id
int64 17
1.89B
| cases
stringlengths 8
539k
| labels
stringlengths 38
1.25k
| instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|
1,632,430 |
A few dates will be material for the purposes of this appeal.On February 14, 1966 there was the order of invalidation of Major C. R. Bhattacharjee declaring the latter permanently unfit for any form of military service from the date of the letter.Thereafter on May 27, 1967, a notification was issued by the Government of West Bengal for distribution to the Calcutta 4th Additional Special Court constituted by notification No. 7432-J dated the 1st October, 1962 for the trial of the case.The State v. (1) Ex-Maior Chittaranjan Bhattacharjee and (2) Maijmal Bhutoria.The publication of the aforesaid Notification in the Calcutta Gazette took place on June 15, 1967, On the 29th June, 1967, there was a complaint lodged by Joginder Singh.Superintendent of Police.JUDGMENT P.B. Mukharji, C.J.This AD-peal raises an interesting point.by a notification in the Calcutta Gazette dated the 15th June.The said report alleged that Ex-Major Bhattacharjee in collusion and conspiracy with the appellant Manmal Bhutoria, had accepted certain tenders from a fictitious nominee of the appellant for supply of certain articles to the military authorities at prices exceeding the prices quoted by other tenderers and there by causing loss to the military authorities.The question raised in this appeal is a new one.The point is that the jurisdiction of the State Government to make the said allotment of the case of the appellant to the Special Court is challenged inter alia on the ground that as on the date of the allotment Sri Bhattacharjee had ceased to be a public servant and that the offence was not one cognizable any more by the Special Court and that the proceedings are bad as no sanction under; Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 1947 had been obtained.The interpretations of the two statutes are involved.One is the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and the other is the West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts} Act, 1949Calcutta before the 4th Additional Special Court.The appellant along with one C. R. Bhattacharyya.
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
163,251,173 |
C.R.M. 4925 of 2018 sg Ct. No.28 In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 17.07.2018 in connection with Malda P.S. Case No. 221/2018 dated 01.06.2018 under Sections 341/376/511/354C/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code (Allowed) Mahidur Sk & Ors.Versus State of West Bengal Mr. Tapan Datta Gupta, Adv.Parvej Anam, Adv....for the petitioners.Faria Hossain, Adv.Ms. Baisali Basu, Adv....for the State.It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that they have been falsely implicated in the instant case.Learned lawyer for the State opposes the prayer for bail.Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest, the petitioners shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000/- each with two sureties of like amount each, to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and also subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and on further condition that the petitioners shall not enter the jurisdiction of Malda Police Station except for the purposes of investigation and attending court proceeding until further orders and shall intimate the addresses where they will presently reside to the investigating agency as well as the court below and shall appear before the court below and pray for regular bail within a fortnight from date.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)
|
['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,632,648 |
P.W.6 is the wife of the deceased, Syed Mohammed.They were living at Karungalpalayam, Erode.While so, Syed Mohammed developed illicit intimacy with the second accused, and he was living near Karungalpalayam Vaikkal.Thereafter, they went to Gobichettipalayam.It was the usual practice of Syed Mohammed to go over to Karungalpalayam to meet his wife and the female child.His mother, P.W.4, was occupying the ground floor, while the first floor was leased out to the second accused.It was occupied by the first and the second accused.The second accused was running a tea stall at Vaikkal Road.P.W.5 used to go over there often to have tea.Thus, he knew A-1 and A-2. A-1 and A-2 decided to do away with the said Syed Mohammed, who developed illicit intimacy with the second accused for which A-3 also connived with them.On the date of occurrence, namely 7.2.1998, at 1.00 A.M., A-1 dashed a stone on the head of Syed Mohammed, and he was murdered.The dead body was put in a gunny bag, and all the accused were standing near a Page 1363 tank.P.W.5, who was returning from Cinema at that time, found the accused standing with a gunny bag and asked them, when the accused informed him that they were old clothes and they were putting them in the tank.On 9.2.1998 at about 12.30 P.M., P.W.1, the Village Administrative Officer of Veerapandy village, was in his Office.He was informed by his assistant, P.W.2, that a dead body was found floating in the tank.Then, P.W.1 visited the spot and found a gunny bag containing a dead body of a male person.He rushed to Gopichettipalayam Police Station and informed the same to P.W.19, the Head Constable, who was on duty that time.On the strength of Ex.P1 report, given by P.W.1, P.W.19 registered a case in Crime No. 63/98 under Section 302 of I.P.C. Printed First Information Report, Ex.P10 was sent to Court.P.W.20, the Inspector of Police, took up investigation in the crime.He proceeded to the scene of occurrence, made an inspection in the presence of two witnesses and prepared Ex.P5, the observation mahazar, and Ex.P11, the rough sketch.He conducted inquest on the dead body of Syed Mohammed in the presence of panchayatdars and witnesses and prepared Ex.P12, the inquest report.JUDGMENT M. Chockalingam, J.This is an appeal by the State on a judgment of acquittal made by the learned II Additional Sessions Division, Erode, in S.C.No. 85/99, wherein the respondents were shown as accused.The first accused stood charged under Section 302 of I.P.C., while the second and third accused were charged under Section 302 read with 34 of I.P.C. All the three accused were charged under Section 201 of I.P.C. On trial, the respondents/accused were acquitted by the trial Court.Hence, this appeal.The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated thus:They had a daughter.P.W.6 was employed in a house as servant-maid.Following the same, a requisition, Ex.P7, was forwarded to the Government Hospital, for conducting autopsy.On receipt of the said requisition, P.W.16, the Civil Assistant Surgeon, attached to the Government Hospital, Gobichettipalayam, conducted autopsy on the dead body of Syed Mohammed and found the following injury."Crush injury of whole upper 3/4th of head with multiple fracture of vault base of skull.Missing of brain and eyeballs."The Doctor issued Ex.P8, the postmortem certificate, and opined that the deceased would appear to have died of crush injury on head, 3 to 7 days prior to autopsy.Pending investigation, A-1 was arrested on 13.2.1998 at 7.30 A.M. He gave a confessional statement, pursuant to which M.O.9, a shirt, was recovered under a mahazar, Ex.A-1 identified A-2, and A-2 was arrested at 9.15 A.M., pursuant to which M.Os.10 to 13 were recovered under a mahazar, Ex.M.O.14 series, M.O.15, a blade, and M.O.16 produced by A-1, were recovered under a mahazar, Ex.On 4.3.1998, A-3 was arrested, when he gave a confessional statement, the admissible part of which is Ex.Pursuant to the same, M.O.17, a lunghi, was recovered under a mahazar, Ex.The material objects were subjected to chemical analysis pursuant to a requisition given by the Investigating Officer.P22, the Chemical Analyst's report, and Ex.P23, the Serologist's report, were received by the Court.On completion of investigation, the final report was filed by the Investigating Officer against the respondents/accused.The case was committed to Court of Session and necessary charges were framed against the accused, referred to above.In order to substantiate Page 1364 the charges levelled against the accused, the prosecution examined 20 witnesses and relied on 23 exhibits and 17 material objects.On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, all the accused were questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.They denied them as false.No defence witnesses were examined.On completion of trial, both sides were heard by the trial Court, and on consideration of the submissions made, and scrutiny of the materials, the trial Court took a view that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted all the accused of all the charges.Hence, this appeal at the instance of the State.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) inter alia would submit that though the prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, there were sufficient circumstances placed and proved in order to prove its case; that according to P.W.5, the accused were well known to him; that he found A-1 and A-2 standing near Theppakulam with a gunny bag at 1.30 A.M., in the mid night; that when he questioned them, they informed him that they were simply waste materials and to be put in the tank; that this was a strong circumstance against the accused; that P.W.6 has spoken to the fact that the deceased was living with A-2 at Gobichettipalayam; that she would further add that the key which was recovered from the dead body of Syed Mohammed, was another key of the box of the deceased, which was in the house of P.W.6, and she had got another key; that apart from that, on the confessions made, the material objects were recovered, which were found containing bloodstains, and thus, the scientific evidence was also in favour of the prosecution; but, the lower Court has acquitted the accused, despite sufficient materials and circumstances which were placed and proved, and hence, the judgment of the lower Court has got to be set aside.Though the prosecution had marched 20 witnesses, no one had spoken about the occurrence.Thus, the prosecution rested its case on the circumstantial evidence.In the instant case, the prosecution neither placed sufficient circumstances nor proved the same indicating the guilt of the accused.According to P.W.6, her husband, Syed Mohammed, married her before 10 years back, and they have got a female child, and they were living in Karungalpalayam, and subsequently, he developed illicit intimacy with A-2 and was living at Karungalpalayam Vaikkal, and thereafter, they were living at Gobichettipalayam.The prosecution much relied on the evidence of P.W.5, according to whom, he used to visit A-2's tea shop, and while he was returning from cinema in the night hours, he found A-1 and A-2 standing near the tank along with a gunny bag.He has well admitted that for returning from cinema to his residence, there was no necessity to go via Theppakulam, and he has got some other route.From his evidence it would be clear that he has no explanation to offer how he happened to use that route.The lower Court has adduced proper reasons that he was a planted witness in order to say that the accused were having the gunny bag in hands.The reasons adduced by the trial Court, in the opinion of this Court, are sound.So far as the recovery part is concerned, P.Ws.12 and 13, who were examined by the prosecution for the purpose of proving the same, have turned hostile, and thus, the arrest of the accused, the confessions made by them and the alleged recovery of the material objects could not be accepted by the lower Court.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
164,037,732 |
Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. No.1422/2019, first application under Section 389 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of custodial sentence.The appellants have been convicted as under:Lakhan Chaudhary Conviction Sentence Section Act Imprisonment Fine Imprisonment liue of fine 342 I.P.C. 3 Months R.I. Rs. 1000/- 15 days R.I. 506 (Part -2) I.P.C. 6 moths R.I. Rs. 1,000/- 1 months R.I.Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants were on bail during the trial and they did not misuse the liberty so granted to them.The appellants are ready to deposit the fine amount.Under these circumstances, he prays for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail to the appellants.Though prayer for suspension is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor, however, looking to the aforesaid, without further commenting on the merits of the case, it would be appropriate to suspend the custodial sentence of the appellants.Accordingly, I.A.No.1422/2019 is allowed and it is directed that subject to depositing fine amount and on furnishing personal bond by the appellants in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court for his appearance before the 3 Court, the execution of custodial part of the sentence shall remain suspended, till the final disposal of this appeal.The applicants after being enlarged on bail, they shall mark their presence before the registry of this Court on 15/07/2019 and on all such subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the Registry.(S. K. AWASTHI) JUDGE praveen MUKTA Digitally signed by MUKTA KAUSHAL DN: c=IN, o=High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench Indore, postalCode=482001, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=efbfc3440fe5c2b9ad17e337cf112e002d7e642f5045463c KAUSHAL e8cbb19b4483f79f, 2.5.4.45=0321003C8C77756C4EB805A439FCC7F54BE8B815EBB0F 9381AC223E9197351961BC38D, cn=MUKTA KAUSHAL Date: 2019.02.22 15:45:11 -08'00'
|
['Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,640,405 |
Since both the appeals arise out of the common judgment and order these are being disposed of by this common judgment.(2) Case of the prosecution as borne out from the chargesheet filed u/s 173 Criminal Procedure Code is that on 13.4.91 on receipt of an information regarding quarrel through wireless S C Sharma, Sho, Public Witness 22 along with driver Jagdish Prashad and constable Vijay Kumar,PW 15 reached near Fancy Cloth House in a jeep and there Si S B Yadav, Public Witness 8 along with constable Vandna Rao met him.Crowd had collected there and blood in sufficient quantity was lying on the road in front of Fancy Cloth House.Constables Harswroop Singh, Public Witness 7 and Naresh Kumar, Public Witness 6 had caught hold of Anwar and Abdul Kalam and the injured was stated to have been removed to the hospital.After leaving behind constable Vandna Rao to assist Public Witness 6 & Public Witness 7, Public Witness 22 along with Public Witness 8 and Public Witness 15 and driver Jagdish Prasad left for Lnjp hospital in the jeep.On the Mlc of Anil Kumar doctor had reported that he was brought dead while on the Mlc of Public Witness 5 "U/O sharp" was recorded.Public Witness 5 had been sent to Surgery Ward for the management of the injury suffered.It is further stated that in the hospital itself Vijay Kumar, Public Witness I met Public Witness 22 and the former got his statement recorded to the latter to the effect that that day at about 10.00 Am his brother told him that in the morning a minor altercation took place between him and Anwar who resides in his neighbourhood and whom he knew from before.He further disclosed that he had told Anwar that he and his brother-in-law Abdul Kalam get the pockets of the people picked in Delhi Gate bazar whereupon Anwar got enraged and both of them had a minor scuffle.At that time Anwar left the place saying that he was saved by the people but he would take revenge of the insult.At about 7.00 Pm he and his brother Sohan lal, were talking while standing in front of Fancy Cloth House in Delhi Gate Bazar and in the meantime his younger brother Anil came from the side of Delhi Gate and when he was at a distance of 5 to 7 paces from them and turning for going to his house in Katra Bhudan Rai Wali Gali both Anwar and Abdul Kalam were sighted coming out of that gali.On seeing Anil, Anwar got enraged and told Abdul Kalam "pakar saale ko aaj ise beijti ka maza chakha dete hain" (catch hold of him as he is to be taught a lesson for insulting).Thereupon Abdul Kalam caught hold of Anil and Anwar after taking out a chhuri gave blows to Anil on his chest and the abdomen on the right side.Anil fell down on the road in front of Fancy Cloth House in injured condition.When he and Public Witness 5 came to save Anil, Anwar assaulted Public Witness 5 with chhuri but he warded off that assault.' Anwar again assaulted Pw 5 with the chhuri and Public Witness 5 warded off that assault with his left hand and in that process he received injury on the left hand and he started bleeding.It is further stated that after the assault accused Anwar along with the chhuri and also accused Abdul Kalam went towards Delhi Gate and on being chased by him and Public Witness 5 they were caught at a distance of 15 to 20 paces with the help of constables Harswroop Singh and Naresh Kumar who happened to come from the opposite direction.He along with Public Witness 5 and Harish Kumar, Public Witness 2 took Anil in a cycle rickshaw to Lnjp Hospital and there doctors after checking declared him dead.As the statement of Public Witness I and both the MLCs disclosed the commission of the offence u/s 302/307/34 Ipc 'rukka' was sent by Public Witness 22 through Public Witness 15 to the police station for registration of the case against Anwar and Abdul Kalam, accused.During investigation Public Witness 22 inspected the spot and on pointing out of Public Witness I prepared the site plan besides getting the photographs taken.Public Witness 22 also lifted the blood, blood stained earth and control earth from the spot and took them into possession after preparing memos.He recorded the statements of Public Witness s and arrested both the accused on 13.4.91 itself.Chhuri recovered from accused Anwar was' also taken into possession vide a seizure memo.Blood stained cloths of Public Witness s 1 and 5 were further taken into possession vide separate seizure memos.JUDGMENT K.S. Gupta, J.A 227/92 by Abdul Kalam and Cr.A 8/93 by Anwar @ Pappi are directed against the judgment and order both dt. 28.11.92 of an Additional Sessions Judge.In terms of that judgment and order Anwar appellant was convicted u/s 302/34 Indian Penal Code, 324 Ipc and 27 Arms Act and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of RS.1,000.00 u/s 302/34 Indian Penal Code, to one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500.00 u/s 324 Indian Penal Code and to three months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500.00 u/s 27 of Arms Act. Abdul Kalam, appellant was convicted u/s 302/34 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.1,000.00 .Chhuri was sent to the doctor who conducted the post mortem.In the postmortem report collected on 24.4.91 doctor has opined the cause of death as "due to haemorrhage and shock consequent upon damage to liver via injury no.10".Injuries on the person of the deceased have further been opined to be caused by the chhuri recovered from accused Anwar.During the pendency of the trial reports dated 9.4.92 and 16.4.92 were also received from Cfsl whom the case property was sent for opinion.(3) In their statements u/s 313 Criminal Procedure Code plea taken by both the accused is of plain denial.According to them Hindu Muslim riot in the area of Chatta Lal Mian took place on 13.4.91 and they received injuries for which they were treated in Lnjp hospital, at the hands of unruly mob.(4) It was contended by Shri K B Andley, appearing for accused Anwar that considering the statement of Sohan Lal, Public Witness 5 as it stands prosecution is left only with the testimony of Vijay Kumar, Public Witness I as an eye witness of the alleged occurrence but that too is unreliable as he was not present at the time the alleged incident took place.As a part of this submission, it was further urged by him that the prosecution has failed to furnish any explanation whatsoever in regard to the injuries found on the person of accused Anwar or on the body of deceased excepting injuries 9 and 10 and three abrasions as noted in the postmortem report Exhibit Public Witness 12/A and that being so defense taken by accused that they and also the deceased received injuries in Hindu Muslim riot is plausible and the trial court, therefore, acted erroneously in convicting and sentencing accused Anwar vide the impugned judgment and order.(5) According to the prosecution alleged occurrence had taken place in Delhi Gate bazar in front of Fancy Cloth House and blood sample lifted from there on Chemical analysis was found to be of the group tallying with the blood group of the de ceased as is evident from Cfsl report Exhibit Public Witness 22/G. That fact coupled with the photographs Exhibits P 15 and 16 fully establish that said place itself was the spot as alleged by the prosecution.(6) Coming to the first limb of argument referred to above, Vijay Kumar, Public Witness 1 has deposed that on 13.4.91 he and his brother Sohan Lal were standing and talking in front of Fancy Cloth House in Delhi Gate bazar.His younger brother Anil Kumar came from towards Delhi Gate and when he was at a distance of about 5 to 7 paces away and was turning for going to the house in the Gali both the accused came out from that Gali.On seeing Anil Kumar, accused Anwar shouted 'pakad to sale ko' and they will teach him a lesson for insulting them in the morning that day.Thereupon accused Abdul Kalam caught Anil by his arm while accused Anwar took out chhuri and inflicted blows on his chest and belly on the right side and Anil fell down and started bleeding.He has further deposed that when he and Sahan Lal came forward to save Anil accused Anwar attacked Sohan Lal on his chest but he warded off that attack.Accused Anwar again assaulted Sohan Lal and in the process of warding off that assault Sohan Lal received injury on the palm of his left hand.Thereafter both the accused ran towards Delhi Gate.He and Sohan Lal chased them and at a distance of 15 to 20 paces both were apprehended with the chhuri with the help of two constables who happened to reach there from the opposite direction.With the help of Sohan Lal and Harish, Public Witness 2 Anil was taken to Lnjp Hospital in a rickshaw where he was declared dead.His statement Exhibit Public Witness I/A was recorded by the police in the Hospital.His shirt Exhibit P2 was stained with blood of the deceased while taking him to the hospital in his lap and after converting that shirt into a parcel same was taken into possession vide Exhibit Public Witness 1/J by the police.In cross examination he has stated that on hearing the lalkara' from accused Anwar he did not try to intervene to save Anil as a he did not expect that such an episode will occur.Accused did not allow opportunity to save Anil.It is further slated in his cross examination that accused Abdul Kalam caught hold of the left arm of the deceased with his left hand.(7) Statements of Hc Harswroop, Public Witness 7 and Naresh Kumar, Public Witness 6 are also significant as regards the controversy at hand.Public Witness 7 has deposed that on 13.4.91 he and constable Naresh Kumar were on patrol duty at Delhi Gate bazar and at about 7.00 Pm when both of them were going to Tiraha Behram Khan and reached in front of 'Rain Basera' they saw two persons out of whom one was holding a chhuri in his right hand, running towards their side.Those two persons were being chased by another two persons whose names were later known as Vijay Kumar and Sohan Lal.He with the help of constable Naresh Kumar had apprehended both of them and the chhuri held by accused Anwar having blood stains was snatched.Both the accused thereafter were taken to the place of occurrence where Anil was lying in injured condition.Anil Kumar was taken to the hospital by Vijay Kumar, Sohan Lal and Harish in a rickshaw.(8) It is in the evidence on the record that chhuri Exhibit P 1 as well as shirt Exhibit P 2 of Public Witness 1 were sent to Cfsl and as per report Exhibit Public Witness 22/G blood appearing on both Exhibits P1 and P2 was found to be of Group A that of the deceased.(9) We have carefully gone through the statements of HCs Harswroop Singh, and Naresh Kumar and there seems to be absolutely no reason to disbelieve them on the point of both the accused being chased by Vijay Kumar, Public Witness 1 and Sohan Lal and recovery of chhuri Exhibit P1 from accused Anwar immediately after the occurrence.Two strong circumstances of Public Witness 1 having chased the accused from the scene of occurrence upto the place they were apprehended by Public Witness 6 and Public Witness 7 and the presence of blood of the group of the deceased on the shirt, P2 of Public Witness 1 make the attendance of Pw 1 at the spot at the time of occurrence highly probable and thus there is absolutely no ground to disbelieve him in regard to the part played by both the accused in inflicting two fatal blows with the chhuri Exhibit Pi on the person of Anil deceased as deposed to by him.In the authority of Kartik Malhar vs. State of Bihar , Supreme Court has held that conviction can be recorded on the basis of statement of single eye witness provided his credibility is not shaken by any adverse stance appearing on the record against him and the court, at the same time is convinced that he is a truthful witness.That being the legal position sole testimony of Vijay Kumar, Public Witness 1 is sufficient to bring home the charge(s) levelled against both the accused.(13) It may be noted that the defense taken up by the accused that they and the deceased sustained injuries in Hindu Muslim riot which broke out in the area on 13.4.91, is mainly based on Dd reports 15A (copy Exhibit Public Witness 22/0).It was Si Dharamvir Dutt, Public Witness 4 who recorded this Dd 15A. It is in his deposition that on 13.4.91 at about 7.30 Pm he received information from Cdcr on phone that one Ajay Gupta has informed from public call that a dispute between Hindus and Muslim have taken place at Chatta Lal Mian and this information was brought by him to the notice of the SHO.Later on Cdcr informed that only two three persons had entered into an altercation and there was no quarrel between Hindus and Muslims and this fact too was record in Dd 15A. Obviously later part of this statement totally belies that there was any Hindu Muslim riot in the said area on the said date and time.That being so how the accused and deceased could have suffered injuries on their person in the alleged riot.(14) It was urged by Shri Andley that special report of the occurrence was not sent to the Ilaka Metropolitan Magistrate as required by Statute.Asi Balraj Singh, Public Witness 3 who was posted as duty officer, Ps Darya Ganj on 13.4.91, has inter aha deposed that after recording the formal Fir (carbon copy Exhibit Public Witness 3/B) he made entry in the Dd at no. 18A (copy Exhibit Public Witness 3/D) in regard to the registration of the case and the special report with regard to that Dd entry was sent by him to the higher authorities through constable Ram Babu and the latter returned to the police station after handing over the special report to the officers at 12.30 AM.An entry to that effect was made in the Dd and copy thereof is Exhibit Public Witness 3/E. In cross examination he has admitted that in Dd 18A it is written only that the copies of the special reports were sent to 'aala afsran' (higher authorities) volunteered higher authorities meant 'Ilaka Mm, Additional Cp, & Dcp of the area.Constable Ram Babu, Public Witness 19 has stated that duty officer Ps Darya Ganj on 13.4.91 handed over probably five envelopes containing the copies of the Fir and he directed him to deliver them to Acp, Dcp, Ilaka Mm and Additional Commissioner of Police.He accordingly went on motor cycle no. Dde 6114 and after delivering the envelopes he returned to the police station and told the duty officer about the delivery.In cross examination he has stated that he started from the police station at 9.10 Pm and in his statement he had told the 10 that the duty officer gave him the instructions to deliver the copies of the Fir to Acp, Dcp and Ilaka MM.He was confronted with the statement u/s 161 Criminal Procedure Code Exhibit Public Witness 19/DA where reference is made only in regard to senior officers.It is true that DD/18A and Exhibit Pw 19/DA only speak of sending special reports to higher/senior authorities but at the same time both Public Witness s 3 and 19 in their depositions have explained that Additional Cp, Dcp, Acp and Ilaka Mm are the higher/senior authorities to whom the special reports were sent and delivered.Authority of Bir Singh and Ors vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 1977 Scc (CRI) 640 relied on behalf of the accused Anwar was rendered in a different context and is of no help to him.(15) Next submission advanced by Shri Andley, Advocate that inquest report etc. were not forwarded along with the dead body as required by law, has to be stated to be rejected.Dr. S K Khanna, Public Witness 12 in his examination-in-chief itself has stated that after postmortem, postmortem report along with 16 inquest papers bearing his signatures were handed over to the police.In cross examination it was not even remotely suggested to him that either 16 inquest papers were not received along with the dead body or those were not returned therewith to the police.(16) It was lastly argued by Shri Andley that there was delay in lodging the Fir and that fact by itself renders the prosecution case highly doubtful.Needless to repeat that the occurrence is alleged to have taken place around 7.00 Pm while Fir on the basis of the statement of Vijay Kumar, Public Witness 1 was recorded at 9.10 PM.It is in the deposition of Sc Sharma, Sho, Public Witness 22(10) that information regarding a quarrel at Chatta Lal Mian received from Central Room of Central District was conveyed to him and he immediately rushed to Delhi Gate Bazar opposite Fancy Cloth House; that Si Sb Yadav along with the staff met him there and on learning that the injured has already been removed to the hospital he along with Public Witness 8 reached the hospital and obtained the MLCs of Anil Kumar, Public Witness 13/A and Sohan Lal, Ex.PW 13/B. On Exhibit Public Witness 13/A, Anil Kumar was recorded to have been brought dead.In cross-examination he has stated that he received the message about the quarrel at Chhata Lal Mian at about 7.40 Pm and reached the spot for the first time at about 8,00 PM; that he received Mlc of Sohan Lal, Exhibit Public Witness 13/B at about 8.15 PM.Ordinarily after an occurrence priority is accorded in providing medical aid to a victim rather than rushing to the police station for lodging the FIR.Exhibit Public Witness I/A along with the endorsement made by Pw 22 for registration of the case was sent around 9.00 Pm and immediately thereafter Fir was registered against the accused at 9.10 PM.(17) Relying on the authority of Om Prakash & Ors.State 1991(2) Cc Cases 330 (HC) it was urged by Shri Mukesh Kalia representing accused Abdul Kalam that prosecution has failed to prove that there was prior meeting of mind in between both the accused for committing the offence complained of and, therefore, Abdul Kalam cannot be convicted u/s 302 Indian Penal Code with the aid of Section 34 Indian Penal Code In the authority of Yallappa & Ors vs. State of Karnataka it has been held by the Supreme Court that common intention can generate on the spot itself and such common intention can be reasonably inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the injuries caused.Dr. S K Khanna, Public Witness 12 in his deposition and also in the postmortem report Ex. Public Witness 12/A has opined that two blows on the chest and the abdomen of the deceased as noted at serial no. 9 and 10 were sufficient to cause death of Anil in ordinary course of nature individually and collectively.These two injuries were inflicted with the chhuri, Ex. Pi by accused Anwar.From the deposition of Vijay Kumar, Public Witness 1 it is proved that on the exhortation of accused Anwar, Abdul Kalam, accused caught hold of the left arm of the deceased and he continued to hold the same till the assault lasted and after the assault was over both the accused ran away together from the spot.Taking these facts together and the nature of injuries suffered by the deceased one may safely infer that accused Abdul Kalam shared common intention with Anwar to commit the murder of Anil Kumar as is the case of the prosecution.(18) Trial court was, therefore, fully justified in recording the finding of guilt against both the appellants.(19) Both the appeals have no force and are, therefore, dismissed.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
164,048 |
