the deceased, how could accused claim to rescue from the conviction.If the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is to be accepted in part, the only conclusion, which has to emerge, is that they have committed murder to which Trial Court did not agree.If the witnesses are not to be believed even in part, the result has to be that of total acquittal.This Court finds itself in total agreement with the submission of learned Adv.Mr. Dangre that if at all the evidence is to be believed, there are no reasons as to ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:07:53 ::: 11 why the accused could not be guilty for offence punishable under Section 302, and if the evidence is disbelieved, they cannot be held guilty for offence under Section 304-II of Indian Penal Code as well.By applying this rational, the accused persons cannot be held guilty for offence punishable under Sections 304-II and 324 of Indian Penal Code; lest it would mean the same thing, i.e., convicting the accused on account of bare proof of fact of their presence on the scene of offence in the background of a prior dispute between the parties and on unexplained injuries on the persons of accused.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:07:53 :::In the result, the appeal filed by Accused No.1 -Gautam has to succeed.Hence the following order:-[b] The conviction and sentence of Accused No.1 -Gautam Urkude for offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II and Section 324 of Indian Penal Code awarded by the Judgment and order under appeal is set aside.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:07:53 :::[c] Criminal Appeal No. 372 of 1997 filed by the State is dismissed.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:07:53 :::
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
120,354,480 |
A.No.379/2016 & Cr.Since both the applications are connected with the common judgment, decided by the present common order.Heard on I.A.No.6767/2016, an application for suspension of sentence on behalf of appellants no.2, 4,5 and 6 namely Mukesh, Satua, Chalona and Ramkishore.Also heard on I.A.No.8354/2016, an application for suspension of sentence on behalf of appellant-Kalyan.Each of the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:148 IPC One year R.I. Rs.1000/- 2 months R.I.325/149 IPC Two years R.I. Rs.1000/- 2 months R.I.Learned counsel for the appellants submit that the appellants were on bail during the trial and they did not misuse the liberty granted to them.Except of offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 of IPC remaining Cr.A.No.379/2016 & Cr.A.No.438/2016 2 conviction and sentence has been recorded for minor offences and the appellants have remained in the custody for more than six months.There are fair chances that sentence of remaining offences may be reduced to the period for which they remained in custody.Under these circumstances, appellants pray for bail and suspension of execution of jail sentence.A.No.379/2016 & Cr.Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposes the application.
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
120,354,742 |
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.
|
['Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
120,356,940 |
The instant application has been filed u/s 482 with a prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 18.11.2014 filed in Criminal Case No. 149/2017 in Case Crime No. 257 of 2014, U/s 452, 323, 504, 506, 354 ka IPC and Section 3(1)X SC/ST Act, Police Station Bakshi Ka Talab, District Lucknow (State of U.P. vs. Ram Khelawan) and also order dated 7.7.2015 passed by A.C.J.M, Room No. 29 Lucknow.Heard Sri Saket Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant, the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case.
|
['Section 190 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
12,036,243 |
Ramasamy [D1] had two wives by name Saroja and Kullammal.Saroja had a son by name Akilandamurthy and a daughter by name Thangam @ Vimala.Kullammal has a son, who is the first accused herein.Akilandamurthy died 17 years before in an accident.A sum of Rs.4,00,000/- [Rupees four lakhs only] was awarded as compensation in the claim made under the Motor Vehicles Act. D1 had spent the entire amount lavishly and nothing was saved.He had also borrowed a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- [Rupees three lakhs fifty thousand only] from third parties and spent the same also.[c] It is further alleged that the accused 2 to 4 are the relatives of the first accused.At around 2.00 a.m. on 14.09.2012, according to him, he heard the information that the house of the deceased was burning.Therefore, he rushed to the house of the deceased.He found both the deceased sitting in front of the house with extensive burn injuries.The entire house, including the articles inside, were burnt.He immediately made arrangement for 108 ambulance and took both the deceased to the Government Hospital at Edappady.On his way, when he enquired both the deceased as to how the house caught fire, D1 told him that somebody would have set fire to the house.He did not name the persons who had set fire to the house, as he was not aware of that.With this information, he took the deceased to the Government Hospital, Edappady, from where they were referred to the Government Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical College Hospital, Salem.[e] P.W.10 - Dr.Saravanan examined D1 at 5.00 a.m. on 14.09.2012 at Government Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical College Hospital, Salem.He admitted him as in-patient in the hospital and gave intimation to the Judicial Magistrate for recording his dying declaration.Simultaneously, he examined D2 at 5.00 a.m. who was also brought from Government Hospital, Edappady.Her condition was also serious.There were extensive burn injuries on her body.He admitted her as in-patient and gave intimation to the Judicial Magistrate for recording her dying declaration.He also gave intimation to the police.[f] P.W.13, the then Sub Inspector of Pulampatti police station, on receiving intimation from the hospital, initially went to the Government Hospital at Edappady and on coming to know that both the deceased had been taken to Government Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical College Hospital, Salem, he rushed to the said hospital.He found that they were not in a position to speak.By the side of the deceased, P.W.3 - Vimala and P.W.1 were present.P.W.13 recorded the statement of P.W.1 under Ex.P1 and on returning to the police station, he registered a case in Cr.No.163 of 2012 under "Accidental fire".The said FIR was registered at 6.00 p.m. under Ex.He forwarded both the documents to Court and took up the case for investigation.At 6.30 p.m., he went to the place of occurrence, prepared an Observation Mahazar and a Rough Sketch in the presence of P.W.2 and another witness.He also recovered the burnt articles from the place of occurrence.He examined the neighbour.On 16.09.2012 at 2.30 a.m. D1 died in the hospital.On receiving intimation from the hospital, P.W.13 altered the case into one under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and submitted the Alteration Report under Ex.P34 to the Court.Between 8.00 a.m. and 10.00 a.m. on 16.09.2012, in the hospital, he conducted inquest on the body of D1 and forwarded the body for post-mortem.Gokularamanan conducted autopsy on the body of D1 on 16.09.2012 and gave opinion that the death was due to extensive burn injuries.He arrested the first accused on 24.09.2012 at 11.30 a.m. in the presence of P.W.9 and another witness.On such arrest, the first accused gave a voluntary confession, in which he disclosed the place where he had hidden the plastic can [M.O.2] and match box [M.O.3].On the same day, at 2.30 p.m., he arrested the accused 2 and 3 in the presence of the same witnesses.For Appellant [A3] : Mr.R.N.Amarnath [In Crl.A.No.522/2014] For Appellants [A2 and A4]: Mr.P.Kumaresan [In Crl.A.No.523/2014] for Mr.B.Nambiselvan For Appellant [A1] : Mr.Philip Fernandes Jesudoss [In Crl.A.No.523/2014] For Respondent : Mr.M.Maharaja in both appeals Additional Public Prosecutor C O M M O N J U D G M E N T(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.NAGAMUTHU, J.) The appellants are the accused 1 to 4 in S.C.No.129 of 2014 on the file of the II Additional Sessions Court, Salem.These acts of the first deceased were questioned by Saroja and Kullammal.Therefore, he deserted the entire family, went to Chinnakkavur Village in Mettur Taluk and took Kuppammal [D2] as his third wife.[b] There was an ancestral property measuring about four acres belonging to the ancestors of Saroja and Kullammal.They transferred the title for the said property in favour of the first accused.Thus, the first accused was claiming that he was the absolute owner of the entire extent of four acres.D1 had a land measuring 1-1/2 acres.D1 sold the same and paid a substantial amount to the first accused and his sister Vimala [P.W.3].D1 was claiming that he would get a share out of the four acres of land which was transferred in the name of the first accused by Saroja and Kullammal.The first accused got enraged over the same.This is stated to be the motive for the occurrence.It is further alleged that on 14.09.2012 during night, around 2.00 a.m., all the four accused gathered before the house of the deceased at Valayachettiyur to execute the above conspiracy.The accused 3 and 4 were standing outside the house to caution the movement of anybody, and the accused 1 and 2 set fire to the house.D1 and D2 were inside the house and the said fact was known to all the four accused.Thus, according to the case of the prosecution, the house was set on fire with an intention to cause the death of both the deceased.After setting fire, all the four accused fled away from the scene of occurrence.[g] On 16.09.2012 at 6.30 p.m., D2 died in the hospital.On 17.09.2012, P.W.13 conducted inquest on the body of the deceased between 8.00 and 8.10 a.m. and forwarded the body for post-mortem.P.W.7 conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased and gave opinion that the death was due to the burn injuries.[h] When both D1 and D2 were undergoing treatment in the hospital, on receiving intimation from the doctor, P.W.6, the then Judicial Magistrate-I, Salem had rushed to the Government Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical College Hospital, Salem on 14.09.2012 at 6.40 a.m. At 6.55 a.m., he recorded the dying declaration of D1 between 7.00 a.m. and 7.15 a.m. P.W.10 - Dr.Saravanan gave certificate that D1 was conscious.The learned Magistrate recorded that D1 was in a fit state of mind to make the dying declaration.P.W.10 gave opinion that D2 was conscious.The learned Magistrate recorded his satisfaction that D2 was in a fit state of mind to make the dying declaration.On such arrest, both the accused gave voluntary confessions one after the other.[j] In his confession, the third accused disclosed the place where he had hidden the motor cycle bearing Registration No.The same was recovered under a mahazar, on being produced by the third accused [vide M.O.5].In his confession, the second accused disclosed the place where he had hidden the motor cycle bearing Registration No.The second accused produced the same from the hide out and the same was accordingly recovered [vide M.O.4].During the course of investigation, on 25.09.2012, at 11.00 a.m., in the presence of P.W.7, the fourth accused was arrested and on such arrest, he gave a voluntary confession.On completing the investigation, he laid charge sheet against these accused.Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed appropriate charges, which the accused denied.In order to prove the case of the prosecution, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 14 witnesses were examined and 39 documents were exhibited, besides 5 Material Objects.Out of the said witnesses, P.W.1, the brother's son of the deceased has stated that on hearing about the occurrence, he went to the place of occurrence.He found the house in flames and D1 and D2 sitting in front of the house with burn injuries.He also stated that he took both the deceased to the hospital.On his way, according to him, D1 told him that somebody had set fire tohis house and he had not named the person who set fire.P.W.2 has spoken about the Observation Mahazar prepared at the place of occurrence and the recovery of material objects.P.W.3, the daughter of the deceased has stated that on hearing about the occurrence, she went to the hospital.While in the hospital, when she enquired D1, he told her that some unknown persons had set fire to his house.He did not name the assailants.P.W.4 is the brother of the deceased and he has stated that he heard that the house was burnt and then he went to the hospital.He has been treated as hostile.She has stated that on hearing about the occurrence at 2.30 a.m., when she went to the hospital, her mother and father did not say anything about the occurrence, though she enquired.P.W.6 has spoken about the judicial dying declaration recorded from both the deceased.P.W.7 has spoken about the post-mortem conducted on both the deceased.P.W.8 has stated that on 24.09.2012, when he was at his office at 9.00 a.m., the first accused appeared and gave a voluntary confession, which he reduced to writing.Then, he produced the first accused along with the extra judicial confession [Ex.P19] to the police.P.W.9 has spoken about the arrest of the accused and recovery of the material objects.P.W.10 has stated that he certified that they were conscious when dying declarations were recorded.P.W.11 turned hostile.P.W.13 has spoken about the registration of the case and the investigation done by him.P.W.14 has spoken about the further investigation done by him and the final report filed by him.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the same as false.D.W.1 is the doctor who examined D1 and D2 at 3.20 a.m., on 14.09.2012, at the Government Hospital, Edappady.He has stated that both the deceased told him that when they were sleeping inside the house, the house caught fire, in which they sustained injuries.They did not state that the house was set on fire by anybody.D.W.2 is the Assistant from the Regional Transport Office, who stated about the ownership of the motorcycles allegedly recovered from the accused.D.W.3 is the doctor who admitted D1 and D2 at Government Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical College Hospital, Salem.He has spoken about the entries made by him in the Accident Registers in respect of both the deceased at the said hospital.On the side of the accused, as many as 11 documents have been marked.Having considered all the above, the trial Court convicted the accused as detail in the first paragraph of this judgment.Aggrieved over the same, the accused/appellants are before this Court with these appeals.We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and we have also perused the records carefully.In the judicial dying declaration given by D2, she had only stated that when she was sleeping inside the house, the house was in flames.She has not stated anything about these accused.Thus, the said dying declaration does not help the prosecution in any manner to prove the guilt of the accused.So far as the judicial dying declaration given by D1 is concerned, of course, he has stated that his house was in flames and when he opened the door and came out, he found these four accused fleeing away from the scene of occurrence in two motor cycles.But, the question is, "whether this dying declaration could be believed as containing the truth".10. P.W.1, the brother's son of the deceased, has stated that on hearing about the occurrence, he rushed to the place of occurrence.At that time, both the deceased were sitting in front of the house with burn injuries.When he enquired D1, he told him that when he was inside the house, somebody had set his house on fire.When he made a specific query to him as to who set fire, he had told him that he did not know.Thus, he had not named the persons.Thus, at the earliest point of time, D1 had not stated anything against these accused.That statement made by D1 itself is a dying declaration.Thereafter, when he was taken to the Government Hospital at Edappady, D.W.1 examined him at 3.20 a.m. When he enquired D1, he again told him that somebody had set fire to his house, in which he sustained injuries.Then also he did not allege that his house was set on fire by any known persons.This is the second oral dying declaration by D1, in which also he did not make any allegation against these accused.Then, he was taken to Government Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical College Hospital, Salem.There D.W.3 admitted D1 and 2 in the hospital.To him also D1 did not say as to who set fire to the house.He simply said that the house was in flames, in which he sustained injuries.D1 told her that somebody had set fire to the house.To her also, he did not name the assailants.After sometime, the daughter of D1 and D2, Gomathi - P.W.5 came to the hospital.She has also stated that when she specifically enquired D1 as to how the occurrence took place, he did not say anything against these accused.It was only after the arrival of the learned Magistrate, D1 had, in his dying declaration, mentioned about these four accused as the perpetrators of the crime.In view of the fact that in all the earlier dying declarations, the deceased did not say anything against these accused and only at the belated stage in the judicial dying declaration, he had stated about these accused, it is crystal clear that the said judicial dying declaration must be only out of tutoring.According to P.W.8, the Village Administrative Officer, on 24.09.2012, at 9.00 a.m., the first accused appeared before him and gave voluntary confession.The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the same cannot be true, as the first accused had no acquaintance with P.W.8 at all.We find force in the said argument.Therefore, it is too difficult to believe that the first accused would have had any reason to go before P.W.8 to repose confidence and to confess to him.P.W.8 has admitted that he participated in the investigation from the beginning.For these reasons, we are not prepared to believe that the first accused had gone to P.W.8 and made such a confession.Assuming that the said confession was given by the first accused, since an extra judicial confession by its very nature, is a weak piece of evidence, in the absence of corroboration from any independent source, it is difficult to act upon the same.In the instant case, as we have already pointed out, the evidence of P.W.8 does not inspire the confidence of this Court at all and we have got every doubt about the genuineness of the claim that the first accused made such an extra judicial confession.Barring the above two circumstances, the prosecution relies on the motive.Of course, the motive has been spoken to and the same has been proved.The ill-feeling between the first accused and the deceased alone cannot go to conclusively prove that the appellants are the perpetrators of the crime.In the result, the appeals are allowed.