The petitioner alleges that on 13th June, 2006, on the occasion of her husband (Sameer's) birthday, at about 7 P.M., when her father and brother-in-law (jija) came to her matrimonial home with gold ring, gifts, sweets and a birthday cake too, her father-in-law, mother-in-law, sisters-in-law (Amrita and Meenakshi), brother-in-law (Vikas Gupta) and husband (Sameer) abused them for not giving dowry articles and threw away all the gifts brought by them including the sweets, and turned away her father and brother-in-law (jija).After they left, upon her protesting, they started beating her and threatened her that they would pour acid on her face.Her husband and both her sisters-in-law above-mentioned also threatened her that they would pour petrol on her and kill her.On her again protesting against the threats advanced by them, her husband pulled her inside the bath room.Her sister-in-law Amrita brought a can of kerosene oil from the kitchen and handed over the same to Himanshi (husband's sister).Her mother-in-law told Himanshi to pour kerosene oil upon her, which she did.Upon this, she (the petitioner) started shouting Bachao Bachao, and on her screaming, her sister-in-law's husband, Vikas Gupta (husband of Meenakshi) tried to shut her mouth and her other sister-in-law Amrita also joined him.Upon the exhortation of her mother-in-law, her father-in-law took a match box and handed over the same to her husband, who took out a match stick, ignited the same and threw the same on her.JUDGMENT Reva Khetrapal, J.This writ petition has been filed for a direction to the Police of Police Station Sultanpuri, Delhi to add Sections 307/384/506/120-B/34 of IPC in the case registered by them at the behest of the petitioner, being case FIR No. 56/2007 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC.The facts are in a narrow compass.The petitioner on 20th September, 2006 laid a detailed complaint before the Crime Against Women Cell, Pitampura, New Delhi alleging the commission of cognizable offences under Sections 498-A/406/307/384/506/120-B/34 I.P.C. The said complaint on 10th January, 2007 culminated in the registration of FIR No. 56/2007, under Sections 498A/406/34 of I.P.C, Police Station Sultanpuri, Delhi.Aggrieved by the registration of the said FIR only under the aforesaid sections, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner for addition of offences under Sections 307/384/506/120-B/34 I.P.C on the ground that the police cannot be allowed to tone down the offences alleged to have been committed by the accused persons in the complaint and to register a case for the commission of less grave offences at its own whims and fancies.However, the match stick went out due to throwing upon her.On seeing her death in front of her, she was so shocked that she fell upon her knees and begged them not to kill her, but to give her two days time to ask her parents to fulfill all their demands.On her begging them and extending the aforesaid promise, they locked her in the bathroom and went for their dinner.She spent the entire night in the bathroom without dinner.According to the petitioner, on 5th August, 2006, her father-in-law Om Prakash Gupta, his brother Jai Prakash Gupta and the latter's wife Kusum Gupta insisted that she should sign some stamp papers and also blank papers.She saw that the stamp papers had been written upon and contained statements from her side that her in-laws had returned to her all her dowry articles, jewellery, etc. and that they were not making any demands for dowry.She accordingly refused to sign the same.Thereupon, her sister-in-law (Himanshi), her father-in-law (Om Prakash Gupta), his younger brother Jai Prakash Gupta and the latter's wife Kusum Gupta mercilessly beat her.Her mother-in-law stated that she should leave her matrimonial home and divorce her husband, Sameer Gupta, so that they could re-marry their son with a foreigner, who was the younger sister of Kasha, wife of Deepak Gupta (her brother-in- law).Thereafter, she was locked in a room without food or medical treatment.On the following day, she was compelled to do all the house work even though she was running high fever.The petitioner alleges that on the above facts set out in her complaint, all the aforesaid persons be tried for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Penal Code, and be also charged and tried for the offence of extortion punishable under Section 384 of the Code, as she was put in fear of injury to sign the stamp papers and other papers, which may be got converted into valuable security by the aforesaid accused persons.Accused not only threatened her with dire consequences, but threatened to implicate her parental family members in false cases.Hence they were guilty of the offence punishable under Section 506 of the I.P.C. as well.I have heard Shri Vijay Aggarwal, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Mukta Gupta, Standing Counsel for the State.Ms. Gupta urged that a preliminary inquiry had been made into the veracity of the allegations made in the complaint with regard to the incidents alleged to have occurred on 13th June, 2006 and 5th August, 2006 and no substance in the allegations of the complainant had been found.The complainant claims that the accused persons attempted to set her on fire, but she was providentially saved on account of the fact that the match stick was extinguished.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 384 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 155 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 190 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
164,048,783 |
No.1 akd [Rejected] C. R. M. 9582 of 2017 In Re: An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 22.09.2017 in connection with Sonarpur Police Station Case No. 2611 of 2016 dated 07.12.2016 under Sections 366A/370/370A/372/373/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 3/4/5/6/7/9 of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956 and Sections 17/4 of the POCSO Act.And In Re: Gita Sardar @ Naskar @ Papiya ... ... Petitioner Mr. Anjan Bhattacharyya ... ... for the petitioner Mr. Saswata Gopal Mukherjee .. Ld.Public Prosecutor Mr. Neguive Ahmed, Mrs. Trina Mitra ... ... for the State The petitioner is seeking bail in connection with a case relating to offence punishable under Sections 366A/370/370A/372/373/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 3/4/5/6/7/9 of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956 and Sections 17/4 of the POCSO Act.It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that she is in custody for 88 days and investigation is complete.Learned advocate for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected earlier.We have considered the materials on record.We find that the petitioner was acting as a procurer of girls and five minor girls who were subjected to sex exploitation were recovered.The application for bail is thus rejected.However, learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same at an early date.Petitioner is directed to co-operate with the trial court in that regard.(Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)
|
['Section 366A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,640,521 |
About 5-6 years preceding the incident when Sarjug Rai was killed there was a partition of the family properties.Kamal Rai was his nephew who nourished serious grudge against his uncle, as according to him there was unequal partition of ancestral properties.Said Kamal Rai, strongly believed that construction of new house and purchase of tractor, subsequent to partition by the deceased was made from cash which had not been divided during partition.Though motive appears to be trivial and also stale but where direct evidence is available, motive pales into insignificance.The accusations appearing from the first information report of Ram Babu Rai (PW-14), son of the deceased and also narrations made by the witnesses at trial are that on 17.8.1983 while deceased at about 8.00 a.m. had gone to a temple after taking holy dip in a pond, adjacent to the temple, the appellants holding weapons came down from the house of Kamal Rai and came to the temple, pursuant to which Kamal Rai while exhorting others to liquidate the deceased dealt blows with a hard and blunt substance on his head as he had been unfair to him in partitioning the ancestral properties.Dukha Sah (PW-6), the priest of the temple locked the northern gate of the temple to save the deceased.However, he could not be saved as accused-appellant Deosharan Rai broke open the lock and dragged the deceased outside, pursuant to which on exhortation made by Kamal Rai all dealt indiscriminate blows on him with lethal weapons which they were carrying.When Shatrughan Pandey (PW-1), Ram Chandra Rout (PW-2), Nandlal Pandey (PW-4) and Sita Saran Rai (PW-5) came to rescue on hearing alarms raised by the son of the deceased (PW-14), they could not proceed to rescue the deceased on being scared by the firing resorted to by accused-appellant Satya Narain Rai.Ram Babu Rai (PW-14) informed the police who visited village Bishanpur and recorded his statement, pursuant to which investigation commenced.The police station is situated at a distance of 4 K.M. from the place of occurrence.The occurrence took place at around 8.00 a.m. The FIR was recorded at 10.00 a.m. almost immediately.J U D G M E N TARIJIT PASAYAT, J Fifteen persons faced trial for alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 302 read with Sections 149, 148 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short the 'IPC').Accused No.9 (appellant No.5 in the present appeals) additionally faced trial for offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959(in short the 'Arms Act').Accused No.2 Mahendra Rai (Appellant No.8 in the present appeals) who was separately charged for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC was acquitted of the said charge but instead was convicted as afore-noted in terms of Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC.Out of the 15 accused persons, two were acquitted and three died during pendency of the appeals before the High Court.Prosecution version as unfolded during trial and which formed the foundation of the prosecution case is essentially as follows:On 17.8.1983, one Sarjug Rai (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') lost his life allegedly at the hands of the accused.The police during investigation apart from recording statement of witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the 'Code') visited the place of occurrence, and also made seizure of some offending articles from the place of occurrence.On conclusion of investigation, he laid charge sheet before the Court against all the 15 accused persons who were eventually put on trial.In the trial, the prosecution examined 17 witnesses.The accused persons pleaded innocence and false implication and examined 16 witnesses to counter the allegations attributed to them.Those examined by the prosecution were the villagers of Bishanpur, some outsiders, who were either relations of the deceased or claimed to have visited the village for holding panchayati for resolution of the dispute pending between the two parties, the doctor and also the police officer.As noted supra, accused persons pleaded innocence and false implication due to animosity persisting between the parties.Three of the accused persons pleaded alibi to improbabilise their physical presence at the site of occurrence.Out of the prosecution witnesses, seven i.e. PWs 2 to 5, 6, 10, 14 were stated to be eyewitnesses.On consideration of the evidence on record, learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi as afore-noted convicted 13 accused persons, acquitted two.In respect of three who died during the pendency of the appeal before the High Court the appeals abated.The convicted accused preferred three separate appeals before the High Court which by the impugned judgment disposed of them.The plea of alibi has been accepted in respect of two accused persons.Though, appellant Mahendra Rai stood at a better footing, his plea of alibi has been rejected on erroneous premises.Evidence was produced and a witness was examined to substantiate his plea of alibi which has been discarded without any basis.Though there were large number of injuries, no particular one has been attributed to any particular accused, except accused Deo Sharan Rai (A-1), Kamal Rai (A-7) and Satya Narain Rai (A-9).Accused Kamal Rai has died and the rest two are appellants 3 and 5 respectively in these appeals.The motive which was sought to be indicated as the foundation of the crime is too scarce and in fact Deo Narain Rai(PW-11) who is not an eyewitness and spoke about the motive of Kamal Rai has been disbelieved by both the trial Court and the High Court.The witnesses are closely related and in fact PW-11 has been discarded as unreliable.The investigation was more than perfunctory and the Courts below should have taken note of that.Identification in a mob is highly improbable.When plea of alibi has been accepted it clearly indicates the extent of false implication and the design therefor.One of the accused Rabindra Pandey was a child at the time of occurrence.It is not believable that the deceased was going to offer puja in a temple which prima facie appears to be without a deity.The place of occurrence has been chosen in a manner as would give some credence to the evidence of some persons like Pujari Dukha Sah (PW-6).The evidence of prosecution is to the effect that all the accused persons came from the house of accused Kamal Rai.The visibility from the place where PW-6 claims to have seen them is well nigh impossible.There is no evidence to show that Kamal Rai has disclosed to others what he proposed to do, or there was sharing of common object.On the other hand, even if it was a case of similar or common intention, at the most, the prosecution could press into service Section 34 IPC for which there was no charge and for bringing in application of Section 34 IPC participation is a must.The allegations of a very general and repetitive nature have been made against all the accused persons.There is no evidence that Satya Narain Rai was carrying a country made gun and therefore the conviction under Section 27 of the Arms Act is not maintainable.In response, Mr. B.B. Singh, learned counsel for the State submitted that the common object which sine qua non have application under Section 149 IPC has been clearly brought out.The unimpeachable evidence is that all the accused persons armed with deadly weapons came from outside the village in a group.The deceased was dragged first and given lathi blow by accused Kamal Rai which was a fatal one and when his son (PW-14) wanted to protect gun was fired to dissuade others from coming to his rescue.The investigating officer reached the place of occurrence at 11.00 a.m. and the post mortem was conducted at 4.00 p.m. The evidence on record goes to show that the eyewitnesses were examined from 2.00 p.m. onwards.Acquittal of some of the accused persons will not come to the rescue of the other appellants in respect of whom the High Court has considered the evidence on record and found them guilty.As noted above, PW-1 has no relationship with the deceased and his assertion in the examination-in-chief has gone unchallenged.It is to be noted that nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination of various witnesses as regards the place of occurrence and the manner of occurrence.That being the position, the convictions as done cannot be faulted.We shall deal with the question regarding applicability of Section 149 IPC, which was urged emphatically.The certificate was to the effect that he was on duty as a guard for a period from 10.8.1983 to 17.8.1983 on a regular basis.Under the circumstances of the case, the aforesaid witnesses appear to be natural witnesses who were supposed to be at the place of occurrence.
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
164,065,057 |
Heard learned counsel for the appellant/ applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.By means of present criminal appeal the appellant has prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 11.12.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Gonda, in Bail Application No.2456 of 2019, moved by the appellant in Case Crime No.222 of 2019, under sections - 147, 148, 149, 323, 452, 504, 506, 325, 307, 436 I.P.C., Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, relating to Police Station - Kotwali Colonelganj, District - Gonda, allowing the instant criminal appeal.It has also been prayed to release the appellant on bail in the aforesaid case crime.The submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that co-accused Meraj has already been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.09.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No.1514 of 2019 and on the ground of parity other co-accused persons have also been granted bail, their bail orders have been annexed as Annexure -7 to the criminal appeal.On the ground of parity, the criminal appeal may be allowed and the appellant may be released on bail.Learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer.Accordingly, the criminal appeal is allowed.Order dated 11.12.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Gonda, in Bail Application No.2456 of 2019, moved by the appellant in Case Crime No.222 of 2019, under sections - 147, 148, 149, 323, 452, 504, 506, 325, 307, 436 I.P.C., Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, relating to Police Station - Kotwali Colonelganj, District - Gonda, is set aside.
|
['Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,640,660 |
The charges were drawn up under six heads withvarious sub-beads under each one of them.The first chargealleged that the petitioner was guilty of misbehaviourinasmuch as he showed undue favour to Messrs. MillarsTimber and Trading Company Limited in the matter of issue ofimport and export licences, by abusing his position as apublic servant in the discharge of his duties, that is, byaccepting illegal gratification or valuable things forimport and export licences recommended or to be recommendedby him.The second charge was to the effect that thepetitioner accepted or obtained valuable things for himselfand other members of his family, without paying for them, ondifferent dates from Messrs. Millars Timber and TradingCompany Limited for recommending their applications forimport licences and export permits.The fourth and thefifth charges 1491152were similar in nature to charges 1 and 2 except that theyrelated to the Petitioners dealings with another firm knownas Sunder Das Saw Mills.The enquiry proceeded in the manner laid down in ,thePublic Servants (Inquiries) Act. The charges were read outto the petitioner and his plea of "not guilty" was formallyrecorded.Evidence was adduced both by the prosecute or andthe defence and the witnesses on both sides were examined onoath and cross.On my- return I made enquiries from him and he told me thathe had slight congestion in the lungs but that he wasfeeling much better and would in all likelihood attend Courton Friday.I saw him myself on Wednesday evening.He wasquite cheerful and looked well, and he told me that he wasfeeling much better and would in all likelihood attend Courton Friday, failing that on Monday.On Thursday morning hiscondition had much improved, but late in the evening hefelt uncomfortable and was removed to hospital,, where hesuddenly collapsed.This is the short story of thetermination of a successful career on the Bench and at theBar of a very devoted and patriotic citizen of India.His affable personality,his genial and his uniform courtesy made a deep impressionon all those who came into contact with him.Petition under article 32 of the Constitution for theenforcement of fundamental rights.A. K. Basu, K. S. Jayaram and C. B. Pattabhiraman (R.Ganapathy and C. V. L. Narayan, with them) for thepetitioner.The Judgment of the Court was deliveredby MUKHMRJEA J.-This is a. petit ion under article 32 of theConstitution, praying for a writ, in the nature ofcertiorari, for calling up the records of certain criminalproceedings started against the petitioner by the Special,judge.Sessions Court, Delhi, and for quashing the safe onthe ground that these proceedings are without jurisdiction,having been commenced1151in violation of the fundamental right of the petitionerguaranteed under article 20(2) of the Constitution.The petitioner was a member of the Indian Civil Serviceand till lately was employed as Secretary to the Ministry ofCommerce and Industries in the Government of India.The substance of the imputations was drawn up in theform of specific charges and Sir Arthur Trevor Harries, anex-Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court, was appointedCommissioner under section 3 of the said Act to conduct theenquiry and report to the Government, on the result of thesame, his opinion on the several articles of chargeformulated against the petitioner.Petition dismissed.
|
['Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
57,690,090 |
In brief, case of the prosecution was that the complainant, Naresh S/o Puttu R/o Village - Dhakhaura Thana Piswan District Sitapur lodged a First Information Report at Thana - Pisawan District Sitapur on 20.03.2011 that his brother Raju who is a labour in Delhi had come to celebrate Holi festival at his house.The assaults were made at random.Hon'ble Sanjay Harkauli,J.(As per Anil Kumar, J.) Heard Sri Anuj Dayal, learned counsel for appellant-accused, Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla, learned AGA and perused the record.Under challenge in the instant appeal is the judgment and order dated 03.11.2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Sitapur in Sessions Trial No. 928 of 2011 (State Vs.Amarpal Maurya) arising out of Crime Case No. 103 of 2011 under Section 302, 504 I.P.C. Police Station, Pisawan, District Sitapur whereby the appellant/Amar Pal Maurya was convicted for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C., sentenced with the imprisonment of life and also fine of Rs. 2000/- with the default stipulation of one year additional rigorous imprisonment.Four months prior to the incident, Raju had given Rs. 1500/- as a loan to Amar Pal Maurya, on the said date at 01.30 p.m. when Raju went to take back his loan from Amar Pal Maurya, started abusing him, thereafter there was an altercation and fight taken place between them.After hearing the noise, he, Mukesh, Sripal, Vishambhar and other persons of the village came to the spot, saw that Amar Pal Maurya with a knife assaulted his brother/Raju on chest and head, as a result of which he fallen down thereafter died.Accordingly, an investigation had been entrusted to Ashok Kumar Pandey, Station Officer, Thana Piswana, District - Sitapur, a Crime Case No. 103/2011 under Sections 302, 504 I.P.C. has been registered.On the same day, an entry in the GD (Exht. -5) has been made.The Investigating Officer, went on the spot, recover the knife, prepared recovery memo and also prepared site plan where knife was recovered (Exht. 14 and 12).After preparing the Panchnama and after taking the signature of the witnesses, sent the body of the deceased for autopsy/postmortem to the District Hospital, performed by Dr. A.K. Mishra, as per the autopsy report, the following injuries were found on the body of the deceased/Raju:-Stab wound 1.5 cm X 1 Cm X chest cavity deep present on chest 5 cm to right of left nipple horizontally & 10 cm below sternal notch : underlying heart is penetrated & 1.5 litres of liquid & clotted blood present in chest cavity edges of wound clear cut & curved with sharp angles at both ends.Incised wound present over right side of head 1.5 cm.X 1 cm X bone deep edges everted & clear cut.And cause of death was due to shock and blood oozing as a result of injury NO. 1 1 (Antemortem).Thereafter, S.T. Case No. 928/2011 has been instituted under Section 302, 504 I.P.C. Charges were framed against the accused-Amar Pal Maurya.On behalf of the prosecution, following witnesses were produced:-1. P.W.-1/Naresh-complainantP.W. - 2/Mukesh3. P.W.-3/Dr.4. P.W.4/Head Const.Girish Dutt PandeyP.W.-5/Inspector Ashok Kumar Pandey.And following documentary evidences were also produced by the prosecution:-Trial court after taking into consideration the documentary and oral evidences on record, particularly the evidence given by P.W.-1 and the recovery of the weapon at his instance, come to the conclusion that so far as the matter under Section 504 IPC has not been proved beyond doubt, acquitted the accused under Section 504 IPC, however, convicted him under Section 302 IPC.Sri Anuj Dayal, learned counsel for appellant-accused at the very outset submits that he restricts his argument only to the extent for conversion of the sentence from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part II IPC and submits that from the evidence on record, it is clearly established that deceased/Raju himself went to the house of the accused to get back Rs. 1500/- given by him as a loan to the accused and some hot talks/altercation taken place, as a result of which without predetermination in a sudden quarrel/fight, without any intention the incident took place, as a result of which the deceased died, so in view of Exception 1 or Exception 4 of Section 300, it is culpable homicide not amounting to murder.Accused has no intention to kill the deceased/Raju, even if he has knowledge that by his act Raju may die, the conviction awarded to him may be alter from Section 302 I.P.C. to 304 I.P.C. In support of his argument he rely on the following judgments:-Hunsa Singh Vs.State of Punjab, 1976 (4) SCC 255Mandanlal Vs.State of Punjab, 1992 Supp.(2) SCC3. Sukhdev Singh Vs.Delhi State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 2003 (7) SCC 441Muthu Vs.State by Inspector of Police, Tamilnadu, 2009 (17) SCC 433Chinnathman Vs.State of Punjab Vs.Jagtar Singh and others, 2011 (14) SCC 678Budhi Singh Vs.Mohindar Pal Jolly Vs.Vinit Kumar Chouhan Vs.State of U.P., 2007 (14) SCC 660Phulia Tadu and others Vs."This Court has considered the submissions advanced at the bar for the purpose of imposition of sentence on the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC.As held earlier there was no pre-meditation or pre plan on the part of the appellant to cause death of the deceased, and the occurrence had taken place when the deceased, with another had entered the field of the appellant and engaged himself in an altercation with the appellant when the appellant had refused to part with bitter guard.Having regard to the attending circumstances in which the incident had taken place, this Court is of the opinion that the interest of justice would be served if the appellant is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years for commission of offence punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC."In the State of Punjab Vs.For the foregoing reasons, the appeal preferred by the appellant-accused/Amar Pal Maurya deserves to be partly allowed and hereby partly allowed.
|
['Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
57,690,255 |
The petitioner also produced a copy of the statement of accounts relating to Account No.754164563 of Indian Bank, Amangikarai Branch.In the said statement it is stated that one V.N.Ambrish Neelmath is the proprietor of Neel Homes.In Aparna A. Shah /vs/ Sheth Developers Pvt Ltd and others (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Paragraph Nos.8 and 9 observed as follows:In order to constitute an offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act, this Court, in Jugesh Sehgal V. Shamser Singh Gogi Manu/SC/1198/2009: (2009) 14 SCC 683, noted the following ingredients which are required to be fulfilled:(i) a person must have drawn a cheque on an account maintained by in a bank for payment of a certain amount of money to another person from out of that account;In the light of the ingredients required to be fulfilled to attract the provisions of Section 138, this Court, after finding that there is little doubt that the very first ingredient of Section 138 of the N.I. Act enumerated above is not satisfied and concluded that the case against the appellant for having committed an offence under Section 138 cannot be proved. .” From the aforesaid decision, it is clear that for attracting Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,a person must have drawn a cheque on an account maintained by him in a bank for payment of a certain amount of money from out of that of account.In this case, the statement of accounts would clearly show that petitioner is not a proprietor of Neel Homes and as such the petitioner cannot be prosecuted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.In the result, this petition is allowed.The proceedings against the petitioner herein in C.C.No.466 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.7 is quashed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.26.10.2018 vv/gsphttp://www.judis.nic.in 7The Judicial Magistrate No.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.http://www.judis.nic.in 8 P.RAJAMANICKAM., J.
|
['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
576,931 |
According to the prosecution case, there is one Shanti Super Specialists Hospital in Bhopal of which non-applicant Nos. 1 and 2 are the Directors.Both of them are qualified doctors.They had employed non-applicant No. 3 as Nurse and non-applicant No. 4 as Cashier in the said hospital.The non-applicant No. 5 worked as a Lab Technician in that hospital.The police of Police Station, Shahjahanabad, Bhopal, received an information that the non-applicant Nos. 1 and 2, in collusion with their hospital staff, were selling newly born babies of unwed mothers from the hospital.On 9-11-2001 the Station House Officer arranged a trap against them by sending Police Constables Aziz, Loren Victor and Sanjay as decoy customers.Constables Aziz and Sanjay were asked by the non-applicant Nos. 1 and 2 in the presence of non-applicant No. 3 to pay Rs. 30,000/- when they approached them to purchase a child of three months old.Consequently, an amount of Rs. 29,000/-was arranged by witness Kamrul Islam which was given to Aziz and lady Constable Loren Victor who posed herself as wife of Aziz.Non-applicant No. 3 took Aziz, Loren Victor and Sanjay to the Chamber of non-applicant No. 2 where non-applicant No. 1 was also present.There non-applicant No. 2 asked the non-applicant No. 3 to deliver the child to them after receiving the payment.The non-applicant No. 3, on accepting Rs. 29,000/- from Aziz, delivered the child to Loren Victor.ORDER Ajit Singh, J.This revision, by the State, is directed against the order dated 17-1-2002 passed in Sessions Trial No. 14/2002, by the Special Judge (Atrocities), Bhopal, whereby she has discharged the non-applicants of the charges under Sections 372, 373, 317 and 176 read with Section 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.The non-applicant No. 4 was asked to keep the money in the locker.The non-applicant Nos. 1 to 4 were, thus, caught red handed while selling a newly born child of an unwed mother in their hospital.The money passed on to the non-applicant Nos. 1 to 4 was seized from them.During investigation, the police recorded the statements of witnesses Tabassum and her husband Habibuddin.According to them, they had earlier purchased a newly born child from the hospital of non-applicant Nos. 1 and 2 in collusion with the non-applicant No. 4 on payment of Rs. 25,000/- to non-applicant No. 2 as Tabassum was not conceiving a child and she feared divorce.Likewise, witness Shakeela has also alleged in her statement that she too had purchased a newly born child from the hospital of non-applicant Nos. 1 and 2 for Rs. 3500/- in collusion with the non-applicant No. 3 as she feared divorce.Rahul Singh, an Editor of "Zee T.V." in his statement, has alleged that the non-applicant No. 3 had agreed to sell him a baby girl of one Lata on 9-11-2001 and he was present in the hospital when the non-applicant Nos. 1 and 4 were trapped by the police.A case of selling minor child was, thus, registered against the non-applicants and was committed for trial before the Special Judge, Bhopal.The Special Judge, by the impugned order, has held that though there is overwhelming evidence against the non-applicants about they being caught red-handed while selling a minor child, yet they cannot be tried for the offences mentioned in the charge-sheet as the ingredients of those offences were not attracted.She also took note of the fact that some witnesses who had purchased the child were not made accused in the case.Shri T.S. Ruprah, Additional Advocate General for the State, has assailed the impugned order of discharge of the non-applicants on the ground that it suffers from material illegality.According to him, the Special Judge has wrongly interpreted the provision of Section 372 of the Indian Penal Code and committed gross illegality in discharging the non-applicants with impunity.On the other hand, Shri Arvind Shrivastava, learned counsel for non-applicant Nos. 1 to 4 has vehemently supported the discharge of the accused persons.He has, however, fairly conceded that there is enough material on record to hold that the non-applicant Nos. 1 to 4 were caught red-handed while selling a minor child.Shri Vijay Pandey, learned counsel for the non-applicant No. 5, has argued that there is absolutely no evidence against the non-applicant No. 5 as he was only a Lab Technician in the hospital and has nothing to do with the selling of minor babies.I have perused the police case diary and the charge-sheet filed against the non-applicants.As it has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the non-applicant Nos. 1 to 4 that they were caught red-handed while selling a minor child, I am only required to see as to what offence is made out against them.The prevalence in the country of the menace of children being used for unlawful and immoral purposes is too well known.Doctors in nursing homes who, contrary to all norms of professional ethics, sell a recently born child without ascertaining satisfactorily the purpose for which the child is being purchased and without taking proper precautions to ensure that the child may not fall in undesirable hands must, prima facie, be imputed with the knowledge that the child, at some age, is likely to be employed or used for any unlawful and immoral purpose within the meaning of Section 372 of the Indian Penal Code.It has to be taken notice of that the word "likely" in the section denotes "probability" and not "certainty".So far as the witnesses who, during investigation, have stated that they also purchased a child from the non-applicant Nos. 1 to 4 on some previous occasion, there is nothing in their statements to suggest that they purchased the child with the requisite criminal intent or knowledge, as required by Section 373 of the, Indian Penal Code, and that they are prima facie guilty under that section.It will be another matter if, when their statements are recorded in Court, it comes out in cross-examination or, otherwise, that there are circumstances pointing to the contrary.As regard non-applicant No. 5, there is absolutely no allegation that he was present when the deal was struck between the decoy customers and.other co-accused persons for selling a child.There is also no evidence that the transaction of sale and purchase of a minor child took place before him or he had the knowledge of same.According to witnesses Aziz and Sanjay, Dr. Sarla Jain (non-applicant No. 2) had, asked them that they can talk to non-applicant Nos. 3 to 5 regarding the purchase of child.Apart from this general statement, purported to have been made by the Dr. Sarla Jain (non-applicant No. 2) against the non-applicant No. 5, there is no other evidence.Thus, the impugned order of discharge so far as it relates to him is affirmed.Resultantly, this revision, as against the non-applicant Nos. 1 to 4, is allowed.The trial Court shall frame a charge under Section 372 read with Sections 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code against them and proceed with the trial expeditiously.The non-applicant No. 1 was in jail when the impugned order was passed.He be taken into custody immediately.Needless to mention that at one stage an application was filed on behalf of the State for withdrawal of this revision which was dismissed by me by order dated 27-9-2004 as the application was vague and showed no ground whatsoever as to why it was being made.The record of the trial Court be sent back forthwith with a copy of this order.One copy of this order be also sent to the Medical Council of India, New Delhi, for information.The revision is partly allowed.
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
57,710,067 |
Case diary perused.The applicant has filed this first application u/S.439, Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.The applicant has been arrested on 17.10.2019 by Police Station Bagchini, District Morena (M.P.), in connection with Crime No.185/2019 registered in relation to the offence punishable u/S.307, 324, 452, 294, 323, 325 and 506/34 of IPC Act.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the matter.It is also submitted that the cross case was registered on 11.08.2019 on around 8pm and thereafter, just to counterblast, present case was registered by the present complainant on around 11:15pm.A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.Certified copy as per rules.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
57,711,022 |
This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 4.6.2020 passed by Special Judge POCSO Act/Special Judge/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.8, Ballia dismissing Criminal Appeal No.7 of 2020 (Abhishek Yadav versus State of U.P.), filed under Section 101 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short ''the Act') and affirming an order of Juvenile Justice Board, Ballia dated 26.2.2020 refusing the bail plea to the revisionist in Case No.34 of 2019 arising out of Case Crime No.183 of 2018 under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act Police Station Sahatwar District Ballia.Heard Sri Kameshwar Singh, learned counsel for the revisinist, learned AGA for the State and Sri Ashok Kumar Rai, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and perused the record.The prosecution case, as per the version of the FIR lodged by the father of the victim, is that on 25.11.2018 his daughter Km.Beauty Singh aged about 16 years went to the coaching in the morning and when she did not come back till 10 o'clock, search was made and it was found that the applicant had enticed away his daughter.When the father of the victim went to the house of the applicant to make complaint, his mother and uncle began to abuse them.Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case.Submission is that in the FIR the victim has been shown to be minor aged about 16 years whereas as per supplementary medical examination report dated 22.1.2019 filed as Annexure-4 to the affidavit, the age of the victim was found as 18 to 19 years.Thus, the victim was major on the date of alleged occurrence.Learned counsel further submits that there is a vast contradiction in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. In her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. the victim has stated that she went with the revisionist on his own free will from Ballia to Buxar and by train at Kalyan where they were living in a rented room for one month and they had also married at Bhriguji Temple, Ballia and they had made physical relation with their own consent.On the other hand, in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she has changed her version under the pressure of the parents.She has stated that on 24.11.2018 when she was going to coaching, on the way she met with Abhishek (revisionist) who after luring took her away in Kalyan where they stayed in a hotel and the revisionist made physical relationship without her consent.The statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. are self-contradictory and make the prosecution story doubtful.Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist is well known to the victim prior to the alleged incident and it appears that there was consenting relationship between the revisionist and the victim.Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that the revisionist is juvenile and there is no apprehension of reasoned ground for believing that the release of the revisionist is likely to bring him in association with any known criminals or expose him to mental, physical or psychological danger or his release would defeat the ends of justice.He further submits that except this the revisionist has no previous criminal history.The father of the revisionist is giving his undertaking that after release of the revisionist on bail, he will keep him under his custody and look after him properly.Further, the father of the revisionist undertakes that the revisionist will not tamper the evidence and he will always cooperate the trial proceedings.There was no report regarding any previous antecedents of family or background of the revisionist.There is no chance of revisionist's re-indulgence to bring him into association with known criminals.The revisionist was a juvenile aged 16 years, 4 months and 23 days on the date of occurrence.He was, thus, clearly below 17 years of age.Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that thereafter the revisionist applied for bail before the Juvenile Justice Board, Ballia upon which a report from the District Probation Officer was called for.Hence the present criminal revision has been filed before this Hon'ble Court mainly on the following amongst other grounds:(i) That the revisionist is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case .(ii) That the medical examination on the body of the victim was conducted on 12.1.2019 in which no external or internal injury was found.(iii) That supplementary medical report was prepared on 22.1.2019 in which the age of the victim was found 18 to 19 years.It is also noted that no recent sexual activities were seen.(iv) That the District Probation Officer Ballia has given his report to the effect that there is love affection with each other and conduct of the juvenile is also good and given his opinion that the juvenile may be released on bail.(v) That as per the statement under section 161 CrPC the victim was residing with the revisionist for about one and a half months and it appears to be case of consensual relationship.(vi) That the victim has changed her statement under Section 164 CrPC under the pressure of her parents.(vii) That the impugned orders are against the evidence on record, therefore, the same are unsustainable in the eye of law.(viii) That the court below has rejected the bail application of the revisionist without applying the law and appreciating the facts of the case.(ix) That there was no report regarding any previous criminal antecedents of the family or background of the revisionist.(x) That there is no chance of revisionist's re-indulgence to bring him into association with known criminals.(xi) That the impugned orders passed by the courts below are totally arbitrary, illegal and bad in law.(xii) That the findings given by the courts below are based on conjectures and surmises.Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the revisionist have also been placed forth before the Court.The maximum period for which a juvenile can be incarcerated in whatever form of detention, is three years, going by the provisions of Section 18(1)(g) of the Act. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the revisionist has placed reliance of Hon'ble Apex Court judgment in the case of Kamal Vs.State of Haryana, 2004 (13) SCC 526 and submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to observe in paragraph no. 2 of the judgment as under :-This is a case in which the appellant has been convicted u/s 304-B of the India Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for 7 years.It appears that so far the appellant has undergone imprisonment for about 2 years and four months.The High Court declined to grant bail pending disposal of the appeal before it.In the circumstances, we direct that the bail be granted to the appellant on conditions as may be imposed by the District and Sessions Judge, Faridabad."Learned counsel for the revisionist has also placed reliance of Hon'ble Apex Court judgment in the case of Takht Singh Vs.State of Madhya Pradesh, 2001 (10) SCC 463, and submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to observe in paragraph no. 2 of the judgment as under:-The appellants have been convicted under Section 302/149, Indian Penal Code by the learned Sessions Judge and have been sentenced to imprisonment for life.Against the said conviction and sentence their appeal to the High Court is pending.Before the High Court application for suspension of sentence and bail was filed but the High Court rejected that prayer indicating therein that the applicants can renew their prayer for bail after one year.After the expiry of one year the second application was filed but the same has been rejected by the impugned order.In the aforesaid circumstances the applicants be released on bail to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sehore.The appeal is disposed of accordingly."Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for opposite party no.2 have opposed the revisionist's case with the submission that the release of the revisionist on bail would bring him into association of some known criminals, besides, exposing him to moral, physical and psychological danger.State of U.P. (supra)., this Court is of the view that the present criminal revision may be allowed and the revisionist may be released on bail.In the result, this revision succeeds and is allowed.The impugned judgment and order dated 4.6.2020 passed by Special Judge POCSO Act/Special Judge/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.8, Ballia dismissing Criminal Appeal No.7 of 2020 (Abhishek Yadav versus State of U.P.) and the order of Juvenile Justice Board, Ballia dated 26.2.2020 refusing the bail plea to the revisionist in Case No.34 of 2019 arising out of Case Crime No.183 of 2018 under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and under Section 3/4 POCSO Act Police Station Sahatwar District Ballia, are hereby set aside and reversed.The bail application of the revisionist stands allowed.Let the revisionist, Abhishek Yadav through his natural guardian/ father Janardan Yadav be released on bail in Case Crime No.183 of 2018 under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and under Section 3/4 POCSO Act Police Station Sahatwar District Ballia upon his father furnishing a personal bond with two solvent sureties of his relatives each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, Ballia subject to the following conditions:(i) That the natural guardian/ father, Janardan Yadav will furnish an undertaking that upon release on bail the juvenile will not be permitted to come into contact or association with any known criminal or allowed to be exposed to any moral, physical or psychological danger and further that the father will ensure that the juvenile will not repeat the offence.(ii) The revisionist and his father, Janardan Yadav will report to the District Probation Officer on the first Wednesday of every calendar month commencing with the first Wednesday of October, 2020 and if during any calendar month the first Wednesday falls on a holiday, then on the next following working day.
|
['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
57,721,362 |
1. Heard Mr. Atul Kumar Shahi learned counsel for applicant and learned AGA for the State.This second application for bail has been filed by applicant-Smt Mumtaj.seeking her enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 378 of 2018 under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D. P. Act, P.S.-Kotwali, District-Mainpuri, during the pendency of trial.The first Bail application of applicant was rejected vide order dated 19.11.2018, which reads as under:-"Heard Mr. Atul Kumar Shahi, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State.Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant in Court today is taken on record.This bail application has been filed by the applicant Smt. Mumtaj, seeking her enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 378 of 2018 under Sections 498A, 304B, IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Kotwali, District Mainpuri during the pendency of the trial.After the expiry of a period of one year from the date of marriage of the son of the applicant, an unfortunate incident occurred on 27.3.2018, in which the daughter-in-law of the applicant died.The inquest of the body of the deceased was conducted on 27.3.2018 itself not on the information of the applicant or any of her family members but on the information given by Shamshad Ali the father of the deceased.In the opinion of the Panch witnesses, the cause of death of the deceased was characterized as homicidal.The F.I.R. in respect of the aforesaid incident was lodged on 27.3.2018 by the father of the deceased, which was registered as Case Crime No. 378 of 2018 under Sections 498A, 304B, IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Kotwali, District Mainpuri.In the aforesaid F.I.R., four persons namely, Arif (husband), Anwar (father-in-law), Mumtaz (mother-in-law), Asif (dewar) were nominated as the accused.The Doctor, who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased opined that the cause of death of the deceased was asphyxia as a result of strangulation.A ligature mark in the size of 11 cm on the neck of the body of the deceased was found.The Police upon completion of the statutory investigation of the aforesaid case crime number submitted a charge-sheet dated 3.4.2018 against all the named accused.What has happened subsequent to the submission of the charge sheet dated 3.4.2018, has not been detailed in the affidavit accompanying the bail application nor the same could be disclosed at the time of hearing of the bail application by the learned counsel for the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased.The applicant is a lady and is in jail since 28.3.2018, having no criminal antecedents to her credit except the present one.On the aforesaid factual premise, it is urged that the applicant being a lady is liable to be enlarged on bail.Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail.He submits that the deceased had died just after one year of marriage on account of asphyxia as a result of strangulation.The applicant is a charge sheeted accused.Per contra, the learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail.He submits that the deceased has died on account of strangulation and applicant has failed to discharge the burden under Section 106 and 113B of Indian Evidence Act. However, he could not dispute the factual and legal submission urged by learned counsel for applicant.
|
['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
57,728,647 |
The factual back ground leading to the presentation of the appeal in a nutshell is that the victim girl, daughter of Jaba Majhi, de facto complainant was given in marriage to appellant Banshi Sardar son of appellants Lalu Sardar and Nanibala Sardar.The victim girl started residing at her matrimonial home after her marriage.Being attracted by that noise, she rushed to her daughter's room and found the appellants fleeing away from the house.She found her daughter writhing in pain.She told her mother/de facto complainant that she had been given poison.The de facto complainant with the help of the neighbouring people took her daughter to Manbazar hospital but on the way to hospital her daughter expired.He has stated that he heard about the incident of the victim girl's death from her mother.On hearing the news of death of the victim, he went to Pairachali hospital and saw her dead body.He found her mouth and nose foaming.He conducted post mortem examination of the dead body of the victim.and sentence dated 27.5.2003 passed in Sessions Trial Case No. 12 of 2 2002 arising out of Sessions Case No. 132 of 2000 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court - 1 Purulia, whereby the appellants were sentenced to suffer R.I. for life and pay a fine of Rs. 1000 each; in default to suffer S.I for one month each for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 IPC.She was subjected to both physical and mental torture by the appellants during her stay at her matrimonial home.On 6.10.1995, the de facto complainant, mother of the victim went to the matrimonial home of her daughter and stayed there.On the next day, i.e., 7.10.1995 she was served with Garam Bhat by the mother in law of the deceased while the victim was served with Panta Bhat.The de facto complainant was sleeping in the courtyard of the house after taking Garam Bhat when she heard a loud noise of her daughter.She spent the night in the house of one of her relative at Pairachali and on the next morning she left for Natun gram to inform 3 her husband.It has been alleged by the de facto complainant that the appellants administered poison to her daughter leading to her daughter's death.On receipt of the FIR Puncha P.S. Case No. 41 of 1995 dated 8.10.1995 under Sections 498A/302/34 IPC was started against all the three accused persons/appellants.The case was investigated and charge sheet under the aforesaid Sections of IPC was submitted.The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and the Court of Sessions transferred the case to the court below for disposal.On receipt of the case record, the learned court below framed charges under Sections 498A/302/34 IPC against the accused persons/appellants which was read over and explained to each of them to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.To bring home the charge, prosecution examined in all seven witnesses.No one was examined from the side of the defence.On appreciation of the evidence on record, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court -1, Purulia arrived at a finding that the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC against the appellants had not been proved beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt but the case against the accused 4 persons/appellants under Sections 302/34 IPC had been proved.So, the judgement, order of conviction and sentence impugned was passed.Being aggrieved by the said judgment, order of conviction and sentence, this appeal has been preferred by the appellants.Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has contended that the story stated in the FIR differs from the evidence of the FIR maker.It has come through the evidence that endosulfan was found in the viscera of the victim.Endosulfan is a poison having bitter test and if it was mixed with the rice which was served to the victim by her mother in law/appellant Nanibala Sardar, the victim could not have consumed it.It is against general human conduct to take the entire bowl of rice with bitter test.There is no motive behind the murder.It is highly improbable that the rice mixed with poison would be served in presence of her mother.The prosecution case is full of doubt.One Juran Sardar was the first informant but he was not examined by the prosecution.Neighbouring people who accompanied the de facto complainant when the victim was being taken to Manbazar Hospital, was not examined by the prosecution.The judgment, order of conviction and sentence impugned is erroneous.It be interfered with and set aside.In support of the argument, the decisions reported in (2008) 5 SCC 697 and (1984) 4 SCC 116 have been cited.On the next date, i.e., on 7.10.1995, the mother was served with Garam Bhat but the victim was served with Panta Bhat.All the appellants were present in the house on that date.The victim started writhing in pain after taking Panta Bhat.Mother called the neighbouring people.Appellants fled away from the house.On the way to the hospital, the victim died.We have taken stock of the argument advanced by the Counsels appearing on behalf of the parties.We have given our anxious consideration to the argument.Gone through the evidence on record.The case was initiated on the basis of a written complaint submitted by the mother of the victim.The written complaint/FIR has been exhibited (Exhibit 1).The de facto complainant/mother of the victim deposed regarding the marriage of her daughter with appellant Banshi Sardar.She has stated that her daughter was tortured by the appellants of which her daughter used to narrate during her visit to her father's place.She stated that she visited the matrimonial home of her daughter prior to her daughter's death.Mother/PW1 was served with Garam Bhat in the matrimonial home of the daughter while the daughter was given Panta Bhat by the mother in law.After consuming Panta Bhat her daughter started writhing in pain and her mouth started foaming.She with the help of neighbouring people arranged to 6 shift her daughter to Manbazar hospital but on the way to the hospital her daughter expired.She returned to Natun gram to inform her husband and thereafter she lodged FIR.Prosecution witness no. 2, Balai Majhi is the scribe who wrote the FIR.He stated that the victim used to tell him about the torture upon her by the appellants whenever she used to visit her father's house.He is a resident of Beliatore.Prosecution witness no. 3 is Bhakta Majhi, father of the victim.He has stated in his evidence that his daughter would tell him and his wife about the torture meted out to her during her stay at her matrimonial house by her husband and in laws.He has also stated that he came to know from his wife that the appellants administered poison to her daughter.Prosecution witness no. 4 is Umar Ali.He has stated that he heard from Bhakta Majhi/PW -3 that the victim girl was tortured by the inmates of her matrimonial home.He has also stated that he heard from Bhakta that the victim girl was poisoned to death by her in laws.He has stated that on 9.10.1995 he held post mortem examination and on dissection he found rice and 7 yellowish colour material in the stomach of the deceased.He reserved his final opinion as to the cause of death of the victim till the receipt of the report of Chemical analysis.He submitted his final report on 28.4.1997 on the basis of Chemical analysis.The final report has been marked as Ext. 3 and the report of Chemical analysis has been marked as Ext. 4 which shows endosulfan insecticide was detected in the viscera of the deceased.Prosecution witness no. 7 is the I.O. He has stated that he conducted the investigation and on conclusion of the investigation he submitted the charge sheet against the appellants.This appeal has been preferred challenging the judgment, conviction and sentence passed against all the three appellants under Sections 302/34 IPC.So, we shall confine ourselves to the prosecution case with regard to murder of the victim.The evidence of the FIR maker is vital.The victim after consuming Panta Bhat started writhing in pain and became restless.She stated to her mother that she was administered poison.The above piece of evidence of the mother was subjected to cross-examination from the side of the defence and on cross-examination it has not been shaken rather the examination in chief and cross-examination lend support to each other.It is the case of the prosecution that the death of the victim was due to the administration of the poison.The Doctor/Autopsy surgeon stated in his evidence that on dissection of the dead body of the victim, he found rice and yellowish colour material in the stomach.On receipt of the report of Chemical analysis Ext. 4, he gave his final report (Ext. 3).If we peruse Ext. 4 and Ext. 3 together, then it will be found that endosulfan was detected in the viscera of the victim girl and the Doctor opined in his final report that endosulfan is an insecticide, poisonous to human being which may cause death.Endosulfan poisoning caused death in the instant case.The Doctor in his evidence has stated also that "in my opinion the cause of death of the deceased was endosulfan poison."It is nobody's case that after taking Panta Bhat the victim took any other substance.Mother has stated in her evidence that she saw the mother in law of the victim serve Panta Bhat to the victim.The victim was being removed for treatment to Manbazar hospital by her mother with the help of others but on the way to hospital she expired.The evidence of the mother inspires confidence as the evidence of the Doctor and the Chemical analysis report lend support to it.There is no reason to impeach the credit of the testimony of the mother; it is clear and unambiguous.It remains uncontroverted after lengthy cross-examination.The evidence on record does not give any indication regarding the role of the father and husband to culminate the murder of the victim by administering poison.So, they stand on a different footing than the mother-in-law.(1) mother came to the victim's matrimonial home on 6.10.1995; (2) on the next day, i.e., 7.10.1995 mother was given Garam Bhat while the victim was given Panta Bhat by the mother in law Nanibala Sardar;(3) taking Panta Bhat, the victim started writhing in pain and her mouth started foaming;(4) mother of the victim called the para people for shifting the victim to Manbazar hospital;(5) appellants did not help to shift the victim to the hospital to save her life;Urgent photostat certified copy of this order be given to the parties, if applied for.I agree.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
5,773,044 |
1 07.2.2019 Item No. 18 Court No.35 A.B.Item No. 18The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Mr. Sanjib Seth For the Petitioner Mr. Saryati Datta For the State The Petitioner have applied for bail in connection with Shyampur Police Station Case No. 334 of 2018 dated 03.07.2018 under Sections 341/354A/506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual OffencesThe learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody for 219 days and has been falsely implicated in the instant case.He also submitted that charges has already framed and trial is in the verge of conclusion.Learned counsel appearing for the State opposing the prayer for bail and submits that the minor girl is only 15 years of age and the accused is framed with charge under Section 12 of the POCSO Act.I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have seen the case diary and other relevant materials on record and note that the accused has given a proposal of marriage to the minor girl and threatened her that if she refused to 1 2 marry then the accused person will circulate a video in the name of the said minor girl.I have considered the offences on record where age of the accused person is 21 years and age of the minor girl is 15 years and in view of the aforesaid fact that the accused person has made a proposal to the victim for marriage, I am of the opinion that the accused may be released on bail.Accordingly, the Petitioner, Sk.The application for bail being CRM 1492 of 2019 is, thus disposed of.Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on usual undertaking.(Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J.) 2
|
['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.
|
984,632 |
JUDGMENT R.B. Dixit, J.Appellant being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction dated 14th May, 1984, passed in Sessions Trial No. 36/82 by the Second Additional Judge to Sessions Judge, Vidisha convicting appellants under Sections 148, 302 read with Section 149 IPC and sentencing them for imprisonment of life under Section 302/149 and further sentencing them for two years' RI and fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 148 IPC, have challenged their conviction and sentence under the present appeal.The prosecution case in brief is that on 17-9-1981 at about 8.00 p.m. when deceased Maharaj Singh was talking with acquitted co-accused Heera Lal, the appellants along with other co-accused persons armed with lathi, farsa, ballam, knife and luhangi came on the spot.Heera Lal caught hold of deceased Maharaj Singh and rest of the accused persons caused injuries to him.When Hari Singh (P.W. 1), cousin of the deceased intervened, he was assaulted with luhangi by Dhan Singh and on his raising hue and cry, Kundan Singh, Ram Singh and Ghuman Singh arrived and the assailants ran away on their arrival.The deceased was brought in a tractor trolley to police station Kurwai where Hari Singh lodged FIR.The deceased was referred for medical examination, but he succumbed to his injuries during the course of his examination.After intimation of the death of the deceased, an offence under Sections 302/34, 148 and 149 IPC was registered.Police agency prepared Panchnama of the dead body and the dead body was sent for post-mortem.Dr. P.N. Kathoriya, who conducted autopsy found following injuries on the body of the deceased:Incised would 2" x 1/2" x 1" above & parallel to right eye brow.Frontal bone was also found fractured.Incised wound 1 3/4" x 1/2" x 1" on left side of face.Left maxilla bone was found fractured.Lacerated wound 1" x 1" x 1/2" on right side of head.Lacerated wound 1/2" x 1" x 1/2" medial aspect of scalp.Lacerated wound 1/2" x 1" x 1/2" on left side of scalp.Lacerated wound 1" x 1/4" x 1/4" on left side of scalp.Lacerated wound 2" x 1" x 1/2" on left side of scalp.Incised wound 1/2" x 1/2" x 1" on right leg.Incised wound 1/2" x 1/2" x 1/2" on left leg.Contusion 1 1/2" x 1/2" x 1/2" on left knee.Incised wound 1/2" x 1/4" x 1/2" on occipital region of head, Occipital bone is seen fractured, laceration under fracture is seen.Brain matter is damaged.Abrasion 1" x 1/2" on anterior aspect of left shoulder.Incised wound 1/2" x 1/4" x 1/2" on lateral aspect of left arm.Abrasion 3" long on lateral aspect of left arm.Multiple abrasions on posterior of left shoulder.The man died due to damage of brain matter.It may be homicidal.Injuries of Hari Singh were also examined (Ex. P-39) by Dr. P.N. Kathoriya, who found following injuries on his person.Defuse swelling on phalange of right thumb.Contusion 1 1/2" x 1" on anterior aspect of right shoulder joint.Accused were arrested and interrogated.On being informed about the weapons of offence, memorandum of accused persons were prepared and a luhangi was recovered from accused Gyan Singh, farsa from accused Phulla, knife from Sibbu (Ex. P-10), Lathi from Gopi Das (Ex. P-11), Luhangi from Dhan Singh (Ex. P-12), Lathi from Ummed Singh (Ex. P-13), farsa from Bhagwan Singh (Ex. P-14), lathi from Shriram (Ex. P-15), lathi from Pratap Singh (Ex. P-16), a lathi from Udham Singh (Ex. P-17) and a ballam from Bishan Singh (Ex. P-18) were recovered.Blood stained clothes of the deceased were collected (Ex. P-45) and all the seized articles including the weapons were sent for chemical examination.The report of Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar (Ex. P-48) shows presence of blood on the recovered articles.However, no marks of blood were found on farsa recovered from Bhagwan Singh and on ballam recovered from Bishan Singh.After collecting the medical evidence, recording the evidence of witnesses and effecting seizure and preparation of different panchnamas.The prosecution agency filed challan under Sections 302/34, 147, 148 and 149 and 302 IPC.However, the learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 148, 149 read with Section 302, IPC against all the accused persons.Dhan Singh was in addition also charged under Section 324 IPC for causing injury to Hari Singh with Luhangi.The learned trial Court acquitted co-accused Heera Lal, Shibbu, Gopi Das, Shriram and Udham Singh from all the charges framed against them while convicted appellants under Sections 148, 302 read with Section 149, IPC and in additional also found Hari Singh guilty of the offence under Section 324 IPC and also sentenced him for one year's RI on this count.Appellant accused Phulla died during the pendency of the appeal and, therefore, appeal abated against him.The defence of the appellants was one of the complete denial and false implication out of enmity.The learned Senior Counsel, Shri J.P. Gupta, appearing for the appellants, has submitted that according to the evidence, the cause of death of deceased was due to damage of brain matter.Dr. P.N. Kathoriya (P.W. 17) who had also examined injuries of the deceased when he was alive and found two incised wounds one on right eye brow and left side of the face.Rest of injuries 3 to 7 were lacerated wounds of the scalp.However, when the deceased succumbed to his injuries during the course of this examination, further injuries 8 to 15 were found in addition in his post-mortem wherein injuries 8, 9, 11 and 13 were also incised found situated on left and right legs, occipital region of the scalp and left forearm respectively.It shows that the death was due to assault by blunt weapons which damaged the brain matter.None of the appellants except Pratap Singh was armed with lathi.The learned trial Court has acquitted rest of the accused persons, namely, Heera Lal, Shibbu, Gopi Das, Umed Singh, Shriram and Udham, who were mostly armed with lathis including Shibbu, who was allegedly armed with knife.In the circumstances, it is highly improbable that the appellants alone are responsible for causing death of the deceased.On other hand, it could be presumed that those who may be responsible for causing death of the deceased were acquitted.It is further argued for the appellants that the medical report indicates that except one incised wound on the head, rest of the head injuries were caused by hard and blunt object.However, appellants were armed with deadly weapons like farsa, luhangi, ballam.Thus, the fatal injuries of the deceased cannot be attributed to the appellants.The oral evidence is, therefore, belied by the medical report.In order to appreciate this argument advanced on behalf of the appellants, we have to go through the evidence on record.Except witness Hari Singh (P.W. 1) all other witnesses of the incident i.e., Ghuman Singh (P.W. 2), Bhagwan Singh (P.W. 4), Tulsi Ram (P.W. 11), Prahlad Singh (P.W. 14), Meharwan Singh (P.W. 15) and Ram Singh (P.W. 16) have turned hostile.Independent witnesses of the memorandum and seizure of the weapons had also not supported the prosecution and turned hostile.It is worth noting that according to first information report (Ex. P-1), Kundan Singh, Ram Singh and Ghuman Singh alone had arrived on the spot.However, in addition to these witnesses, prosecution has further added arrival of witnesses Bhagwan Singh, Tulsi Ram, and Meharwan Singh as witnesses of the incident, although they have not supported the prosecution in any way.Now, so far as the evidence of sole eye witness Hari Singh (P. W. 1) is concerned, he had stated that the deceased was assaulted because of previous enmity with the accused persons, who had also assaulted deceased Maharaj Singh some three years before this incident, but he has to admit that the case of previous marpeet was dropped because of compromise between the parties.In cross-examination, the witness had to admit that father-in-law of his sister, Shriram and others were involved in a dacoity committed against accused Heera Lal.A proceeding under Section 107 Cr.P.C. was also initiated against him and accused Pratap Singh besides 2 of 3 other cases are also going on between him and accused Pratap Singh.He could not deny a suggestion that the deceased had forcibly occupied agricultural land of Gopi, kotwar.In view of these admissions, it can be presumed that the deceased had enmity with other persons also and further that there was no immediate cause with the appellants for making an attempt on the life of the deceased.The sole eye witness Hari Singh (P.W. 1) had stated that he was sitting at a distance from the appellants' chabutra while in his first information report, it was mentioned that he was sitting with the deceased on the same chabutra.In his cross-examination, the assault of the deceased was shown at yet another chabutra, situated towards back side of the house.This witness had further admitted that the assailants emerged from the house and first he could not recognize them because of darkness.He then corrected himself by saying that he could identify the assailants in light of lantern.However, in first information report as well as in his police case diary statement (Ex. D-1), there is no mention of any light of the lantern on the spot.According to this witness, no sooner he was assaulted by Dhan Singh, he ran away from the spot and, therefore, could not say as to how and at which place the deceased was assaulted.Other witnesses, who made their appearance later on, had also confirmed darkness on the spot.In the circumstances, it has been argued for the appellants that the deceased had enmity with so many other persons and the actual assailants could not be identified.However, on the basis of enmity of some of the accused persons with this witness Hari Singh and also because of previous enmity with the appellants, they were roped in for the alleged assault.There is no mention in the FIR as well as in police case diary statement of this witness that the accused persons had emerged from behind the house of Heera Lal.In the circumstances, when the assailants are stated to have emerged out of darkness and had assaulted the deceased by surrounding him, meanwhile one of the assailants had also attacked this witness, who ran away towards his house, it cannot be believed that he had a chance to identify each and every assailants together with the weapons with which they were armed.According to Hari Singh, he was assaulted by Dhan Singh with one blow of luhangi.However, in his medical examination, he had received two injuries, but in the next breath, he has denied portion C to C of his FIR (Ex. P-1) wherein it was mentioned that he was assaulted with luhangi while he was trying to save the deceased.He has also denied presence of witness Budha Singh and Kundan Singh on the spot.As mentioned in the FIR as well as in his police case diary statement, he could also not say as to which of the accused had assaulted the deceased on which portion of the body and how many times.In the circumstances, his detailed narration in the FIR as well as in his police case diary statement about different accused persons armed with different weapons and details of the assault, are belied by his own statement as emerged from his cross-examination.It is possible that the deceased might have been assaulted at a different place in a different manner and by different persons.