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,203,634 |
(a) P.W.1 Parthiban is an associate of one Tyre Raja and Amukkan @Viji.All the three were accused in a crime pending investigation on the fileof the Erode Town Police Station.The father of Tyre Raja was murdered bySaravanan and Venkatesh A-2 and A-3 respectively.On 16.4.2000 at about 8.30P.M., at Sabari Bakery, Naddar Medu, Erode, while P.W.1 the complainant wastaking tea in the stall of P.W.4 Thiagarajan, A-1 to A-4 came there in twomotorcycles.On seeing P.W.1, all the accused caused damage to Pepsi bottlesavailable in the shop.Thereafter, at knife point they took P.W.1 in theirmotorbike to Manickampalayam Housing Unit.While P.W.1 was taken in themotorbike of A-1, the other three went in the other motorbike.On the terraceof the Classic Furniture Shop, the accused persons attacked P.W.1 with knifeand threatened him to disclose the whereabouts of Tyre Raja and Viji.When the same was informed, the accusedpersons got angry, assaulted P.W.1 indiscriminately with wooden log and causedinjuries on his head.P.W.1 became unconscious and fell down.He sustainedfracture in his left leg.Again A-1 to A-4 caused injuries to P.W.1 on thevarious parts of his body.P.W.2 Prakash @ Kesavan and P.W.3 Suresh Kumarwitnessed the entire occurrence.P.W.1 escaped from the accused.He hidehimself in the nearby lane.From there, he took an auto rickshaw and came tohis house and informed the fact to his mother P.W.6 Manimegalai.Apprehendingdanger at the hands of the accused, he did not go for treatment immediately.Next day morning at about 10.15 A.M., P.W.1 was taken to C.K. Hospital, Erodeby his mother for treatment.P.W.5 Sathiamurthy is the owner of a petty shopat Bharathi Bhavan.On the strength of the said statement marked as Ex.P7 wound certificate.The hospital intimation and the case sheet are marked as Exs.P8 and P9respectively.(d) P.W.12 Pandian, Inspector of Police, Erode South PoliceStation who took up the investigation on 17 .4.2000 at 2.00 P.M., came to thesite of occurrence, made an inspection, prepared Ex.P2 observation mahazar andEx.P15 rough sketch and seized M.O.4 under Ex.P3 mahazar, which was attestedby P.W.7 Sudhakar and one Santhoskumar.The Investigating Officer proceededto the C.K.Hospital, seized M.O.1 shirt produced by P.W.1 under Ex.P4 mahazar.He proceeded to Manickampalayam Housing Unit, made an inspection of the siteof occurrence and prepared Ex.P5 observation mahazar and Ex.P16 rough sketch.Again he recovered M.O.2 (series) 4 knives under Ex.P7 mahazar.All of themwere attested by P.W.12 and one Santhoskumar.P.W.12 obtained statements fromthe witnesses.On 18.4.2000 P.W.1 was examined by P.W.12, and he altered thecase to one under Sec.307 of I.P.C. The altered report under Ex.P17 was sentto the concerned Court.The Sessions Judge shall take steps to committhe accused No.4 to prison, if he is on bail, to undergo the remaining periodof sentence.The Legal Aid, Chennai is directed to pay necessary fee, asapplicable, to the Amicus Curiae.Index : YesInternet : Yesvvk/nsvToThe Judicial Magistrate, No.3, ErodeThe Judicial Magistrate, No.3, Erodethrough the Chief Judicial Magistrate, ErodeThe Addl.Sessions Judge, ErodeThe Superintendent, Central Prison, TrichyThe Superintendent, Central Prison, CoimbatoreThe Public Prosecutor, High Court, MadrasThe Dy.11.The Secretary, Legal Aid, ChennaiM.S.Velusamy Amicus Curiae^For Respondent in both appeals : Mr.O.Srinath Govt. Advocate(Crl.The appellants herein, who were ranked as A-1 to A-4, stoodcharged, tried and found guilty under Ss 427 and 364 of IPC, while A-1 underSec.307 IPC and A-2 to A-4 under Ss 307 read with 34 and 324 of IPC, and A-1to A-4 were sentenced to undergo 2 years R.I. under Sec.427 of IPC and toundergo 10 years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.2,500 /-, in default to undergo6 months R.I. under Sec.364 of IPC, while A-1 was sentenced to undergo 10years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.2,5 00/- in default to undergo 6 monthsR.I. under Sec.307 of IPC, A-2 to A-4 to undergo 10 years R.I. and to pay afine of Rs.2,500/-, in default to undergo 6 months R.I. under Sec.307 readwith 34 of IPC and A-2 to A-4 to undergo 3 years R.I. under Sec.324 of IPC.Aggrieved A-1 to A-4 have brought forth these appeals.The short facts necessary for the disposal of these two appealscan be stated as follows:P14 printed F.I.R. was sent to the concerned JudicialMagistrate's Court.He forwarded the report to the Investigating Officer andto the concerned Court.A-1 gave a confessional statement stating that he along with A-2and A-3 on 16 .4.2000 came to the place of occurrence with Yamaha and SuzukiMotor Cycle and committed the offence.The vehicles were seized from thehouse of Irandayiram @ Chinnappan, and they were produced before the JudicialMagistrate No.(c) P.W.8 Dr.Sachidanandham examined P.W.1 on 17.4.2000 at about 10.45A.M. to whom P.W.1 informed that he was assaulted by known persons on16.4.2000 at 9.00 P.M. P.W.8 found the following injuries.1) Swelling and deformity of left wrist.2) lacerated injury over lower lip 2 cm x 1 cm.3) Multiple abrasion below front chest 1 cm x 2 cm, 2 cm x 5 cm, 1 cm x 1 cm,5 cm x 2 cm.4) Abrasion over left arm anterior 5 cm x 3 cm.The Doctor has given the opinion that the injury No.1 was grievous in nature,while the other injuries were simple and has issued Ex.On 30.6.2000 P.W.12 under Ex.P10 made a request tothe Court to send the material objects for chemical analysis.P.W.9Thirumurthy, Head Clerk, attached to the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.III, Erode has deposed that the material objects as per the requisition weresent to the Forensic Laboratory, Madras and the Chemical Analyst's report wasreceived under Ex.P12, and the Serologist's report under Ex.P.W.12Inspector of Police examined P.W.8 Doctor, and on completion of theinvestigation, he laid a charge sheet against the accused on 4.9.2000 beforethe Judicial Magistrate No.III, Erode.In order to prove the charges levelled against the appellant/A-1to A-4, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses and marked 18 exhibits and 4material objects.On completion of the evidence by the prosecution, theaccused were questioned under Sec.313 of The Code of Criminal Procedure as tothe incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecutionwitnesses, which they flatly denied as false.No defence witness wasexamined, and no exhibit was marked.On consideration of the rivalsubmissions made and the scrutiny of the materials available, the trial Courtfound the appellants/accused guilty of the said offences and sentenced them toundergo the imprisonment as stated supra.Aggrieved accused 1 to 4 havebrought forth these appeals.Arguing for the appellant/A-4 in C.A.1213 of 2001, the learnedSenior Counsel Mr.V.K.Muthusamy made the following submissions for theconsideration of the Court:The trial Court without any iota of evidence has found appellant/A-4guilty under the different provisions of the Penal Code.The occurrence,according to the prosecution, has taken place at 8.45 P.M. on 1 6.4.2000.But, according to P.W.1 he was admitted in C.K.Hospital only by 10.30 A.M.next day morning namely 17.4.2000, and the Doctor has examined him by 10.45A.M., and the case came to be registered only by 12'O Clock.This would beclearly indicative of the fact that Ex.P1 complaint was given, and the casewas registered only after nearly about 14.00 or 15.00 hours.This would go toshow that all the embellishments would have been made in the prosecution case.The prosecution relied on the evidence of P.W.1, the injured and P.Ws.2 to 5.P.Ws.4 and 5 have turned hostile.A perusal of the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3would indicate that they have neither identified nor pointed out A-4 either atthe place of the tea st all or at the place where P.W.1 was alleged to havebeen assaulted by the accused.So far as A-4 was concerned, the trial Courthas mainly relied on the evidence of P.W.1, which was thoroughlyuncorroborated.Even assuming that the evidence of P.W.1 is believed by theCourt, no ingredients of either Sec.307 IPC or Sec.364 would be attracted.Itis pertinent to note that the Doctor who gave treatment to P.W.1 has statedthat there was only one injury found on the wrist of P.W.1 as grievous and allother injuries were simple.A reading of the evidence of the Doctor alongwith the wound certificate would clearly indicate that there was nothing toendanger the life of P.W.1, and in the absence of the same, no ingredients ofSec.307 of IPC would be attracted.It is pertinent to note that there is noiota of evidence to indicate that it was A-4 who accompanied A-1 to a-3 andtook away P.W.1 from the tea stall to Manickampalayam Housing Unit.Evenassuming that the prosecution case as spoken to by P.W.1 is true, eitherSec.323 of IPC or 324 of IPC would be attracted and not Sec.364 or 307 of IPC.In view of all the above, the appellant/A-4 is entitled for an acquittal inthe hands of this Court.Arguing for the appellants/A1 to A3 in C.A.1215 of 2001, thelearned Amicus Curiae counsel made the following submissions for theconsideration of the Court:The occurrence has taken place on 16.4.2000 at about 8.30 p.m., butthe complaint was lodged only on 17.4.2000 with a delay of 14 hours and theF.I.R. has also reached the Court only on 18.4.2000, and thus there was adelay in lodging a complaint and also F.I.R reaching the court.The evidenceof P.W.1 was not corroborated by any evidence.According to the prosecution, P.W.1 was admitted byone Saraswathi in C.K. Hospital, Erode, but she was not examined.In hisevidence, P.W.8 Doctor has admitted that he did not know as to who hasadmitted PW1 in the hospital.Hence, his evidence cannot be taken intoaccount.The material objects were recovered from the place of occurrence,but they were not recovered pursuant to the confessional statement given bythe accused.No material was available to show as to how the accused wasarrested and in order to prove the same, nothing has been brought forth by theprosecution.7. Added further the learned counsel that sufficient suggestions havebeen put to P.W.11 that what was placed before before the court was notoriginal information, but original information was suppressed and what wasproduced before the Court was subsequently brought forth in order to sue theconvenience of the prosecution case, since the accused have got number ofcases, the police force has foisted a false case against the accused and hencethe judgment of the lower court has got to be set aside.Strongly opposing all the contentions put forth by the appellants'side, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that theprosecution has examined PWs.1 to 5, but Pws.4 and 5 have turned hostile; thatit is true that PWs.1 to 3 have categorically narrated the whole occurrencethat P.W.1 has been taken from the tea shop and therefrom, he was taken to ahill area, and thus, Section 364 IPC has been proved.Apart from that, atthat time, the accused attempted to murder him, which was clearly described byP.W.1 and subsequently corroborated by the medical evidence.There is noquestion of delay either in lodging a complaint or the F.I.R. reaching theCourt, since P.W.1, who was injured, has explained that due to fear he did notcome out from his house and on the next day, he went to hospital with hismother.On intimation, P.W.10 Head Constable came to the hospital andobtained statement from P.w.1; that P.W.10 registered a case under Section506(2) and printed F.I.R. was prepared.Since it was not a express F.I.R.,the same was not sent immediately.Under the stated circumstances, noquestion of delay would arise.It is also pertinent to point out that oneSaraswathy, the Medical Superintendent, has first admitted P.W.1 in thehospital and has sent intimation.A case sheet has also been produced beforethe Court.P.W.8 Doctor has issued Ex.P.7 Wound Certificate and the injurieshave been narrated in the same.Hence, no comments should be made against themedical evidence, which was in full corroboration of the ocular evidence.Under the stated circumstances, the lower court was perfectly correct inrecording the conviction against the accused and the ingredients underSections 364 and 307 I.P.C. are attracted.This Court paid its full attention on the rival submissions madeand had a close scrutiny of the materials available.The gist of the prosecution case as seen above was that on 16.4.2000 at about 8.30 pm at Sabari Bakery, Naddar Medu, while the complainantP.W.1 was taking tea, all the appellants came there in two motor cycle and onseeing P.W.1, accused Nos.1 to 4 caused damage to soda bottles available inthe shop of P.W.4 and thereafter at knife point they took P.W.1 in the motorbike, which was driven by A1, to Manickampalayam Housing Unit.After he was taken toManickampalayam Housing Unit, on the terrace of Classic Furniture Shop, theaccused persons caused injuries to P.W.1 with knife and criminally intimidatedhim to disclose the whereabouts of Tyre Raja and Viji.When P.W.1 came outwith an answer that he did not know about the same, all the accused assaultedhim with wooden log and caused injures on his head and his left hand. AgainA1 to A4 caused injuries on different parts of his body.Then, the fled awayfrom the scene of occurrence.On a careful scrutiny of the availableevidence, this Court is able to see that the prosecution has placed necessaryevidence proving both parts of the occurrence by satisfactory and acceptableevidence.Insofar the damage caused to the soda bottles available in the shopof P.W.4 is concerned, it was not only spoken by the owner of the shop,namely, P.W.4, but also by the injured P.W.1 and the eyewitnesses, namel y,P.Ws.2,3 and 5, and hence, there is nothing to suspect about that part of theoccurrence.The lower court was perfectly correct in convicting the accusedunder Section 427 IPC.11. P.W.1 was taken away from that place to Manickampalayam HousingUnit by the accused.It is true that P.Ws.4 and 5 haveturned hostile, but it has in no way affected the case of the prosecution.The earliest document that came into existencewas Ex.P.W.1 was not only an eyewitness, but alsoan injured.There is no circumstance brought forth to reject or suspect thetestimony of P.W.1, and hence, no doubt could be cast in respect of theoccurrence that it was only A1 to A4, who attacked him at the place ofoccurrence on the terrace of Classic Furniture Shop.The comment made by theappellants' side that the medical evidence has not corroborated the ocularevidence has got to be rejected.On the next day morning at about 10.30 a.m.,P.W.1 was taken to C.K. Hospital, Erode, where he was given treatment.Thisfact cannot be disputed in view of the examination of P.W.8 Doctor.Apartfrom that wound certificate has been issued in that regard.The prosecutionhas also placed case sheet before the Court.The trial court had an occasionto have a perusal of all the documents.This has gotto be discountenanced for the reason that P.W.1 has well explained that he wasattacked on 16.4.2000, but due to fear he did not come out of his house and hewent to hospital only on the next day.The court is of the view that P.W.1was taken away by the accused and he was kept under threat, and hence, due tofear, he did not come out from his house and on the next day, he went to thehospital.On intimation from the hospital, P.W.10 proceeded to the hospital,recorded statement from P.W.1 and on the strength of the same, a case wasregistered.It is true that F.I.R has reached the Court only on 18.4.2000 .The explanation put forth by the prosecution was that originally a case wasregistered under Section 506(2), and there was no express F.I.R. Hence, thepolice did not send the same immediately.This court is unable to notice anydelay and if any delay has occurred, that has been taken by way of ordinarycourse of events, and hence, not much weight could be attached to the delay socaused.Under the stated circumstances, the prosecution has proved that theaccused 1 to 4 have damaged the soda battles belonged to P.W.4, and thus,punishment under Section 427 IPC has been proved.The accused have takenP.W.1 from that place to Manickampalayam Housing Unit under threat.But, thisCourt is unable to notice that there is any case under Section 364 IPC, sincethere is nothing to show that P.W.1 was taken away by the accused with anintention to cause murder or may be so disposed of as to be put in danger ofbeing murdered.But, the Court is able to see that the act of the accused wouldwould fall under Section 367 IPC, because, the accused had taken the accusedunder threat and the accused was subjected to grievous hurt.Under the statedcircumstances, they are liable to be punished under Section 367 IPC instead ofSection 364 IPC.The Court is of the view that the terms of punishment of fiveyears R.I. along with a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo one month RIwould be sufficient, which would meet the ends of justice.In the instantcase, the prosecution has proved the case that all the four accused took P.W.1from the tea shop of P.W.4 to Manickampalayam Housing Unit, and when herefused to reveal the whereabouts of Tyre Raja and Viji, they attacked P.W.1with wooden log and caused injuries on him.The indiscriminate attack withwooden logs would clearly indicate that the accused have acted with anintention to cause his death, but he escaped from their clutches.Hence,taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, theingredients under Section 307 of IPC would be attracted.The Court is of the view that instead of 364 IPC, the accused 1to 4 are convicted under Section 367 IPC and they are sentenced to undergofive years RI along with fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo one month RIand the conviction and sentence imposed to the accused 1 to 4 under Section364 IPC are set aside.The sentence awarded by the trial court under Section307 IPC in respect of A1 and sentence imposed in respect of A2 to A4 underSection 307 r/w 34 IPC along is reduced to seven years.In other respect, thejudgment of the trial court is confirmed.With the above modificati on, thesecriminal appeals are dismissed.Inspector General of Police, Chennai-4O.Srinath, Govt. Advocate(Criminal side)High Court, ChennaiThe Inspector of Police,Erode South Police Station,ErodeM.S.Velusamy, Amicus Curiae AdvocateNo.91, Law Chambers, High Court, Madras
|
['Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
120,365,211 |
th ORAL JUDGMENT :Appellant Sanjay Nagmote faced trial for offence punishable under Sections 306 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short) alongwith his brother Chandu Nagmote, who is acquitted.The appellant is acquitted of offence punishable under::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/02/2018 01:30:09 ::: 2 apeal555.07 Section 306 of the IPC and is convicted for offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to payment of fine of Rs.1,000/-.This judgment dated 21-11-2007 rendered by the learned Ad hoc District Judge-4 and Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur is assailed herein.::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/02/2018 01:30:09 :::Heard Shri A.R. Sharma, learned Counsel holding for Shri Amol Mardikar, learned Counsel for the appellant-accused and Shri N.H. Joshi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent- State.Shri A.R. Sharma, learned Counsel for the accused contends :(i) The conviction is based on inadmissible evidence,(ii) The delay of 15 days in lodging the first information report is unexplained and renders the prosecution case suspect.(iii) Even if arguendo, the evidence is held admissible, the prosecution has not established cruelty within the meaning of Explanation (a) or (b) of Section 498-A of the IPC.(iv) The defence that the deceased Sou.Maya was suffering from unbearable acute stomach pain which led her to commit suicide, is::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/02/2018 01:30:09 ::: 3 apeal555.07 probablised on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities.::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/02/2018 01:30:09 :::Per contra, Shri N.H. Joshi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor supports the judgment and order impugned.Concededly, Maya died within four month of the marriage on 10-9-2005 due to consumption of insecticide.The explanation given by P.W.1 for lodging the oral report belatedly is that he was mentally disturbed.The explanation of the Investigating Officer P.W.7 is that the offence was not registered immediately because the accused and the father of the deceased (P.W.1) were intending to compromise and the offence was registered since the compromise did not materialise.Shri A.R. Sharma, learned Counsel is justified in submitting that the explanation given for belated lodging of the report and the registration of the offence is not satisfactory.The gist of the oral report lodged on 25-9-2005 (Exhibit::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/02/2018 01:30:09 ::: 4 apeal555.07::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/02/2018 01:30:09 :::17) is that deceased Maya was treated well for fifteen days.Thereafter accused Sanjay used to come home under the influence of liquor and used to harass Maya for demand of Rs.15,000/- and ring.Maya disclosed to P.W.1 that accused Sanjay was addicted to liquor and gambling and was not taking her to the hospital when she was ill.In his deposition, P.W.1 states that Maya was treated well for fifteen days and then the harassment began.Accused Sanjay complained that inadequate dowry was given.On the eve of Rakhi festival Maya and the accused visited P.W.1 and accused demanded Rs.15,000/- and gold ring.P.W.1 states that he received the information of the said demand from Maya.The evidence that Maya and accused visited P.W.1 on the occasion of Rakhi festival and it was then that the demand was conveyed by Maya, is inconsistent with the contents of the oral report (Exhibit 17).P.W.2 Anusayabai who is the mother of the deceased, states that after the initial period of marital life the accused started harassing Maya for amount of Rs.15,000/- and gold ring.P.W.2 ropes in the mother-in-law, who is not an accused, as the person who alongwith accused Sanjay was harassing Maya.She then states that::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/02/2018 01:30:09 ::: 5 apeal555.07 when Maya and accused visited her on the occasion of Rakhi Maya complained about ill-treatment.::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/02/2018 01:30:09 :::In the cross-examination, she denies the suggestion that Maya was suffering from stomach ache.She admits that Maya visited her in summer and on the occasion of Akhadi she did not make any complaint.She admits that in the statement recorded on 11-9-2005 she did state before the police that Maya complained about her ill- health.8. P.W.3 Shyamao Zamde does not speak of ill-treatment or demand and his evidence is of no assistance to the prosecution.9. P.W.4 Nitin Tekade is the witness to the seizure panchanama who did not support the prosecution.10. P.W.5 Atul Zamde is the elder brother of the deceased.He states that when Maya and the accused visited her parental home on the occasion of Rakhi festival, Maya disclosed that she was having::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/02/2018 01:30:09 ::: 6 apeal555.07 persistent stomachache and that the accused was not providing medical treatment.He states that Maya also revealed that accused was harassing her for money and gold ring.::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/02/2018 01:30:09 :::11. P.W.6 Dr. Pankaj Karande conducted the autopsy on the dead body of Maya and his opinion is that the cause of death is poisoning.He has proved the post-mortem report (Exhibit 28).The evidence of P.W.6 is corroborated by the report of the Chemical Analyser (Exhibit 29) which confirms detection of organo-chloro insecticide endosulfan (thiodan organophosphorous insecticide quinalphos (Ekalux) and petroleum hydrocarbons.12. P.W.7 Wasudeo Kapte is the investigating officer.He admits that during the course of investigation, it was revealed that Maya was suffering from stomach ache and that on the day of the incident she suffered acute pain.It is elicited in the cross-examination that investigation revealed that the accused did not have the money for treatment and he went to other people to arrange for money and in the meanwhile Maya committed suicide.The accused is acquitted of offence under Section 306 of::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/02/2018 01:30:09 ::: 7 apeal555.07 the IPC and the only offence left for consideration was Section 498-A of the IPC.The cause of death was no longer in issue.In their deposition PW-4 and PW-5 stated that their sister told them that accused was torturing her as he wanted that her brothers should arrange a job for him or the house at Ganj Basoda is given to him or a cash of Rs.1 lac is given to enable him to do some business.They deposed that as and when their sister come to their house, she would tell them that accused used to insert cloth in her mouth and give beatings for dowry.The trial court as well as the High Court relied on the evidence of PW-4 and PW-5 and held that charge under Section 498A, IPC, against the accused was proved.Apart from the statement attributed to the deceased, none of the witnesses had spoken anything which they had seen directly insofar as torture and harassment to Ranjana Rani @ Raj Kumari was concerned.The moot question is: whether the statements attributed to the deceased could be used as evidence for entering upon a finding that the accused subjected Ranjana Rani @ Raj Kumari to cruelty as contemplated under Section 498A, IPC.In our considered view, the evidence of PW-4 and PW- 5 about what the deceased Ranjana Rani @ Raj Kumari had told them against the accused about the torture and harassment is inadmissible under Section 32(1) of the::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/02/2018 01:30:09 ::: 13 apeal555.07 Evidence Act and such evidence cannot be looked into for any purpose.::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/02/2018 01:30:09 :::PW 1 father of the deceased and PW 8 mother of the deceased have stated that Damyanti had complained to them of her plight in the house of her husband and particularly about the conduct of the appellant.PW 4 sister of the deceased and PW 5 a relative of the deceased have also spoken more or less on the same line.Exhibit P-7 and Exhibit P-8 are letters said to have been written by Damyanti.In those two letters reference has been made to her life in the house of her in-laws and in one of the letters she said that her husband had subjected her to beating.Apart from the statement attributed to the deceased none of the witnesses had spoken of anything which they had::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/02/2018 01:30:09 ::: 14 apeal555.07 seen directly.The question is whether the statements attributed to the deceased could be used as evidence in this case including the contents of Exhibits P-7 and P-8 (letters).::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/02/2018 01:30:09 :::The version of P.W.2 that Maya was beaten is unreliable since P.W.1 to whom according to the witness the disclosure was made by Maya, does not speak of the accused having beaten Maya muchless for demand of dowry.The evidence of P.W.2 that Maya disclosed that accused used to assault Maya under the influence of liquor, is not corroborated by P.W.1 who makes no reference whatsoever to the consumption of liquor or muchless beating under the influence of liquor.The only other witness examined to prove cruelty, P.W.5 Atul states that Maya disclosed that she was having persistent stomach ache and that she was not provided medical treatment.The only other statement is that Maya complained that accused was harassing her for money and gold ring.Again, the evidence is bereft of particulars and the nature and extent of harassment is left to speculation.::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/02/2018 01:30:09 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/02/2018 01:30:09 :::It is trite law, that cruelty which must be established to bring home charge under Section 498-A of the IPC is of graver and sterner degree than the concept of cruelty in matrimonial law.Wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.The harassment envisaged by Explanation (b) to Section 498-A must be proved to be wilful and intended to coerce the women or her family members to satisfy an unlawful demand.::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/02/2018 01:30:09 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/02/2018 01:30:09 :::Fine paid by the accused, if any, be refunded to him.The appeal is allowed and disposed of accordingly.JUDGEadgokar ::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/02/2018 01:30:09 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/02/2018 01:30:09 :::
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
120,384,986 |
02/06/2016 Applicant Manoj Mishra has been convicted for an offence under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three months and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, one month additional rigorous imprisonment.2- It is alleged that between complainant Manoj Rajak and the applicant there was certain enmity.On 3.9.2012, in the afternoon at about 12.30 PM, applicant Manoj Mishra came to the Paan Shop of the complainant situated at Bhainsa Tikadda, and is said to have used unparliamentary language and abused the complainant.When the complainant requested the applicant not to abuse him, the applicant assaulted him with a lathi on the left leg above his knee, and on the left shoulder because of which he sustained minor injuries.Tarachand Rajak and Suryakant Mehra are said to have intervened and prevented any further escalation of the incident.On the complaint lodged, applicant was prosecuted for offence under sections 294, 323 and 506(II) of the Criminal Revision No :: 1174 / 2016 2 Manoj Mishra Vs.State of Madhya Pradesh.Indian Penal Code.The applicant has been acquitted of the charge under sections 294 and 506(II), but has been convicted for the offence under section 323 IPC.3- Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the statement of PW/8 Dr. S.K. Nigam; the nature of injuries sustained by the complainant, which is very minor in nature; and considering the fact that out of the period of three months sentence the applicant has already undergone jail sentence of more than 25 days and is in custody since the date of judgment i.e... 5.5.2016, for the present looking to the totality of the evidence and the nature of injuries and the manner in which the offence is committed, interest of justice would be met in case the revision is allowed in part, conviction of the applicant upheld and applicant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him; and, the amount of fine increased.4- Keeping in view the aforesaid, the revision petition is allowed in part.The fine amount shall be paid to complainant.The amount of Rs.1000/- already paid as fine shall be adjusted in the enhanced payment of fine amount.5- With the aforesaid, the revision stands allowed in part and disposed of.6- Office to issue appropriate warrant of release, for release of the applicant forthwith.( RAJENDRA MENON ) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
120,387,442 |
Insp Jarnail Singh stepped into the witness box as PW-33 and deposed that:PW20/K bears my signature at point D and that of all the accused Neeraj, Vishal, Sandeep and Irfan at point X. JCL Sanjay had also pointed out the scene of crime and SI Rakesh had prepared separate pointing out memo.Thereafter, firstly accused Irfan got recovered a danda from a small park at the corner Tigri colony, MB Road which I converted into a pulanda, affixed by seal JS and took into possession vide memo Ex.PW20/N bears my signature at point B and that of accused Irfan at point X. Then accused Sandeep also got recovered one danda from a different place in the same park which I converted into a cloth parcel sealed with my seal of JS and took into possession vide memo Ex.PW20/M bears my signature at point B and that of accused Sandeep at point X. Thereafter, I directed my team members to return back to PS and take accused Neeraj @ Nagar, Sandeep and CRL.A. 88/2019 & CRL.A 700/2019 Page 21 of 41 Irfan as well as JCL to PS.I further got joined accused Vishal in investigation who took the police party consisting of myself alongwith SI Manmeet and accused Vishal to transformer near Saket Court and thereafter he got recovered used in the crime underneath a piece of stone near transformer near the wall of nallah near Saket Courts towards the side of Select City Mall and the same was found having blood stains.I prepared sketch of the knife which is already Ex.PW32/A bears my signature at point B and that of accused at point X. Then I converted the same into a pulanda, sealed with the seal of JS and took into police possession vide memo already Ex.PW32/B bears my signature at point B and that of accused at point X."CRL.A. 88/2019 & CRL.A 700/2019 Page 21 of 41SI Manmeet stepped into the witness box as PW-32 and deposed that:"All the accused were got joined in investigation who firstly took the police party to the scene of crime and pointed out the place of incident.IO prepared pointing out memo to this effect which is already Ex.PW20/K. The accused persons were further got joined in investigation.Thereafter, the accused Irfan and Sandeep took the police party to the park at the junction of MB Road, and Tigri Road and they got recovered two dandas, one danda by each accused, which were used in the crime.Both the dandas were converted into cloth parcel sealed with the seal of JS and taken into police possession vide memo Ex.Once the recovery is made in pursuance of a disclosure statement made by the accused, the matching or non-matching of blood group(s) loses significance."PW20/L & M. Memo Ex.PW20/L bears my signature at point B. Thereafter, the I alongwith IO and accused Vishal went for further investigation while Inspt.Parasnath along with SI Rakesh, HC Dalbir and other staff took accused Neeraj, Irfan and Sandeep as well as JCL to PS.Thereafter, accused Vishal took the police party to near Transformer opposite Saket Court and thereafter, he had pointed a place behind Transformer, he removed some stones and got recovered a knife stained with blood.PW32/A bears my signature at point A and thereafter, the same was converted into a cloth parcel sealed with the seal of JS and was taken into police CRL.A. 88/2019 & CRL.A 700/2019 Page 22 of 41 possession vide memo Ex.PW32/B bears my signature at point A."CRL.A. 88/2019 & CRL.A 700/2019 Page 22 of 41SI Rakesh Kumar stepped into the witness box as PW-20 and deposed that:"Pursuant to the disclosure of the accused persons, the IO had prepared the pointing out memo of the place of the occurrence at their instance.The pointing out memo is Ex.PW20/K, which bears my signature at point A. Pursuant to the disclosure statements, accused Sandeep and Irfan had got recovered dandas from a park at Tigri.The said dandas were stated to have been used in the commission of the offence.The IO had seized one danda at the instance of accused Irfan vide seizure memo Ex.PW20/L. The seizure memo of other danda is Ex.PW20/M. Both the said seizure memos bear my signatures at point a. Both the dandas were measured by the IO, but I do not remember their length.The long danda was recovered at the instance of accused Sandeep and the smaller one was recovered at the instance of accused Irfan.Thereafter, I took the JCL to the police station alongwith SI P.N. Verma and three accused persons, namely, Neeraj @ Nagar, Sandeep and Irfan.The other accused, namely Vishal remained with the IO, who conducted the further investigation qua him.I got medically examined the accused persons.Later on, the IO had recorded my statement in this regard.I can identify both the dandas if shown to me."Parasnath Verma stepped into the witness box as PW-31 and deposed that:"All the accused were got joined in investigation who firstly took the police party to the scene of crime and CRL.A. 88/2019 & CRL.A 700/2019 Page 23 of 41 pointed out the place of incident.IO prepared pointing out memo to this effect which is already Ex.PW20/K. The accused persons were further got joined in investigation.Thereafter, the accused Irfan and Sandeep took the police party to the park at the junction of MB Road, and Tigri Road and they got recovered two dandas, one danda by each accused, which were used in the crime.Both the dandas were converted into cloth parcel sealed with the seal of JS and taken into police possession vide memo Ex.PW20/L & M. Memo Ex.PW20/M bears my signature at point B. Thereafter, the IO alongwith SI Manmeet and accused Vishal went for further investigation while I alongwith SI Rakesh, HC Dalbir and other staff brought accused Neeraj, Irfan and Sandeep as well as JCL to PS.After sometime IO Inspector Jarnail Singh alongwith SI Manmeet and accused Vishal also returned back to the PS and IO had deposited the case property in malkhana and then he recorded statement of the witnesses.My statement was also recorded."PW32/B) and the dandas were recovered pursuant to the disclosure statement of the accused persons Neeraj @ Nagar, Irfan Siddiqui and Sachin @ Sindhi from the 'park in Tigri colony, MB Road, which were seized vide seizure memos (Ex.PW20/M) and (Ex.PW20/L).As noticed earlier, the occurrence took place when Sukhbir Singh got mud splashes on account of sweeping of the street by Ram Niwas and a quarrel ensued.The deceased gave slaps to the appellant for no fault of his.The quarrel appeared to be sudden, on account of heat of passion.The accused went home and came armed in the company of others though without telling them his intention to commit the ultimate crime of murder.The time gap between the quarrel and the fight is stated to be a few minutes only.According to Gulab Singh (PW 10) when Sukhbir Singh was passing in the street and some mud got splashed on his clothes, he abused Ram Niwas.They both grappled with each other whereupon Lachhman (deceased) intervened and separated them.Accused Sukhbir had abused Lachhman who gave him two slaps.The said accused thereafter went to his home after stating that he would teach him a lesson for the slaps which had been given to him.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 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.
|
120,390,432 |
The petitioner undertakes to affirm and stamp the petition/application as per Rules within 48 hours of resumption of normal functioning of the Court.Subject to such undertaking, the application is taken up for hearing through video conference.Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is falsely implicated in the instant case and no such incident happened as narrated in the complaint of the victim's mother.The concerned judge is requested to act on the server copy of the order of this Court.The application for bail is, thus, allowed.(Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J.)
|
['Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,445,833 |
(i) Vellaisami (P.W. 1), his deceased son Karuppiah, wife Nallammal, daughter Vijaya (P.W. 2) and another daughter Ponnalagu were residing in a hut in the land about one mile away from Oduvanpatti village.P.W. 1 owns dry lands.He was also cultivating the lands of one Veerasami Naicker on waram basis.Deceased Karuppiah used to graze his cattle in the lands.The appellants Sadasivam is the son-in-law of the absconding accused Karuppiah.They belong to Sirungakotti village, which is situate south-east of the scene of occurrence.P.W. 1 and the absconding accused Karuppiah are pangalis.The absconding accused Karuppiah had murdered his father and was sentenced to imprisonment for life.While he was in Vellore Central Jail as Convict No. 3858, he was said to be mentally sick.He escaped from the hospital on 12-5-1979 as mentioned in the list (Ex. P-12) produced by Ganesan (P.W. 9), Junior Assistant in Vellore Central Jail.A complaint (Ex. P-16) was preferred at Kilpauk Police Station in this regard and the same was being registered as Crime No. 859 of 1979 under Section 224, I.P.C. Ex. P-17 is the first information report.Jothilingam (P.W. 11), Sub-Inspector of Police, Kilpauk has stated that the absconding accused Karuppiah is not traceable.While so, the absconding accused Karuppiah went to his native village Sirungakottai and started cultivating his lands.(ii) On 27-10-1983, at about 1.00 p.m. Vairavan (P.W. 3) saw the absconding accused Karuppiah cutting the fence of P.W. 1 and the deceased and heard the deceased to complain that the absconding accused was unlawfully cutting his fence.P.W. 3 suggested that the dispute might be settled later.Deceased Karuppiah was tending his cattle in his lands.For him, his sister, P.W. 2 carried food.At about 2.30 p.m. the absconding accused was again cutting the fence in the land of P.W. 1 and the deceased.Deceased Karuppiah asked the absconding accused Karuppiah as to why he was doing like that.It was about 2.30 p.m. The absconding accused retorted and abused the deceased vulgarly and stated that he will cut the fence only like that.At that time, the appellant caught hold of deceased Karuppiah strongly and the absconding accused Karuppiah cut the deceased on his hand, head, throat, chest and other parts of the body indiscriminately with an aruval.P.Ws. 1 and 2 and P.W. 1's wife and another daughter Ponnalagu were also present at the scene.When P.W. 2 went near raising an alarm and asking the absconding accused not to cut the deceased, the absconding accused beat P.W. 2 on her right knee with the blunt portion of the aruval.P.W. 2 sat down due to severe pain.Deceased Karuppiah died instantaneously as the result of the injuries.The appellant and his father-in-law, the absconding accused Karuppiah, ran away from the scene with the aruval.(iii) P.Ws. 1 and 2 proceeded to S. V. Mangalam Police Station where P.W. 1 gave a statement (Ex. P-1) to Robert (P.W. 7), Sub-Inspector of Police.On Ex. P-1, a case was registered by P.W. 7 in Crime No. 367 of 1983 under Sections 341, 302 and 324, I.P.C. P.W. 7 prepared the printed first information report (Ex. P-7) and sent Exs. P-1 and P-7 to the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Tirupattur and sent P.W. 2, the injured, to the Government Hospital, Singampuneri.He inspected the scene of occurrence and prepared and observation mahazar (Ex. P-3) in the presence of Nagalingam (P.W. 5), talayari of the village.He gave information to Saminathan (P.W. 13), Inspector of Police, of the occurrence.P.W. 2 was sent to Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai for further treatment.Dr. Chandraprakasam (P.W. 12) admitted P.W. 2 on 31-10-1983 as in-patient and got X-Ray photo taken for the injury found on the right knee of P.W. 2 where swelling was found.P.W. 10 issued the wound certificate (Ex. P-14) on the basis of M.O. 6 and Ex. P-2 that the injury on P.W. 2 was grievous.(v) On 27-10-1983, the date of occurrence, at 7.00 p.m., P.W. 13 who received a copy of Ex. P-7 took up investigation.He inspected the scene of occurrence at 8.00 p.m., prepared observation mahazar (Ex. P-5) and a rough sketch of the scene (Ex. P-20).On internal examination, he found the abdomen distended.There was no fluid in the thoracic cavity and the abdomen.Heart weighed 2 oz. and was pale.Right lung weighed 4 oz.and the left lung 3 oz.They were pale, collapsed and shrinked.On dissection, dark brown clots were found along with sand and dust in the larynx, glottis, trachea and bronchi.Oedematous was present.Hyoid bone was found cut horizontally.Oesophagus was cut horizontally near cricoid cartilage.Liver weighed 15 oz. and was pale and flabby.Gall bladder was empty.Spleen weighed 3 1/2 oz. and was pale.Stomach and intestines were empty.Extravasation of blood was seen in the scalp.Membranes of the brain were injured in the right cerebral hemisphere.Blood clots and haematoma were present.First thoracic vertebra in the spinal column was cut.P.W. 16 opined that the deceased would appear to have died of hypovolemic shock and respiratory failure due to multiple injuries inflicted on the body and the deceased would have died 20 to 22 hours prior to autopsy.Injuries Nos. 3 and 4 are possible by an aruval.They could be caused due to different cuts.JUDGMENT Maruthamuthu, J.In the aforestated Sessions Case, the appellant stood charged under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. on the allegation that at or about 2.30 p.m. on 27-10-1983 at Oduvanpatti, within the limits of S. V. Mangalam Police Station, in furtherance of the common intention of committing the murder of Karuppiah, son of Vellaisami, the appellant caught hold of deceased Karuppiah while the absconding accused Karuppiah committed the said murder by cutting the deceased with an aruval indiscriminately on his head, neck, chest and other parts of the body and caused his death.Since the other accused Karuppiah was absconding, the case was split up, and charge as stated above, was framed against the appellant alone and he was tried by the learned Sessions Judge.The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge.After trial, the learned Sessions Judge found the appellant guilty of the offence as charged, convicted and sentenced him to imprisonment for life.Briefly stated, the prosecution case is as follows :(iv) At 4.30 p.m. Dr. Jayapal Narayanan (P.W. 10) examined P.W. 2 for injuries said to have been caused at 2.30 p.m. due to assault with 'aruval pudangu' and found on her the following injury :"A contusion 3" x 2 1/2" on the right knee, tender and swollen."He conducted inquest on the dead body of Karuppiah between 8.00 and 10.00 p.m. and prepared the inquest report (Ex. P-19).He seized the bloodstained earth (M.O. 7), sample earth (M.O. 8) and the parts of the plants in the fence which were cut (M.O. 9 series) under a mahazar (Ex. P-4) in the presence of P.W. 5 at 10.30 p.m. He entrusted the dead body of deceased Karuppiah with a requisition (Ex. P-6) to the police constable Mayilvahanan (P.W. 6) for taking it for post mortem examination.(vi) On the next day (28-10-1983), at 11.05 a.m. P.W. 10 conducted autopsy on the dead body of deceased Karuppiah and found the following injuries :(1) A clean incised wound extending from the cricoid cartilage to back dissecting the hyoid bone, muscles, carotid artery, jugular vein; head hanging from the skin of the back of the neck on the nape of the neck.(2) First cervical vertebra cut.(3) A clean incised wound 5" x 1" cutting both the ramus of the mandibular, injuring platysna muscle mandibular artery.(4) A clean incised wound 1" x 1/2" on the root of right sterno-mastoid muscle.(5) A clean incised wound 6" x 1" sagitally extending from the right frontal prominence to occipital bone; skull opened.(6) A clean incised wound 1" x skin deep on the lateral aspect of left forearm in the middle.(7) A clean incised wound 1" x skin deep in the left deltoid.(8) A clean incised wound 3" x 1" on the anterior axillary fold dissecting pectoral muscles.After postmortem examination, P.W. 6 removed the banian (M.O. 1), underwear (M.O. 2), lungi (M.O. 3), towel (M.O. 4) and the waist-chord (M.O. 5) from the dead body and delivered them at the police station.(vii) P.W. 13 arrested the appellant on 30-10-1983 at 8.00 p.m. and sent him for remand.On 7-11-1983, he gave a requisition (Ex. P-8) to the Judicial Second Class Magistrate for sending the material objects for chemical analysis.Accordingly, P.W. 8, Muthusami, the Head Clerk of that Court forwarded the material objects to the Chemical Examiner with the covering letter (Ex. P-9) of the Magistrate.After analysis, the report of the Chemical Examiner (Ex. P-10) and the report of the Serologist (Ex. P-11) were received in Court.P.W. 13 laid the final report in the committal Court on 25-2-1984 on completion of the investigation against the absconding accused Karuppiah (A-1) and the appellant (A-2).But, the case was split up and proceeded only against the appellant.When the appellant was examined under Section 313, Cr.P.C., he denied his complicity in the crime.He denied that he caught hold of deceased Karuppiah when the absconding accused Karuppiah cut the deceased with aruval.He stated that he had no knowledge of the occurrence and he has been falsely implicated.He added that he surrendered at Singampunari police station of his own accord on 30-10-1983 and was not arrested as alleged.No defence witness was examined.After considering the evidence and the documents, the learned Sessions Judge accepted the case of the prosecution, rejected the plea of the appellant, found the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C., convicted and sentenced him as mentioned earlier.The appellant has preferred the present appeal challenging the said verdict of the learned Sessions Judge.Mr. K. R. Thiagarajan, learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that the appellant is an innocent person and that he was not at all concerned in the crime.He submitted that the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 adduced in this case, as eye-witnesses, is absolutely unreliable and that the appellant has been simply implicated for the reason that he is the son-in-law of the absconding accused Karuppiah and a close relation of his.He pointed out the discrepancy in the evidence of P.W. 2 that Thirunavukarasu, son of the absconding accused was pressing the leg of the deceased when the absconding accused cut him with aruval.Mr. B. Sriramulu, learned Public Prosecutor resisted the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant and contended that the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2, the ocular witnesses, proves the overt acts of the appellant while the absconding accused Karuppiah dealt cuts with aruval indiscriminately on the deceased and that the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. is valid.He pointed out that there is ample evidence to show that the appellant caught hold of the deceased when the absconding accused Karuppiah cut the deceased with aruval and when the deceased died.We heard the submissions of both sides.It is not in dispute that on 27-10-1983 deceased Karuppiah sustained cut injuries with the result, he died instantaneously at the spot.P.W. 10 who has conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of deceased Karuppiah has found as many as eight injuries, most of which were on the vital parts of the body, and has opined that injuries Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 were fatal and that death could have been instantaneous.It appears that the head of the deceased has almost been severed and that the skin was the connecting factor.The prosecution case is that the appellant caught hold of the deceased and that the absconding accused Karuppiah cut the deceased indiscriminately with aruval on the head, neck and other parts of his body and that as the result the deceased Karuppiah died instantaneously.The appellant remains charged under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC on the basis that he along with the absconding accused Karuppiah had the common intention of committing the murder of the deceased and that is why the appellant caught hold of the deceased and facilitated the commission of the murder.Unfortunately, the absconding accused Karuppiah who is alleged as the assailant and who dealt the several cuts with aruval on the deceased is not before us and the trial has proceeded only against the appellant who is alleged to have caught hold of the deceased to facilitate the attack made by the absconding accused.There is no dispute with regard to the circumstances in which the occurrence took place.The lands of the absconding accused are situate on the north and south while that of the deceased is situate in between them.There is a live fence in between the lands of the deceased and the absconding accused over which the absconding accused has laid a claim as against the claim of the deceased and P.W. 1 that the fence belonged to them.On 27-10-1983, the date of occurrence, the absconding accused Karuppiah who made good his escape from the Mental Hospital, Kilpauk, when he was undergoing life imprisonment on conviction for the murder of his own father, has started cutting of the live fence for which the deceased, son of P.W. 1, has raised protest.The evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 shows that it was only when the absconding accused Karuppiah was cutting the live fence and when the deceased Karuppiah objected to it, the absconding accused had cut the deceased with aruval.The appellant is also said to have caught hold of the deceased to facilitate cutting of the deceased by the absconding accused at that time.No other motive for the occurrence is seen in this case.On the allegation that it was the appellant who caught hold of the deceased when the absconding accused Karuppiah cut the deceased with aruval, the prosecution has adduced evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 who are respectively the father and sister of the deceased.We are not very much concerned with the question whether the absconding accused Karuppiah cut the deceased with aruval and brought about his death, as we are