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
984,634 |
ORDER M. Karpagavinayagam J.The petitioners are the mother and the son.They filed this petition praying for quashing of the proceedings in C.C. No. 148 of 1999 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Erode, taken on file for the offences under Sections 294(b) and 506(1), I.P.C.According to the prosecution, on 18-8-1999 at about 7.00 a.m., when the first informant Nachimuthu was working in the garden belonged to P.K.N. Murthy, the first petitioner Saraswathi, the wife of Thangavelu and the second petitioner Senthi Kumar, son of the said Thangavelu, who is the neighbouring land owner, came to the garden and asked him not to work in the field, as the said garden was belonged to them and without their knowledge, P.K.N. Murthy purchased the same and in retaliation, the first informant said that he would act only according to the instruction given by his employer P.K.N. Murthy and therefore, both the petitioners abused him stating that if he did not go out of the garden, they would kill him.The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that these allegations would not constitute the offences under Section 294(b) and 506(1), I.P.C. It is also submitted that in respect of the land in question, two suits are pending between the parties.I heard the Government Advocate.On going through the lower Court records, it is clear that the ingredients of these offences are absent.In this case, no material had been collected to show that the first informant was made to omit to do any act, which that person was legally entitled to do.
|
['Section 506 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.
|
98,467,076 |
ct no. 33 sl.38 sp C.R.R. No. 2657 of 2019 Rajesh Purohit Versus The State of West Bengal & Anr.Mr. Ujjal Roy ...for the Petitioner Mr. Swapan Banerjee, Mr. Suman De ....for the State The revisionist was a Director posted at the Indian Museum.He has since been transferred from here to Allahabad during his tenure, the Museum authority had engaged a private agency for performing certain works.After termination of the agency's contract, the opposite party no. 2 lodged a complaint, inter alia, under Section 354A/509 of the Indian Penal Code alleging that the revisionist had unwarranted physical contact with the victim.The learned counsel for the State submits that a charge sheet has already been submitted and 11 witnesses have been named.This Court is desirous of the examination of the case diary to determine the status and nature of the charges filed against the revisionist.In those circumstances, the State shall produce the case diary including all statements of the witnesses on the 19th of November, 2019 when this matter shall be taken up.In the meantime, there shall be a stay of further steps in respect of the charge sheet no. 139 of 2019 dated July 24, 2019 arising out of FIR No. 143 dated June 4, 2019 of the New Market Police Station.Let this matter be listed in the first 10 matters on the next date of hearing.The added opposite party no. 2 shall be served by registered Speed Post with Acknowledgement Due and affidavit-of-service shall be filed on the next date.Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on usual undertaking.(Rajasekhar Mantha, J.)
|
['Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
9,846,990 |
: Ms.G.ROHINI, CHIEF JUSTICEThe unsuccessful petitioner, who is a medical practitioner and a member of the Medical Council of India, is the appellant before us.By the order under appeal, the learned Single Judge had dismissed W.P.(C) No.9488/2015 filed by the appellant herein/writ petitioner assailing the following orders:LPA 702/2015 Page 1 of 19(i) The proceedings dated 30.04.2015 of the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India directing the Medical Council of India to ensure that immediate action is taken under the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002 in the light of the allegations against the Petitioner.(ii) The proceedings dated 30.04.2015 of the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India directing the Appellant not to attend any meeting of the Medical Council of India as its member till the allegations made against him are settled.(iii) The notice dated 10.09.2015 issued by the Medical Council of India calling upon the Appellant to show cause as to why appropriate proceedings under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and the Regulations made thereunder should not be initiated against him and as to why his name should not be removed from the Indian Medical Register.The learned Single Judge held that no case for interfering with the show cause notice was made out, particularly in the light of the seriousness and gravity of the allegations made against the writ petitioner.The learned Single Judge had also declined to interfere with the order of the Government of India, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare dated 30.04.2015, observing that allowing the writ petitioner to attend the meetings of MCI as a member thereof is likely to interfere with the decision making of MCI regarding the allegations against the petitioner.LPA 702/2015 Page 2 of 19The said order of the learned Single Judge is assailed in the present appeal on various grounds.Before adverting to the contentions advanced on behalf of the parties, it is necessary to notice the facts in brief.As mentioned above, the appellant/writ petitioner is a medical practitioner.He is also a member of the MCI constituted by the Central Government under Section 3 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (for short 'IMC Act').In the year 2011, MCI lodged a complaint against the appellant-writ petitioner stating that MCI had inspected National Institute of Medical Sciences University (for short 'NIMS'), Jaipur, a private medical college of which the appellant/writ petitioner is the Chairman, for the purpose of recognition/permission for MBBS & PG course and during the inspection, certain false documents/declaration forms pertaining to the faculty strength, nursing staff and etc. were produced and that the appellant/writ petitioner by abusing his position as a member of MCI attempted to manipulate the assessment reports.One Dr.Sharad Aggarwal, who claims to be the elected President of Indian Medical Association (Uttar Pradesh) for the year 2014-15 filed W.P.(C) No.6713/2014 titled Dr.The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 29.09.2014 with a direction to the Union of India to treat the writ petition as a complaint and consider the same within a period of six weeks.Alleging that the said directions were not complied with, Dr.LPA 702/2015 Page 3 of 19During the pendency of the said proceedings, on the basis of a complaint lodged by a student pursuing Medical Course in NIMS, a fresh FIR, being FIR No.29/2015, P.S. Sadar, Ranchi has been registered against the appellant on 06.02.2015 under Sections 376-C, 511, 354, 354-A, 354-B and 506 of IPC, 1862 for the alleged acts of sexual harassment.Pursuant thereto, Dr.Though the said application was dismissed by order dated 13.03.2015, Dr.Sharad Aggarwal was granted liberty to bring the factum of registration of FIR No.29/2015 to the notice of the Medical Council of India and the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India.Accordingly, Dr.Sharad Aggarwal made a representation and by proceedings dated 30.04.2015, the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India directed MCI to take immediate action against the appellant herein on the basis of the complaint of Dr.Sharad Aggarwal.By separate proceedings dated 30.04.2015, the Government of India had also ordered that the appellant shall not attend any meetings of MCI till a decision is taken on the allegations made against him.LPA 702/2015 Page 4 of 19In terms of the proceedings of the Government of India dated 30.04.2015, MCI had issued a notice dated 10.09.2015 to the appellant/writ petitioner stating that the Ethics Committee of MCI had found the allegations in the complaint dated 06.02.2015 made by the medical student to be extremely serious in nature and his conduct is unbecoming of a medical professional.Accordingly, he was called upon to furnish his explanation to the allegations contained in the complaint and to show cause within a period of 15 days as to why action should not be initiated for removing his name from the Indian Medical Register.Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed W.P.(C) No.9488/2015 contending inter alia that the show cause notice dated 10.09.2015 was without jurisdiction since no professional misconduct within the meaning of Chapter 7 of the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002 (for short 'the Regulations') can be attributed to him merely on the basis of the registration of FIRs.As noticed above, the learned Single Judge declined to entertain the writ petition and dismissed the same by order dated 08.10.2015 which is under challenge in the present appeal.During the pendency of this appeal, a fresh order dated 04.01.2016 came to be passed by MCI, purportedly in exercise of the powers conferred under Clause 8.5 of the Regulations, restraining the appellant/writ petitioner from practicing as a Doctor during the pendency of the proceedings before the Ethics Committee of MCI.The appellant filed C.M.No.1446/2016 seeking stay of the proceedings dated 04.01.2016 and we have disposed of the said application on 09.02.2016 staying the operation of the order dated 04.01.2016 subject to LPA 702/2015 Page 5 of 19 the condition that the appellant cooperates and participates in the proceedings pending before the Ethics Committee.LPA 702/2015 Page 5 of 19In the above noticed factual background, the following two issues arise for consideration in the present appeal:(i) Whether the interference with the inquiry pending before the Ethics Committee of MCI pursuant to the show cause notice dated 10.09.2015 for removal of the appellant's name from the Medical Register is warranted by this court;(ii) Whether the order passed by the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India dated 30.04.2015 directing the appellant/petitioner not to attend any meeting of MCI till the allegations made against him are decided is bad on the ground of lack of jurisdiction and/or being in violation of the principles of natural justice.Pursuant thereto, the inquiry is now pending before the Ethics Committee of MCI and the validity of the said inquiry is also the subject matter of the present appeal.Hence, the prayer in the writ petition to set LPA 702/2015 Page 6 of 19 aside the said order of the Government of India dated 30.04.2015 does not survive.A.M. Singhvi, Senior Advocate and Sh.Akhil Sibal, Advocate who appeared for the appellant/writ petitioner that none of the allegations on the basis of which FIR dated 19.07.2012 and FIR dated 06.02.2015 were registered can form basis for the misconduct alleged against the appellant and, therefore, the impugned proceedings initiated by MCI for removal of the appellant's name from the Indian Medical Register are illegal and without jurisdiction.It is sought to be explained that the alleged irregularities concerning faculty strength, nursing strength, bed occupancy, etc. in NIMS, Jaipur which are the subject matter of the first FIR registered on the basis of the complaint lodged by MCI do not pertain to the appellant and does not have bearing on the conduct of the appellant.LPA 702/2015 Page 8 of 19
|
['Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
98,483,026 |
(Pronounced on this 16th day of February, 2019) The appellant / accused has preferred this ap- peal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Proce- dure, 1973 being aggrieved by judgment dated 27.09.2013 passed by 14th Additional Sessions Judge, In- dore (MP) in Sessions Trial No.1331/2012, whereby present appellant Ballu @ Balram s/o Vijay Singh Bais has been convicted for offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to un- dergo ten years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/- along with default stipulation.The prosecution story, in short, is that on 15.09.2011 at about 10.00 PM complainant Ranjeet Saini was sitting on the counter of his Sheetal Gajak Shop, sit- uated at Chhawani, Indore (MP) while Naveen was work- ing in the shop and his friends Hani Sharma and Vickey were standing near the counter.At that time, present appellant Ballu @ Balram s/o Vijay Singh Bais, aged about 30-32 years, wearing pink colour shirt came there, while demanding Kulfi (ice candy), he thrown acid 3 CRA No.1569/2013 (which was kept in a plastic can) on the complainant with intention to commit his murder.As a result, com- plainant Ranjeet Saini received injuries on his hand, back and side part of head (kanpatti).When com- plainant Ranjeet Saini shouted, then Naveen came there and removed the shirt from the body of Ranjeet Saini by tearing it.During this, Naveen also sustained injury on his right hand due to acid.Complainant Ranjeet Saini was taken to Gokuldas Hospital.However, he has not examined any wit- ness in his defence.To bring home the charge against the present applicant, the prosecution has examined as many as thir- teen witnesses; out of which, Kapil Saini (PW-1) and Naveen Saini (PW-2) have not supported the prosecution story and they have turned hostile.Learned counsel for the appellant has submit- ted that injured Ranjeet Saini (PW-10) clearly deposed in his statement that he never disclosed the name of any suspected assailant to the Police and he also did not identify the accused in the Court.Complainant Kapil Saini reported the incident to Police Station Sanyogita- ganj, District Indore (MP).On the basis of which, of- fence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered against the present appellant.So called eye witness Om Prakash Saini (PW-4) also accepted in his statement that the present appellant was not present at the scene of crime and the said act was committed by some other per- son.Complainant Kapil Saini (PW-1) also did not sup- port the prosecution story.During the trial, the prosecution could not prove the authenticity of the Compact Disc (CD) and also unable to prove the presence of the appellant in the said tape.In spite of that learned trial Court has committed error in convicting the appellant for the present crime.Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent / State of Madhya Pradesh submits that after due appreciation of the evidence, learned Court below has found the appellant guilty of the alleged offence and no interference is called for in the findings recorded by the Court below.I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.Complainant Ranjeet Saini (PW-10) has de- posed in his Court statement that on 15.09.2011 at about 10.00 PM he was sitting in his Gajak Shop situated at Chhawani, Indore.His friends Hani and Nitesh were standing there.At the same time, a boy aged about 25- 26 years came there and he made a demand of one Kulfi (ice candy).He asked about the rate of Kulfi (ice candy).He sent his servant Kapil to bring Kulfi (ice candy).At the same time, the boy thrown acid (inflammable mat- ter) on him, due to which he sustained injuries.Servant of shop Kapil and his friends Hani and Nitesh poured water on him.His friend Nitesh took him to Gokuldas Hospital.However, he has not named any person as the suspect.The prosecution has declared this witness as hostile.During the cross-examination by Additional Public Prosecutor, he accepted that the appellant may be the person who had thrown acid upon him.Other eye witnesses of the incident Kapil Saini s/o Manoharlal (PW-1), Naveen Saini s/o Chhitarmal (PW-2), Om Prakash Saini s/o Ghisalal (PW-4) and Nitesh Singh Sengar @ Vickey (PW-9) have also not sup- ported the prosecution story.The present appellant was not named in the FIR.Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for information and necessary compliance.(S.K. Awasthi) Judge Pithawe RC Digitally signed by Ramesh Chandra Pithwe Date: 2019.02.21 15:49:39 +05'30'
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
98,484,430 |
Heard on leave application.The State has preferred the present application for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment dated 16.4.2013 passed by JMFC, Bareli, District Raisen in Criminal Case No. 351/2011 whereby the respondents are acquitted from the charge of Sections 341, 294, 323/34, 325/34, 427 and 506 (Part 2) of the IPC.After considering the evidence adduced by Dr. R.G.Malani (PW-1) and evidence given by the complainant Bhupendra Singh (PW-2), who lodged the timely FIR Ex.P-3, it appears that the leave may be granted for offences under Sections 325/34 and 323/34 of the IPC against the respondents.Office is directed to register the matter as Criminal Appeal for aforesaid offences.With the aforesaid direction, the present miscellaneous matter is hereby disposed of.(N.K. GUPTA)
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
98,484,625 |
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in the case.On the basis of assurance given by the authorities that no FIR shall be lodged against him if he deposits half of the amount but in spite of FIR was lodged.With the aforesaid submissions, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail.
|
['Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
98,491,576 |
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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused.In the wake of unprecedented and uncertain situation due to outbreak of the Novel Corona virus (COVID-19) and considering the advisories issued by the Government of India, this application has been heard and decided through video conferencing to maintain social distancing.The parties are being represented by the respective counsel through video conferencing, following the norms of social distancing/ physical distancing in letter and spirit.The applicant has filed this first application u/S. 439 Cr.P.C. For grant of bail.The applicant has been arrested on 4.6.2020 by Police Station Myana district Guna (M.P.) in connection with Crime No.120/2020 registered in relation to the offences punishable u/Ss. 323, 294, 506, 34, 325 and 302 of IPC.It is submitted by counsel for the applicant that as per prosecution story, allegation against present applicant is of inflicting injury to one Bhagwat Singh on his left leg by means of lathi.It is submitted that there is no allegation against the applicant for causing injury to deceased Kashiram.The fatal injury is attributed to co-accused Radheshyam.It is submitted that deceased Kashiram has passed away after more than 20 days while under treatment due to infection in brain.(Dharmendra Singh Dhakad Vs.State of M.P. ) incident took place all of a sudden and there was no per-meditation.The applicant has shown his willingness to serve the national cause by making contribution of Rs.10,000/- in PM Care Fund and install Arogya Setu App.Per contra, counsel for the State has opposed the prayer stating that the applicant has actively participated in commission of offence, therefore, he has been implicated as accused with the aid of section 34 of IPC.It is submitted that he inflicted injury to complainant Bhagwat on his right leg but he fairly submits that no injury was inflicted to deceased by the present applicant.He also does not dispute the factum of applicant being a first offender.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of IN RE : CONTAGION OF COVID 19 VIRUS IN PRISONS in SUO MOTU W.P. (C) No.1/2020 has directed all the States to constitute a High Level Committee to consider the release of prisoners in order to decongest the prisons.The Supreme Court has observed as under :-Having regard to the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, it has become imperative to ensure that the spread of the Corona Virus within the prisons is controlled.(Dharmendra Singh Dhakad Vs.State of M.P. ) interim bail for such period as may be thought appropriate.For instance, the State/Union Territory could consider the release of prisoners who have been convicted or are under trial for offences for which prescribed punishment is up to 7 years or less, with or without fine and the prisoner has been convicted for a lesser number of years than the maximum.It is made clear that we leave it open for the High Powered Committee to determine the category of prisoners who should be released as aforesaid, depending upon the nature of offence, the number of years to which he or she has been sentenced or the severity of the offence with which he/she is charged with and is facing trial or any other relevant factor, which the Committee may consider appropriate."Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that no fatal injury is caused by present applicant to the deceased, as well as alarming situation of Novel Corona Virus (COVID-19) and taking into consideration the directions issued by Hon'ble Surpeme Court as stated herein above, this Court deems it appropriate to allow this application for grant of bail.The application is allowed.The applicant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing his personal bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty thousand Only) with one solve surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, as the case may be with submission of written undertaking that the applicant will abide by all terms and conditions of the different circulars, orders as well as guidelines issued by the Central Government, State Government as well as Local Administration for maintaining social distancing, hygiene etc to avoid Novel Corona Virus (COVID -19) pandemic and he will have to install Arogya Setu App, if not already installed.(Dharmendra Singh Dhakad Vs.State of M.P. ) following conditions by the applicant :-The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; andThe applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.The applicant shall deposit Rs.10,000/- in PM CARE Fund having Account Number : 2121PM20202, IFSC Code: SBIN0000691, SWIFT Code : SBININBB104, Name of Bank & Branch : State Bank of India, New Delhi Main Branch within seven days from today.The applicant will inform the concerned S.H.O. of concerned Police Station about his residential address in the said area and it would be the duty of the Pane Lawyer to send E-copy of this order to SHO of concerned police station as well as concerned Superintendent of Police who shall inform the concerned SHO regarding the same.(Dharmendra Singh Dhakad Vs.State of M.P. ) this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance.It is made clear that E-copy of this order shall be treated as certified copy for practical purposes in respect of this order.CC as per rules.(Vishal Mishra) RAM KUMAR SHARMA 2020.08.07 17:34:53 Judge +05'30' Rks.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
98,495,752 |
Leave is granted to counsel for the petitioner to correct the cause title of the application for anticipatory bail.Apprehending arrest in connection with Manickchak Police Station Case No. 200 of 2016 dated 11.05.2016 under Sections 448/376/506 of the Indian Penal Code, this application for anticipatory bail has been filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Defence counsel submits that the petitioner is in no way involved in the alleged offence.He has been falsely implicated in the instant case.Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.( Patherya, J.) ( Samapti Chatterjee, J. )
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
98,498,082 |
SURESH KAIT,J OCTOBER 24, 2011 jg Crl.m.c.3566/2011 Page 4 of 4Crl.m.c.3566/2011 Page 4 of 4Criminal M.A. stands disposed of.Crl.m.c.3566/2011 Page 1 of 4Further submits that respondent no. 2 Balkishore has amicably settled all the issues qua the aforesaid FIR vide MOU dated 07.10.2011, therefore, he does not want to pursue the case.Respondent no. 2 is personally present in the Court.Head Constable Rajinder Prasad has identified him as Balkishore, S/o, Sh.Shanker Lal.Admittedly, Ld. APP submits that in the event of quashing, the FIR, heavy costs should be imposed upon the petitioners.Previously, I have taken the view on the basis of the judgment of the Division Bench of Mumbai High Court in Crl.m.c.3566/2011 Page 2 of 4 Nari Motiram Hira Vs.Avinash Balkrishnan & Anr.in Crl.W.P.No.995/2010 decided on 03.02.2011 whereby the Division Bench of Mumbai High Court has permitted for compounding of the offences under Section 452/324 of Indian Penal Code which were of 'non-compoundable' category as per Section 320 Cr.P.C. and the FIR No.50/2010 registered at Amboli Police Station, Andheri dated 06.02.2010, was quashed.Therefore, I fell that unless and until, the decisions which have been referred above, are set aside or altered, the same decisions are the precedent and binding effect.Crl.m.c.3566/2011 Page 2 of 4In these circumstances, if I do not allow the petition, then the enmity between the parties shall continue.Since, I have already taken view in Nari Motiram Hira Vs.Avinash Balkrishnan & Anr.in Crl.W.P.No.995/2010 Crl.m.c.3566/2011 Page 3 of 4 decided on 03.02.2011 and in the interest of justice present FIR no. 70 dated 11.03.2011 and all the proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed and keeping in view the financial condition of the petitioner, I am not inclined to impose costs on petitioner.Crl.m.c.3566/2011 Page 3 of 4Accordingly, Crl.M.C. 3566/2011 is allowed.Since the present petition is allowed, Crl.M.A. No. 12678/2011 become infructuous and is disposed of as such.
|
['Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
984,990 |
JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Dutta, J.This Appeal is directed by the accused-Appellant Benoy (alias Bejoy) Kumar Uraon (hereinafter referred to as accused) against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 27th May, 1987 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Siliguri, in Sessions Case No. 46 of 1985 before him.The accused stood charged before the Trial Court for an offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C., on the case made out by the prosecution, as stated in the impugned judgment.The learned Trial Judge, on trial, had found the accused guilty to the aforesaid charge and had convicted him thereunder and sentenced him therefor to suffer imprisonment for life for the reasons discussed at length in the impugned judgment.Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction and sentence so passed by the learned Trial Judge, the accused has preferred this Jail Appeal from the jail.The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the court below against the accused-Appellant could not thus be upheld and sustained.So also conceded by the learned Public Prosecutor during the hearing before us.
|
['Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
9,851,485 |
A. Bail Appln.The Society opened its Branches at various places such as Jamkhed, Patoda, Ashti, Talwada, Shivaji Nagar, Beed etc. The Chairman, Vice Chairman, Directors and ofcials of the Society solicited deposits by ofering lucrative rates of interest to depositors.Wide publicity was given to its ofer so as to lure general public to invest their sums.Large number of depositors fell prey to the ofers.They invested their hard-earned money.The allegations are general in nature.The applicant is shown to have received/ misappropriated a sum of Rs.6,17,000/- as per the statement of the Cashier/ co-accused.No.289/2019 with connected matters (( 6 )) The allegations in the F.I.R. are general and vague in nature.The applicant is aficted by several ailments.She is a patient of blood pressure.She is also undergoing treatment for Psychiatric.The applicant requires continuous medical attention.He is party to bogus loan scams.Total amount alleged to have been misappropriated by Chairman, Directors and key ofcials goes little over Rs.5 Crores.The applicants in all these applications claim to have an apprehension of being arrested in connection with Crimes as mentioned below :::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2019 07:29:55 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2019 07:29:55 :::A. Bail Appln.No.289/2019 with connected matters (( 3 )) Sr.Name of the Crime No. Name of No. applicant Police Sections Station 1 Shahaji Rambhau 0180/2018 Ashti, 420, 409 read with Section 34 Shinde Dist.Beed of the Indian Penal Code 0107/2018 Patoda, Sections 420, 409, 406, 467, Dist.Beed 120(B) r/w 34 IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of MPIDAct 0263/2017 Shivaji 406, 420 r/w 34 IPC and Nagar, Section 3 of MPID Act Beed 081/2018 Talwada 406, 409, 420, 467, 120(B) Dist.Beed r/w 34 IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of MPID Act 0697/2018 Jamkhed 420, 409, 406, 467, 120(B) Dist.r/w 34 IPC and Section 3 of Ahmed- MPID Act nagar 2 Jyoti Shivdas 0081/2018, Talwada, 406, 409, 420, 467, 120(B) Takankhar Dist.Beed IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of MPID Act 0107/2018, Patoda, 420, 409, 406, 467, 120(B) Dist.Beed r/w 34 IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of MPID Act 0180/2018 Ashti, Dist.Sections 420, 409 r/w 34 IPC Beed Shubhangi w/o 0263/2018 Shivaji 420, 406, 409, 467, 120-B r/w Prakash Nagar 34 IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Lokhande Police MPID Act (Shubhangi d/o Station, Shivshankar Beed Chandge) Sadashiv Shriram 0117/2018 Majalgaon 420, 406, 409, 467, 120(B) Sherkar City, Dist.r/w 34 IPC & Section 3 of Beed MPID ActIn substance, the allegations in the First Information Reports (F.I.Rs.) are to the efect that, Parivartan Urban Multi-::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2019 07:29:55 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2019 07:29:55 :::On maturity of deposits, depositors approached the concerned Branches of the Society to get their returns.They have, however, not been paid their money.It was also found that, false and bogus loan proposals were prepared.Huge amount of such loan proposals have been misappropriated.The depositors, therefore, approached the concerned police stations and gave reports.Based on such reports, aforesaid crimes came to be registered.Shri R.N. Dhorde, learned Senior Counsel representing the applicant Shahaji Shinde would submit that the applicant Shahaji is no way concerned with the Society.He had never been a Director of the Society.The applicant is an old aged person.The applicant is ready to::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2019 07:29:55 ::: A. Bail Appln.No.289/2019 with connected matters (( 5 )) deposit half of the said amount.Learned Senior Counsel, therefore, urged for grant of the applications.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2019 07:29:55 :::Shri S.J. Salunke, learned counsel representing the applicant Jyoti Shivdas Takankhar would submit that, although the applicant was one of the Directors of the Society, she never participated in day-to-day proceedings.She was not a party to the decision making process.The applicant's husband is a Cancer patient.Women Directors of Samajik Parivartan Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha and the Society as well have been released on pre-arrest bail.This applicant too has been released on pre- arrest bail in connection with Crime registered with Majalgaon City Police Station.The applicant herself is the victim of the crime committed by the Chairman.The applicant has deposited a sum of Rs.80,135/- with the Society.The learned counsel, therefore, urged for grant of pre-arrest bail to the applicant.Post 2017, she is no way concerned with the afairs of the Society.There is nothing to indicate the applicant to have siphoned of any amount.The applicant is a Teacher in a school at Majalgaon.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2019 07:29:55 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2019 07:29:55 :::A. Bail Appln.Shri S.J. Salunke, learned counsel representing the applicant Sadashiv Shriram Sherkar would submit that, the applicant was not a member of Board of Directors of the Society.The allegations against the applicant are general in nature.None of the customers has any grievance against the applicant.The applicant and his wife have an account with the Society.A sum of Rs.61,000/- has been deposited by them in the said Account.Learned counsel, therefore, urged for granting the applicant protection from arrest.Learned A.P.P. would, on the other hand, submit that, the applicant Shahaji Shinde was co-opted Director of the Society.Being a Director, he signed the proceeding books and facilitated bogus loan scam to the tune of Rs.1,89,00,000/-.He has illegally received/ misappropriated a sum of Rs.6,17,000/- as per the statement of the Cashier/ co-accused.Over seven crimes have been registered at diferent police stations.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2019 07:29:55 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2019 07:29:55 :::A. Bail Appln.No.289/2019 with connected matters (( 7 ))So far as regards applicant Jyoti Takankhar is concerned, learned A.P.P. would submit that, she being a Director, signed the proceeding book and facilitated the bogus loan scam to the tune of Rs.63,56,552/-.Over six crimes have been registered at diferent police stations.So far as applicant Shubhangi Lokhande is concerned, the learned A.P.P. would submit that, total six crimes have been registered against this applicant with diferent police stations.Amount involved is Rs.3,28,00,000/-.Being a Director, she has facilitated to the bogus loan scam to the tune of Rs.63 Lakhs and more.So far as regards the applicant Sadashiv Sherkar is concerned, learned A.P.P. would submit that, he was the Cashier of the Society.He knew the entire crime details.The applicant maintained records in the form of diaries, indicating how much amount is paid to diferent Directors or their relatives on say of Directors.He is a party to bogus loan proposals.Loan is allegedly shown to be disbursed, but in fact the loan amount has been misappropriated.The record indicates that the applicant Shahaji Shinde::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2019 07:29:55 ::: A. Bail Appln.No.289/2019 with connected matters (( 8 )) is a co-opted Director.He has signed the proceeding book.He has also received a sum of Rs.6,17,000/-.An entry to that efect is found in the diary maintained by the Cashier.As such, prima facie involvement of the applicant Shahaji Shinde is writ large.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2019 07:29:55 :::The applicant Jyoti Takankhar was also a Director of the Society and thus, is a party to bogus loan transactions.So far as regards this applicant is concerned, the amount of misappropriation is close to Rs.1 Crore.She was a Secretary of the Branch, Kada.Being a Secretary, she was a party to the decision making and preparation of documents.The applicant Shubhangi was one of the Directors of the Society.She too was a party to the bogus loan scam amounting to little over Rs.63 Lakhs.About total six crimes have been registered against her.The amount involved in all such crimes is little over Rs.3 Crores.The applicant Sadashiv Sherkar was a Cashier for a longer period.He has maintained a diary, indicating entries of::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2019 07:29:55 ::: A. Bail Appln.No.289/2019 with connected matters (( 9 )) payment of money to the Directors.At the instance of Directors, he is party to preparation of bogus loan proposals.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2019 07:29:55 :::These are the applications for anticipatory bail.Involvement of the applicants in economic ofence is writ large.Hundreds of depositors have been duped.Their hard- earned money has been misappropriated.The Society has been closed.The applicants are thus not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail.Granting them anticipatory bail would send a wrong message in the society, more so when their involvement is prima facie evident.I am, therefore, not inclined to grant them anticipatory bail.The applications thus, fail.The same are dismissed.(R.G. AVACHAT, J.) fmp/-::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2019 07:29:55 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2019 07:29:55 :::
|
['Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
98,515,417 |
[Order of the Court was made by P.R.SHIVAKUMAR, J.] The petitioner is the detenu-Udhayakumar, son of Kasimayan, aged about 25 years.He has been detained by the second respondent by his order in152/BCDFGISSSV/2015, dated 14.11.2015, holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, taking note ofthe ground case in Crime No.800 of 2015 registered on the file of C5 KarimeduPolice Station for offences punishable under Sections 341, 294(b), 324,506(ii) and 307 IPC @ 341, 294(b), 324, 506(ii), 307 and 302 of the IndianPenal Code and the following two adverse cases :-(i) Crime No.1205 of 2014 registered on the file of C.5 KarimeduPolice Station for offences punishable under Sections 392 r/w 397 and 506(ii)of the Indian Penal Code; and(ii) Crime No.175 of 2015 registered on the file of C.5 Karimedu PoliceStation for offences punishable under Sections 392 r/w 397, and 506(ii) ofthe Indian Penal Code.The Detaining Authority, expressing subjective satisfaction that thedetenu conformed to the definition of Goonda and that his presence at largewould be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and public peace, andalso expressing subjective satisfaction that it was very likely that thedetenu would come out on bail in the ground case, passed the impugned detention order.The said order is challenged in the present Habeas CorpusPetition.Though a number of grounds have been raised assailing the order ofdetention, the learned counsel for the petitioner mainly relies on thefollowing contention:-"There was denial of reasonable opportunity to challenge the order ofdetention in an effective manner by the non-supply of a copy of theGovernment Order extending the delegation of power to the DetainingAuthority.The failure to supply a copy of the Government Order even after arepresentation was made in writing seeking supply of the same amounts todenial of reasonable opportunity vitiating the order of detention itself".The submissions made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor inreply to the above said contention raised by the learned counsel for thepetitioner are also heard.So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitionerregarding the non-furnishing of the Government Order is concerned,admittedly, the power delegated to the Detaining Authority was beingperiodically extended by fresh Government Orders passed once in three months and a copy of the latest Government Order extending the delegation, which hasbeen referred to in the detention order, has not been furnished to thedetenu.Though non-furnishing of the same initially may not be taken seriousnote of, when a representation is made seeking supply of a copy of the saidGovernment Order to make an effective challenge to the detention order, suchrequest ought to have been considered properly and the failure to do so andthe mechanical rejection of such request amounts to denial of reasonableopportunity to make an effective challenge to the order of detention.On thatscore alone, the order of detention is liable to be set aside.In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and this Courtsets aside the order of detention dated 14.11.2015, made inNo.152/BCDFGISSSV/2015, by the second respondent, the Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai and directs the release of the detenu, by nameUdhayakumar, son of Kasimayan, aged about 25 years forthwith, if hiscontinued custody is not authorised in specific cases or by any otherdetention order.2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Nagapattinam District, Nagapattinam.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
|
['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
98,518,203 |
The genesis of the prosecution case is in report lodged by the mother of the child victim PW 4-Laxmi Dhurve on 27-3-2014 at Kondhali Police Station, the gist of which is that PW 4 is engaged in labour work and resides along with her husband and daughter, aged 7 years, who is studying in the 1st Standard of Zilla Parishad School.On 27-3-2014 at 11-00 a.m. Laxmibai left the house for attending the labour work, her husband was at home since he did not have work, her daughter-the child victim (PW 3) had gone to school.When Laxmibai returned home at 7-00 p.m., the child victim disclosed that when she was playing in the village, at 2-00 p.m. or thereabout the accused called her to his home and said "I will pay you Rs.100/- if you allow me to have sex with you" (this is broad translation of the vernacular).The accused asked the child victim to remove her knicker, which she refused, the accused forcibly removed her knicker and caressed her breast.The hands and legs of the child victim were held and she was forced to lie on the ground and was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse (the vernacular word used in the report is "LkaHkksx").::: Uploaded on - 26/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2019 23:08:37 :::::: Uploaded on - 26/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2019 23:08:37 :::3 apeal48.19 Laxmibai narrated the disclosure by the child victim to her husband-Laxman (PW5) and then Laxmibai, Laxman and the child victim went to the Kondhali Police Station to lodge report (Exhibit 70).The child victim was examined at the Primary Health Centre (PHC), Kondhali by Dr. Sushant Bahadul (PW 7) who referred the child victim to the Government Medical College, Nagpur.On 28-3-2014, Crime 50/2014 was registered at Kondhali Police Station.The child victim was examined at the Government Medical College, Nagpur by Dr. Mangala Sonak (PW 8).The spot panchanama is proved.I know his signature and handwriting.I can identify the same.I am shown the medical report of examination of accused.It is in the handwriting of Dr. Krunal Sirsat.It bears his signature.The scratch abrasions may be because of nails or any other like object.The report is at Exh.120."The doctor denies the suggestion that he has identified the signature of Dr. Sirsat only because the name of Dr. Sirsat appears below the signature.The suggestion that Dr. Sirsat is avoiding to appear in the Court, is denied.ORAL JUDGMENT :Exception is taken to the judgment dated 28-7-2017 rendered by the Special Judge, Nagpur in Special Child Protection Case 83/2014, by and under which the accused is convicted for offence punishable under Section 6 read with Section 5(m) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and is::: Uploaded on - 26/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2019 23:08:37 ::: 2 apeal48.19 sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to payment of fine of Rs.25,000/-, and in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one year.::: Uploaded on - 26/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2019 23:08:37 :::The accused was arrested on 28-3-2014 and was medically examined.The samples were collected, clothes were seized, statements of the witnesses were recorded and the spot was inspected and after completing the investigation, the charge- sheet was submitted before the Special Court.The Special Judge framed charge (Exhibit 3) under Section 376(2)(i) of the IPC and Section 5(m) of the POCSO Act. The accused abjured guilt and claimed to be tried in accordance with law.The prosecution examined ten witnesses.PW 1-Suresh Bhoyar registered the crime on 28-3-2014, PW 2-Devidas Masram is the witness to the spot panchanama, PW 3 is the child victim, PW 4- Laxmibai is the mother of the child victim, PW 5-Laxman is the father::: Uploaded on - 26/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2019 23:08:37 ::: 4 apeal48.19 of the child victim, PW 6-Chanda Masram is the Sarpanch of the village to whom the incident was disclosed, PW 7-Dr.Sushant Bahadul examined the child victim at PHC, Kondhali, PW 8-Dr.Mangala Sonak is the Assistant Professor who examined the child victim at the Government Medical College (GMC), Nagpur, PW 9-Jiteh Kanpure is the Investigating Officer and PW 10- Dr. Dinesh Akarte was examined to prove the opinion of Dr. Krunal Sirsat who examined the accused at GMC and who was not available to depose since he was critically ill from Blood Cancer.::: Uploaded on - 26/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2019 23:08:37 :::The accused was examined under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Code).The accused denied the incriminating material and the defence is that the accused is falsely implicated in view of the inimical relationship between the accused and the family members of the complainant and the Sarpanch-Chanda Masram.The accused neither stepped into the witness box nor did he examine any witness in defence.The learned Special Judge convicted the accused, as aforestated, relying on the direct evidence of the child victim, the disclosures made by her to her mother Laxmibai (PW 4) and her father::: Uploaded on - 26/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2019 23:08:37 ::: 5 apeal48.19 Laxman (PW 5) and the medical evidence.::: Uploaded on - 26/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2019 23:08:37 :::I have heard the learned Counsel Shri N.P. Mohod for the accused and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri T.A. Mirza for the respondent-State.The material on record and the reasons recorded by the learned Special Judge are scrutinized.The thrust of the submission of Shri N.P. Mohod is that the evidence of the child victim is not reliable.Shri T.A. Mirza submits that the fair and truthful admissions of past quarrel between Laxmibai and the accused is not sufficient to infer that the accused is falsely implicated.Shri T.A. Mirza would submit that rarely, if at all, would a mother concoct a false story of rape using her 7::: Uploaded on - 26/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2019 23:08:37 ::: 6 apeal48.19 years child as a tool only to wreck vengeance.Shri T.A. Mirza would conclude with the submission that the prosecution having established the foundational fact, the burden to rebut the presumption of guilt under Section 29 of the POCSO Act was on the accused, which he failed to discharge.::: Uploaded on - 26/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2019 23:08:37 :::The evidence may now be analysed.However, there is no recovery and seizure from the spot of any incriminatory material.The seizure of the clothes of the accused and the child victim is admitted.The chemical analysis reports of the analysis of the samples of blood, vaginal swab, vulva swab of the victim and the blood sample, perennial swab and nail clippings of the accused are proved (Exhibits 97 to 99).However, since no blood or semen was detected on the clothes or the samples, the evidence is of scant assistance to the prosecution.The edifice of the prosecution is constructed on the evidence of the child victim and the witnesses to whom the incident was disclosed.It is too well settled to necessitate reference to the plethora of precedents that the victim of sexual assault is not accomplice and conviction can rest on the sole testimony of the victim which needs no corroboration.If the evidence of the victim is not found implicitly trust worthy or shaky on material aspects, the::: Uploaded on - 26/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2019 23:08:37 ::: 7 apeal48.19 Court may, short of corroboration, seek assurance from the medical or other forensic evidence.::: Uploaded on - 26/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2019 23:08:37 :::The child victim has deposed that she was playing under a tamarind tree when she was called by the accused to his house.The accused offered her Rs.100/- and asked her to submit to sexual intercourse.The child victim states that she refused and went to the bathroom under the pretext of answering nature's call.The accused entered the bathroom, removed his knicker and that of the child victim.The accused slept on her person and touched his private part to her place of urination.The child victim states that she bit the accused and fled and reported the incident to her grandmother and then to her mother when she returned home.The child victim states that there was swelling and redness in the private parts.The child victim admits that there was a quarrel between her mother and the accused, who is a relative.She admits that she was told of the quarrel by her mother.She further admits that she has come in the Court after studying the matter and that she memorised the incident by heart in the bus and in the Court and that did so lest she forgets.She further admits that PW 6-Chanda Masram told her to give proper statement and not to commit any mistake.On the basis of::: Uploaded on - 26/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2019 23:08:37 ::: 8 apeal48.19 what is elicited in the cross-examination, it is argued that the child witness was tutored.If the child witness has memorised the incident by heart, no inference can be drawn that she is not a truthful witness or that she is a tutored witness.The child witness admits that while playing kabaddi she used to sustain injury.However, the suggestion that the injuries noticed were suffered while she was playing kabaddi, is denied.::: Uploaded on - 26/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2019 23:08:37 :::The evidence of PW 4-Laxmibai is broadly consistent with the contents of the First Information Report.She has deposed that the child victim disclosed that in the bathroom the accused removed her knicker, slept on her person and inserted his organ in the place of her urination.The further disclosure is that the child victim bit the accused, ran away, told the incident to her grandmother and her father and then the police report was lodged.In the cross-examination, PW 4 admits that prior to the incident a quarrel took place between her and the accused in which she fell down and sustained head injury and that she told the accused that::: Uploaded on - 26/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2019 23:08:37 ::: 9 apeal48.19 she would "see him".The details of the alleged incident are not brought on record.When did the quarrel occur is not brought out in the cross-examination.All that is elicited is that the quarrel took place prior to the incident.While PW 4 admits that there was a quarrel between Chanda Masram and the accused and that Chanda Masram had declared that the accused will be punished, she denies the suggestion that the report was lodged at the instance of Chanda Masram.The omission which is proved through the Investigating Officer PW 9-Jitesh Kanpure is that PW 4 did not state in the statement under Section 161 of the Code that the child victim narrated that she went to the bathroom under the pretext of answering nature's call and that the accused followed her and that the child victim bit the accused and ran to the house of the grandmother.::: Uploaded on - 26/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2019 23:08:37 :::PW 5-Laxman Dhurve has deposed that when he went to the house of Bindabai between 4-00 p.m. and 5-00 p.m., he was told of the disclosure made by the child victim to Bindabai.PW 5 then states that when PW 4-Laxmibai returned, PW 5 asked her to enquire with the child victim and then the child victim narrated the incident to PWThe omission which is proved by the Investigating Officer PW 9- Jitesh Kanpure is to the extent that Bindabai told PW 4 that the child::: Uploaded on - 26/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2019 23:08:37 ::: 10 apeal48.19 victim went to the toilet and the accused followed her and that the accused removed the knicker of the child victim.::: Uploaded on - 26/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2019 23:08:37 :::PW 6- Chanda Masram has deposed that she was narrated the incident by Bindabai and, therefore, she met the child victim.PW 6 then states that the child victim narrated the incident to her.She denies the suggestion that she tutored the child victim in view of her strained relationship with the accused.The omission, which is proved, is that Chandabai did not disclose in the statement under Section 161 of the Code that the child victim told her that she bit the accused.In the light of the candid admissions of the child victim and her mother Laxmibai that there was a quarrel between Laxmibai and the accused prior to the incident, I have given my anxious consideration to the submission of the learned Counsel Shri N.P. Mohod that the accused is falsely implicated.I am not inclined to agree, for reasons more than one.I find that the evidence of the child victim is natural, truthful and trustworthy.The evidence of the child victim is corroborated by the evidence of her parents and Chanda Masram to whom the incident was disclosed.The inconsistencies and omissions, which the defence has brought on record, are essentially::: Uploaded on - 26/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2019 23:08:37 ::: 11 apeal48.19 touching the minor particulars of the incident as disclosed by the child victim to PW 4-Laxmibai, PW 5-Laxman and PW 6-Chanda.The credibility of the evidence of the child victim is not diluted by the slight variance and inconsistencies in what other witnesses have stated before the police or in the depositions in the Court as regards the disclosure made by the child victim to the witnesses.The evidence of the child victim is confidence inspiring and although the conviction can raise on her sole testimony, and no corroboration is necessary, as a fact the evidence of the child victim is more than amply corroborated by the evidence of PW 4-Laxmibai, PW 5-Laxman and PW 6-Chanda.The report is lodged with reasonable promptitude, in the factual matrix.That there was strained relationship due to quarrel in the past, is by itself not sufficient to infer that the accused is falsely implicated.The medical evidence further strengthen the case of the prosecution and lends assurance to the evidence of the child victim.::: Uploaded on - 26/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2019 23:08:37 :::At this stage, the medical evidence may be considered.The child victim was first examined at the PHC Kondhali by PW 7-Dr.Sushant Bahadul who deposed that on external examination, he found blood on the vagina and that suspecting sexual assault, the child victim was referred to GMC, Nagpur.PW 7-Dr.Sushant Bahadul states that::: Uploaded on - 26/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2019 23:08:37 ::: 12 apeal48.19 he also examined the accused on 28-3-2014, no external injury was noticed and that the accused was also referred to GMC for forensic opinion.::: Uploaded on - 26/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2019 23:08:37 :::PW 8-Dr.Mangala Sonak was then working as Assistant Professor in the Gynecological Department of GMC.PW 8-Dr.Mangala Sonak found the following injuries :-(i) Contusion left side of labia majora, middle 1/3 region to lower 1/3 region, simple.(ii) Abrasion (linear) present over middle 1/3 area of medical aspect of right thigh, simple.On examination of external genital area, PW 8 found swelling and edema over the left labia majora and redness over labia minora and bruise over clitoris.It is elicited in the cross-examination that the hymen of the victim was intact.The attention of the witness is drawn to the report which states that the evidence related to non penetrative assault is present.PW 8 denies the suggestion that the injuries could be caused by falling on the ground.The evidence of PW 8-Dr.Mangala Sonak, rather than::: Uploaded on - 26/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2019 23:08:37 ::: 13 apeal48.19 discrediting the child victim, as is argued by Shri N.P. Mohod, lends assurance to her version.In Rajendra Datta Zarekar Vs.on right labia majora and right labia minora and laceration of 5 mm.x 2 mm.on right labia minora near the clitoris which was tender to touch.The hymen was intact and there was no fresh or old tears to hymen.The hymnal border was bruised, edematous and tender to touch.Dealing::: Uploaded on - 26/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2019 23:08:37 ::: 14 apeal48.19 with the submission that since the hymen was intact, charge under Section 376 of the IPC must fell.The Hon'ble Apex Court observes thus :::: Uploaded on - 26/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2019 23:08:37 :::::: Uploaded on - 26/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2019 23:08:37 :::The medical examination report (Exhibit 120) issued by Dr. Krunal Sirsat is proved by the prosecution by examining PW 10-Dr.Dinesh Suresh Akarte.The learned Special Judge has not relied on the report Exhibit 120 since the author thereof was not examined.The learned Special Judge did refer to the provisions of Section 32(2) of the Indian Evidence Act, but then, gave no reason not to invoke the said provision and concluded that since the prosecution did not examine the concerned doctor, he is not relying on::: Uploaded on - 26/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2019 23:08:37 ::: 16 apeal48.19 the medical report.PW 10- Dr. Dinesh states thus in the examination-in-chief.::: Uploaded on - 26/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2019 23:08:37 :::Thus :-"I am working in GMC, Nagpur from four years.I am qualified as MD in Forensic Medicines.Previous enmity is ultimately a double edged sword, it can be both a motive for the crime and cause of false implication.::: Uploaded on - 26/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2019 23:08:37 :::::: Uploaded on - 26/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2019 23:08:37 :::::: Uploaded on - 26/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2019 23:08:37 :::The judgment impugned calls for no interference.The appeal is without substance and is dismissed.JUDGEadgokar ::: Uploaded on - 26/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2019 23:08:37 :::::: Uploaded on - 26/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2019 23:08:37 :::
|
['Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
9,851,822 |
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in S.T. No. 340 of 2019 arising out of Case Crime No. 765 of 2019, under Sections- 304 IPC, Police Station- Kotwali, District-Kheri.Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.
|
['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.
|
98,519,478 |
Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) as non refundable deposit to the credit of the Tamil Nadu Advocate Clerk Association, Madras High Court, Chennai (Indian Bank, High Court Branch, A/c No.484026006, IFSC Code:IDIB000M157) and on such deposit, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Cheyyar, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a separate bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that:[a] the petitioner and the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left 3/6http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.8240 of 2020 Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity.[b] the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) as non refundable deposit to the credit of the Tamil Nadu Advocate Clerk Association, Madras High Court, Chennai (Indian Bank, High Court Branch, A/c No.484026006, IFSC Code:IDIB000M157).08.06.2020 Internet : Yes/No ssr To.The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvannamalai.http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.8240 of 2020O.P.No.8240 of 2020 08.06.20203.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and he did not commit any offence as alleged by the prosecution and they have been falsely implicated in this case.Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.[c] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation.[d] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.[e] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.[f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560].[g] If the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.The Judicial Magistrate, Cheyyar.Sub - Inspector of Police, Brammadesam Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.8240 of 2020 N.ANAND VENKATESH,J ssr Crl.
|
['Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
98,522,645 |
Heard on I.A. No.21614/2018, an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellants.Appellants stand convicted for an offence punishable under Section 147 of the IPC and have been sentenced to undergo RI for 1 year with fine of Rs.100/- in default of payment of fine additional RI for 2 months, under Section 325/140 (2 counts) of the IPC and have been sentenced to undergo RI for 2 years (each counts) with fine of Rs.200/-(each counts) in default of payment of fine additional RI for 3 months (each counts) and under Section 323/149 (4 counts) of the IPC and have been sentenced to undergo RI for 6 months (each counts) with fine of Rs.100/- (each counts) in default of payment of fine additional RI for 1 month (each counts) of each appellants.He also submits that there are many contradictions, omissions and improvements in the version of the prosecution witnesses.He further submits that there are fair chances to succeed in the case.The final hearing of this appeal will take time.The custodial sentence awarded to the appellants shall remain suspended during the pendency of this appeal.Appellants Golan, Hemraj, Munna, Gulthain Alias Bhagwansingh, Govind, Ajabsingh and Gudda Alias Khetshing be released from custody subject to their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.They shall appear and mark their presence before the trial Court on 11.03.2019 and shall continue to do so on all such future dates as may be given in this behalf, during pendency of the matter.(RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) JUDGE sp Digitally signed by SAVITRI PATEL Date: 2018.12.24 14:52:34 +05'30'
|
['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 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.