not deciding the charge against him at present.A careful consideration of the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 reveals that their testimony is not reliable with regard to the role attributed to the appellant.Their evidence bristles with contradictions and infirmities affecting the truth of the allegation.P.W. 1 has stated in his evidence that when the deceased questioned the absconding accused Karuppiah and asked him not to cut the trees in the live fence, the absconding accused ran towards the deceased with aruval with a view to attack him and that the deceased who became afraid of the absconding accused ran to some distance with a view to escape, but that the appellant caught hold of the deceased in order that he should not run and escape and that it was only thereafter the absconding accused attacked the deceased with aruval.His version is not so in Ex. P-1 given by him after the occurrence.What he has stated in Ex. P-1 is that the appellant ran towards the deceased who was remaining at the scene of occurrence by questioning the absconding accused about the cutting of the live fence and caught hold of the deceased by his waist strongly.P.W. 1 has not stated in Ex. P-1 that the deceased tried to run some distance and that he was held by the appellant.P.W. 2's evidence is still more different.She would state that the appellant caught hold of the deceased strongly, abused the deceased and asked the absconding accused to cut the deceased with aruval and thereupon the absconding accused cut the deceased.Nothing has been stated by P.W. 1 that the appellant instigated the absconding accused to cut the deceased after catching hold of the deceased.Thus, the evidence of P.W. 2 is found to be an embellishment which has not been stated by her even during investigation.That apart, she would add that one Thirunavukarasu also pinned the deceased down by pressing him with the leg and that thereafter the absconding accused death the cuts on the deceased.She has not stated during investigation anything about Thirunavukarasu as the person who also joined the appellant.This piece of evidence of P.W. 2 shows that she has got the tendency to implicate persons while making embellishments in the allegation made against the appellant.The testimony of P.W. 3 will indicate that P.W. 1 was not present at the scene of occurrence when the deceased and the absconding accused had quarrelled earlier between 12.00 noon and 1.00 p.m. P.W. 3 says that he went to the place where the quarrel between the deceased and the absconding accused over the cutting of the fence was taking place and that P.W. 1 was remaining in his house at that time.He would specifically say that it was between 12.00 noon and 1.00 p.m. and that the quarrel between the deceased and the absconding accused took place in the garden land.When evidently P.W. 3 says that P.W. 1 was not at the scene of occurrence when the quarrel took place and that P.W. 1 was remaining in his house as he had gone there to obtain groundnut seeds from P.W. 1, the latter may have come to the scene of occurrence later at 2.30 p.m. Evidence of P.W. 3, that none else was present during the quarrel at 12.00 or 1.00 p.m. except the deceased, the absconding accused and himself, will also enure in favour of the appellant.The inconsistency and the embellishment in the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 may lend support to the view that their evidence with regard to the appellant cannot be accepted.Further, the medical evidence also gives a go-by to the prosecution version that the appellant caught hold of the deceased, while the absconding accused attacked the deceased with aruval.P.W. 10 has categorically stated in his evidence that the injuries on the deceased would not have been caused on the deceased while the deceased was being caught hold of by a person by his waist.He would affirm that the person who caught hold of the deceased to facilitate the attack by another with aruval on the deceased, should also have sustained injuries, if the deceased was caught hold of as stated above.Even if look at the seats of the various injuries, they will show that the appellant would not have caught hold of the deceased when the absconding accused attacked the deceased with aruval.Evidently, the appellant has not sustained any injury on his person though he is said to have caught hold of the deceased at the time when the absconding accused attacked the deceased indiscriminately with aruval.The appellant is the son-in-law of the absconding accused and he might or might not have been present at about the time of occurrence.But, to allege that he also participated in committing the murder of the deceased, does not look credible.There is no material whatsoever to show that the appellant and the absconding accused Karuppiah had acted in consort or that there was existence of a pre-arranged plan or common intention to commit the murder of the deceased.So far as the injury sustained by P.W. 2 is concerned, the appellant herein is not called upon to answer, as the same is said to have been inflicted by the absconding accused.The only charge against the appellant that he shared the intention with the absconding accused in committing the murder of deceased Karuppiah, has not been proved in this case.The learned Sessions Judge has not properly appreciated the evidence with regard to the charge against the appellant and his finding that the appellant is guilty under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. is not correct.In the result, we find the appellant not guilty of the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. and set aside the conviction and the sentence imposed on the appellant by the learned Sessions Judge.This appeal shall stand allowed.Appeal allowed.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
14,458,421 |
B-98, Lane No.7, Phase-10 Ganga Vihar, Delhi.The premises belonged to Sh.Devi Saran.The incident occurred in the intervening night of 22/23.09.1998 during which he was killed.The arrest of Ravinder was also spoken to by PW-30, A.S. Mann.He is also witness to the disclosure statement allegedly made on 27-01-2001, and the "pointing out" by that accused, of various places, as well as the crime scene.23. PW-6: Ajay Kumar, the deceased's son was present in the house at the time of the incident.He stated that at 2.30- 2.45 A.M, when he was sleeping, in a room near the kitchen, he heard his mother shrieking.He, and his cousin Jitender, (who was also sleeping near the kitchen), woke up and looked out of the window; they saw his mother with three accused.All of them had knives.Two of them were holding her leg, one struck her on her hips with the knife and did not remove it.His phupa and the two tenants of his phupha's house came first to their help, then two neighbours Visheshar and Jail Singh arrived, and moved Devi Sharan on to a charpai and took him to Kanti Nagar Bus Stand, from where to they took him to Guru Tegh Bahadur Hospital, Shahdara, in a three-wheeler.His sister, one Shri Karanpal, and he went to the hospital in an auto rickshaw.On 23.9.1998, when he came back to his house, he discovered that the local police had recovered a knife, an iron rod, one bed sheet, and broken pair of Hawaii chappals.His mother had pulled out the knife from her hips and thrown it in the room, which was recovered later by the police.The witness further deposed that his father expired on 3.10.1998, and a post mortem was conducted on his body.He identified all the accused but made an error in stating that Deepak had also been a part of the attack, whereas Deepak had been present in Court, for a connected Trial, and was not an accused in this case.He stated that during the time of the incident, his house was lit by a bulb.He also stated that his cousin Jitender's house was adjacent to his house and that he had not seen those who had attacked his father.Harish was shown to the witness, and he was asked whether he too was there in the house with the other accused; he replied in the affirmative.He could not identify which weapons had been held by each of the accused due to passage of time.He denied that his family had a dispute with his uncle regarding the plot adjacent to his house.He denied that he had been called from his village to identify the accused.He identified them for the first time in Court.PW-7 Jitender Kumar was the deceased's nephew and was in the latter's house at the time of the incident.He deposed that he was sleeping near the kitchen where his cousin Ajay was sleeping as well.At about 2.30/2.35 AM, he heard his aunt screaming.He and Ajay woke up and knocked the door to the gallery (where she was sleeping); they looked through the window, and he saw that three persons had overpowered his aunt, and all three had knives.Crl. A.290, 317, 972 & 497/2006, 598 & 1020/2008 Page 11 One man had gagged her mouth, another was holding down her feet, and a third was holding her hands.The man who was holding her hands was stabbing her on her hips with his knife.When they raised an alarm, all three ran towards the staircase.He and Ajay then entered the room where Brij Lata, Bunty and Lalit were sleeping.They saw the three other accused run out towards the staircase, with blood stained knives.Then they went to Devi Sharan's room, from where he saw another accused with a Katta, who threatened to kill them if they raised an alarm.He ran towards the staircase leading to the roof.He followed his cousin into the room and saw his uncle bleeding with multiple stab injuries, by wall.His cousin tried to staunch the stomach injury using a lungi that was lying on the floor.They took him out to the gallery and made him rest on the charpai.On hearing their cries, the tenants from the neighbouring house, came in to help.Another neighbour Jail Singh also came.His uncle told them to take him to the hospital.They took him on the charpai to Shanti Nagar Bus Stand, from where they took him to Guru Tegh Bahadur Hospital in a three-wheeler.He came back home from the bus stand, but Ajay, Brij Lata, Phoolwati, Karan Pal, and one Masterji accompanied them to the hospital.He said he could see all the accused since the lights were on at the time of commission of the offence.In cross examination, he stated that his aunt had removed the knife from her hips.On seeing them, the three accused ran away and left the knife thrust into her hips.She pulled it away and threw it on the floor and they went to her husband's room.There, she saw him lying on the floor with multiple stab injuries.The wall and the floor were covered in blood.When she was entering the room, another accused came out with a Katta and threatened that if they raised an alarm, he would kill them.They went to the room where Crl. A.290, 317, 972 & 497/2006, 598 & 1020/2008 Page 12 Brijlata, Lalit and Bunty were sleeping; three accused ran away with blood stained knives towards the staircase.The witness identified Dilshad@ Bawa as the accused armed with the katta, and also identified Satinder @ Bawa, Deepak and Ravi.She deposed that Ravi and Deepak had stabbed her, and she had seen Satinder come out of Brijlata's room.Her husband died after ten days.She said that in her statement to the IO she categorically mentioned about involvement of seven people, but the IO had insisted that she should only mention about four accused.She admits that due lapse of time, she could not identify 2/ 3 remaining persons who had assaulted them as because of occurrence, she was in great shock and disturbed state of mind.PW-9, Brij Lata, the deceased's daughter deposed that she was sleeping in a room with her younger brother Lalit and her cousin Bunty.Her father was sleeping in the adjacent room and an electric bulb was switched on in her father's room.At about 2.30 AM, she heard some people enter her house and she heard her mother's screams.She tried to get out of her charpai, but one of the assailants grabbed her mouth and held a knife to her throat.She says that on hearing her mother's screams, Ajay and Jitender went to her, and the three assailants who were in that room, ran towards the staircase leading to the roof of the house.She saw that her Crl. A.290, 317, 972 & 497/2006, 598 & 1020/2008 Page 13 mother had been stabbed on her hips, and the wound was bleeding.She saw her mother pull out the knife and throw it on the floor.They then went to her father's room.Another assailant carrying a katta was coming out of his room and he threatened them that if they raised an alarm, he would kill them, and then, ran towards the staircase.They went inside her father's room, and saw him sitting on the floor, bleeding.Her brother had tied a lungi around his wounds.Her father was crying, asking to be taken to the hospital.He had multiple stab wounds, the floor around him and his clothes were soaked in blood.Her brothers, her neighbor's tenants and her mother took him to Shanti nagar Bus Stand on a charpai, and then her mother, her elder brother Ajay, Bisheshar and Karan Pal took him in a two wheeler to GTB Hospital, Shahdara.If the person used to raise an alarm, Satinder and Kale used to stab them.He says he had seen them stab people on three or four occasions.He deposed about two looting incidents that this gang had perpetrated and had been told about.In the first, he was told that they had looted a house in Ganga Vihar, which they had entered, in which lived a family of three, a couple and their son; all three persons were attacked, the man died and his wife and son sustained injuries.They looted an amount of about Rs. 20,000/- in cash, jewellery and bidi cigarettes.They told him that they escaped using the nala to put the police and dogs were put off trail.This loot was done with another person named Harish.Some of the accused had absconded to Vaishno Devi.Ms. Purnima Sethi, Advocate for appellant in Crl.Mr. Narender Mann, Special P.P. for CBI along with Mr. Manoj Pant, Advocate for respondent - CBI.The Appellants Satinder @ Bawa, Devender, Dilshad @ Kale, Ravi Kumar @ Sonu, Anil and Ravinder, (hereafter referred to by their names) impugn a judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Karkardooma Delhi, dated 18.03.2006, in SC No. 79/2005 whereby they were convicted for committing the offences punishable under Sections 396 and 400 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment.They were sentenced to 7 years rigorous imprisonment with ` 1000/- fine for the offence under Section 201 IPC and in default of payment of fine, further simple imprisonment for one month.Further, for the offence under Section 450 IPC they were sentenced to 7 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ` 1000, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month.A dacoity was committed at House No.FIR No.703/98 was registered in Police Station Gokul Puri on 23.09.1998 under Sections 452/307/324/34 IPC against unknown persons, on the written complaint of his wife.On completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed U/s 452/323/307/34 IPC against one Narender Gaur, a neighbor of the deceased.The said accused was discharged on 10.09.1999 by a learned Additional Sessions Judge.In the meanwhile, in another matter, (which was handed over to CBI by the this Court on 15.03.1999The CBI registered the present case under Sections 452/342/307/34 IPC on Crl. A.290, 317, 972 & 497/2006, 598 & 1020/2008 Page 2 11.01.2000 and after completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed under Sections 450/396/398/400/201/120B IPC and also under Sections 25/27 Arms Act r/w Section 120B IPC.The present Appellants were charged on 03.05.2001 for committing offences punishable under Sections 450/396/400/201 IPC on the ground that they along with co- accused Yusuf (who was declared PO) in the night intervening 22/23.09.1998 committed house trespass by entering into House No. B-98, Lane No.7, Phase -10, Ganga Vihar, Delhi.The house belonged to Devi Saran, Constable/ Driver of Delhi Police; it was alleged that they committed dacoity.During the commission of the offence, they allegedly, murdered Devi Saran while they were armed with deadly weapons namely knives/ chhuries and Katta.It was alleged that they were part of to a gang habitually committing dacoity.It was alleged that after committing the offences, they disposed of their blood stained clothes, bathed and concealed weapons used in the commission of offence with a view to shield themselves and caused evidence to disappear.The prosecution examined 88 witnesses, apart from placing reliance on several exhibits, to bring home the Appellants' guilt.After considering the evidence, and hearing submissions, the Trial Court convicted the Appellants, and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for the terms indicated in the earlier part of this judgment.The Trial Court primarily relied on testimonies of PWs 1 and 4 -to whom extrajudicial confessions about the incident were allegedly made; PWs 6, 7 and 9 were eyewitnesses to the incident, who saw the incident and the attack on Devi Sharan.The testimony of injured eyewitness PW-8 who was attacked during the incident, and was also the complainant, is important.The IO in the case was PW-87; the Trial Court relied on his testimony too.Appellants' contentionsIt is argued, on behalf of Satinder that none of the eyewitnesses, i.e. PWs.6-9 could identify that Appellant.In this context, counsel relied on the deposition of PW-6 to the effect that he had not seen his father's assailant; the witness also expressed inability to say which of the accused was holding PW-8, who had been inflicted injuries by the attackers.The witness could not also say who had escaped from Brij Lata's room, on the night of the attack.Similarly, urged counsel, PW-7 stated that he could not identify specifically the three Crl. A.290, 317, 972 & 497/2006, 598 & 1020/2008 Page 3 assailants who had over powered Phoolwati, PW-8, caught hold of her legs, gagged her and also caught hold of her hands.He further could not say who came out from Brijlata's room.Counsel further submitted that PW 8 likewise was unable to identify the assailants who killed the deceased.She made contradictory statements regarding the identity of Satinder; earlier she stated that the Surinder, Deepak and Ravi had caught hold of her.However, subsequently she stated that Satinder came out from Brijlata's room.Counsel submitted that this witness even identified Deepak as the one who stabbed her when in fact he was not an accused in the present case.She acknowledged in cross examination that she could not identify the two or three persons who were involved in the attack.Furthermore, she is alleged to have seen four assailants; yet the prosecution argued that seven attackers were involved.Another aspect highlighted by the Appellants was that PW-8 deposed having seen Dilshad running away with a katta; yet, concededly she did not anywhere mention that it was used.In the present case, the number of accused named and charged increased to seven.It Crl. A.290, 317, 972 & 497/2006, 598 & 1020/2008 Page 4 was urged that the appellants were falsely implicated in the present case, apparent because this case pertained to the murder of a police official; also there was a property dispute between the deceased and his brother-in-law PW 41, another police official.The statement of PW 9 (wife of deceased), PW 38 (sister of deceased) and PW 41 (brother in law of deceased) regarding the ownership of property, on the part portion of the house where incident took place had been constructed, demonstrated this motive.Further, the fact that the earlier FIR (FIR703/98) was recorded on the statement of PW 8 was registered against PW 20 also established the property dispute.Therefore no adverse inference could be drawn for refusal of TIP.The recoveries of weapons of offence i.e. four churris/knives alleged to have been recovered at the instance of Satinder, in the year 1999 in the other case No. RC 2(S)/1999/SIUT/SICT could not have been used to implicate him.The evidence of recoveries of the churries/knife was inadmissible because they were never shown to the eye witnesses and were not even shown to the appellant and the same was disbelieved by this court in Harish Yadav & Ors.- i.e. the case where the statements were recorded.Further, argued counsel, expert medical expert opinion of PW 15 is against prosecution so far as fatal injuries No.5, 6 and 7 are concerned which according to the witness were stated to be the cause death and PW 15 had deposed that injury No.5,6,7,10,11,12,13 are spindle shaped injuries which can be caused by double edge weapon and thus not by the churris shown to him.It was urged that the prosecution had blatantly sought to implicate the Appellants, falsely, because they are alleged to have made disclosure statement leading to recovery of articles, particularly murder weapons, which was highly improbable.Contentions of the prosecuting agency, the CBI Crl. A.290, 317, 972 & 497/2006, 598 & 1020/2008 Page 6The CBI submits that there was no occasion for the independent witnesses PW-6, 7, 8 and 9, to see the accused when they were taken for spot identification during the course of the investigation, as they had already sold the said house to one Shri Sushil, S/o Shri Dev Dutt.Therefore, an adverse inference may be drawn for refusal of the TIP by the Appellants.The CBI relies, in this context on the testimony of PW-6 that after performing the last rites of his father, the witness left the house of occurrence and after some days he had completely left that house.It is next urged that PW-87 in his statement deposed that the accused Ravinder himself offered to point out the place of incident and led him (the IO) to crime scene.The witness did not prepare any document to the effect that accused himself offered to point out the place of incident.The owner of house at the place of incident or his son was present and he permitted ingress in the house of place of incident.There were two other witnesses present there at that time.The house, i.e. place of incident had been sold by the widow of deceased and she had left for her village.In the pointing out memo dated 15.01.2000 of accused Anil and Dilshad, exhibited as EXPW34/D, it is argued that on reaching house of Devisharan situated in Gali No. 7, one Shri Shushil, s/o Shri Dev Dutt met the police; he said that he had purchased the house of deceased Devi Sharan few months previous to his date of deposition.Learned counsel urged that the testimony of eye witnesses PW 8 Smt. Phool Wati, PW 6 Ajay Kumar, PW 7 Jitender Kumar and PW 9 Brij Lata clearly identified the accused.PW 8 Smt. Phool Wati had identified accused Dilshad @ Kale, Satender @ Bawa and Ravi as part of the group of gang along with Deepak, who had gone and conducted the attack, with the motive of robbery.Deepak, argued counsel for CBI, is not accused in the present case but was present in Court because he was an accused in the connected case.Due to passage of time and the trauma experienced by PW-8 due to loss of her husband in the incident and according to deposition of PW 23 Neeraj, her condition had deteriorated after the death of Devi Sharan, the initial mistake in identification was explainable; yet she correctly identified accused Dilshad @ Kale, Satender @ Bawa and Ravi Kumar later.Crl. A.290, 317, 972 & 497/2006, 598 & 1020/2008 Page 7It was argued that PW -8 had named seven accused persons before the police but the IO had instead told her to name only four accused persons.As far as the remaining accused were concerned, her explanation is that due to passage of time, she was unable to identify them.Next, it was submitted that PW 6 Ajay Kumar, son of the deceased had also furnished particulars regarding the incident and even correctly identified all the accused.His detailed cross-examination by learned counsel for the accused could not shake his testimony.He also dismissed the theory of involvement of their neighbor Narender Gaur in the murder of his father.Since evidence was being recorded in both the cases together, therefore, the two accused were also present in Court but he was specific in not identifying those two accused persons as assailants in this case.As regards the discrepancy between his testimony and that of PW-8, it is submitted that besides identifying all accused, the latter witness claimed to have seen Harish at the time of the incident but as per the version of the prosecution, he is not an accused in this case.PW 8 was able to identify accused Dilshad @ Kale, Satender @ Bawa and Ravi Kumar.PW 8 was under trauma and was not able to come to terms with reality as she had lost her husband and she had suffered a lot and such loss of memory was natural.Counsel for CBI further submitted that the extra judicial confessions deposed to by PW-1 and PW-4, have a ring of truth, and should not be discarded.These witnesses would have had no occasion to go to the court and get their statements recorded U/s 164 Cr. PC in which they had stated that the accused had confessed before them to having looted the house of a police officer (deceased in this case), stabbed him and his wife and when the noise was Crl.A.290, 317, 972 & 497/2006, 598 & 1020/2008 Page 8 raised, they ran away from the spot without carrying anything.No motive could be attributed for false implication.It was further argued that all witnesses to the disclosures were independent public witnesses like Shri A.S. Mann, a Government servant, at the relevant time (examined as PW30); Suraj Prakash (PW 32) and Pritam Singh (PW 34).The Appellants could not elicit anything from them, during cross examination to point to any motive to depose falsely.The CBI also joined the local witnesses at the time of search to evidence it; the search list was also signed by them.The initial version of Delhi Police as spoken to by SI Kanchan Lal was that PW 20 Narender Gaur, who was involved in this crime, was acquitted by the Court.According to PW 17 Dr. Sudhir, the portion of statement of Devi Saran Ex. P.17/B marked X to XI was written later, implicating PW 20 Narender Gaur.It was urged that PW 8 stuck to her version that she had told that there were 7 -8 assailants but the police recorded only about 4 assailants to dilute the case.Other witnesses have also supported her version.Under these circumstances, it is quite clear that local police did not conduct the investigation fairly, perhaps to shield the real offenders.Having regard to all the conspectus of circumstances, this court, submitted counsel, should affirm the findings of conviction recorded in the impugned judgment.As noticed earlier, PW-20 Narender Gaur was implicated for the offence, as an accused, and made to stand trial.However, the prosecution could not, in that case, prove his guilt.In the meanwhile another Sessions case, involving dacoity was pending; the CBI, which was in charge of the investigation, was directed by this court, in another proceeding, to take over investigations in this case.PW-72 deposed having received information while on duty in the PCR, around 03-29 AM in the morning of 23-09-1998, about the incident.A wireless message was flashed; it was received by ASI Dineshwar Prasad PW-78, at 03:30 AM; this was recorded as Ex. PW-78/A and B. PW-71, a constable posted in the GTB hospital, mentioned receiving information that the deceased and his wife were taken to the hospital at around 04:00 AM; they were brought by their neighbours.He deposed that the deceased's wife, PW-8 told him that 6-7 people had trespassed into their house, and attacked her husband, Crl. A.290, 317, 972 & 497/2006, 598 & 1020/2008 Page 9 as well as herself.PW-73 deposed to receiving a report (PW-43/C) from the Police Station, and having gone to the hospital to deliver it to HC Ram Kishen, along with Constable Subhash.He says that Ram Kishen handed over the rukka containing her statement, which was taken to the hospital, and registered as FIR.This document (Ex. PW-75/B) was recorded by HC Jagdish Prasad.PW-82 deposed that he received the wireless message at 03:36 AM about the trespass incident and attack, having gone to the spot, learnt that the injured were taken to GTB hospital, where he went to.The deceased was in the emergency ward; his wife too was injured in the attack; she said that the knife used in the attack was lying on the bed where she had slept.The witness mentioned that the knife was seized by him, after he went to the crime scene.PW-85 Rakesh deposed that he photographed the scene on the directions of SI Kanchan Lal.At a later stage, after the investigation was handed over to CBI, he went along with the CBI team to Pradeep's house, and interrogated him.The latter disclosed that a desi katta was given by Devender, which he lent to his cousin Sandeep.This was sought to be supported by PW-37 Anis.On hearing their cries the accused ran, leaving the knife thrust in his mother's hip.When they ran towards the room (where his sister and his brother were sleeping), they saw three others run away with blood stained knives.Then they went to the room where his father was sleeping.They saw him standing by the side of the room, next to the wall.He was covered in multiple stab wounds.Another accused came out of this room, Crl. A.290, 317, 972 & 497/2006, 598 & 1020/2008 Page 10 with a katta in his hand and he warned them that if they raised an alarm, he would kill them.PW-6 then tried to staunch a bleeding wound on his father's stomach, using his father's lungi which lay on the floor.They made him rest on the charpai and then went outside and raised an alarm.There were two bulbs that switched on at the time of the incident; one in Devi Sharan's room, and the other in the gallery where his aunt had been sleeping.He says that the CBI recorded his statement twice.He also deposed that he could not attribute specific weapons to each of the accused but could remember that most of them had knives and one had a katta, and that he could not specifically identify which one of them had attacked his aunt.PW-8 Phoolwati, is the deceased's wife.She deposed to sleeping in the gallery, and that her husband was sleeping in a room adjacent to her room.At about 2.30 AM, three accused persons entered the house; one of them stabbed her on the hips, another gagged her mouth, and a third had held her legs.On being stabbed she screamed, and Ajay and Jitender came towards her.She also deposed to never implicating Narender Gaur in the crime.However, she stated that on the night of occurrence, he had been sitting on her staircase.She also deposed that she was unable to indentify two-three of the accused due to the passage of time and also as she was shocked and disturbed by the event.She was cross examined by the CBI where she admitted that the knife taken out by her from her hips, was taken away by the police officials of PS Gokul Puri and she also admitted to have stated to CBI that she was told by her nephew that one iron rod and one Hawai Chappal were left behind on the roof of the house by the assailants which were handed over to the local police.She did not remember whether her thumb impressions were taken on certain blank papers by local police but she was sure that local police did not read over the contents of her statement to her and it was the IO who had pressurized her to name only four persons as offenders; she did not name Narender Gaur as the offender or he was sitting on their staircase on the night of occurrence.After her father was admitted and her mother had received first aid, she and her mother were taken to the house of Khushi Ram in Shiv Vihar.Her mother had stated that there were seven assailants, but the police pressurized her into saying that there were only four assailants as otherwise the case would become too complicated.28. PW-1 deposed to being approached by Satender to be a member of his gang; he claimed to have met the accused.He gave details of the modus operandi of the accused.Satinder had given him a katta.During the looting of a person, he was commanded to point the katta at the person's neck.After coming back from Vaishnodevi, ` 10, 000 of the loot was given by Satinder to Harish.After some days, they came back to his house, and told him about another house that they had looted the previous night from which they had had a narrow escape.He says that they had told him that they had gone to the house of a police man, and in the course of the looting they had stabbed the police man and his wife, and that Crl. A.290, 317, 972 & 497/2006, 598 & 1020/2008 Page 14 some members of the family had woken up, raised an alarm in the street, and they had had to make their escape without taking anything from the house.Satinder had also told them that while they were escaping PW-1 jeeja Shaym had seen them, and they had threatened to kill him if he raised an alarm.One of the accused, Chandu, told him that during the commission of the crime, some blood had fallen on his shoes and clothes which he had thrown into the nala while escaping from the spot.He identified accused Dilshad as the secret informer who would tell the gang about where to loot next.PW-1 then deposed that the accused Satinder had given him a country made pistol to dispose of/to sell as this katta had been used by him in several dacoities in and around Ganga Vihar.He refused, but Satinder threatened to kill him if he did not do so.He even identified the katta in Court.He said he came to the Court on his own and got his statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC in the year 2000 during the festival of Holi.He says that after he became a witness in this matter, the accused persons had threatened to kill him.Even Satinder's brother had threatened him.He further stated that in 2000, Satinder had brought CBI officials to his house and identified him as the man to whom he had given the katta.He (PW-1) then took the police to the house of the person to whom he had sold the gun , a person named Amit.The Katta was recovered from Amit's house.It was identified by the witness in court.He says that when the accused Satinder met him the second time, to tell him about the commission of the second dacoity, Harish was not with them, but a person named Ishu was with them.He claimed to have remained with Satinder's gang because of the threat extended by him.He said that on those occasions when they had stabbed people, accused Kale and Chandu had also been present.The Katta used to be with him on all the occasions.He stated that on the 20/25 occasions the accused persons had committed these crimes, but had never given him a share.PW-4 Kapil is the PW-1's brother.He reiterated his brother's account of the events with respect to the latter's involvement with the gang, the modus operandi of the gang, the extrajudicial confession made by Satinder to them about the attack on the house of a police man, about their uncle Shyam having seen them.He also said that after the attack, Kale and Satinder had hidden themselves in his house for two/ three days.He deposed that later, 4- 5 CBI personnel had gone to his house, when he was alone and he was questioned about his Crl. A.290, 317, 972 & 497/2006, 598 & 1020/2008 Page 15 brother Pramod.They searched his house and found one iron rod (15 inches) and a vegetable cutting knife.He says that they used to use the iron rod for earthing.Analysis & ReasoningIt is noteworthy that all accused had not participated in the TIP.Though the three eyewitnesses, who claimed to have witnessed the incident (one of whom, PW-8, was seriously injured during it), deposed in their examination in chief, about the role(s) played by the accused, and even identified most of them in court, yet, in cross examination, they made damaging admissions.PW 6 deposed that "it is correct that I had not seen the person who had stabbed my father".Later she said:"I cannot tell which three of them were catching hold of my mother as with the passage of time I am unable to tell this.Similarly I cannot tell which of the three accused person came out and were escaping from the room of Brij Lata."Further PW 6 wrongly identified Harish when in fact he was not an accused in the present case.The prosecution assertion that PW6 identified the accused properly or was able to identify each of the assailants who killed the deceased therefore, stands falsified.PW 7 also could not identify the assailant who killed the deceased and failed to identify any of the accused and the roles played by them.The relevant portion of the statement of PW7 hereinbelow in cross examination is "I cannot identify specifically and precisely those three assailants who had over powered my Mami Phoolwati, caught hold of her legs, gagged her mouth and also caught hold of her hands......nor I can say as to who were those who came out from the room of Kumari Brijlata and others."Crl. A.290, 317, 972 & 497/2006, 598 & 1020/2008 Page 16 A careful reading of the deposition of PW-8 reveals that she too, was unable to identify the assailants who had killed her husband.She made contradictory statements regarding the accused's identity.In the first instance, she deposed that Surinder, Deepak and Ravi as the persons who caught hold of her and subsequently contrary to same she stated that Satinder as the person coming out from the room of Brijlata (PW9).Furthermore, PW-8 identified Deepak as the assailant who stabbed her, when in fact he (Deepak) was not even arrayed as an accused, in this case.In cross examination she said that:"...due to lapse of time I could not identify 2/3 persons who had assaulted..."PW-8, had only seen four assailants, and therefore the prosecution story that there were seven assailants is doubtful.Though PW-8 had deposed to having seen Dilshad running away with a katta, the fact that she says that she had seen only four assailants destroys the credibility of her story.Trial Court, in our opinion, overlooked the fact that according to PW-8's testimony, she had been stabbed and her husband had also been stabbed.The incident occurred in the early hours of the morning.The witnesses' deposition that two bulbs were lit, seems improbable, because it would not have been possible for anyone to sleep with a light - or at least a powerful one, switched on, since it would have lit up the entire room (the entire premises in this case measured about 500 square feet).He himself was an associate of accused persons.His brother has claimed that he (PW-3) was also a member of a gang of dacoits headed by accused Satender.
|
['Section 450 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
144,585,560 |
Prosecution's case, in short, is that, on 21.12.1994, at about 2 a.m. in the night, the complainant Paramlal (P.W.2) was sleeping in his field.The complainant Paramlal and his wife Chaina Bai were irrigating the field by pumps.Suddenly, the complainant Paramlal found that-:- 2 -:-Criminal Appeal No.947 of 1997 someone was opening the nozzle of the pump and therefore, he went near the nozzle and he found that the appellant was removing the nozzle.Thereafter, when the appellant saw the complainant, he assaulted him by a Farsa for 2-3 times.On shouting of the complainant Paramlal, other witnesses Naresh and Mathura Prasad came to the spot.They saw the appellant, who was running from the spot.Chaina Bai went to the house of the landlord of the field Sevaram (P.W.4) and called him.Sevaram took the victim to his house and kept him up to the morning.In the morning, the complainant was taken to the Police Station Patan, where he lodged an FIR, Ex.Being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment, conviction and sentence, the appellant has preferred this appeal.He was directed to the Government Hospital, Patan for his medico legal examination and treatment.A.C.Chopra (P.W.1) examined the complainant Paramlal and gave a report, Ex.He found 3 incised wounds to him which were on head and right chick.Also some abrasions were found on right ear and right mustache (2 places).He opined that since the injury No.2 was found on the face of the complainant therefore, it was grievous.After due investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the JMFC Patan, who committed the case to the Sessions Court and ultimately, it was transferred to the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur.-:- 3 -:-Criminal Appeal No.947 of 1997The appellant abjured his guilt.He has submitted that he left the village Sarkhandi prior to the incident and he was falsely implicated due to the enmity.However, no defence evidence was adduced by the appellant.Learned Additional Sessions Judge, after considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution, acquitted the appellant from the charges of offence punishable under section 307 of IPC but, convicted him for the offence punishable under section 308 of IPC and sentenced as mentioned above.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the complainant could not identify the actual culprit.It is also submitted that no fatal or grave injury was caused to the complainant Paramlal and therefore, no offence punishable under section 308 of IPC is made out against the appellant.In alternate, it is submitted that the appellant has faced the trial and appeal for the last 17 years and he remained in the custody for 160 days during the trial and therefore, he may not be sent to the jail again.On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer has submitted that the conviction and sentence directed by the trial Court appears to be correct and no interference is required from the side of this Court.-:- 4 -:-9. Paramlal (P.W.2) and Chaina Bai (P.W.3) were examined as eye witnesses, whereas during the trial, it was found that the witness Naresh and Mathura Prasad left the village of the complainant and therefore, they could not be examined because their addresses were not known to the police.Chaina Bai has accepted in the cross-examination that on shouting of her husband, when she went to the spot, the appellant had already disappeared and she could not see the appellant but, she has tried to say that there was a light available on the well, near which the incident took place.However, the complainant Paramlal did not say about the arrangement of light but, in cross-examination he has stated that he saw the appellant in the moon light.Investigation Officer, Shri Akhilesh Kumar Tiwari has also confirmed that there was moon light on that night.It is no where challenged by the appellant that on the night of the incident, there was no moon light.The appellant had already left the village of the complainant prior to the incident and therefore,-:- 5 -:-Criminal Appeal No.947 of 1997 there was no possibility for the complainant to falsely implicate the appellant in the matter.The appellant could not prove any cognate enmity with the complainant so that he could be falsely implicated.Under such circumstances, where the evidence given by the complainant is duly corroborated by his FIR, Ex.P/3, which was lodged in a reasonable time and by the testimony of Chaina Bai and Sevaram to whom the victim told the name of the appellant soon after the incident and therefore, the testimony of the complainant Paramlal is believable.It was the appellant who assaulted the victim Paramlal by a Farsa.Dr. Chopra has proved his medico legal report, Ex.He found 3 incised wounds to the victim, one was on the left parietal region and 2 incised wounds were on right chick.It is no where established that any disfiguration was caused to the victim after healing of the wounds on the face.Similarly, it is no where established that the injuries caused to the victim were fatal in nature.Under such circumstances, though-:- 6 -:-Criminal Appeal No.947 of 1997 Dr.Chopra has stated that injuries were grave but, his opinion has no basis.Under such circumstances, injuries caused to the complainant were neither fatal nor grievous.It is apparent that the appellant assaulted the victim for 2-3 times but, there was no much force in his assault.In the night, he assaulted the victim, so that the victim could not disturb him in leaving the spot otherwise, he was a thief, he could be caught by the complainant and therefore, it is apparent that the appellant is never intended to kill the victim Paramlal.Under such circumstances, where neither any injury was found to be fatal or grievous, nor the appellant was intended to kill the victim then, offence punishable under section 307 or 308 of IPC shall not be constituted.The crime of the appellant would be of section 324 of IPC only.It is apparent from the circumstances and evidence of the victim Paramlal, Dr.Chopra and Inspector A.K.Tiwari that the appellant assaulted for more than once and therefore, he had the knowledge about the result of his overt-act.It is not contended by the appellant that the victim gave him any sudden or grave provocation or he had any right of private defence.Under such circumstances, it is established that the appellant voluntarily assaulted the victim Paramlal by a Farsa, a sharp cutting weapon and-:- 7 -:-Criminal Appeal No.947 of 1997 therefore, the appellant is guilty of offence punishable under section 324 of IPC.However, he cannot be convicted for offence punishable under section 308 of IPC.So far as the sentence is concerned, the appellant remained in the custody for 160 days during the trial and he can be sentenced for 6 months rigorous imprisonment for his crime under section 324 of IPC but, at present, he remained in the custody for more than 5 months.He faced the trial and appeal for the last 16 years and therefore, looking to his harassment, due to the trial and appeal, it would be proper to reduce his sentence to the period which he has already undergone in the custody.On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, appeal filed by the appellant is hereby partly allowed.Conviction as well as sentence directed by the trial Court for offence punishable under section 308 of IPC is hereby set aside.The appellant is convicted for the offence punishable under section section 324 of IPC under the same charge and sentenced for the period, which he has already undergone in the custody.-:- 8 -:-Criminal Appeal No.947 of 1997Copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court with its record for information and compliance.(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE 24/8/2012 Pushpendra
|
['Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
144,596,672 |
Per contra, learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of this Court to paragraph No.3 of the statement of PW-3 who is the Teacher who recorded the date of birth in scholar register.In his cross- examination, he accepts that the date of birth was recorded on the basis of the information given by the parents of the student and that the parents of the student did not bring any proof relating to the date of birth of the student.PW-4 is also a teacher in the school who has stated likewise as hereinabove.In such a condition, where the date of birth or the age of the prosecutrix itself is in doubt and no ossification test was carried out, I am inclined to allow I.A.No.19779/2016 and suspend the remaining part of the jail sentence of the appellant - Prakash Rathore and direct that he be enlarged on bail upon his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.The appellant is directed to appear before the Registry of this Court on 21.03.2018 and on such other dates as may be directed in this regard.Cc as per rules.(Atul Sreedharan) Judge AM.Digitally signed by ANINDYA SUNDAR MUKHOPADHYAY DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, postalCode=482001, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=b4f46ba7e2fe0747674239ef1 7c2741153dc1e42b3d2f10e7b04f655c 010e00d, cn=ANINDYA SUNDAR MUKHOPADHYAY Date: 2017.09.13 01:13:13 -07'00'
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,445,971 |
P. K. Chakravarty, for the appellant.The Judgment of the court was delivered byHidayatullah, J. The appellant Rajeswar Prosad Misra, whohas been convicted under s. 408 of the Indian Penal Code onthree counts and sentenced in the aggregate to sufferrigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000 (in default 6 months' further rigorous imprisonment),was a traveling salesman of Messrs. Dabur (Dr. S. K.Burman) Private Ltd. The area of his operation was theSuburbs of Calcutta and the Mill Area.His duty was tosecure orders from Agents and to effect delivery of goods tothem in the Company's vans.He was required to receivepayments from the agents and to deposit the money with thecashier of the Company.The three charges on which he wastried and convicted were : on 10th and 19th February, 1958die received, on behalf of the Company, sums of Rs. 300 andRs.240 respectively, from a firm Isaq and Son.,, and on 3rdMay, 1958 a sum of Rs. 1502 from Bombay Fancy Stores, butfailed to deposit these sums with the cashier.The prosecution proved the receipt of the moneyby him and his failure to deposit it with the cashier.Hisdefence was that he had deposited the amount and that thecase was started against him as a counter-blast to a disputebetween him and V. D. Srivastava, sales supervisor, who hadtaken away certain documents from him and in respect ofwhich he had filed a case against Srivastava, S. N.Mukerjea, General Manager, R. C. Burman, Managing Directorand others before the Police Magistrate, Alipore.On August17, 1959 the appellant served through counsel on thecomplainant a notice to produce in court on August 20, 1959the following documents180(e) Staff Security Deposit Register.The complainant's counsel replied to the notice as follows"Your request to produce certain books cannot be compliedwith for the objections noted against the items separately.(1) Sale Book--this book cannot be produced unless youspecify either the agent or the parcel no. On furnishingparticulars the relevant entries will be shown.(2) Collection Register-We have objection to theother salesman's collection being shown to you.As far asyour client's returns are concerned they have been filed, ifanything more relating to your client is necessary we willproduce that on getting particulars.(3) Challans for the year 1958-We have no objection toproduce them for your inspection.(4) Agency Ledger for 1958-Please supply partioculars--The number of agents must be furnished.(5) Staff Security Deposit Register-This book cannot beproduced for your inspection.Only an attested copy of thepage showing security deposit by your client can besupplied.(6) Accused's commission account-Will be produced.Pleasesupply the particulars asked for so that the necessarypapers may be produced for your inspection by 22nd August,1959."The documents were not produced.In the cross-examinationof some witnesses for the complainant a suggestion was madethat these documents were withheld because they would havedemonstrated that the appellant had deposited the money withthe cashier.A. C. Burman (P.W. 7) was questioned and hereplied as follows:-It......I know that defence wanted the production of Sale Book, Agency Ledger and the Register containing the commission of accused.The documents were not produced as it was not possible to produce the same without particulars.It is not a fact that the books were not produced as they would show that the complaint is false . . . . ."The appellant produced no evidence in rebuttal of the prose-cution case.He was of opinion that theonly question was whether the accused had deposited theamount with the cashier of the Company.He held that thecomplainant had not been able to disprove the claim of theaccused (appellant) that he had made the deposit.The complainant then obtained special leave under s. 417(3)of the Code of Criminal Procedure from the High Court ofCalcutta to appeal against the acquittal."After hearing the arguments on both sides it appears to be necessary to take certain additional documentary evidence for arriving at a just decision in the case.The Presidency Magistrate S. N. Sanyal or his successor- Magistrate will please take the necessary evidence so that the above documents and registers are formally proved and allow 182 the accused an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses proving the documents, and then transmit the records which the registers and documents to this Court within a period of six weeks from the date."The complainant thereupon produced the documents as orderedand examined two witnesses in proof of the documents.Theappeal was then heard ind allowed and the acquittal of theappellant was set aside and lie was convicted and sentencedas already stated.appealagainst an order of acquittal.)(a) in an appeal from an order of acquittal, reverse such order and direct that further inquiry be made, or that the accused be re- tried or committed for trial, as the case may be, or find him guilty and pass sentence on him according to law;The appellant here had received three sums from the agentsand the allegation was that he had misappropriated theamount.During his trial he asked for certain documents butfor some reason, into which it is hardly necessary to go,they were not brought.There was oral evidence tending toshow that the money was not credited with the cashier of theCompany.The Magistrate was not inclined to accept oralevidence and basing himself entirely on this failure,ordered an acquittal.There was aserious defalcation of money.The accused insisted thatthe books of account should have been brought and so theywere brought as a result of the order.The accused himselfdemanded that evidence and but for the vagueness of hisdemand, this evi-dence would have been produced earlier.The appeal.Appeal dismissed.