|
985,229 |
Case of Prosecution could be stated thus:-Deceased Child-Surya alias Manimekalai (hereinafter referred to as "Surya") is the Daughter of P.W.1-Vaidyanathan.On the afternoon of 08.12.1999, Surya was found playing with one small Scooter Tyre and Stick (M.Os.4 and 5).In the afternoon, the Accused approached P.W.8-Mahalingam and asked for money by pledging the Tiffin Carrier.Later, the Accused gave his Watch (M.O.1) to P.W.8-Mahalingam and taken Rs.50/-.At the request of the Accused, P.W.9-Fasil went to the Toddy Shop for purchase of liquor.At that time, the Accused went to his house.Then the Accused and P.Ws.8 and 9 had consumed liquor.The Accused asked P.Ws.8 and 9 to come with him to his house.Since P.W.8-Mahalingam refused to come with him, the Accused had taken P.W.9 and one Sankar to his house.In the house, the Accused asked P.W.9 to find out what is floating in the Water Pond.P.W.9 and Sankar were reluctant to get inside the Water Pond.Later, the Accused called his Father; the Accused himself got into the Water Pond and had taken the body of the Child - Surya.The body of the Child - Surya was handed over to P.W.17-Premanandam, who in turn handed over to P.W.18-Karthikeyan, Uncle of the Child.Registration of case and Investigation:- On 09.12.1999 - 08.30 a.m. P.W.1-Vaidyanathan lodged Ex.P.1-Complaint in Karaikkal Town Police Station to the effect that his Daughter Surya alias Manimekalai, eight years old was found floating in the Water Pond at Thalatherupet on the backside of the house of the Accused and the cause of the death is not known.On the basis of Ex.P.1-Complaint, P.W.25-Sub-Inspector of Police registered the case in Crime No.494 of 1999 under Sec. 174 Crl.P.W.25-Sub Inspector of Police had taken up initial Investigation.Scene of occurrence was inspected in the presence of Witnesses.P.8-Observation Mahazar and Ex.The Accused is also residing at Kaliamman Koil Street, Thalatherupet.JUDGMENT R. Banumathi, J.Appellant is the Accused in S.C.No.48 of 2000 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Karaikkal.By the Judgment dated 11.12.2001, learned Sessions Judge has convicted the Appellant / Accused under Sec. 302 I.P.C and sentenced him to undergo Life Imprisonment and also imposed fine of Rs.1000/-.The Appellant was also convicted under Sec. 201 I.P.C and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and also under Sec. 354 I.P.C and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year.P.16-Rough Sketch were prepared regarding the scene of occurrence.From the scene of occurrence, M.O.4-One Scooter Tyre, M.O.6-one pair of muded Chappals, M.O.7-Small Stick and Sample Mud collected were seized under Ex.P.7-Seizure Mahazar.Witnesses were examined in the presence of Panchayatars and Inquest was held on the body of the deceased Child - Surya.P.9 is the Inquest Report.After the Inquest, body was sent to Government Hospital, Karaikkal for Post Mortem.Pursuant to requisition from P.W.25-Sub Inspector of Police, P.W.23-Dr.Narasimhamurthy has conducted the Autopsy.He has noted varying sizes of Abrasions all over the body.He has further noted, "...larynx, trachea congested vertical tear in carotid, sheath, artery either side seen, hyoid bone - G, cornua found fractured on left side junction of body...."P.W.23 opined that the death is due to Asphyxia due to throttling.Ex.P.14 is the Post Mortem Certificate.On the basis of the Inquest Report (Ex.P.9) and the opinion of the Doctor-P.W.23 as to the cause of the death, P.W.25-Sub Inspector of Police has altered the case from Sec. 174 Crl.P.C to Sec. 302 I.P.C.P.W.26-Inspector of Police has taken up the further Investigation.Pursuant to his Confession Statement, M.O.8-T-Shirt, M.O.9-Jeans Pant and M.O.10 series - Two buttons were seized under Ex.P.13-Seizure Mahazar.On the basis of the Confession Statement of the Accused, Sec. 354 I.P.C was further added to the existing offence under Sec. 302 I.P.C. The Accused was sent for Chemical Examination.K.Sriram examined the Accused and opined that "...there is nothing to suggest that the person Jayashankar is incapable of performing sexual intercourse.Seized material objects were sent to Chemical Analysis.On completion of the formalities of the Investigation, the Accused was charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 354 I.P.C.In the Trial Court, to substantiate the Charge against the Accused and to establish the circumstances, P.Ws.1 to 26 were examined.P.1 to P.16 were marked.M.Os.1 to 10 were remanded to Court.The Accused was questioned under Sec. 313 Crl.P.C about the incriminating evidence and circumstances against him.Aggrieved over the verdict of Conviction and Sentence, the Appellant / Accused has preferred this Appeal.Attacking the improbabilities of the occurrence, learned counsel for the Appellant / Accused has submitted that the child could not have been sexually molested and throttled to death during the day time without drawing the attention of others.Taking us through the evidence of P.W.9, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the evidence of P.W.9 would clinchingly shows the conduct of the Accused in insisting P.W.9 and Sankar to come to the Water Pond to bear Witnesses for taking out the body of the Child-Surya which would go a long way in establishing the culpability of the Accused and that the verdict of conviction is well reasoned warranting no interference.We have carefully considered the submissions of both sides, Judgment of the Trial Court and the circumstances relied upon by the Prosecution and the evidence on record to substantiate those circumstances.In our view, the following points arise for our consideration:-Whether the Accused is proved to be responsible for the Homicidal death?On the afternoon of 08.12.1999, P.Ws.1 and 13 had their Noon Meal and P.W.1 had a snap after the Lunch.Child - Surya had gone out to play with a Scooter Tyre with Stick (M.Os.4 and 7).She was playing in the Street.House of the Accused is situated on the Northern side of the Street.The Water Pond is situated at a distance of about 120 feet on the backside of the house of the Accused.The Water Pond is well separated by Thorny Fence (fUnty Ks;ntyp).10 feet lane leads towards North.The house of the Accused and the Water Pond are partly separated by the fence on the East and West side.Under such circumstances, for a Child like Surya, who is new to the place, cannot easily get to the Northern Side of the Water Pond unless being lured.For the floating of body of Child - Surya in the Water Pond, the Accused is reasonably expected to offer explanation.The defence has explained that the death was by accidental fall; shortly we would refer that this defence version is not supported by Medical evidence.Case of Prosecution is that Child - Surya was last seen alive in the company of the Accused and that the Accused had taken the Child through the lane adjacent to his house at about 12.00 noon.To establish this vital link, P.W.10-Suseela - Resident of Thalatherupet was examined.On the crucial aspect that the Accused had taken the Child through the lane, P.W.10 has not supported the Prosecution case and on that aspect she turned hostile.Though P.W.10 was treated hostile, it is not as if her evidence is rendered useless.Evidence of P.W.10-Suseela is to the effect that she saw the child - Surya playing on the western side of the road and that the Accused also went on the Western side.While the Accused had taken Tobacco from P.W.10, he was found to be wearing Jeans Pant and T-Shirt;Thereafter, the Accused was not seen for about 3/4 Hrs;Thereafter, the Accused was found changed his dress to Lungi and Shirt.The above aspects lend assurance to the Prosecution case to the extent that possibly the Accused could have taken the Child.Evidence of P.W.10-Suseela is contradictory to the Prosecution case that she had seen the Child-Surya alive at 02.00 - 02.30 p.m. But as per the Charge, the Accused is alleged to have committed the offence at 12.00 noon.We are to observe that the prevarication regarding time of occurrence is replete through out the Prosecution case.In our considered view, such contradiction regarding the time of occurrence in the Charge and the evidence forthcoming would not in any way affect substratum of the Prosecution case.Notwithstanding the hostility of P.W.10-Suseela, her evidence goes to prove that Child-Surya was playing on the Western side with a Scooter Tyre and Stick (M.Os.4 and 5) and that the Accused proceeded towards the Western Side.The evidence forthcoming through P.W.9 regarding the conduct of the Accused is of great importance.At that time, the Accused came there asking for money pledging his Tiffin Carrier.Later, the Accused had taken Rs.50/- from P.W.8 by pledging his Watch (M.O.1).The Accused had given Rs.30/- to P.W.9 and asked him to purchase Liquor.When P.W.9 came back, the Accused was not there.P.W.9 was waiting in the house of P.W.8 with Liquor.The Accused came there nearly after 3/4 Hrs. P.Ws.8 and 9 and the Accused together consumed Liquor.After so consuming Liquor, the Accused repeatedly insisted P.Ws.8 and 9 to come to his house.After reluctance, P.W.9 accompanied the Accused to his house along with one Sankar and the Accused had taken them to the Water Pond.Showing the floating object - body of deceased Child - Surya, the Accused asked P.W.9 to see as to what is floating in the Pond.P.W.9 informed the Accused that the floating object appears to be a cloth bundle.The Accused also called his Father.After his Father came, the Accused himself got into the Water Pond and taken out the body, thereby attempting to create an impression as if death of the Child - Surya was by accidental fall.The conduct of the Accused in insisting P.W.9 to accompany him to take out the body is only to show as if he knows nothing.This conduct of the Accused is the strong piece of evidence leading to the inference that he had the knowledge of the floating body and that with a view to cause destruction of evidence, he has immersed the body in the Water Pond.This circumstance is a high degree of probability pointing to the guilt of the Accused.Initially, the case was registered under Sec. 174 Crl.During Autopsy, P.W.23-Dr.Narasimhamurthy has noted abrasions all over the body:-Right Eye-brow ; Right Ear;Lateral side of Neck; Upper 1/3 of left arm;At this juncture, it is appropriate to refer that there were no signs of drowning.Stomach contained 200 cc semi digested food materials, which is the last meal of the deceased.That apart, Lungs were also found to be congested as seen from Ex.P.14-Post Mortem Certificate.Lungs congested on cross section frothy fluid blood exuate present.Heart distended with dark fluid blood.Congestion of internal organs and absence of water in the Stomach contents clearly shows that the body must have been thrown into the Water Pond after death.The defence version is that the death has been caused due to accidental fall of the Child inside the Water Pond.Had there been accidental fall as suggested by the defence, in the process of struggle for life, there would have been huge intake of water.Congestion of internal organs and absence of water in the Stomach contents improbabilises the defence version.Defence has put forth a suggestion to P.W.23-Medical Witness that the deceased might have fallen into the Water Pond in unconscious stage.For that suggestion, P.W.23 has answered that "...if a person become unconscious and falls on water any by chance of taking water into his lungs is very little....".On the basis of the above answers of P.W.23, it is contended that had the Child has become unconscious and fallen into the water by chance, signs of drowning would not be found.The defence is not able to substantiate as to how child - Surya become unconscious and fallen into the Water Pond.Further, varying sizes of Abrasions found on the body of Child - Surya coupled with the medical evidence that the death was due to Asphyxia due to throttling improbabilises the defence version that the death was due to accidental fall into the Water Pond.Conduct of the Accused:- After registration of the case, the Accused could not peacefully sleep in his house.Perhaps feeling remorse, the Accused had taken his bed in Kaliamman Temple.P.W.12-Mariappan, resident of the same street went to Kaliamman Temple after dinner in the night at about 08.00 - 08.30 p.m. He saw the Accused lying down in the Temple with Lungi and Shirt.P.W.12 laid down in the Temple for some time and thereafter, left to his house.Next day morning around 06.00 a.m, when P.W.12 went around the Temple, the Accused was not seen.The conduct of the Accused in avoiding his house and sleeping in the Temple is a strong piece of evidence militating against the Accused.The Accused was arrested on 13.12.1999 - 11.30 a.m. at Sembanarkoil.When being interrogated, the Accused had given confession Statement.On the basis of his Confession Statement, M.O.8-T-Shirt, M.O.9-Jeans Pant and M.O.10 series - Two buttons were seized under Ex.P.13-Seizure Mahazar from the house of the Accused - Front Verandah.His Confession Statement also lead to the recovery of M.O.1-Watch from P.W.8 with whom he had pledged to get money for consuming Liquor.The presence of same mud particles in M.Os.8 and 9 as that of M.O.7-Sample Mud seized near the Water Pond is yet another clinching circumstance against the Accused.
|
['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
985,284 |
Soon thereater, a large number of police officers (without uniform), armed with lathis and other weapons and shouting slogans against Shri Barai, barged into his court room.The court peon Shri Bishundeo Sharma who tried to shut the door was brutally assaulted.Shri Barai apprehending danger to his life, rushed to his Chambers and managed to bolt the door.Unruly mob forcibly broke open the door, overpowered the bodyguard and assaulted Shri Barai.They reiterated their demand for unconditional release of Jokhu Singh.Due to the manhandling Shri Barai felt dizziness and became unconscious.It was due to timely arrival of a team of doctors that his life was saved.The police personnel after assaulting Shri Barai and his court staff, took away certain records and damaged the doors and grills of the gate.They also assaulted some of the lawyers and damaged their furniture and motor vehicles parked inside the court compound.Since at the relevant time the District & Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur had gone to Banka for holding camp court and Shri Barai was not in a position to send any report, the 5th Additional District & Sessions Judge sent a report to the High Court narrating the incident.On the next day, on return from Banka, District & Sessions Judge also enquired into the matter and submitted a detailed report.In the report the names of police officials who were identified by the court staff, Shri Barai and the lawyers were also disclosed.The Chief Secretary and the Director General of Police were directed to affirm on affidavits regarding the steps taken by the State Government in the matter relating to the incident.On 25th November, 1997, all the contemners appeared through their respective advocates.On a request made the hearing was postponed to 10th December, 1997 to enable them to file their detailed replies to the show cause notice.Chief Secretary filed his affidavit indicating that the Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police after holding a detailed inquiry, had in his report, disclosed names of nine police officials namely (i) K.D. Choudhary, the then Officer Incharge, Kotwali, (ii) Ranjit Pandey, the then Sergeant Major, Bhagalpur, (iii) Ms. Shashi Lata Singh, the then S.I., (iv) K.B. Singh, the then Thana Incharge, Harijan P.S. Bhagalpur, (v) Gurubachan singh, the then S.I., (vi) Daroga Singh, the then S.I., (vii) Prem Kumar Singh, the then S.I. (Officer Incharge Kajraili), (viii) Rajeev Ranjan Bhagar, the then S.I., and (ix) C.D. Jha, the then ASI Bhagalpur.J U D G M E N TWithCriminal Appeal No. 317 of 1998, Criminal Appeal No. 318 of 1998, Criminal Appeal No. 332 of 1998 & Criminal Appeal No. 396 of 1998BHAN, J.The instant criminal appeals arising from a common judgment relating to the same incident, depict a rare, unfortunate and condemnable act of the police officials who contrary to the duty enjoined upon them to protect and maintain law and order, indulged in the act of attacking in a pre-planned and calculated manner Shri D.N. Barai, Ist Additional District and Sessions Judge, in his court room and Chambers on 18th November, 1997 at Bhagalpur in the State of Bihar.Facts of the present case:In Sessions trial No. 592 of 1992, the Investigating Officer (Jokhu Singh) was examined as a witness on 7th May, 1997 in the Court of Shri D.N. Barai, Ist Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur.Thereafter the case was adjourned to several dates but this witness did not appear for the cross-examination.In spite of that Jokhu Singh did not appear.Once again the witness did not turn up.The Court, therefore, having no other option issued a notice to Jokhu Singh to show cause why proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') be not initiated against him.Ultimately, on 27th August, 1997 the case was adjourned to 20th September, 1997 and to procure his presence, non-bailable warrant was issued.On this date also the witness did not turn up.On 17th November, 1997, Jokhu Singh appeared in the court in the afternoon.A petition for bail was filed on his behalf after the court hours.It was directed that the same be placed for hearing on the next date.Shri K.D. Choudhary, one of the appellants who was an office bearer of the Policemen's Association at District Level and was posted as SHO of the Police Station in the evening of the same day went to the Chambers of Shri Barai for release of Shri Jokhu Singh on execution of a personal bond.Shri Barai did not agree.Thereafter he approached the District Magistrate and on the basis of his advice he met the District Judge and renewed his demand for release of Jokhu Singh, which was declined.On 18th November, 1997, when the bail petition of Jokhu Singh was taken up, the learned counsel appearing on his behalf made a prayer seeking withdrawal of the bail application.Accordingly, the bail application was dismissed as withdrawn.They are (i) A. Natarajan, the then Superintendent of Police, Bhagalpur (ii) Harihar Prasad Choudhary, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bhagalpur, (iii) K.D. Choudhary, the then Inspector of Police, Kotwali P.S., (iv) Ms. Shashi Lata Singh, the then S.I., (v) Daroga singh, the then S.I. (vi) P.K. Singh, the then S.I., (vii)Rajib Rajan Dayal alias Bhagat, the then S.I., (viii) Gurubachan Singh, the then S.I., (ix) Krishna Ram, the then Inspector of Police, (x) C.D. Jha, the then A.S.I., (xi) K.N. Singh, the then Officer Incharge of Harijan P.S. Bhagalpur and (xii) Ranjit Pandey, the then Sergeant Major, Police Line, Bhagalpur.On 19th November, 1997, on the basis of the report sent by the 5th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur dated 18th November, 1997, Original Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 24 of 1997 was registered and placed before a Bench of the High Court for admission.Along with the said case Civil Writ Petition C.W.J.C. No. 10625 of 1997 filed on behalf of the Young Lawyers' Association was also listed.The Director General of Police found the officers, named above, guilty for the alleged incident and condemned the police officials for their act.It was also mentioned in the affidavit that the State Government, acting on the basis of the report of the Director General of Police, had issued different orders, suspending all such officials from service.Besides the departmental proceedings, different criminal cases were also lodged against them.On the adjourned date of hearing, the Court recorded the statement of (i) A. Natarajan, the then S.P., (ii) Harihar Choudhary, the then DSP, (iii) K.D. Choudhary, the then Inspector of Police, Kotwali P.S., (iv) Ms. Shashi Lata Singh, the then S.I., and (v) Ranjit Pandey, the then Sergeat Major, Bhagalpur.The Superintendent of Police in his statement fairly narrated a part of the incident and identified certain more names, like Awadhesh Singh, Subodh Kumar Yadav and Aswan, Vice-President of the Association who, according to him, had also taken part in the alleged assault.The court issued notices to these three persons also calling upon them to show cause why they be also not proceeded for the criminal contempt.The officials whose statements had been recorded were directed to file their additional or supplementary replies to the show cause on the next date of hearing.On 10th December, 1997, all the contemners appeared and filed additional or supplementary replies to show cause notice.The Superintendent of Police in his supplementary reply disclosed names of 14 more police officials and constables, who, as per his inquiry, had also taken part along with the main persons named earlier.They are (i) Ram suresh Singh 'Nirala', SI, (ii) Sriram Singh, ASI, (iii) Ram Rekha Pandey, SI, (iv) Shivji Singh, SI, (v) B.N. Singh, ASI, Kotwali, (vi) Sukh Narain Sharma, SI,(vii) D.D. Singh Officer Incharge, Tatarpur P.S., (viii) Gopalji Prasad, SI,(ix) Madhusudhan Sharma O/c Sultanganj P.S., (x) Awadesh Singh, Constable, (xi) Subodh Kumar Yadav, Constable, (xii) Ram Prakash Paswan, Constable, (xiii) Dilip Ojha, Treasure, Policemen's Association, Bhagalpur, and (xiv) Anil Kumar Soren, General Secretary, Policemen's Association.Notices were issued to the above-named persons as well along with copies of the report calling upon them to show cause by 8th January, 1998 as to why they be also not proceeded with the criminal contempt.On 9th January, 1998 all the contemners including those fourteen against whom notices were issued on 10th December, 1997 appeared and filed their replies to the show cause notice.At the same time, affidavits were also filed on behalf of Shri Barai, Ist Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur and his staff namely R. Das and B.Sharma and some of the lawyers of the Bhagalpur Court namely Shri M.P.Singh, President Bar Association, Bhagalpur, Shri Y.K. Rai, Secretary, Advocate Assiciation and S/Shri N.K. Choudhary, J.K.,Gupta (Secretary, Bar Association), B.N. Mishra and S.C.Pandey, Advocates.Copies of the affidavits filed were served on their opposites on 16th January, 1998 all the learned advocates appearing for different parties fairly accepted that copies of all the material brought on the record so far was properly served on the advocates appearing for the contemners and those who were appearing in support of the contempt proceedings.Show cause notice had been issued to 26 persons.Except for one or two the remaining asserted that they were not involved in the incident and were on duty elsewhere at the relevant time.In proof of such defence they attached their duty chart etc.After considering the relevant evidence on the record, and after taking due care and caution to see that innocent persons are not punished the High Court dropped the proceedings against the contemners other than Shri K.D. Choudhary, Ms. Shashi Lata Singh, Daroga Singh, P.K. Singh, Rajib Ranjan Bhagat (Dayal), Gurubachan Singh, C.D. Jha, K.N. Singh and Ranjit Pandey.Shri K.D. Choudhary was found to be the ring leader of the contemners and was imposed with the punishment of undergoing simple imprisonment for a period of three months and the remaining eight to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months.It was made clear that the discharge of rule of contempt notice of the proceedings against the other seventeen would not absolve them of their misconduct and guilt for their respective offences, if any.In other words, the departmental proceedings initiated by the State Government and the criminal cases registered against them would not be affected by the disposal of the proceedings in the criminal contempt.The Presidents of the three Bar Associations and the Advocate General were present and heard before initiating the proceedings for the criminal contempt.Having regard to the fact that contempt proceedings are to be decided expeditiously in a summary manner the convictions have been recorded without extending the opportunity to the contemners to cross examine those who had deposed against them on affidavits.Though the procedure adopted in this case was summary but adequate safeguards were taken to protect the contemners' interest.The contemners were issued notices apprising them of the specific allegations made against them.Due opportunity was afforded to all the contemners and after verifying and cross checking the material available before it, coming from different reliable sources the High Court convicted only nine persons out of twenty six persons arrayed as contemners before it.The High Court took due care to ascertain the identity of the contemners by cross-checking with the affidavits filed by the different persons.When a judge is attacked and assaulted in his court room and chambers by persons on whose shoulders lay the obligation of maintaining law and order and protecting the citizen against any unlawful act needs to be condemned in the severest of terms.If judiciary has to perform its duties and functions in a fair and free manner, the dignity and the authority of the courts has to be respected and maintained at all stages and by all concerned failing which the very constitutional scheme and public faith in the judiciary runs the risk of being lost.It was urged with some vehemence that principles of natural justice were not observed in as much as opportunity to cross examine the witnesses who had deposed on affidavits is concerned it may be stated that no such opportunity was asked for in the High Court at trial stage.It was for them to ask for such an opportunity to cross examine the parties who had deposed against them on affidavit.They were given full opportunity to put forth their point of view.Each of them filed detailed affidavits along with evidence in support thereof.They had attached their duty charts showing that they could not have been present at the place of occurrence as they were on duty somewhere else.High Court has considered and discussed the entire evidence present on the record before recording the conviction.The contention that the affidavits of independent witnesses were not considered cannot be accepted.Only those were convicted against whom corroboration of the fact of their presence and participation in the incident was confirmed from more than one source.Plea that reasonable and adequate opportunity was not afforded to the appellants is equally untenable.We find from the record that all the material (affidavits, show cause notice etc.) which were brought on record was properly served on the learned advocates appearing for the contemners.The reports submitted by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, District Judge affidavit of Shri Barai and his staff, namely, R. Dass and B. Sharma and the other affidavits of the advocates who had seen the occurrence and the reports submitted by the Director General of Police and the Superintendent of Police were given to the learned advocates who were appearing in the contemners in the High Court.Statements of A. Natarajan, the then S.P., Harihar Chaudhary, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ranjeet Pandey, the then Sergeant Major and Shashilata Singh, the then S.I. were recorded by the High Court in the presence of all the lawyers.The Registry of the High Court was directed to keep their statements in a sealed cover.The contemners were permitted to file affidavits and produced any other material in support of the same.They were also permitted to file affidavits of any other person supporting their version.They were all taken on record.After affording due opportunity of hearing to the counsels appearing for the contemners the High Court recorded the order of conviction.Thus the appellants were given the evidence which had come on the record.They were given an opportunity to controvert the allegations made against them and produce evidence in support thereof.Counsel appearing for the contemners were satisfied with the opportunity provided to them by the High Court.Plea that reasonable opportunity was not afforded to the contemners was not raised before the High Court.We are of the opinion that due reasonable and adequate opportunity was afforded to the appellants to defend themselves and put forth their point of view.The High Court has taken into consideration the entire evidence and material available on the record including the evidence produced by the contemners.It was not necessary for the High Court to discuss each and every affidavit individually.Out of 26 persons named only 9 have been convicted by the High Court.Since the procedure adopted was summary the High Court has taken care not to convict a person unless direct evidence and/or circumstances with sufficient corroborative material doubtless fastening guilt on the contemners who have been punished was available.The High Court found only those contemners guilty against whom the element of doubt was completely eliminated.Affidavit evidence if based on hearsay has been excluded.Contemners against whom there was single identification were also given the benefit of doubt.Learned counsel for the appellants tried to point out that the appellants were not present at the scene of incident as the appellants were on duty elsewhere.He made reference to their duty charts which had been placed on record.We find that the presence of S/Shri K.D. Choudhary, Ranjit Pandey, Ms. Shashi Lata Singh, K.B. Singh, Gurubachan Singh, Daroga Singh, Prem Kumar Singh, Rajeev Ranjan Bhagar and C.D.Jha, appellants herein has been confirmed by several persons.The plea of ali bi taken by the appellants has been negatived by the High Court as the duty charts had been prepared by these officers themselves.None of the superior officers supported their versions.No doubt the appellants had been suspended initially but in due course they have been reinstated.Some of them have retired as well.Inaction on the part of the authorities resulted in emboldening others to commit similar acts.In Arun Paswan (supra), proceedings for criminal contempt were initiated against the appellant therein pursuant to the complaint lodged by the District & Sessions Judge, Sasaram addressed to the Registrar General of the High Court of Patna.In the report it was stated, inter alia, that S.I. Arun Paswan (contemner) was directed to produce the case diary in case No. 2000/2001 under Sections 302 and 201/34 I.P.C. As the investigation officer did not appear in the case on the date fixed the District & Sessions Judge issued notice requesting the investigation officer to appear personally to show cause as why he should not be prosecuted under Section 349 Criminal Procedure Code.Sessions Judge had done.Jokhu Singh had appeared as a witness.To secure his presence a non-bailable warrant had to be issued.He avoided the service of non-bailable warrant of arrest and appeared in the Court in the late hours.Copies of this judgment shall be circulated to the Registrar General, High Court of Patna and the Chief Secretary of the State of Bihar for being brought to the notice of all concerned.The appeals are dismissed.The appellants who are on bail shall forthwith surrender to their bail bonds and taken into custody to serve out the sentences as passed by the High Court of Patna.The Director General of Police, Bihar is directed to ensure compliance with this order by securing presence of all the appellants to serve out the sentences passed on them by the High Court.We place on record our appreciation for the invaluable assistance rendered to the Court by Ms. Meenakshi Arora, who appeared as Amicus Curiae at our request.