|
['Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
144,604,363 |
And In Re:- Sk.Sajed Ali .. .. Petitioner Ms.Minoti Gomes ... for the petitioner Ms.Faria Hossain .. for the State.Accordingly, this application for bail stands rejected.(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Malay Marut Banerjee, J.) 2
|
['Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,446,046 |
The respondent No.2 herein was appointed as a Khalasi.He has been working in the Electricity Department of the petitioner herein.The said Department is said to be used to deal with generation, transmission and distribution of electricity.JUDGMENT S.B. Sinha, C.J.This writ petition arises out of an order dated 07.12.1984 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal,Delhi (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as, 'the Tribunal') where by hereunder in exercise of his powers conferred upon him under Section 13-A of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as, 'the said Act') an order dated 08.06.1981 terminating the services of respondent No.2 herein was set aside.Admittedly, there did not exist any certified standing order in relation to the said establishment.According to the respondents, as no certified standing orders existed, model standing orders would be deemed to be applicable in relation to the said establishment in terms of the provisions of Section 12 of the Said Act.Allegedly, no permanent ticket number as prescribed under the Standing Orders No.3 of the Model Standing Orders had been issued in favor of the said respondent.By reason of an order dated 08.06.1981 impugned before the learned Tribunal, the petitioner had been relieved of his duties with immediate effect without assigning any reason therefore.In the aforementioned situation, the said application was filed praying for the following reliefs:-"(a) that the Model Standing Orders as prescribed in the Act are applicable to the parties;(b) that the petitioners entitled to a permanent ticket from the respondent as required under Standing Orders No.3:(c) that the order dt. 8.6.81 whereby the petitioner was relieved of his duty is in contravention of the Model Standing Orders as prescribed under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946."At the outset, the petitioner herein raised a question as regard jurisdiction of the learned Tribunal to entertain the said application inter alia on the ground that it was not an industry as defined under Section 2(J) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as, 'I.D. Act').It was also stated that the petitioner was only concerned with distribution of electrical energy and not with its generation.It was contended that the petitioner herein having constituted under the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as, 'P.M. Act') is governed by the provisions thereof and, thus, the supplemental and fundamental rules would be applicable in the case of their establishment.It has been contended that the said order of discharge was issued consequent upon the verification of an incident, which was found to be false as contained in his application for appointment as he intentionally failed to disclose that he was involved in a criminal case under Section 379, 380 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as, 'I.P.C.').In view of the rival contentions, as noticed hereinbefore, the following issues were framed:-Separate jurisdictions have been assigned to each of them.The respondent does not answer the said description.The learned Tribunal had not arrived at a finding of fact that the respondent No. 2 herein was engaged on a permanent basis.
|
['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
165,387,782 |
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Pranjal Krishna, learned Amicus Curiae, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. for the State.The bail granted to the applicant was cancelled on 09.01.2018 vide criminal Misc.Case No. 6855/2017 ex-parte.The Criminal Misc.Application No.10413 of 2018 for recall of the order dated 09.01.2018 has been rejected on 04.02.2019 with the observation that an accused of a criminal case may move more than one application for bail at various stages of the case due to change in circumstances.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this is the second bail application on fresh grounds.The brief facts of the case are as under:-(i) F.I.R. No. 0057/2015, under Sections 147 /148/149/323/307 /504/506 I.P.C. and Sections 25/27 of Arms Act was lodged on 08.05.2015 against the applicant and seven others.Role of firing has been attributed against the applicant.(ii) Application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved on 28.05.2018 by the co-accused Mohd. Atiullah.(iii) Vide order dated 19.05.2015, the bail application of the applicant was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Ambedkar Nagar,(v) F.I.R. No. 91/2017, under Sections 342/376/506/354A I.P.C. and under Section 3/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act was lodged on 21.06.2017 against Mokaddar, the grand son of Nishad (the complainant in the second F.I.R. and witness in the present case) for the alleged rape of Km.(vi) Charge sheet dated 15.08.2017 was filed in case crime No. 0091/2017 (supra) against Mukaddar.(vii) On 21.06.2017, F.I.R. No. 90/2017, under Section 323/452/504/506 I.P.C. was lodged against the applicant and three others for allegedly threatening Nisar Ahmad.The first bail application of the applicant was allowed vide order dated 28.07.2015, thereafter an F.I.R. No. 90/2017, under Section 323/452/504/506 I.P.C. was lodged and on this pretext, the bail cancellation application was moved in which the notices were issued to the present applicant and despite service to the applicant, he has not put in appearance and on these grounds, the bail of the applicant was cancelled.Learned Amicus Curiae submits that the applicant did not violate any condition of the bail order, nor has misused the liberty of bail.The bail of the applicant was cancelled ex-parte without providing any opportunity of being heard.He further submits that the notice of the bail cancellation was served upon the accused-applicant on 11.12.2017 and the accused-applicant immediately contacted his counsel late Sri Devendra Nath Mishra, Advocate on 19.12.2017 to plead on his behalf, however due to sad demise of his advocate on 21.12.2017, his case could not be argued before the Court and consequently vide order dated 09.01.2018, his bail was cancelled and while passing the bail cancellation order, this Court was not apprised of the fact that the counsel of the applicant late Sri Devendra Nath Mishra is no more.Learned counsel further submits that it is not the case of prosecution that any one was hurt on his firing.Mohd. Ashraf, Taj Mohammad, Shah Alam and Salman are the people from the applicant side who have received injuries from the sharp and hard blunt objects.The injury reports are on placed on record as Annexure No. 2, 3, 4 and 5 to the bail application.Nothing incriminating has been alleged to be recovered from the applicant.It is further submitted that in F.I.R. No. 0090/2017, under Section 323/452/504/506 I.P.C., the applicant has been enlarged on bail by the trial court.The bail order is on record.It is further contended on behalf of the applicant that the complainant Nisar Ahmad has admitted the fact that he lodged false F.I.R. to exert pressure upon the applicant side to withdraw the prosecution.The attention of the Court has been drawn towards the C.D. containing conversation on 22.07.2017 along with its transcript.The relevant part of the C.D. is on record as Annexure No. 21 to the bail application.Learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State have opposed the bail prayer, however could not dispute the facts argued on behalf of the applicant.Without entering into on the merits of the case and considering the fact that this Court cancelled the bail order of the applicant without being apprised of the fact that Sri Devendra Nath Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant who was supposed to plead the case of the applicant died on 21.12.2017 and thus, the case of the applicant remained unrepresented and the bail cancellation was moved on the basis of F.I.R. No. 0090/2017 in which the applicant has been enlarged on bail and also the fact that the applicant after cancellation of his bail, surrendered before the court which prima facie rules out the possibility of his absconding or not cooperating in the trial and charge sheet in the matter has already been filed, case for bail is made out.Let the applicant, Siraj Ahmad, involved in Case Crime No. 57/2015, under Sections 147/148/149/323/307/504/506 IPC and Sections 25/27 of Arms Act, Police Station - Jaitpur, District - Ambedkar Nagar, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.(iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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.(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.(vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the 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 of the Indian Penal Code.(Karunesh Singh Pawar, J) January 28, 2020 R.C./
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
165,391,163 |
The prosecution case very briefly is that on 26.11.2004, Shamim Akhtar (for short `Shamim'), a scrap dealer and a resident of village Cher, Distt.Baikunthpur, Chhattisgarh, had gone to Raipur for selling scrap.He sold the scrap and received cash of Rs.1,70,000/- and returned to his house 2with the cash.His wife, Ruksana Bibi, kept the cash in different places of her house, which was to be deposited in the bank the next day.At about 6.00 p.m. on 26.11.2004, Sonu Sardar, the appellant herein, and Ajay Singh @ Fotu along with three other persons came with scrap to the shop of Shamim and left after selling scrap for Rs.480/-.The appellant and Ajay Singh and three other persons, however, returned at about 7.00 p.m. on the same day and knocked on the door of the house of Shamim.When the door was opened, the appellant and Ajay Singh and three other persons demanded money from Shamim.One of these five persons then bolted the door from inside and two other persons caught hold of Asgar Ali, driver of Shamim, and one of them caught hold of Shamim.They kept a knife on the neck of Shamim and compelled him to give cash which he was having in his pocket.Shabana Khatun (for short `Shabana'), the daughter of Shamim, who was present inside, tried to fight but an attempt was made by the appellant and his people to assault her and she somehow escaped through the back door and went to the house of Ramlal, a kilometer away from the house of Shamim.Shabana told Ramlal 3about the incident at her house and when Ramlal wanted to go to their house, Shabana asked him not to go because she was afraid that Sonu Sardar and others may kill him.That night Shabana stayed at the house of Ramlal and next morning at about 4-5 a.m., Shabana, Ramlal and his wife Dhanpatbai came to the house of Shamim and found that Yakut and Asna, 3 years old son and 5 years old daughter of Shamim, were crying near the dead bodies of Shamim, Ruksana Bibi, Yakub and Kumari Rana, 7 years old son and 9 years old daughter of Shamim.Shabana then went to Baikunthpur and narrated the incident to her uncle Nasim Akhtar, who reported the matter the Police.The Police reached the spot and the FIR was lodged.The dead bodies were sent for autopsy to the Community Health Centre, Baikunthpur, and a team led by Dr. Ashok Kumar carried out the post mortem.In course of investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded statements of several persons under Section 161, Cr.P.C. The appellant and his co-accused, Ajay and Chhoti Bai, were arrested but the other persons absconded after commission of crime.Blood-stained T-shirt and turban of the appellant and an axe with broken 4handle, a rod and a knife were seized.Test Identification Parade was carried out on 01.12.2004 in which Shabana identified the appellant as well as Ajay as two of the five persons who had come to the house of Shamim on 26.11.2004 and were demanding money.These are appeals against the judgment of the High Court of Chhattisgarh in Criminal Reference No.1 of 2008 and Criminal Appeal No. 240 of 2008 confirming the conviction of the appellant and the death penalty imposed on him under Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code (for short `IPC').The seized articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur.After completion of investigation, a chargesheet was filed and Sessions Trial No.06/2006 was conducted by the Sessions Judge, Koriya, Baikunthpur (Chhattisgarh).In course of the trial, the prosecution examined 38 witnesses.A large number of documents and the seized articles were also exhibited.The trial court recorded the statements of the appellant under Section 313, Cr.After hearing the arguments, the trial court held that it was clear from the evidence of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 that the appellant had committed the dacoity at the house of Shamim between 7.00 p.m. of 26.11.2004 and 4.00 a.m. of 527.11.2004 and thereafter committed murder of Shamim, Asgar, Ruksana Bibi, Yakub and Kumari Rana with rod, knife and axe and that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing the guilt of the appellant under Section 396, IPC, beyond reasonable doubt.After hearing counsel for the parties on the question of sentence, the trial court also held that the case falls in the category of rarest of rare cases and imposed the sentence of death on the appellant.By the impugned judgment, the High Court has confirmed the conviction of the appellant under Section 396, IPC, and also the sentence of death.She submitted that it is on the information received from PW-1 that PW-3 had lodged the FIR, but in the FIR the appellant has not been named.She argued that had PW-1 known the appellant, she would have told PW-3 the name of the appellant and PW-3 would have mentioned the 6name of the appellant in the FIR.She submitted that it will therefore not be safe for this Court to sustain the conviction of the appellant.Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submitted that although PW-1 is a minor, her evidence was reliable and she had stood the test of cross-examination.He further submitted that PW-1 narrated the incident not only to PW-3, but also to PW-2 and PW-4 and the evidence of PW-2 and PW-4 would show that PW-1 had clearly mentioned that out of the five persons, who had committed the dacoity and murder on the night of 26.11.2004, there was a sardar.Moreover, at the time of the Test Identification Parade conducted by the Magistrate (PW-11), PW-1 identified the appellant as one of the five persons, who had come to the house of Shamim on 26.11.2004 and were demanding money.He submitted that the evidence of PW-1 that the 7appellant participated in the dacoity and murder on 26.11.2004 is corroborated by the recovery of the iron rod and axe on the statement of the appellant and by the fact that the seized T-shirt and turban of the appellant were blood-stained.We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and we find that during investigation a Test Identification Parade was carried out on 01.12.2004 and out of the ten persons who were presented, the appellant and Ajay Singh @ Fotu were identified by PW-1 as the two persons, who were amongst the five persons who had come to the house of Shamim and were demanding money from him.From the evidence of PW-2 as well as the evidence of PW-4, we find that PW-1, soon after she escaped from the house of Shamim, has mentioned that one of the five persons who had gone to the house of Shamim was a sardar.In her cross-examination, PW-1 has stated that she knew the appellant as he had come to their house for selling scrap.Moreover, the broken axe with broken handle and iron rod (Ext. P.24) were recovered pursuant to the statement of the appellant (Ext.P.16).PW-36, Dr. Ashok Kumar, after narrating the injuries 8on the dead bodies of Shamim, Asgar Ali, Ruksana Bibi, Yakub and Kumari Rana, has opined that the death has been on account of shock as a result of fatal injuries.The injuries described by them are not only incised wounds but multiple fractures of temporal and parietal bones and on the head which could have been caused by the axe and the iron rod.The report of the Forensic Science Laboratory (Ext.P.61) confirms presence of human blood on the clothes of the deceased persons, axe and iron rod (Ext. P.24) as well as the turban and T-shirt of the appellant (Ext. P.37) which had been seized.Thus, the conviction of the appellant is not only based on the oral testimony of PW-1, but also the evidence of PW-2, PW-3, PW-4, PW-36, the seized articles and also the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory.It is further established from the evidence of PW-1 and the Panchanama of the house of Shamim made on 28.11.2004 that only cash of Rs.65,760/- was available and the remaining cash out of Rs.1,70,000/- was missing.The prosecution has, in our considered opinion, proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant participated in the offence of dacoity and murder 9and has been rightly convicted for the offence under Section 396, IPC.
|
['Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,653,922 |
M/s. Shanti Vijay & Co. (hereinafter mentioned as accused No. 1), entered into negotitions with the Maharaja and struck a deal.In this process, this accused associated M/s. Lalji & Co. as well (hereinafter mentioned as accused No. 6), and what they mutually agreed to was that the purchase of jewellery to the extent of Rs. 13,25,000 would be financed by the accused No. 6 with corresponding sharing of the jewellery so purchased.Thus each of these accused Nos. 1 and 6 had to arrange substantial cash for the purchase of jewellery.Accused No. 1 on its part claimed to have borrowed different amounts from 11 persons totaling rupees 8.15 lakhs.In the complaint which is now pending before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, the ITO has alleged that accused No. 1 and its partners and delivered false accounts, statements and declarations relating to their income chargeable to tax for the assessment year 1972-73, and thus committed an offence under s. 277 of the I.T. Act. The persons who had purposed to lend their names in the creation of those fictitious cash credit entries in the account books of caused No. 1 are alleged to have abetted and induced accused No. 1 and its partners in the making and delivery of the said accounts, statements and declarations.The trial has still to proceed against them.The allegations against M/s. Lalji & Co., accused No. 6, and it partners, who are all the petitioner before this court are contained in para.Reference has also been made to earlier dealings between accused Nos. 1 and 6 and passing off some money of adjustment of the amounts in the course of those transactions.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi.On its basis, summons were issued to all the respondents for appearance and facing trial.M/s. Lalji & Co. and its three partners, who are imp leaded as respondents No. 6 to 8 in that complaint, feeling aggrieved against the service of those summons on them, have now moved this petition for setting aside and/or quashing the issue of process to them by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.2. Notice to show cause this petition be not admitted, was issued to the respondents including the complaint-ITO.Some of them have been served.The petition is connotation and opposed by the complainant ITO.After hearing the present petitioner and the said complainant, I am of the opinion that this is a fit case for admission.They were all from Bombay and are imp leaded as the other accused in the complaint filed in the trial court.The amounts so obtained from those persons were entered into the account books of accused No. 1 as cash credit obtained from them.During the course of assessment for the assessment year 1972-73 (the previous year of which these cash credits were), the ITO required accused No. 1 to substantiate that the cash credits were genuine which were obtained form the said third parties.The accused No, 1 then produced affidavits purported to be given by these persons affirming the giving of loans, but the enquiries later from those persons revealed that they had not given any such amounts nor had they stated so in any affidavit.The ITO, therefore, held that those cash credits were fake and were mere hawala loans.Thereby the accused No. 1 was purposed to have utilised its own concealed income in the guise of cash credits, and allowed some commission to those persons for lending their names.This addition in the assessment has been upheld by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal.Accused No. 6, i.e., M/s. Lalji & Co, in similar manner purported to obtain loans worth Rs. 13,25,000 from different persons and made entries of cash credits in their accounts books.Their scrutiny at the assessment stage of this accused at Bombay cast considerable could on their genuineness."Accused Nos. 6 to 17 abetted and/or induced the accused Nos. 1 to 5 to make and deliver accounts/statements and declaration relating to income of accused No. 1 which was chargeable to tax which was false and which they either knew to be false and/or did not believe to be true.They have committed an offence punishable under section 278 of the Act."In the reply which the ITO has filed to the present petition before this court, various other allegations have been made against accused No. 6 and its partners and it is pointed out that some loans had been propertied to be obtained by accused No. 6 from the same persons as well.
|
['Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
165,404,457 |
He got married with one Hemalatha and gave birth to a child.While being so, there is a strained relationship between them.Therefore, his wife left the matrimonial home, and as such, the petitioner was constrained to file a petition for divorce in FMOP.No.181 of 2019 and it is pending on the file of the Family Court, Vellore.While pending the divorce petition, the petitioner went to his father- in-law's house to see his son aged about 7 years old, the petitioner was brutally attacked by the entire family members of his wife.Therefore, he sustained grievous injuries on all over his body and he also produced photographs before this Court.Even then, the first respondent registered the FIR only for the offence under sections 147, 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(i) IPC.He has further submitted that the father-in-law's family members are politically veryhttp://www.judis.nic.in 2/4 CRL.O.P.No.14615 of 2020 influential persons and as such, first respondent did not register any case for the offence under section 307 IPC.This petition has been filed seeking for direction directing the first respondent police to alter the offences under Section 307, 342 and 506(ii) in Crime No.660 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police.2.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an Indian Army Sipoy.4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that on the complaint lodged by the petitioner, the first respondent registered the FIR in Crime No.600 of 2020, for the offences under sections147, 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(i) IPC .He has further submitted that on perusal of the photographs and also the injuries sustained by the petitioner, the major offences would also attract as against the accused persons.5.Considering the above submission made by the petitioner as well as the Additional Public Prosecutor, and on perusal of the photographs and complaint lodged by the petitioner, there is material to attract the offence under section 307 IPC as against the accused persons.Therefore, the first respondent is directed to conduct investigation on the strength of the allegations made in the complaint as well as injuries sustained by the petitioner and to alter the offence under section 307 IPC and other offences and complete the investigation and file a final report within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.http://www.judis.nic.in 3/4 CRL.O.P.No.14615 of 2020 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.In view of the above this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.18.09.2020 Internet : Yes / No Speaking / Non Speaking order MPA ToThe Inspector of Police, Veppankuppam Police Station, Vellore District.2. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vellore District.Superintendent of Police, Vellore District.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Madras.CRL.O.P.No. 14615 of 2020http://www.judis.nic.in 4/4
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 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.
|
165,405,056 |
None for the respondent No.2 though served.The appellant has filed this pre-arrest appeal under Section 14(A) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereafter referred to as "SC/ST Act" ) being aggrieved by the order dated 8.7.2020 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Anuppur, in Bail application No.153/2020, whereby the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge dismissed the application filed by the appellant under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.T h e appellant is apprehending his arrest in connection with crime No.89/2020 registered at Police Station-Ramnagar, District-Anuppur for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.The case of the prosecution, in short, is that, the applicant is a Kirana merchant.The victim, who is a member of Scheduled Tribe, had applied for loan from a bank.The bank after sanctioning the loan, instructed the appellant to supply Kirana goods to the victim.As per instructions of the bank, the appellant supplied Kirana goods to the victim.Later on, the victim lodged a report against Bank Manager Rajendra Sahu, the then Bank Manager Avinash Kumar Sahu and the present appellant, alleging therein that he neither received Kirana goods nor availed the loan.Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the Signature Not SAN Verified appellant is a registered vendor.As per instructions of the bank, the appellant Digitally signed by PUSHPENDRA PATEL Date: 2020.12.02 16:06:13 IST 2 CRA-4147-2020 supplied Kirana goods to the person, who received the loan for running business.The appellant received a signed letter from the bank for supplying Kirana goods to the victim and in pursuance to the instructions of bank, he supplied Kirana goods to the victim.The victim received Kirana goods and the Bank Manager verified that receiving of goods by the victim and, thereafter, payment was made to the appellant.The appellant had no knowledge that the victim belongs to Scheduled Tribe community.On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State has opposed this appeal.He has also not objected on the point that the victim has paid some installments for satisfying the loan received by him.Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the case diary, no doubt it is reflected that the victim applied for loan for running a business and the bank sanctioned the loan and instructed the appellant to supply Kirana goods to the victim.
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
16,541,280 |
Shri Satyam Agrawal, counsel for the objector.Heard the learned counsel for the parties.The applicant is in custody since 25.10.2014 relating to Crime No.835/2014 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Sehore for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 307, 147, 148, 149, 325 of the IPC and Section 25 of the Arms 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.It is alleged against the co-accused Mukesh and Mohan that they assaulted with swords to various victims including Bhanwarlal and deceased Bhanwarlal sustained the injury on his head and died due to head injury.The applicant was not aware that co-accused would assault the deceased in such manner.No common intention or common object of the applicant can be presumed with the co-accused persons namely Mohan and Mukesh.There is no allegation against the applicant that he had any prohibited arm with him and therefore, no offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act is made out against the applicant, remaining offences are bailable.The co-accused Shailesh Yadav was granted bail vide order dated 28.1.2015 passed in M.Cr.Under these circumstances, the applicant also prays for bail on the ground of parity.Learned Panel Lawyer opposes the application.Learned counsel for the objector also opposes the application.It is directed that the present applicant namely Dinesh Yadav be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) with a surety bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the CJM, Sehore to appear before the committal Court and the trial Court on the dates given by the concerned Courts.This order shall be effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE pnkj
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,654,139 |
In brief the case of prosecution is that in the mid-night of 1-2-90 Janak Ram (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') was sleeping in his hut At that time accused Ram Milan and Omprakash called him to come out from the hut.As soon as he came out from his hut his mouth was tied by a torned cloth of a shirt and thereafter accused Gorabai poured kerosene oil on the deceased and accused Ram Milan lit the fire.It is alleged that a day prior to the date of incident, i.e., 31-1-90 accused Ram Milan was assaulting Tenamma and as the deceased rescued her, the accused Ram Milan threatened to kill and hurled abuses.Further the case of prosecution is that the accused Ram Milan was having illicit relationship with accused Gorabai who is the wife of the deceased and he was desirous to keep her.This created the background for the accused persons to kill the deceased.The neighbours of the deceased, when going with the deceased to lodge the report at that time his brother Laxman and Chatura arrived who carried the deceased in an autorickshaw to the police station where the deceased himself lodged the FIR (Ex. P-11).After lodging the FIR, the deceased was sent for medical examination and he was admitted in the medical ward.On 7-2-90, the deceased passed away.After his death his dead body was sent for postmortem and Dr. Ashok Sharma conducted the post-mortem.In his report Dr. Sharma opined that deceased breathed his last on account complication arising out of burn injuries resulting in cardio respiratory failure.JUDGMENT A.K. Shrivastava, J.During the investigation, the investigating officer prepared the spot map, seized the burnt pieces of the shirt from which odour of kerosene oil was coming out, seized the earth, seized the burnt trouser and underwear which smelled of kerosene oil.These articles were sent for chemical examination from where positive report (Ex. P-3) was received affirming the presence of kerosene on these articles.After completing the investigation, a charge sheet was filed in the Competent Court who committed the case to the Court of Session and eventually if it was tried by the Trial Court.The accused persons were charged under Section 302/34, IPC.The charges were denied by the accused persons.Their defence is of false implication.However, the accused persons did not choose to examine any witnesses in their defence.In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses and has placed Ex. P-1 to Ex, P-24, the documents on record.The Trial Court after appreciating the evidence brought on record came to the conclusion that all the accused persons did commit the offence of which they were charged and accordingly, they were convicted for the said offences to suffer the sentence of life.Hence the appellants have preferred this appeal.In support of the appeal, Smt. Sudha Pandit, learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that though the incident had taken place on 1-2-90, and the deceased breathed his last on 7-2-90, the police did not care to record the dying declaration of the deceased.Her further contention is that the doctor who first examined the deceased was not examined by the prosecution and therefore it creates a doubt about the sanguinety of the prosecution story.Combating the aforesaid submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants, Smt. Chanchal Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the State argued that the FIR was lodged by the deceased himself who later on died.The said FIR in the eye of law would be deemed to be a dying declaration.According to the learned Panel Lawyer, the Trial Court considered the case from every angle and come to a definite conclusion that the accused persons did commit the offences and therefore, no fault can be found with the conviction.The FIR was lodged within 45 minutes from the time of occurrence.In the FIR, the deceased had specifically mentioned the role of the accused persons and stated that accused Ram Milan wanted to keep his wife (accused Gorabai) as his own wife.Before the incident accused Ram Milan and Omprakash called him outside his hut, they tied his mouth by a torned piece of shirt and thereafter his wife Gorabai poured kerosene oil and Ram Milan lit the fire by match stick as a result of which when he screamed, his neighbours came out and they were carrying him to lodge the report and in the way Laxman and Chatura met him and thereafter they brought him to the police station in the autorickshaw.He has also stated in the FIR that in the previous year also accused Ram Milan on account of relationship with his wife assaulted him.At the last in the FIR there is a note that as the hands of the deceased had been burnt, therefore, his thumb impression could not be obtained.In this case, their Lordships further held that the deceased made the dying declaration to the police soon after the occurrence.In the present case also the FIR was lodged within 45 minutes only, therefore, reliance could be made placed the FIR which became later on a dying declaration.At this juncture, it is apposite to mention that at 0.15 hours the FIR was lodged meaning thereby within a span of 15 minutes, the deceased was sent for medical examination.In the form which was sent by the police to the doctor (Ex. P-16), it has been mentioned in it that accused persons Ram Milan, Omprakash and Gorabai after pouring the kerosene oil lit the fire as a result of which both the hands and the legs of the deceased had been burnt.In the report the doctor wrote the history as under:--"Burned by Ram Milan, Omprakash and Gorabai (wife)."In the report (Ex. P-16), it has been mentioned that on examining, kerosene smell present, burn over neck, back, chest and forearm etc.True, the doctor who examined the deceased and wrote the report (Ex. P-16) was not examined but there is no cross-examination in regard to his non-examination on behalf of the accused persons, to the Investigating Officer Phool Singh Chouksey (P.W. 11).The Investigating Officer (P.W. 11) has categorically stated in his cross-examination that after recording the FIR he sent the information to the concerned Magistrate for recording the dying declaration.He also visited the hospital when the deceased was admitted in the hospital and every time the doctor stated that the deceased was not in a fit condition for recording of the dying declaration.He has also stated that he went alongwith the Tehsildar (Magistrate) but the deceased was not in a position to give the dying declaration and therefore, his dying declaration could not be recorded.He has also stated that he visited the hospital for number of occasions but every time, he was informed by the doctor that the deceased was not in a fit condition to give the dying declaration.There is no material on record so as to demonstrate, that the deceased was in a fit state of mind to give the dying declaration and the investigating agency failed to take appropriate steps to record his dying declaration.Thus in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the FIR which was recorded by the deceased can be held to be a dying declaration of his and reliance can be placed on it.The admissibility of the dying declaration rests upon the principle that a sense of impending death produces in a man's mind the same feeling as that of a conscientious and virtuous man under oath-- nemo moriturus praesumitur mentire, i.e., a man will not meet his Maker with a lie in his mouth.So far as the next contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that doctor who first examined the deceased was not examined, therefore, it can not be said that the condition of the deceased was serious upto that degree that he could not give his dying declaration.In this regard, there is no cross-examination on the Investigating Officer.Secondly we have already discussed hereinabove that the Investigating Officer has stated that on account of the serious condition of the deceased as he was not in fit condition to give dying declaration, the doctor on duty was also not permitting him to make arrangement of recording the dying declaration, as such his dying declaration could not be obtained.There is no reason to disbelieve this statement of the Investigating Officer, there is no effective cross-examination on him on this point.The learned Trial Judge has ascribed the sound reasonings in detail in his judgment and we find them to be cogent and therefore, we hereby give our stamp of approval to it.In the result, the appeal has no force.
|
['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.
|
165,414,287 |
(Passed on 30th day of November, 2013) By way of this revision the applicants have challenged the judgment dated 12.7.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rehli District Sagar in Criminal Appeal No.106/2012 whereby the judgment dated 30.1.2012 passed by the learned JMFC Rehli in Criminal Case No.667/2007 was modified and the applicants were convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 452 of IPC and sentenced with six months' RI with fine of Rs.500/-.The prosecution's case, in short, on 21.8.2007 at about 4:00 PM in the evening the applicants entered in the house of the complainant situated at Village Pipariyaghat Police Station Rehli District Sagar and assaulted the various victims.During the trial a compromise took place between the parties, and therefore the applicants were acquitted 2 Criminal Revision No.1351/2012 from the charges of offence under Sections 148, 294, 323 or 323/149, 506(II) of IPC on the basis of compromise.The learned JMFC Rehli after considering the evidence adduced before him convicted the applicants for the offence under Section 452 of IPC and sentenced with one year's RI with fine of Rs.500/- each.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.After considering the evidence given by the witnesses Sandhya Nayak (PW-1), Preeti Nayak (PW-2), Ritesh Nayak (PW-3), Rekha Rani (PW-4), Feran (PW-7) along with other eye-witnesses and timely lodged FIR Ex.P-1, it is duly proved that the applicants entered in the house of the complainant with preparation to cause assault, and therefore both the courts below have rightly convicted the applicants for the offence under Section 452 of IPC.There is no reason to disturb the concurrent findings given by both the Courts below relating to the conviction of the applicants, and therefore no interference can be done in the present revision for the conviction directed against the applicants.So far as the sentence is concerned, it would be apparent that a compromise took place between the parties for the main offence of Section 323 of IPC, and therefore though the offence under Section 452 of IPC was not compoundable, no serious view should be taken against the crime committed by the applicants.It was not the case in 3 Criminal Revision No.1351/2012 which the jail sentence could be imposed, however the applicants remained in the custody for 20 days during the trial, appeal and revision.Under such circumstances, it is a fit case in which the sentence of the applicants may be reduced to the period for which he remained in the custody.Since they remained in the jail for sometime, therefore there is no basis to enhance the fine amount.On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the revision filed by the applicants is hereby partly allowed.The conviction of the applicants for the offence under Section 452 of IPC is hereby maintained, but their jail sentence is reduced to the period for which they remained in the custody during the trial, appeal and revision.No change in the fine amount.A copy of this order be sent to both the courts below along with their records for information and compliance.(N.K.Gupta) Judge 30/11/2013 Ansari
|
['Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
165,415,147 |
C.C. as per rules.(D.K. PALIWAL) JUDGEA copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,654,197 |
One Banwari had three wives.The eldest was Smt. Ralaniu, second was Smt. Nanki P.W. 1 and the third was Smt. Maharajiya deceased.He had no son out of any of these three wives.The first wife Smt. Ratania died long ago.Smt. Ratnia left behind her two daughters namely, Smt. Sukhi and Jaggi.The accused appellant Ashiq Lal was the son of Sukhi.He left behind Smt. Nanki PW 2 and deceased Smt. Maharajiya as his surviving wives.Banwari owned about 5-6-Bighas of land.After the death of Banwari Smt. Nanki and deceased Smt. Maharajiya took half share each in the properties of Banwari.They lived in separate rooms in one and the same house situate in village Isanpurwa.The occurrence of this case took place on 10-9-1978 at about 5 a.m. At that time the deceased Smt. Maharajiya was sleeping in her room.Smt. Nani PW 2 was sleeping in another room.Bimla PW 6, who was then minor girl aged about 6 years and was the daughter of the daughter of Smt. Maharajia deceased used to live with Smt. Maharajia, was sleeping on a different cot in the room of Smt. Maharajia along with accused appellant Ashiq Lal.In the early morning Smt. Nanki heard the shrieks of Km.She went to the room of Smt. Maharajia and there she found that Smt. Maharajia was lying in a pool of blood having several injuries on her person, On enquiry from Km.who was then working as S.I. of police at P.S. Kotwali Fathehpur.He immediately recorded the statement of H.C. Ansar Ahmad, Smt. Nanki PW 2, Km.Bimla PW 6, Ram Asrey PW 3, Gulab Singh and Prem etc. He inspected the scene of occurrence and prepared the site plan Ex.He recovered blood stained and simple earth from .the scene of occurrence and prepared the recovery memoes about the same.The accused persons were not available.After receiving the information about the death of the deceased on 14-9-1978 he prepared inquest report Ex.He found the position as under:-The body of the deceased was average built.Rigor mortis was present in lower limb.Bimla, Km.Bimla did not state her anything.She specifically stated that Km.She stated that when she saw Smt. Maharajia she was lying injured.Seth Radhey Shyam used to reside near her house.Radhey Shyam has installed his Mill on the land belonging to her and Smt. Maharajia.Seth Radhey Shyam was monied man.He owned a rice mill.He is a dealer in diesel and petrol and also a whole sale dealer of kerosine oil.He was on comfortable terms with the police.She stated that Smt. Maharajia had deposited a sum of Rs. 14000/- with Seth Radhey Shyam, which the deceased used to demand from him but he did not give.JUDGMENT N.S. Gupta, J.Appellant Ashiq Lal was convicted by Sri J.M. Srivastava, the then III Addl.Sessions Judge, Fatehpur vide his judgment and order dated 6-8-1980 and was sentenced to 7 years R.I. under Section 304, (II), I.P.C. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment, he has come up in appeal before (his Court.The prosecution story, briefly stated, is as follows :Bimla PW 6, Smt. Nanki was informed that Ashiq Lal and two other perons had inflicted the injuries to her Nani Smt. Maharajia, who died after four days of this incident on 14-9-1978 at District Hospital Fatehpur.A written report Ex. Ka-4 purported to have been made by Smt. Nanki PW 2 was lodged at P.S. Kotwali Sadar Fatehpur on 10-9-1978 at 10 a.m. On the basis of this written report, Ex. Ka-4, a Chik report was prepared by Ansar Ahmad, Head Moharrir PW 1, on 9-10-1978 at 10 a.m. Since Smt. Maharajia was alive and was admitted to Hospital, therefore, a case punishable under Section 307, I.P.C. against Ashiq Lal and Radhey Shyam as suspect was registered.After the death of Smt. Maharajia on 14-9-1978, the case was converted into one under Section 302, I.P.C. vide G.D. report Ex.The bone of the right shoulder of the deceased was broken.Clotted blood was there in the brain.Dr. Roy found the following injuries on the person of the deceased.Stitched wound 2" x 1/10" (stiched) bone deep right side of face 1/2" below the right ear horizontally over the angle of right mandible upto cheek bone, fracture underneath.Stitched wound 1/2" x 1/10" (stiched) right side of chest 1 1/2 below the injury No. 1 mandible bone below the injury fractured.Stitched wound 1" x 1/10" front of chin Muscle deep.Incised wound 1/2" x 1/4" whole of lobole.Lower part cut off.x right side.Stitched wound 21/2" ax 1/10" right shoulder joint, anterior posterior aspect.Fracture of rigid humorus at neck and aerominal process of right scapula latter part.Stitched wound 1" (stitched) right shoulder joint, 1" below injury No. 7, muscle deep.The Doctor opined that the deceased had died due to shock and haemorrhage.He also opined that the deceased should have died on 14-9-1978 at about 2 p.m. The injuries found on the person of the deceased should have been caused by sharp-edged weapon.Dr. Roy found that the deceased should have remained unconscious before death because of the injuries found on her person.He along with Kishori Lal was put up for trial and was charged under Section 302/34, I.P.C.The accused appellant Ashiq Lal pleaded not guilty during trial.The accused appellant pleaded that on the night of the occurrence, he was not present in village Isanpurwa.He was rather present in his village Guttaur.He stated that Radhey Shyam had purchased the land of Smt. Maharajia deceased for a sum of Rupees 14000/-.Smt. Maharajia had deposited the said amount with Radhey Shyam on interest.When Smt. Maharajaia demanded the said money, Radhey Shyam refused to pay the same.The accused appellant stated that in this connection, he scolded Radhey Shyam and went away to his village about 10 days before the date of occurrence of this case.Similarly Kishore Lal pleaded 'not guilty' and stated that Smt. Maharajia had deposited Rs. 14000/- with Radhey Shyam.About 10 days before the date of occurrence of this case, he went along with Smt. Maharajia to Radhey Shyam to demand the money.Ashiq Lal was also with him.Radhey Shyam refused to pay the money.Thereafter he went to his village.No evidence in defence was adduced on behalf of the accused appellant or Kishori Lal.After needful trial into the matter, the learned trial Judge gave the benefit of doubt to Kishori Lal on the ground that his name did not figure in the F.I.R. He found the accused appellant Ashiq Lal guilty under Section 304(II) , I.P.C. and convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid; and hence this appeal.I have heard Sri Kamleshwar Singh, Advocate, for the accused appellant Ashiq Lal and A.G.A. for the State and gone through the record of the case.Three witnesses of fact were examined by the prosecution before the court below.They were Smt. Nanki PW 2, Ram Ashrey PW 3 and Km.Smt. Nanki in her statement on oath before the Court below stated that her husband Banwari had three wives, first was Smt. Ratania second was she and third was Smt. Maharajia.She stated that she and Smt. Ratnia were married to Banwari but Smt. Majarajia deceased was kept by her husband.She stated that none of them had any son.Smt. Ratania died long ago, thereafter Banwari had married her.Smt. Ratania had two daughters.One was Smt. Sukhi and the other was Smt. Jaggi.Ashiq Lal accused appellant was the son of Smt. Sukhi.Kishore Lal another accused, who was since acquitted, was the son of Smt. Jaggi.She stated that Banwari had died about two years back and after the death of Banwari she and Smt. Maharajia deceased had entered into the possession of the land, which was about 5-6 Bighas.She stated that she and Smt. Maharajia used to live in separate rooms.After the death' of her husband Banwari, she and Smt. Maharajia were in possession of half share of the land owned by Banwari.The accused appellant did not reside with him.Smt. Nanki stated that Smt. Maharajia was murdered about two years before the date of the statement before the Court below.She stated that at that limp Smt. Maharajia was in her room and was sleeping in her own room.She very clearly stated that along with Smt. Maharajia, her grand-daughter Km.Bimla PW 6 also used to reside.She stated that she was unable to see during night.In the early morning she heard the cries of Km.Bimla and went to the room of Smt. Maharajia.She found that Smt. Maharajia was lying injured in a pool of blood.She stated that on enquiry from Km.Bimla never informed him that the accused appellant Ashiq Lal and Kishori Lal had assaulted Smt. Maharajia.She denied to have got any report of the incident lodged and stated that Radhey Shyam got reported it.She stated that in the hospital, she put her thumb impression, but the report was not read out to her.She stated that she never took this report to police station and never stated in the said report that Ashiq Lal was responsible for assaulting Smt. Maharajia.She, however, admitted that the report Ex.Ka-4 was the report, which she had given in the police station.This witness was declared hostile and during the course of her cross-examination by the State counsel, she was unable to state as to how it was written in the report Ex.Ka-4 that Ashiq Lal was responsible for assaulting the deceased.She stated to have been interrogated by the police inspector but denied to have stated to the investigating officer that Km.Bimla was sleeping on a Charpai near the deceased and that the accused appellant had run away after assaulting her.She was immediately taken to hospital.She stated that her statement under Section 164, Cr.P.C. was recorded, but she resiled from that statement as well and maintained that the said statement was got written by the police Inspector.She denied the suggestion of the prosecution on the point that because of her close relationship with the accused persons she was not stating the correct facts.She, however, stated that the accused persons used to stay with her, whenever they came in connection with the case.During the course of cross-examination by the learned counsel for the accused appellant she stated that on the night on which the deceased was assaulted Kishori Lal and Ashiq Lal accused persons were not present in her house.They were not seen for the last 5-6 days.She stated that Ashiq Lal used to live with his parents Jai Ram and Smt. Sukhi in village Mattaur.Similarly accused Kishori Lal also reside in village Rasulpur.Rasulpur and Muttaur were situate at a distance of 8-10 Kosh and are within the jurisdiction of police station Lalauli.She stated that both the accused persons had a quarrel with Radhey Shyam Seth.From the aforesaid statement of this witness, it stands fully proved that the deceased Smt. Maharajia and she were living in separate rooms in one and the same house, that Smt. Maharajia was assaulted on the date of occurrence as suggested by the prosecution and that Km.Bimla who was then minor girl aged about 6 years used to live with her.It is also clear from her statement that she had put her thumb impression upon a paper which was F.I.R. Ex.Ka-4, which was lodged at the police station.The first information report Ex.Ka-4 lodged by this witness at police station Kotwali Fatehpur reads as under:udy rgjhj fgUnhoknh Jheku dksroky lkgc dksrokyhQrsgiqj] fuosnu gS fd eS vkSj esjh cgu egjft;k eksgYYk blkbuiqjok e cuokjh ykyds lkFk rkSj L=h vyx ¼dkxt QVk½ edku es jgrh gS A vkt chrh jkr djhc 5 ctsHkksj esjh cgu egjft;k dh ukfru fceyk cMs tksj ls fpYykbZ vkSj jksus yxh] yMdhds 'kksj o fpYykus ij eS o xqykc flag o jthe tks ejs eksgYys es jgrs gS igqWpsrks ns[kk fd esjh cgu pkjikbZ ij iMh [kwu ls yFkiFk gS vkSj mlds nksuksa dU/kkrFkk duiVh es vLi"V /kkjnkj gfFk;kj ls pksV yxkk gS foeyk us tks ikl espkjikbZ ij lksbZ Fkh crykbZ fd gekjs ukuh- dks esjs ekSlh dk yMdk vkfld yky vkSjlkFk esa nks vkneh vkSj Fks mUgh yksxksa us ekjk gS A esjh cgu vkSj jk/ksí;ketks esjs eksgYys ds gS A ls eqdnek py jgk gS ¼esjh½ cgu dk 14000@& pkSnggtkj :i;k jk/ksí;ke ds ;gk tek gS eq>s 'kd gS fd jk/ksí;ke¼vLi"V½ cgu dks tku ls ejokus dh fu;r ls pksVs igqWpk;h gS A viuh cgu dksvLirky es nkf[ky djok ds vk;h gwW fjiksVZ djds tkWp fd;k tk; A ys[kd y{eh ujk;uiq= jk/ksí;ke eq- elokuh rk- 10&9&78 fu'kku vaxwBk uUdh] izkfFkZuh uUdhcsok cuokjh yks/k eksgYyk blkbuiqjok Fkkuk dksrokyh] Qrsgiqj A uksV& eS gs- eq- rlnhd djrkgwW fd rgjhj dh udy fpd gktk ij 'kCn c 'kCn vafdr dh xbZ dkjcu dkih nh xb A g- @& vLi"V 10&9&78Admittedly Smt. Nanki, was closely related to the accused appellant Ashiq Lal, in as much as, Ashiq Lal was the daughter's son of the daughter of Smt. Ratania, another wife of Banwari and Kishori Lal was another son of the other daughter of Smt. Ratania, namely, Smt. Jaggi.It is, therefore, probable for me to believe that the accused appellant prevailed upon Smt. Nanki who was aged about 55 years at the time of her giving the statement before the court below, to this extent as to disown the F.I.R. Ex.It has been clearly averred by Ansar Ahmad PW 1 who was working as Head constable at RS.Kotwali that the First Information Report Ex.Ka-4 was lodged at police station by Smt. Nanki and that on the basis of the said F.I.R. a chik report Ex.Ka-1 was prepared by him.It is thus obvious that the machinery of law was set into motion on the basis of this first information report having been lodged by Smt. Nanki.Smt. Nanki in her first information report had raised suspicion upon Radhey Shyam.According to the suggestion of the defence itself Radhey Shyam was a well to do man who was having rice mill, petrol pump and whole sale kerosine oil business.It is, therefore, not probable that he was responsible for killing the deceased.Ram Asrey PW 3 was another witness of fact.He stated that the deceased was murdered about two years before the date of giving statement before the court below.He stated that it was 5 a.m. that he was coming after discharging his natural call that he had heard the noise coming out from the house of Smt. Maharajia deceased.He, however, stated that Km.Bimla informed him that Kishori Lal and Ashiq Lal had assaulted her Nani.He stated that at that lime, Smt. Maharajia was alive.During the course of cross-examination, he stated that there were 7 or 8 houses in between his house and the house of Smt. Maharajia.He stated that Km.Bimla was minor girl aged about 7-8 years at that time.There were 5-6 ladies in the house of the deceased.They enquired from Km.Bimla and thereupon Kin.Bimla told them about the incident.He stated that he did not see Kishori Lal and Ashiq Lal at that place.Although this witness Ram Asrey stated to have not seen the accused appellant and Kishori Lal near the scene of occurrence, but the fact remains that Km.Bimla who was minor girl aged 7-8 years at that time and informed him and other ladies present there that the accused appellant and Kishori La! were responsible for the assault on her Nani.It is important to note here that the question No. 4 put to the accused appellant was as under:-iz'u 4 % lcwr dk lk{; gS fdegjft;k dh yMdh yhykorh lwjtiky dks C;kgh Fkh xokg lcwr dq foeyk mDr yhykorh dhyMdh Fkh tks fd coDr ?kVuk viuh ukuh egjft;k ds lkFk bZnuiajok Qrsgiqj es jgrhFkh mlds] dq% fceyk ds ekW&firk ckEcs esa jgrs Fks bl lEcU/k esa vkidks D;kdguk gS mRrj ;g lgh gS \ The accused appellant has replied that it was correct.Now once it is established that the deceased Smt. Maharajia was badly assaulted on the night of the occurrence and when it is admitted to accused appellant himself (hat Km.Bimla who was then minor girl aged about 7-8 years was residing with the deceased, the question which remains for consideration before this court is to test the veracity of the statement of Km.Since she was admittedly a child witness aged about 7-8 years on the date of occurrence, her testimony has got to be scrutinised rather with caution.It is clear from the observations made by the presiding Officer/Judge of the Court below by putting certain questions to this witness that Km.Bimla PW 6 was an intelligent witness who was capable of giving correct answers to the question put to her.Bimla in her statement before the Court below, which was recorded on 29-7-1980 has clearly stated that at the time of the occurrence she was residing with her grand mother Smt. Maharajia and that she was murdered about two years back.She stated that on the date of occurrenece, her Nani was sleeping on a Charpai and she along with Ashiq Lal was sleeping on another Charpai.Ashiq Lal was admittedly the cousin brother of Km.She used to say him as Bhaiya.She stated that there was rice mill near her house in which an electricity bulb used to be lightened throughout the night and the said electricity bulb was burning on the night of occurrence.She stated that the accused persons assaulted her grand-mother (Nani) by means of Kulhari and Gandasa.She specifically stated that the accused appellant was armed with a Kalahari and Kishori Lal was aremed with a Gandasa and that she saw these persons assaulting her Nani with her own eyes.She stated that she got up when her Nani had cried and had seen the accused appellant assaulting the deceased.She further slated that she also cried and started weeping.The accused persons asked her to keep silent, otherwise she would be killed.Therefore, she felt frightened and kept silent.She admitted that soon after the occurrence her statement was recorded by the police as well as by the Magistrate under Section 164, Cr.P.C.It was vehemently argued before this Court by the learned counsel for the accused appellant that Km, Bimla was a tutored witness.She was brought before the Court from Bombay by the police officer and was tutored although for giving tainted statement.No doubt, a child witness is capable of giving tutored version, but the fact remains that soon after the occurrence of the case, she narrated the tale of the assault upon her Nani by the accused persons to Smt. Nanki PW 2, who had averred this fact in the first information report Ex.Ka-4 although she disallowed later on during the course of her examination before the Court below.PW 3 Ram Ashrey who was a villager and was coming after discharging his natural call and had gone to the house of the deceased also stated that Km.Bimla had informed him that his Nani was assaulted by Kishori Lal and Ashiq Lal.The circumstance that Km.Bimla PW 6 being a child at the time of the occurrence, the possibility that she was sleeping along with Ashiq Lal on one and the same cot and got up on hearing the cries of his Nani cannot be ruled out.The circumstance that soon after the occurrence on enquiry by the villagers as also Smt. Nanki she informed that 'the accused appellant and Kishori Lal were responsible for fatal assault upon the deceased fully goes to establish that Km.Bimla had seen the occurrence with her own eyes and when she narrated the tale of asssaull by the accused appellant and Kishori Lal to Smt. Nanki PW 2 and Ram Ashrey PW 3, there was no scope of any body tutoring her the tale of this woes.Bimla PW 6 stood well the test of cross-examination before the Court below.She frankly admitted that after coming from Bombay where she had gone after murder of her Nani and where her father was working, stated that after coming from Bombay, she did not go to Isanpurwa for the obvious reason that Nana and Nani were dead.She stated that she stayed at Kotwali Fatehpur along with her father before coming to court below to give the statement, She denied the suggestion of the defence on the point that she was tutored by the police.Of Course, she stated that when her Nani was assaulted, it was early hours of the morning and the sun had come out.She stated that there was some light and people of Mohalla had awakened.When according to the prosecution contention the accused appellant had made murderous assault on the deceased at 5 a.m. it is probable for me to believe that by the lime the accused appellant and his associates made good their escape and the people of the locality got up, sun had come out.Bimla staled that when the accused appellant and his associates were assaulting her Nani, none of Mohallawala came.After the escape of the accused persons, men and women came there and that she told to them that the accused persons had assaulted her Nani.She stated that besides these two persons she told this fact to other persons as well.She stated that normally the accused appellant Ashiq Lal and Kishori Lal used to remain out side but before few days of the occurrence of this case, they had started living with her Nani.She slated that, her Nani used to love them and there was no quarrel in between her Nani and the accused persons.She was unable to state as to whether Radhey Shyam was owner of rice mill and was a monied man.While giving the version of this occurrence, she stated that on the night of the occurrence Kishori Lal was sleeping on a Charpai outside in front of the door in the verandah.She stated that she along with Ashiq Lal was sleeping on one Charpai and her Nani was sleeping in the room on another Charpai.She stated that Srnt.Nanki was sleeping on her Charpai in another room.She further stated that soon after the occurrence, the police had arrived and at that time, the Charpais were lying at the same place.She stated that till the arrival of the police Smt. Nanki remained in the house and that she told Smt. Nanki about the murderous assault by the accused persons on her Nani.She stated that the accused persons ran away along with Kulhari and Gandasa.She has further gone to the extent of stating that the accused persons had brought Kulhari and Gandasa from Smt. Nanki but she did not enquire from Ashiq Lal as to why he was sleeping along with Gandasa.She maintained that when the accused persons had assaulted the deceased Smt. Nanki was sleeping.She staled that she started weeping as soon as she got up and saw the accused persons assaulting the deceased.Bimla stated that Smt. Nanki used to prepare her food separately.The food of the deceased Maharajia, Km." Bimla and the accused persons was prepared on one and the same place.She strongly denied the suggestion of the defence on the point that the accused persons did not assault the deceased or that she had not seen the occurrence.She maintained that the deceased could not speak after the assault, It would thus be seen that the statement of this witness finds full corroboration firstly by the averments of the first information report which was lodged by Smt. Nanki on getting information from Km.Bimla about the assault upon the deceased by Ashiq Lal and two others, as also by the statement of Ram Ashrey PW 4, It also finds full corroboration by the medical evidence of Dr. J.S. Roy who conducted the post mortem examination and found as many as three stitched wounds measuring 2" x 1/10" bone deep right side of face, stitched wound 1/2" x 1/10" right side efface, stitched wound 1" x 1/10" in front of chin besides incised wound 1/2" x 1/4" whole of lobe, lower part cut off right side, incised wound 1/4" x 1/10" muscle deep right side of chest.The :fact that as many as six incised wounds and stitched wounds were caused on the face of the deceased at the time of post mortem examination fully go to prove that after sustaining these wounds, the deceased could not have remained in a position to speak.The accused appellant Ashiq Lal is, accordingly, sentenced to R.I. for a period of 5 (five) years.Thus the appeal against the conviction of the accused appellant is dismissed with the modification on the point of sentence only.
|
['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 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.
|
163,239,123 |
Pooja Sharma is the complainant.The revisionist Sonal Sharma and Manisha Sharma are aggrieved by that part of the order vide which charge under Section 498- A of the IPC has been framed against them.They are the sisters-in-law of the victim Pooja.She was the victim who had made the complaint.She is aggrieved by that part of the order wherein a separate charge under Section 406 of the IPC has not been framed against her husband, her father-in-law, her mother-in-law as also her sisters-in-law; she is also aggrieved by the fact that a separate charge under Section 325 of the IPC should have been framed against her husband but no such finding has been returned by the trial Judge.The third grievance of the complainant is that Section 34 of the IPC has not been added in conjunction along with the offence under Sections 498-A/313 of the Crl.Rev. P Nos. 565/2012, 566/2012 & 588/2012 Page 2 of 9 IPC.Rev. P Nos. 565/2012, 566/2012 & 588/2012 Page 2 of 9The family of Ankur comprised of his mother Arun Sharma, his father S.K. Sharma, his two married sister Sonal Sharma and Manisha Sharma of whom Sonal Sharma at the time of his marriage was a resident of Ambala and Manisha Sharma was a resident of Ghaziabad.3 The complaint of the victim running into almost 13 pages has been perused.4 The foremost submission of the learned counsel for petitioner Sonal Sharma is that the only allegation in the FIR against Sonal Sharma is that the victim had stated that her sister-in-law Sonal Sharma had told her that since she has not brought enough cash and jewelry, she should not be allowed to go for honeymoon.Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner being that the petitioner is admittedly a resident of Ambala where she is doing teaching job.Rev. P Nos. 565/2012, 566/2012 & 588/2012 Page 3 of 9 Submission being that even in the complaint of Pooja, there is no mention that Sonal had ever come to Delhi before 2006 and the sole allegation leveled against her (as noted supra) that she had told Pooja that she has not brought enough dowry and she should not be allowed to go for honeymoon would not make out a case of 'cruelty' as has been defined in Section 498-A of the IPC.Rev. P Nos. 565/2012, 566/2012 & 588/2012 Page 3 of 95 Needless to state that these submissions have been countered.6 Record shows that in the entire FIR, the only role attributed to Sonal is that what has been noted supra.Admittedly Sonal was married at the time when Pooja and Ankur got married.Sonal had been married in 1997 and was living in Ambala and working as a teacher.No other role has been attributed to Sonal.The charge framed against Sonal Sharma under Section 498-A of the IPC thus cannot be sustained.It is accordingly set aside.7 Qua the role of Manisha Sharma, her role is different.The written submissions filed by the petitioner on this count and the counter submissions have been appreciated.Other allegations related to insufficient gifts having been given to the husband of Manisha Sharma at the time of marriage and so also when Pooja returned back from the Holi festival, she was taunted by Manisha for bringing insufficient items.Manisha even otherwise used to criticize her.In December, even as per her own showing, she had gone to Hong Kong.Thus, even presuming that she was in Ghaziabad only up to December, 2006 yet this was the period of time when Pooja was facing a conflict in her matrimonial home and Ghaziabad being within the vicinity of Delhi.Manisha's comings and goings to her parental home are prima-facie borne out.Moreover, the allegations against Manisha Sharma are specific.She has been charged under Section 498-A of the IPC.This part of the order qua Manisha Sharma suffers from no infirmity.Rev. P Nos. 565/2012, 566/2012 & 588/2012 Page 4 of 99 The role attributed to Arun Sharma, the mother-in-law of the Crl.Rev. P Nos. 565/2012, 566/2012 & 588/2012 Page 5 of 9 victim has also been perused.As per the complainant, there were several occasions on which she was taunted by her mother-in-law for bringing insufficient dowry.Pooja had become pregnant twice.In March, 2006, she was in the family way; allegation was that her mother-in-law did not want her to deliver a child and accordingly she used to force her to stand on the kitchen slab and pick up heavy suitcases.This finds mention in the complaint.The medical record of Pooja also substantiate that on 17.03.2006, after the occasion of Holi, her ultrasound revealed a pregnancy of 4.3 weeks but since the cardiac activity of the fetus was not evident, a review was ordered.The complainant averred that the pregnancy of the victim was terminated because she was forced to take a pill given by her husband; it was reiterated that her mother-in-law also used to ask her to lift heavy suitcases and climb on the kitchen slab knowing fully well that she was pregnant at that time; this had led to the termination of her pregnancy.This complaint read in conjunction with the medical record makes out a prima-facie case under Section 313 of the IPC against Arun Sharma, the mother-in-law of the victim.The charge against her under Section 498- Crl.Rev. P Nos. 565/2012, 566/2012 & 588/2012 Page 6 of 9 A also cannot be faulted with.Rev. P Nos. 565/2012, 566/2012 & 588/2012 Page 5 of 9Rev. P Nos. 565/2012, 566/2012 & 588/2012 Page 6 of 910 This Court notes that although charge under Section 313 of the IPC has been framed not only against Arun Sharma the mother-in-law of the victim but also against her husband but there no common intention has been noted in the order of framing of charge under Section 34 of the IPC.This appears to be an inadvertent mistake.Accordingly, Ankur Sharma and Arun Sharma are charged for the offence under Section 313 read with Section 34 of the IPC as it was with their common intent that this offence under Section 313 of the IPC be prima-facie committed.This part of the charge be modified by the trial Judge.11 The submission of the learned counsel for the complainant that a separate charge under Section 406 of the IPC is also made out against in-laws of the petitioner i.e. both mother-in-law and father-in-law for which submission the learned counsel for the complainant has drawn attention of this Court to the last of the complaint wherein it has been mentioned that the istridhan articles of the victim were lying with her in- laws.As noted supra, the complaint is running into 13 pages.There is not a whisper or entrustment of any dowry article or any article with the in-laws of the victim.A mere one Crl.Rev. P Nos. 565/2012, 566/2012 & 588/2012 Page 8 of 913 With these directions, revisions petitions are disposed off.
|
['Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
163,242 |
Accordingly, noticewas issued to the respondent Company and it is represented by its counsel.Acounter affidavit, dated 9.9.2010 was also filed.,D.D.J. Centre, 1st Floor,Opp.To Vadasery Bus stand,Nagercoil,Kanyakumari District.Heard both sides.2.The petitioner's husband late Selvaraj, purchased a two wheeler (BajajM-80) with registration No.The petitioner sent a representation, dated01.12.2008 claiming insurance amount towards personal accident coverage for thevehicle.But since the said amount was not paid, she had filed the present writpetition, seeking for a direction to consider her representation.5.When the matter came up on 18.04.2009, the petitioner was directed toserve notice privately on the respondent Insurance Company.Since the accident had taken place after the name transfer in the RC book, butwhich fact was not intimated to the insurance company and the policy was nottransferred in the name of Selvaraj, the insurance company repudiated the claimmade by the petitioner.It isonly in respect of third-party risks that Section 157 of the new Act providesthat the certificate of insurance together with the policy of insurancedescribed therein "shall be deemed to have been transferred in favour of theperson to whom the motor vehicle is transferred".If the policy of insurancecovers other risks as well, e.g., damage caused to the vehicle of the insuredhimself, that would be a matter falling outside Chapter XI of the new Act and inthe realm of contract for which there must be an agreement between the insurerand the transferee, the former undertaking to cover the risk or damage to thevehicle.
|
['Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.