|
['Section 228 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
98,532,961 |
This is the first bail application filed by the applicants under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail apprehending their arrest in connection with crime No. 365/14 registered at police station Karera, District Shivpuri for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 326, 294, 506-B/34 of IPC.Case diary is received from the concerned police station.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants were arrested during investigation on 20/07/2014 and they were released on bail by the police station.Thereafter during investigation, offence u/S 326 of IPC has been further added on the basis of medical report, owing to which the police again wanted to arrest them.Learned counsel further submits that cross-case bearing crime No. 366/14 u/S 323, 325, 294 and 506-B read with Section 34 of IPC has also been registered upon the complainant party.On the aforesaid ground learned counsel for the applicants has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.Learned Public Prosecutor opposing the submission made on behalf of the applicant has prayed for rejection of the bail application.On perusal of the case diary it is evident that during investigation applicants were arrested and then released by the concerned police station.Offense u/S 326 of IPC has been added after receipt of medical report.No further arrest of the applicant is M.Cr.C. No. 7500/ 2 0 1 4 necessary in this case.C. No. 7500/ 2 0 1 4The applicants shall comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by them;The applicants shall cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;The applicants shall not indulge themselves in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.C.C. as per rules.(M. K. Mudgal) Judge neetu
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
9,859,302 |
Thereafter, victim Khadiya was taken in the house of Jagadamba Khare and the appellants had assaulted him.Hakka (PW1), brother of the victim Khadiya, went to the Outpost Mohendra of P.S. Simaria, and gave a written report Ex.P/1 with the statement that Khadiya is still in the house of Jagadamba.At Outpost Mohendra a case was registered and thereafter, it was transferred to the Police Station Simaria.(Delivered on the 5th day of September, 2012) The appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 6.1.1997 passed by the Special Judge under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act in ST.No.69/1994 whereby the appellants were convicted for offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter it will be mentioned as the "Special Act") and sentenced for six months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/-.In default of payment of fine one month's rigorous imprisonment was also directed.The prosecution's story in short is that, on 18.8.1994 at about 7-7.30 p.m in the evening, the victim Khadiya (PW2) was going from his field to his house at Village Thigri (Police Station 2 Criminal Appeal No.280 of 1997 Simaria, District Panna).In front of the house of Jagadamba Khare, the appellants abused the victim Khadiya with obscene words and words based upon his caste.They have told to the victim Khadiya that why he was not living like a Chamar.The victim Khadiya was sent to the hospital for his medico legal examination.He found six injuries to the victim Khadiya situated on left scapula, left forearm, left ear, right hand, right feet and right hip.He was referred for the X-Ray examination.Dr. Singh (PW5) took the X- Ray of the victim Khadiya and gave a report Ex.He found a fracture of the right tibia bone to the victim Khadiya.After due investigation a charge sheet was filed before the Special Judge, Panna.The appellants abjured their guilt.They have stated that they were falsely implicated due to the enmity.They never assaulted the victim on the basis of the caste or otherwise.To prove the enmity one Bhatti (DW1) was examined.After considering the evidence adduced by both the parties the learned Special Judge acquitted the appellants from 3 Criminal Appeal No.280 of 1997 the charges of offence punishable under Section 3(1)(xiv) of the Special Act and convicted them for offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Special Act and sentenced as mentioned above.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that according to the prosecution's story no offence was committed at the public place.It was not told by the witness Khadiya that the appellants told him to live like a Chamar.On the contrary he has accepted that there was enmity with the appellants since last five years and therefore, the victim Khadiya was not ready to do the work of the appellants and therefore, no offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Special Act is made out against the appellants.In reply to the contention of the learned Panel Lawyer, it is further submitted that, there was no charge of offence punishable under Sections 325 or 323 of I.P.C was framed by the trial Court and therefore, at present where the incident is 18 years old it would be injustice to remand the case for trial for offence punishable under Section 325 read with section 34 of I.P.C.On the other hand the learned Panel Lawyer has submitted that the conviction and sentence directed by the trial Court appears to be correct whereas the trial Court has not framed the charges under Section 325 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. Khadiya sustained a grievous hurt due to the assault caused by the appellants and therefore, the appellants are culprits 4 Criminal Appeal No.280 of 1997 for the offence punishable under Section 325 read with Section 34 of I.P.C.After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties it is to be considered whether the appellants could be convicted for offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Special Act ? Whether the case may be remanded for trial of the appellants for the charge of offence under Section 325 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C ? And in alternate whether the sentence directed against the appellant can be reduced ?In the case Hakka (PW1) and Khadiya (PW2) were examined as eye witnesses whereas witness Ramroop (PW3) turned hostile and Shokhilal (PW7) has stated that it was Ramasare who, informed about the incident.Bhatti (DW1) has shown his ignorance about the incident.It is admitted by the witness Hakka (PW1) that when he reached to the spot the appellants confined his brother Khadiya in the house of Jagadamba Khare and therefore, if the appellants abused Khadiya then such incident of abuse took place prior to the arrival of the witness Hakka and therefore, statement given by the witness Hakka cannot be considered as an eye witness because he did not hear the words by which the appellants abused the victim Khadiya.FIR Ex.P/1 was lodged without any delay but, it is no where clear as to when Khadiya was released from the custody of the appellants or whether he was sent to the hospital directly from the house of Jagadamba Khare.Criminal Appeal No.280 of 1997Khadiya (PW2) has stated that he is a Chamar by caste and the appellants held him and assaulted him and thereafter, he was dragged in the house of Jagadamba Khare.His hands and feet were tied and the appellants were abusing with filthy abuses and giving him a threat that he would be killed.In the entire statement before the Court, Khadiya (PW2) did not say that the appellants abused him on the basis of the caste or they assaulted him due to his caste.Khadiya has accepted in para 4 of his statement that there was enmity with the appellants since last five years and therefore, he was not doing any work for the appellants since last five years.It was the reason for assault done by the appellants upon Khadiya.Under such circumstances, looking to the evidence given by the victim Khadiya it is apparent that neither the appellants abused him on the basis of the caste nor he was assaulted because of his caste and therefore, due to assault it cannot be said that the appellants insulted the victim Khadiya on the basis of his caste.The complainant Hakka (PW1) has quoted some abuses on the basis of the caste but, it appears that he mentioned those abuses by his own suspicion.He went to the spot after much time where Khadiya was taken in the house of Jagadamba Khare and therefore, neither the witness Hakka saw the assault done upon the victim Khadiya nor he heard any abuses given by the appellants.Under such circumstances, the evidence given by the witness Hakka (PW1) and FIR Ex.Under such circumstances, by the statement of the 6 Criminal Appeal No.280 of 1997 victim Khadiya (PW2) it is not established that the appellants ever insulted him on the basis of the caste and therefore, the learned Special Judge has erred in convicting the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Special Act.On the contrary the appellants were acquitted from the charge of offence punishable under Section 3(1)(xiv) of the Special Act. Under such circumstances, without the charges of offence punishable under Section 325 read with Section 34 of I.P.C and without any State Appeal the appellants cannot be convicted at present for the offence punishable under Section 325 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C.Incident took place in the year 1994 and the appellants have faced the trial and appeal for last 18 years.Under such 7 Criminal Appeal No.280 of 1997 circumstances, it would be a hardship to the appellants if the case is remanded to the trial Court for a trial of the appellants for offence punishable under Section 325 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. Under such circumstances, it is not possible for this Court to remand the case for retrial at this later stage.On the basis of the aforesaid discussion it is apparent that the appellants cannot be convicted for offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) act and therefore, the trial Court has erred in convicting them for such an offence.Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellants is hereby allowed.(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE 5.9.2012 bina 8 Criminal Appeal No.280 of 1997
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
98,594,893 |
a This is first application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. as the hy applicants apprehend their arrest in connection with Crime ad No.140/2017 registered at Police Station GRP Bina, District M Sagar (M.P.) for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 294, 325, 342, 506-B, 365/34 of the IPC.of As per prosecution case, on 04.05.2017 at about 11 PM, rt when complainant/injured Ankit Victor was standing near ou Ramesh Sonkar's shop at Mission Compound, Bina, District Sagar, at that time applicant and other co-accused persons C assaulted him by rod, stick and knife and took him to Sagar Gate h on motorcycle where they again assaulted him.Then ig they took him to co-accused Sandhya Jain's house situated at H Ram Ward Bina, where they again assaulted the complainant/injured Ankit Victor.At that time co-accused Sandhya Jain also assaulted injured Ankit by knife in his stomach.In the incident, the complainant/injured Ankit Victor sustained injuries injuries on his head, back, hands and legs.Father of the complainant/injured Ankit Victor lodged the report.On that, the police registered Crime No.140/2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 294, 325, 506, 34, 365 & 342 of IPC and arrested the applicant.Name of applicant is not mentioned in the FIR.Only on the basis of memorandum of co-accused, Police made the e ad applicant, accused in the case.Applicant is ready to cooperate in the investigation and trial.In the event of arrest, his reputation Pr will be ruined.Under these circumstances, applicant prays for release on bail.a hy Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposes the prayer.The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments e ad during the trial; andThe applicant will not leave India without previous Pr permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.a hy C.C. as per rules.ad (RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) M JUDGE of rt ou as C ANURAG SONI h 2017.11.07 ig 12:49:01 +05'30' H
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
9,860,415 |
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that respondent no.2 who was driving the offending vehicle at the time of the accident, was not holding any driving licence at the time of the accident and as such, there is a breach of the terms of the policy.Respondents no.2 and 3 did not produce driving licence despite notice, Ex.903/2012 Page 1 of 2Vide order dated 11th January, 2017, this Court requisitioned the record of the criminal case relating to FIR No.774/2007, P.S. Paschim Vihar.The original record has been perused.Respondent no.2 as well as respondent no.3 did not produce the driving licence in response to the appellant's notice under Order 12 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure.Respondents no.2 and 3 have also not produced the driving licence before the learned Tribunal.Copy of this judgment be given dasti to counsel for the appellant.903/2012 Page 2 of 2
|
['Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
98,613,151 |
By passage oftime, the parties have decided to bury their hatchet and compromise thedispute amicably among themselves.The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedingsin Crime No.253 of 2017, on the file of the first respondent, for an allegedoffences under Sections 294(b), 324, 448 and 506(ii) of IPC and altered into307 of IPC.A Joint Memo of Compromise has been filed before this Court whichhave been signed by the petitioners and the second respondent and also bytheir respective counsel.The petitioners and the second respondent werealso present in person before this Court and they have also produced thecopies of the Aadhaar Card which are made part of the record.This Courtalso enquired both the parties and was satisfied that the parties have cometo an amicable settlement between themselves.Under such circumstances, no useful purpose will be served inkeeping the First Information Report pending.Even though, the offencesinvolved are not compoundable in nature.In the light of the guidelinesgiven by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2017 9 SCC 641-(Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai Vs.This Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a sequel, theproceedings in Crime No.253 of 2017, on the file of the first respondent, isquashed and the terms of Joint Compromise Memo shall form part and parcel of this order.Each of the petitioners shall pay a sum of Rs.500/- as costs,to the credit of the Rojavanam, Home for aged and poor, AccountNo.6481560540, Indian Bank, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this orderand file a photocopy of the receipt along with a memo reporting compliance inthe Registry.1.The Inspector of Police, Sivagangai Town Police Station, Sivagangi District.2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
|
['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
98,613,538 |
CRM 9163 of 2014 BD Re: An application for bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 23rd July, 2014 in connection with Basirhat Police Station Case No. 549/2014 dated 25.04.2014 under Sections 120B/325/326/354B/307/449/270/436/511/34 of the Indian Penal Code.In the matter of : Gunasindhu Barman & Others.... Petitioners Mr. Shiladitya Sanyal, Mr. Kallol Kr.Basu, Mr. Debapriya Samanta, Mr. Souvik Chatterjee, ... For Petitioners Mr. Saibal Bapuli, Mr. Sujan Chatterjee.... For State Heard learned advocate of both the parties.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, allowed.(Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, J) (Sudip Ahluwalia, J)
|
['Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
98,615,096 |
On the ground that while working as a Civil Judge Class-II and a Judicial Magistrate First Class Mhow, Distt.Indore in the year 2001-02, petitioner had committed various acts of commission and omission.A charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner.In the charge-sheet issued, five allegations were imputed.(11/07/13) As per Rajendra Menon, J:-Petitioner a Judicial Officer has filed this writ petition challenging the orders Annexure P-1 dated 28/10/05 imposing a punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect and the subsequent order passed rejecting his appeal.2. Facts in brief necessary for deciding this writ petition goes to show that in the year 2007 when this petition was filed, petitioner was posted as Civil Judge Class-II Khachrod, Distt.Petitioner's reply to the charge-sheet was found to be unsustainable and, therefore, the District Judge (Vigilance) Indore was appointed as an enquiry officer.The enquiry officer conducted the enquiry and submitted a detailed report Annexure P-14 on 2 17/12/04 by which charge no. 2 and 4 was said to have been proved.Based on the report of the enquiry officer, matter was placed before the Administrative Committee No. 1 and, thereafter, a show- cause notice was issued to the petitioner.
|
['Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
97,412,807 |
He has deposed that on 28th October, 1995 at about 5.00 p.m., he was present in his office when father of the appellant No.1 along with his another son Harish came from outside and started climbing up the stair case.After some time father of appellant no.1, Brijesh, called his son Harish up-stairs.Harish went up-stairs and called this witness (PW-1) also.On reaching the first floor, he found that the wife of Brijesh (appellant No.1) was hanging from a ceiling fan with the help of a chunni.PW-1 further deposed that the father and the brother of appellant No.1 tried to lift Shubha and also tried to open the knot while saying that there was still some life in her and he should also help them in saving her.However, since the knot could not be opened, the same was cut with a kitchen knife and thereafter Shubha was made to lie down on a takht.In the cross-examination, PW-1 denied the suggestion that quarrel used to take place in the family of the appellants.12. PW-2, Om Prakash, is the father of the deceased.No demand for dowry was made at the time of marriage.However, dowry articles within his means were given including colour TV, bed, fridge, jewellery and other articles.Appeal No.713/2004 Page 7 of 47 After 3-4 months of the marriage, the appellants started demanding dowry.PW-2 has further deposed that appellants demanded a sum of Rs.However, despite paying Rs.20,000/-, appellants continued to harass his daughter.In the year 1993, Shubha left the appellants and came to his house and remained there for about two years.During this period, his daughter had taken up a job in a school at Gurgaon and used to get a salary of Rs.1200/- per month.The child born out of the wedlock was also staying with them.As per PW-2, it is during this period that his daughter had informed him that the appellants used to harass her.They did not provide her with proper food and used to throw sarees on her face and hence his daughter was not willing to return to her matrimonial home.In the year 1995, appellant No.1 met Shubha in her school and sought to take her back to the matrimonial home.Shubha then asked him to talk to her father.The father of the deceased further deposed that two or three days later, appellant No.1 came to meet him and assured him that he would not maltreat his daughter in future and thereafter he did advise his daughter to go back to her matrimonial home and stay with the appellants.PW-2 informed appellant No.1 that he Crl.Appeal No.713/2004 Page 8 of 47 cannot arrange the entire amount but he would arrange upto Rs.50,000/-.On 21st October, 1995, appellant No.1 again came to his house in order to take the sum of Rs.1,50,000/- from him.PW-2 has also deposed that on 22nd October, 1995, his daughter came to the house in connection with money and also told him that she was not willing to go back.He had also told his daughter that he would send Rs.50,000/- within a day or so and that she should return to her matrimonial home.On 28th October, 1995, his daughter was killed as she was not able to get Rs.50,000/-.This witness (PW-2) has deposed that on 28th October 1995 at about 4.00 pm, appellant No.1 (Brijesh) and appellant No.2 (Pushpa Devi) along with Rajinder and Sumitra had come to their house with his grand son.While appellant No.1 stayed in their house, appellant Pushpa Devi and other persons went to meet some relation in Gurgaon.Brijesh had told him that his daughter was not well.He had asked Brijesh as to why he had left his daughter at the matrimonial home alone.The appellant had then gone to make a STD call.After some time Brijesh informed that Shubha had met with an accident.In the meanwhile, a telephone call was received at the house of his friend Jai Singh Verma that Shubha had committed suicide by hanging.Verma had informed him of this fact.PW-6, Saraswati is the sister of deceased-Shubha and an important witness in this case.This witness has deposed that on the date of marriage itself her sister came to know that the appellant No.1 was unemployed and he had not been earning any money.As per PW-6, this fact was disclosed to her when her sister came to the house for fera ceremony.Dowry articles were also thrown at the deceased by appellant No.1 and appellant no.2 (mother-in-law of Shubha) had said that sarees were not according to their choice.Dowry was demanded when her sister had returned back after the fera ceremony.According to this witness, the demand was made for a motor cycle, Rs.One lakh and Colour TV.Shubha was also taunted that articles given in the marriage were sub-standard.PW,6 deposed that, however, her mother had told Shubha that huge expenses were incurred in the marriage, therefore, they would not be in a position to give Crl.Appeal No.713/2004 Page 13 of 47 any money immediately but assured that demand would be met in due course of time.As Per PW-6, her sister was tortured.Appellant No.2 also used to beat her sister which was disclosed to her by her sister who also showed injuries on her person.Further, Shubha used to be turned out of her matrimonial house appellants made to stand outside the house the whole night.In the month of December, 1991, Rs.20,000/- was paid by the father of the deceased to the appellants.However, the harassment continued since only Rs.20,000/- were paid against the demand of Rs.One lakh.This witness further deposed that her sister was brought back to her parental house by her brother on the occasion of Rakhi when she disclosed that she was being tortured.Appellant No.1 had left Shubha at the parental house and said that he would not take her back to the matrimonial home till the time their demand is met.Her sister started living in Gurgaon and started working in a school alongside pursuing her higher studies.She started preparing for MBA, besides M.Com.In April, 1995, appellant No.1 approached her sister in the school and told her that he wanted to take her back in the matrimonial home and he would not insist upon fulfilling their earlier demand of Rs.She told the police that accused Rajinder told Brijesh to send her sister to his house at Aligarh.She was confronted with Ex.Information regarding death of her sister was received by her at about 8.00 pm when she telephoned her brother.After receiving information about the death of her sister, she did not come to Delhi.She denied the suggestion that her sister used to remain unwell and that she was treated in St.Stephan Hospital.She, however, volunteered that she was Crl.Appeal No.713/2004 Page 18 of 47 treated in St.Stephan hospital during her pregnancy.She also denied the suggestion that appellant, Brijesh, took her sister to various hospitals for proper treatment of her sister.She has deposed that usual items of dowry were given at the time of marriage but the appellants were not happy with that dowry.As per PW-8, her daughter was insulted and condemned on the ground that dowry given in the marriage was inadequate the appellants used to harass her daughter.Jeeja of appellant No.1 also used to harass her daughter.Even during pregnancy her daughter was not given proper care.Sister of the appellant No.1 had given her a medicine because of which the deceased vomited blood.However, she did not know the name of the jeeja.As per PW-8, her daughter was given beating by appellant No.1 and his jeeja.A sum of Rs.20,000/- was also given within one year of marriage.Appeal No.713/2004 Page 19 of 47 Her daughter was tortured by not being given food.The kitchen was also kept locked so that her daughter may not enter the kitchen for taking meals.After some time, the appellant had met the deceased at the school and begged pardon and persuaded her to return to the matrimonial home and assured that she would be kept quite happy.Believing the assurance of appellant no.1, her daughter returned to the matrimonial home.However, on her return again the harassment started after a week.Her daughter was made to stand outside the room in the night time and in this way she was tortured.PW-8/DA, where it was not so recorded.She had also deposed during her cross-examination that she had stated before the SDM and the Police that her daughter was made to stand outside the house and kept for a long period at night.She was confronted with Ex.PW-8/A and Ex.PW-8/DA, where it was not so recorded.She was confronted with her statement made before the SDM as well as before the Police with regard to demand of Rs.1,50,000/- and with regard to payment of Rs.50,000/- and also arranging for Rs.50,000/- by selling some land, which was not so recorded before the SDM or the Police.Besides the appellant no. 1, seven witnesses were examined by the defence.According to DW-1, who is the neighbour, Shubha was suffering from low blood pressure and also from loose motion and vomiting.20. DW-2, Vinod Jain, has deposed that he is a tenant of appellant no.1 and Shubha was ill and sometimes she used to get fits and doctor used to be called, however, relationship between Brijesh and his wife were cordial.He also deposed that in-laws of Brijesh wanted to take their grand-son away, however, Brijesh wanted to keep his son which resulted in a quarrel between them.Similarly, as per the evidence of the mother of the deceased, it is the appellant no.1 who had left the daughter back to the parental house and it is he who took her back and no role at all has been given to the mother-in-law.Similarly the evidence of DW-4 (Dr.Balraj Yadav) can be of no help to the defence, as Dr.Balraj Yadav is only a Ayurvedic Practitioner and he has deposed that each time the deceased came to him, he had referred her to Hindu Rao Hospital or St. Stephen Hospital and on one such occasion when she had come, she was on the family way, and on the second occasion she had come after her abortion.PW-5, Dr. Ashok Kumar Sethi in his evidence has stated that he had treated Shubha for abdominal pain, loss of appetite, hyper acidity and weakness.The Defence had also examined Dr. C.K. Cherian, Head of the Department, St. Stephen Hospital, in support of their contention that Shubha was ill.The present appeal has been filed under Section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as, Cr.P.C.) against the judgment dated 15th September, 2004 and order on sentence dated 17th September, 2004 by the appellant No.1, who is the husband of the deceased, and appellant No.2, who is the mother-in-law of the deceased.By virtue of the said judgment, appellant no.1 and 2 were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence under Section 498A IPC together with fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default of the payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment for another six months.Appellant no.1 was also convicted and sentenced to undergo fourteen (14) years rigorous imprisonment Crl.Appeal No.713/2004 Page 1 of 47 and appellant No.2 was convicted to eight (8) years of rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 304 B IPC.Appeal No.713/2004 Page 1 of 47Customary articles forming dowry were given at the time of marriage.Marriage lasted for about 5 years during which period the couple was blessed with a son.The marriage came to an end on 28th October, 1995 when Shubha committed suicide by hanging herself.The case set up by the prosecution is that the alleged demands of dowry made upon the deceased by her husband and her in-laws as well as the harassment and torture inflicted upon her for non-fulfilment of the demands had driven Shubha to end her life by hanging herself by a ceiling fan in her room.FIR was registered under Section 498A/304B/406 IPC and under Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Charge under Section 498A/34 IPC and Section 304B/34 was framed against the appellants herein.During trial, thirteen (13) witnesses were examined by the prosecution, eight (8) witnesses were examined by the defence.Appellant No.1 had also examined himself as a witness.According to the appellants Shubha committed suicide as she was tired of her weak state of health and constant illnesses.Counsel for the appellants submits that the judgment passed by the learned trial court is illegal and contrary to the material on record as well as the settled principles of law.It is contended that the learned trial court gravely erred in not appreciating that there is no cogent and believable evidence available on record to Crl.Appeal No.713/2004 Page 2 of 47 hold the appellants guilty of the offence under Section 498A or 304 B IPC.It is next contended that the learned trial court failed to take into consideration the fact that basic requirements of Section 304 B IPC were not fulfilled herein.The learned trial court, it is contended, completely lost track of the fact that in order to convict a person under Section 304 B IPC, it was mandatory for the prosecution to prove that soon before death, the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the appellants for or in connection with any demand of dowry.Counsel contends that in the present case even in the charge sheet there is no allegation regarding any incident about the harassment of deceased soon before she committed suicide.Counsel for the appellants submits that PW-2, Om Prakash, father of the deceased did not utter a single word nor made any allegation especially against appellant No.2 regarding harassment for demand of dowry.It is contended that none of the witnesses i.e PW-2, Om Prakash, father of the deceased; PW- 8, Sumitra, mother; and PW-6, Saraswati, sister of the deceased, in their statements before the police or before the court have alleged any incident of harassment of the deceased by the appellants for and in connection with demand of dowry soon before the occurrence.Learned counsel for the appellants next submits that there are material contradictions between the statements made by the witnesses i.e father, mother and sister of the deceased.Counsel for the appellants submits that the trial court has failed to consider that at the time of occurrence, none of the appellants were present in the house.Appeal No.713/2004 Page 3 of 47 that the complainants did not lodge any complaint for more than 72 hours after the incident.This delay has been unexplained in view of the fact that the incident took place on 28 th October, 1995 and the FIR was lodged on 31st October, 1995 when the statement was made to the SDM.Appeal No.713/2004 Page 2 of 47Appeal No.713/2004 Page 3 of 47Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant also submits that evidence of the prosecution witnesses is not trustworthy and no credence can be given to the evidence which is inconsistent and unreliable.It is also contended that the learned trial court gravely erred in disbelieving the version of the defence witnesses.Even otherwise, it is contended that the trial court erred in awarding the sentence of 14 years to appellant No.1 and 8 years to appellant No.2 under Section 304 B IPC and that the sentence awarded is disproportionate to the allegations made in the case.It is contended that even as per the statement of PW- 2, father of the deceased, there was no demand of dowry at the time of marriage, which would show that the conduct of the appellants was not greedy.Thus, the learned trial court has failed to apply its judicious mind which has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice.Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond any shadow of doubt.He submits that on a careful reading of the testimony of material witnesses, it has clearly been established that on account of the persistent demands made by the appellants as well as her being subjected to cruelty in relation to dowry, Shubha ended her life by hanging and thus, there is no infirmity Crl.Appeal No.713/2004 Page 4 of 47 in the judgement and order of conviction.Counsel for State submits that the deceased had left her matrimonial home on an earlier occasion as well and stayed with her parents for approximately three years uptil April, 1995, and the same would show that she was being harassed throughout her matrimonial life.Appeal No.713/2004 Page 4 of 47In response to the submissions of counsel for the State, counsel for appellants submits that the deceased had left her matrimonial home on account of the fact that the appellant No.1, her husband, was without a job and his financial condition was not good and that not because she was harassed for dowry.It is submitted that during this period of separation no report was lodged with the police, which would go to show that the deceased had left her matrimonial home not on account of cruelty, harassment or demand of dowry but on account of the fact that her husband was without a job and also that she wanted economic independence.Counsel for the appellant further contends that admittedly the appellant No.1/husband had met the deceased in April, 1995 at the school where she was teaching.There was no discussion with respect to dowry and no pre-condition was imposed on the appellant No.1, at the time of her return.The father of the deceased has categorically deposed that no demand for dowry was made at the time of marriage.Counsel for the appellants also submits that the appellants have been falsely implicated in the case.Counsel for the appellant has also contended that there is no evidence brought on record to show that cruelty or harassment was meted out to the Crl.Appeal No.713/2004 Page 5 of 47 deceased for bringing insufficient dowry and in absence thereof, the ingredients of Section 304 B of the IPC cannot be said to have been proved.It is also contended that one of the essential ingredients for convicting a person under Section 304 B IPC is that the woman must have been soon before her death subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with the demand of dowry.Appeal No.713/2004 Page 5 of 47STATE OF W.B. reported at 2008 (1) SCC 202 as well as on TARSEM SINGH VS.STATE OF PUNJAB reported at 2008 (16) SCALE 148 to canvass his arguments that before convicting a person under Section 304 B IPC, all the basic mandatory ingredients have to be satisfied.It is contended that in this case, the deceased was not subjected to cruelty and harassment much less in connection with demand for dowry or that any demand in connection with dowry was made soon before her death.Counsel has also contended that assuming without admitting that any demand for dowry was Crl.Appeal No.713/2004 Page 6 of 47 made, there was no live link between the demand of dowry and the death of Shubha.Appeal No.713/2004 Page 6 of 47On reaching Delhi he saw the dead body of his daughter in the mortuary.His statement was recorded by the SDM.Appeal No.713/2004 Page 7 of 47Appeal No.713/2004 Page 8 of 47During cross-examination, PW-2 has stated that he did not meet any police official or SDM on 28th October, 1995 but met the SDM Crl.Appeal No.713/2004 Page 9 of 47 on 29th October, 1995 as he was not in a fit state of mind.He did not give any statement before the SDM on 29th October, 1995 nor did he lodge any complaint before the SDM or any police official regarding harassment of his daughter by the appellants for dowry.His statement was recorded by the SDM in his court on 30th October, 1995 when he gave all the details in his statement.In the cross-examination PW-2 further stated that he had not stated before the SDM that money was demanded directly from him prior to 21st October, 1995 nor had he specifically stated in his statement that his daughter disclosed to him that appellants had demanded money.He had, however, stated before the SDM that appellants had been demanding money from his daughter but he could not tell the date, month and place when a sum of Rs.20,000/- was given to appellant No.1, Brijesh.He also stated that he had not given any specific incident of harassment of his daughter nor had he given the manner in which his daughter was harassed or treated with cruelty and by which appellant.He also did not tell the SDM that the sum of Rs.20,000/- was demanded but immediately thereafter he improved his version and stated that Rs.50,000/- was demanded.In his cross-examination he, however, stated that he had told the SDM that money was demanded but he did not tell that dahej was demanded.In his statement Ex.PW2/A at point Y' SDM had wrongly mentioned dahej which was scored out by him.He also denied the suggestion that his daughter was never harassed or treated with Crl.Appeal No.713/2004 Page 10 of 47 cruelty by appellants, Brijesh and Pushpa.He denied the suggestion that between 28th October, 1995 to 30th October, 1995 he had stayed in the house of the appellants and asked for custody of the child and on refusal he has falsely implicated the appellant by making a statement against him.PW-2 stated that he had deposed before the Police/SDM that during the period of two years when his daughter stayed with him, she had disclosed that appellants used to harass her and did not provide her with proper food and used to throw sarees on her face.He was confronted with Ex.PW2/A where it had not been so stated.Appeal No.713/2004 Page 9 of 47Appeal No.713/2004 Page 10 of 4714. PW-3, Sh.Jai Singh Verma, is the neighbour of the father of the deceased, who has stated that Shubha had remained with her father for about three years after marriage on account of matrimonial acrimony between her and her husband.However, he was not aware about the reasons of the matrimonial discord.On 28th October, 1995, he had received a call at about 4.00 pm from Pahadi Dhiraj, Delhi that Shubha had committed suicide by hanging herself.He had then informed Om Prakash about this incident.This witness was cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor.He denied the suggestion that Shubha ever disclosed to him that her husband and her in laws used to harass her and beat her on account of not providing dowry.He also denied the suggestion that Shubha had told him that her husband wanted to start a business and, therefore, told her that she should bring Rs. One lakh from her parents.He was confronted with the portion of Crl.Appeal No.713/2004 Page 11 of 47 the statement where he said so before the police.He, however, deposed that Rs.20,000/- was paid to appellant No.1 in his presence in the year 1991 but he could not say whether the same was given to meet the demand of dowry.He was confronted with the portion of the statement where he had said so.He also denied that Shubha had telephoned him and informed that her husband and in-laws were demanding money and were harassing her and they may even kill her.He was, however, confronted with the portion of the statement where he had said so.PW-3 also denied that he had stated that Brijesh had left Shubha at her parental house in 1993 after beating her.He was confronted with the portion of the statement where he had said so.He further deposed that he did not ask Shubha the reason for her sadness.He further deposed that Shubha did not tell him that she was mentally and physically harassed by the appellants or her in laws and that she was not being given proper food and that her in laws used to threaten that they would kill her.He further said that he did not state these facts before the police.He was confronted with the portion of his statement where it was so recorded.PW-3 denied the suggestion that appellant Brijesh took Shubha with him after assuring that he would keep Shubha nicely.He also denied the suggestion that Shubha had telephoned him again to inform that her husband and in laws were harassing her and were beating her in the same manner in which they were treating her earlier.He deposed that Om Prakash, father of the deceased, did not console her that things would become normal with the lapse of time.He denied Crl.Appeal No.713/2004 Page 12 of 47 the suggestion that he had stated the said facts before the police.He was confronted with the portion of his statement where it was so recorded.He further deposed that Om Prakash never informed him that appellant Brijesh and his family members were demanding a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- and that he did not assure Om Prakash that he would make efforts to arrange a sum of Rs.50,000/-.He also deposed that he had not stated the above facts to the police.He was confronted with the portion of his statement where it was so recorded.PW-3 denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely in order to save the appellants.He also denied the suggestion that he had been won over by the appellants.Appeal No.713/2004 Page 11 of 47Appeal No.713/2004 Page 12 of 47One lakh.The matter was settled and her sister went back to the matrimonial home.However, soon thereafter appellant No.1 started torturing her sister and demanded Rs.1,50,000/- from her sister.This demand was not disclosed to her parents but only disclosed to this witness.Shubha was not allowed to talk to the neighbours and she would be insulted in front of the visitors.PW-6 deposed that her father Crl.Appeal No.713/2004 Page 14 of 47 had told Shubha that he would sell the land and give Rs.50,000/- as demanded.However, in spite of selling the land and making arrangement for Rs.50,000/- her sister died.She also deposed that 15 days prior to the death of her sister, Rajinder, the elder jeeja of appellant No.1, came to the bedroom of Brijesh and when her sister found Rajinder lying in her bedroom she asked Brijesh as to why Rajinder had been lying in her bed room, and to this Brijesh replied that this was nothing and they would blacken her face in future.The Brother, sister and mother of appellant No.1 (Brijesh) were present at the roof when Brijesh told this to his wife.As per PW-6, these facts were told to her by her sister when she came to Gurgaon 3-4 days prior to the date of incident, and that PW-6 had not disclosed these facts to her father but were disclosed to him after the death of her sister.In her cross examination, she has stated that 3 or 4 days prior to death of her sister she had told her father that in her last visit Shubha had informed her that motorcycle and colour TV was being demanded.She further deposed that demand for dowry was made on the very next day of her marriage.However, she was confronted with the statement made before the police where she had not said so.PW-6 stated that she had stated before the police that Pushpa Devi (mother-in-law) used to beat her sister.However, she was confronted with the portion where she had not said so.During cross-examination this witness could not tell the date, month or year of torture.She could also not tell as to which appellant tortured her sister and in what manner and on which date.She stated that her sister was not allowed to go to Crl.Appeal No.713/2004 Page 15 of 47 doctor for treatment of injuries on her person.She deposed that she had told the police that appellant used to turn her sister out of the house in the night and she used to remain standing outside the house the whole night.She was confronted with her statement Ex.PW6/A where it had not been so recorded.However, she was confronted with her statement where it was not so recorded.Similarly, according to this witness, following statements were made by her before the police:-Appeal No.713/2004 Page 13 of 47Appeal No.713/2004 Page 14 of 47Appeal No.713/2004 Page 15 of 47(a) Brijesh had told her sister to bring Rs.20,000/-against demand of Rs.One lakh.With regard to both these statements, she was confronted with Ex.PW6/A where it was not so recorded. PW-6 further deposed that she had not stated before the police that appellant no.1 Brijesh used to demand Rs.1,50,000/- for starting a business.However, she was confronted with the portion A' to A' of Ex.PW6/A where it had been so recorded.She was also confronted with the portion of the statement with respect to the demand of Rs.1,50,000/- and that her sister asked her not to disclose the same to the parents.She had also not stated so in her statement that her sister was confined in the house and was not allowed to talk to the neighbours.In the cross examination PW-6 had further deposed that after 3-4 days of the death of her sister, she had disclosed to her father whatever was told to her Crl.Appeal No.713/2004 Page 16 of 47 by her sister in her last visit.Before the death of her sister, her parents came to know about the demand of motor cycle and colour TV by the appellants from the deceased (Shubha).After about two months of the marriage, her mother told her sister (deceased) that they would not be able to meet the demand in view of the fact that huge expenses were incurred in the marriage.She deposed that she had stated before the police that demand was raised on the very next day of marriage.She, however, was unable to tell the date or month of year when her sister disclosed to her that the appellants had been demanding articles and money from her.She had stated before the police that her mother told her sister that she would not be able to meet the demand of appellants as already huge amount had been spent in the marriage.She was confronted with the portion of her statement where it was not so recorded.She had stated before the police that Pushpa Devi used to beat her sister.She was confronted with her statement where it was not so recorded.However, she could not tell the date, month and year of torture.Similarly, she was not able to say as to which appellant tortured her sister in what manner and on which date.Her sister did not go to the Doctor for treatment of injuries on her person.She, however, volunteered to say that she did not do so, as had she gone to the Doctor, her parents would have come to know about this and further that there was no Doctor in the vicinity of their house.The sister of the deceased further deposed that she had stated before the police that appellants used to turn her sister out of the house in the night and she used to remain standing Crl.Appeal No.713/2004 Page 17 of 47 outside the house whole night.She was confronted with her statement Ex.PW6/A where it was not so recorded.She denied the suggestion that her sister was kept nicely and that no dowry was demanded at any time.She also denied the suggestion that her sister was not tortured or harassed on the point of dowry or otherwise by any of the appellants.She had not stated before the police that accused Brijesh was demanding Rs.1,50,000/- for starting his business.She was confronted with portion A' to A' of her statement where it was not so recorded.PW-6 further deposed that she had stated before the police that the appellant used to keep her sister confined to the house and they used to see that the deceased did not talk to any neighbour.She was confronted with Ex.PW6/A where it was not so recorded.She had stated before the police that on one occasion Rajinder slept in the bed room of her sister and when her sister objected the said act, appellant Brijesh told that it was nothing and they would blacken her face in the future.She was confronted with Ex.She also denied the suggestion that after the death of her sister, her father wanted to take custody of Dushyant (son of the deceased and Brijesh) and for that purposes several sittings took place between her parents and the appellants and that since matter regarding custody of child could not be settled her parents made a false statement implicating the appellants.She also denied the suggestion that her father took Dushyant against the wishes of appellants.PW-6 further stated that the appellant Brijesh had filed a case in Gurgaon seeking custody of the child.She denied the suggestion that appellant Brijesh visited their house several times but they did not allow him to meet the child.Appeal No.713/2004 Page 16 of 47Appeal No.713/2004 Page 17 of 47Appeal No.713/2004 Page 18 of 47She was reprimanded frequently saying that she even did not know how to knead the floor and how to cook.Jeeja of appellant Brijesh was the master mind.PW-8 further deposed that appellant No.1 had deserted her daughter and left her at their house saying that only after meeting his demand of dowry he would take her back.She further deposed that after 3 years of marriage, appellant no.1 deserted her daughter and left her at the parental house, in view of the fact that the demand of dowry had not been met.The method of torture was suggested by the Jija of the accused.The articles which were given customarily were not accepted heartily.As per PW-8, her daughter had made these complaints when she had visited her and also told that she was beaten bitterly.It is also deposed (by PW-8) that appellant no.1 had demanded a sum of Rs.50,000/-, and subsequently a demand of Rs.1,50,000/- was made which amount could also not be given, as the same was Crl.Appeal No.713/2004 Page 20 of 47 not available.She also deposed that 3-4 days prior to her death, her daughter had told her that Jija of appellant no.1 shared the bed with her at night and Jija of the appellant no.1 used to misbehave with her in an indecent manner.In her cross-examination, this witness has stated that there was no dowry demand before solemnization of marriage or at the time of marriage.In her cross-examination, this witness (PW-8) has further deposed that in her statement before the Police and the SDM she had stated that appellants were not happy and satisfied with the dowry given in marriage.She was confronted with Ex.PW-8/A made before the SDM where it was not specifically recorded.Neither it was so specifically recorded in the statement (Ex.PW-8/DA) made under section 161 Cr.P.C. PW-8 further stated that she had made a statement before the SDM and the Police that appellants had demanded a colour T.V. and a motorcycle.She was confronted with Ex.PW-8/A and Ex.PW-8/DA, where it was not so recorded.She denied the suggestion that demand of Rs.1,00,000/- was made for business purposes.She stated in her cross-examination that she had made a statement before the Police and the SDM that during the time of pregnancy her daughter was not given proper care by the appellants and further she was told by her daughter that sister of the appellant, Brijesh gave such medicines which caused vomiting of blood.She was confronted with Ex.PW-8/A and Ex.Furthermore PW-8 Crl.Appeal No.713/2004 Page 21 of 47 deposed that during investigation she had stated that her daughter was given beating by appellant, Brijesh and his Jija.She was confronted with Ex.PW-8/A and Ex.PW-8/DA, where it was not so recorded.She deposed that she had stated before the SDM regarding demand of Rs.1,00,000/-.She was confronted with Ex.PW-8/A and Ex.She in her cross-examination also stated that she did not lodge any complaint either with the Police Station or in Women Cell or anywhere before the death of her daughter regarding alleged harassment and demand of dowry.She denied the suggestion that her daughter used to remain ill and was got treated from St. Stephen Hospital, Delhi.Appeal No.713/2004 Page 19 of 47Appeal No.713/2004 Page 20 of 47According to this witness she had given Shubha medicine for low blood pressure as she was also taking the same.Appeal No.713/2004 Page 22 of 47 She further deposed that Brijesh, appellant no.1 had also taken Shubha to the hospital for getting ultrasound done and for treatment and she had also accompanied Shubha on one or two occasions.According to this witness, whenever Shubha fell ill she would become depressed and would prefer for death rather than to live in illness and her husband had done everything possible to get her treated for her illness.She has also deposed that in her presence on 29.10.1995 quarrel had taken place between appellant no.1 and his in-laws with regard to the custody of his son, as the parent of Shubha wanted to take the child with them.Appeal No.713/2004 Page 22 of 47DW-3, is a retired employee of Hamdard Wakf Laboratory, who produced the summoned record of the deceased.In the cross-examination he had stated that the medicines prescribed to Shubha were for mental and heart problem as well as for cold and cough.Medicines for sleep and weakness were also prescribed to her.DW-4, Dr.Balraj Yadav has deposed that Shubha had come to him when she was pregnant and stated that she did not wanted a Crl.Appeal No.713/2004 Page 23 of 47 second issue.She was weak at the time when he met her and he referred her to St. Stephen Hospital.He is an Ayurvedic Practitioner and whenever Shubha came to him it was an emergency condition and he would refer her to Hindu Rao Hospital or St. Stephen Hospital.In September, 1992 when he had met her, she had come with a neighbour and was very depressed.Appeal No.713/2004 Page 23 of 4723. DW-5, Dr.Ashok Kumar Sethi had examined Shubha on five occasions and according to his testimony, he has treated her for loss of appetite, hyper acidity and weakness and further Shubha had regularly complained him about abdominal pain.In the cross-examination by learned APP, this witness has stated that he had prescribed medicines for vomiting and hyper acidity, sposmo proxivorm for pain.Blood pressure was recorded 100/70, which is low.He had also noted blood pressure to be 98 and he had also provided an injection trimegic for stamina.Dr. C.K. Cherian, head of the department, St. Stephen Hospital was examined as Ex.As per his testimony Shubha was under the treatment of the hospital form 24.5.1991, till 31.8.1991 regarding the pregnancy and the delivery was normal.Second time Shubha was admitted on 11.9.1992 with regard to abdominal pain which was diagonozed as pelvic infection.Appeal No.713/2004 Page 24 of 4725. DW-8 has deposed that at the time of marriage, he had a house at Delhi and he was receiving rent of Rs.3500/- per month besides family owned land of 25 bighas at Muradabad and after meeting all the expenses, Rs.45,000/- was the saving every year.The second pregnancy had to be aborted on account of her weak health and for infection caused due to abortion she remained in hospital for five days for which he had met all the expenses.However, as her health deteriorated and her blood pressure remained low and she frequently suffered from Dyrrohea and vomiting, his father-in-law took Shubha to Gurgaon to look after her and their son was admitted in Blue Bells School and he paid the expenses for his son during this period.According to him it is only the dispute with regard to custody of the minor son which led to filing of the FIR by the in-laws on the next date.In the present case both the appellants (husband and mother-in-Thus the first question which arises for consideration before this Court is whether the appellant no.1, husband of the deceased and appellant no.2, mother-in-law of the deceased demanded dowry and as to whether the appellants had subjected the deceased to harassment in connection with this demand.The second question which arises for consideration of this Court is whether soon before the death, the deceased had been subjected to such harassment for demand of dowry.In light of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court and applying the same to the facts of this case, on a careful reading of the evidence of the father, mother and sister of the deceased, I find that the father of the deceased has categorically stated that no dowry was demanded from them at the time of marriage, whereas no such deposition has been made either by the sister and/or mother of the deceased.However, in so far as demand of dowry, post marriage is concerned, there is consistency in the statements made by the parents and sister of the deceased.The father of the deceased (PW-2) has stated that he did not give any statement to the police or the SDM on 28th October, 1995 (the date of death of Shubha) but later he made a statement Crl.Appeal No.713/2004 Page 29 of 47 before the SDM wherein he had stated that no demand of dowry was made at the time of marriage.Although some articles like T.V., Fridge etc. were given.I also find that another demand for Rs.1.50 lac is stated to have been made in the month of May and June, 1995 by appellant no.1 and it is alleged that appellant No.1 had come on 21.10.1995 to take the money.What also emerges from the evidence of the father of the deceased is that his daughter left the matrimonial home in the year 1993 and stayed with him for about two years.It is during this period that he was informed that his daughter was not provided proper food and they used to throw sarees on her face.However, I find that appellant no.2 (mother-in-law) has not been specifically named with regard to demand of dowry or harassment in connection with dowry.Although, PW-6, sister of the deceased, has deposed that when her sister (deceased) returned back after the phera ceremony, appellants not only demanded a motorcycle, colour T.V. and cash of Rs.1.0 lac, but also taunted her sister that the articles given in the marriage were of sub-standard quality.Her statement is also consistent with that of her father with regard to the return of her sister to the matrimonial home in Crl.This witness (PW-6) has also deposed that all the issues were settled and the deceased went back to her matrimonial home.While PW-6 has stated that the demands and torture of her sister were not disclosed to her parents, she had informed them about the same 3 or 4 days prior to her death.During the cross-examination PW-6 was confronted with her statement made to the police with regard to the fact that the appellants used to beat her sister and this witness was unable to tell the date, month or year of torture and as to which appellant used to torture her sister and in what manner.For the injuries sustained by her sister, she deposed that she did not go to any Doctor.PW-6 was also confronted with the her statement to show that she had not stated before the police that the appellants used to turn Shubha out of the house in the night and who used to then remain standing outside the whole night.On an analysis of the evidence of PW-6 in detail, I find that PW-6 has given an exaggerated account of the ill-treatment meted out to the deceased inasmuch as, the statement of the father of the deceased is completely devoid of any instances with regard to the beating given to his daughter by her in-laws.Even otherwise the incident of beating and the fact that deceased was made to stand outside the house whole night, if believed to be correct, pertained to the period prior to the returning of the deceased to her matrimonial home and cannot be stated to have a live link with the commission of suicide.Appeal No.713/2004 Page 29 of 47Appeal No.713/2004 Page 30 of 47The mother of the deceased (PW-8), while supporting the statement made by her daughter (PW-6) with regard to demand Crl.Appeal No.713/2004 Page 31 of 47 of motorcycle, colour T.V. and cash of Rs.1.0 lacs; has also supported the fact that Rs.20,000/- were given to appellant no.1; and that the deceased was made to starve, kitchen was kept locked and the deceased was taunted that she did not know how to knead the floor and to cook.A careful reading of the testimony of the mother of the deceased would also show that it is not her allegation that appellant no.2 ever demanded any money from them or any money was ever paid to her.Even otherwise such incidents are not related to the demand of dowry.Appeal No.713/2004 Page 31 of 47The evidence on record shows that the sarees were thrown at her (deceased) face in the year 1991 i.e. soon after the marriage.The demand of colour T.V. and motorcycle as well as Rs.1.0 lac even if assumed to have been made, the same was made during the time period of October 1990- March 1993 (i.e. prior to the year 1995, when the deceased had returned back to the matrimonial home).Another significant factor which is to be taken into consideration is that in the year 1993 (i.e three years after marriage) the Crl.Appeal No.713/2004 Page 32 of 47 deceased left her matrimonial home and started residing with her parents.During the entire period of stay of the deceased in the parental house, neither the deceased nor any member of her family made any complaint either to the Police, Women Cell or even to any friend or relations of the parties.This aspect of the matter has been dealt with by the trial court observing that the family had hopes that relationship would be mended and a reunion will take place.Certainly for not lodging any complaint during the period of separation, nothing can be read against the deceased and her family members, but it is rather strange that admittedly, the husband and in-laws were not in touch with the girl (deceased), and yet the family had hopes of a reunion.The same is hard to believe.Appeal No.713/2004 Page 32 of 47Furthermore, as per the father of the deceased, in 1995, appellant no.1 had assured him that he would not maltreat her daughter in future.The trial court has also observed that the appellant no.1 had assured the father of the deceased that on the return of Shubha he would not maltreat her.It would thus be seen that appellant no.2 had no role in approaching the family of the deceased for her return nor she visited the home of the parents of the deceased.There is nothing to suggest that there was any discussion between the mother-in-law, appellant no.2 and the parents of the deceased with regard to return of Shubha.This factor would also go on to show that appellant No.2, mother- in-law, had little or no role to play in the life of Shubha and her husband.Appeal No.713/2004 Page 33 of 47Appeal No.713/2004 Page 33 of 47Nothing has been stated that any demand in relation to dowry was made by the mother-in-law soon before her death.As per the evidence of the mother of the deceased, it was Brijesh (appellant no. 1), who had demanded Rs.50,000/- after her daughter had returned to the matrimonial home in the year 1995 and when Rs.50,000/- was not paid, he later demanded Rs.1.50 lacs.On a careful analysis of the evidence of all the three prime witnesses (PW-2, PW-6 and PW-8), I am of the considered view that the allegations for demand of dowry made against appellant no.2 (mother-in-law) are completely general in nature and only relate to the fact that appellant no.2 found sarees to be of sub- standard quality and that she had thrown the same at the face of the deceased.Mother-in-law (appellant No.2) showed her dissatisfaction with the items of dowry; threw the sarees on the face of the Crl.Appeal No.713/2004 Page 34 of 47 deceased; taunted the deceased that she did not know how to knead the floor or cook food; and insulted her in front of visitors.Thus, while finding that no grounds are made out and there is no evidence on record to show that cruelty or harassment in connection with demand of dowry was meted out to the deceased by the mother-in-law (appellant no. 2) soon before her death, the conviction of appellant no.2 under section 304-B IPC is set aside.Further, I find that there is no infirmity in the judgment passed by the learned ASJ, holding appellant no.2 guilty for the offence punishable under section 498-A IPC.Appeal No.713/2004 Page 34 of 47The next question for my consideration is whether appellant no.1 is guilty of the offence under sections 498-A, IPC and 304-B, IPC or not.According to the defence neither any demand of dowry was made nor appellant no.1 had any quarrel with his wife (Shubha) and she died because of her illness.The defence examined eight witnesses in support of its case.I have carefully gone through the evidence of all these witnesses.A bare reading of the evidence of DW-1 would show that Shubha may have been suffering from low blood pressure.But, on reading of the evidence, there is nothing to suggest that Shubha was suffering from depression or her illness was of such a nature which would drive a person to commit suicide.DW-1 has also not described the illness of Shubha to be such which would drive a person to die.The evidence of DW-2, Vinod Jain, who is the tenant of appellant no.1 also does not come to the rescue of appellant no.1 inasmuch as, his testimony that Shubha used to have fits, is not supported by any medical evidence.Appeal No.713/2004 Page 35 of 47Appeal No.713/2004 Page 35 of 47On the basis of the statements made by witnesses, examined by the defence, it cannot be said that after 11.9.1992 or either during the period when deceased stayed with her parents or after February, 1995 when she returned to her matrimonial home, the deceased suffered from any illness.Further if the evidence of DW-8, Brijesh, appellant no. 1 is to be believed that he was looking after his wife and child even during the period when the deceased was staying with her parents and as per his evidence, Shubha was suffering from a serious ailment which would lead to suicidal tendency or her condition was such Crl.Appeal No.713/2004 Page 36 of 47 that on account of her serious illness she would rather die.He has failed to lead any evidence in this regard for this crucial period.Appeal No.713/2004 Page 36 of 47Further as per PW-2, appellant No.1 had met PW-2 in the year 1995 and requested to take Shubha (deceased) back to his home and assured him that he would not mal-treat his daughter in future.However, what emerges is that, within a month of taking Shubha to the matrimonial home, appellant No.1 in the month of May/June, 1995, demanded Rs. 1.50 lacs, so much so that appellant No.1 came to the house of PW-2 on 21.10.1995 in order to take the said sum of Rs. 1.50 lacs.His daughter also came to his house at Gurgaon on 22nd October, 1995 in connection with the money and told him that she was not willing to go back.Appeal No.713/2004 Page 37 of 47Appeal No.713/2004 Page 37 of 47On 21st October, 1995, i.e. soon before the death of the deceased, appellant No.1 had visited the house of his father-in-law, in order to take money.It also emerges from the statement of PW-6, sister of the deceased, that in the year 1992 her brother had brought the deceased back on the occasion of Rakhi, when the deceased had disclosed about the torture being inflicted upon her.I find that the evidence given by PW-2 (father) stands corroborated by the evidence of PW-8 (mother) as well as PW-6 (sister).There is also evidence on record that on 21.10.1995, appellant No.1 had come to the house of his in-laws in connection with demand of dowry of Rs.1.50 lacs and on the very next date 22.10.1995, deceased (Shubha) had come to the house of her father (PW-2) in connection with the money and she was not willing to go back without the money.She later on committed Crl.The factum of visit of appellant no.1 to the house of his in-laws on 21.10.1995 and the fact of visit of Shubha to her father's house on 22.10.1995 finds corroboration from the evidence of both the father and the mother of the deceased.Appeal No.713/2004 Page 38 of 47This illegal demand for dowry of Rs.1.50 lacs in the month of May/June, 1995, which was repeated on 21.10.1995; the visit of Shubha to her parents' house on 22.10.1995; and thereafter her death in unnatural circumstances on 28.10.1995, would show that there was a direct and live link between her death and the dowry demand which was made.As already stated above, I am convinced that appellant no.2, (mother-in-law of the deceased) had subjected the deceased to cruelty and harassment.Appellant No.2 had showed her dissatisfaction with the items of dowry and thrown the sarees on the face of the deceased.She had also taunted the deceased that she did not know how to knead the floor or cook food and further insulted the deceased infront of visitors.State of A.P. reported at (2002) 7 SCC 414, wherein the Supreme Court had reduced the sentence of the appellants-accused, under section 498-A, IPC and observed as under:The High Court, in our opinion, was right and justified in reversing the order of acquittal and convicting and sentencing the appellants for the offences under Sections 306 and 498-A IPC.We find no good reason to interfere with the same.However, we think it just and appropriate to modify the sentence of imprisonment for the period already undergone and order accordingly having regard to the fact that both the appellants were in imprisonment for about two months; the incident took place on 9-3- 1988; Appellant 2 is the mother of Appellant 1 and she is aged 60 years; both the appellants are on bail and it may not be appropriate to send them to jail again.The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms.It was held as under :Appeal No.713/2004 Page 43 of 477. ......... As mentioned above, Section 304-B IPC only raises presumption and lays down that minimum sentence should be seven years but it may extend to imprisonment for life.Therefore awarding extreme punishment of imprisonment for life should be in rare cases and not in every case.Hence, we are of the view that a sentence of 10 years' RI would meet the ends of justice.We, accordingly while confirming the conviction of the appellant under Section 304-B IPC, reduce the sentence of imprisonment for life to 10 years' RI.The other conviction and sentence passed against the appellant are, however, confirmed.In the result, the appeal is dismissed subject to the above modification of sentence.Relevant para.In the ultimate result, with the modification of sentence, the appeal stands disposed of."Appeal No.713/2004 Page 46 of 47
|
['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
974,129 |
The circumstances under which Azad Singh was apprehended in brief, are : that one Shri Jai Parkash along with his family members was residing at House No. WZ-162, Sadipur, New Delhi.He was living along with his family and parents.As the story goes, one Shri Harkesh nephew of Jai Parkash had illicit relations with the wife of Azad Singh.He was spending all his salary on that woman.Ramesh is the elder brother of Harkesh.He was aware of this relationship.Few days prior to the date of the incident, Ramesh along with his uncle Partap Singh advised Azad Singh accused that he should keep his wife under control.This was not to the liking of Azad Singh and he exchanged hot words with them.On 30-3-83 at about 9.15 p.m., Jai Parkash, his elder brother Ramesh and uncle Pratap Singh went to the house of Azad Singh to sort out the matter.Jai Prakash called Azad Singh out and they again told him that he should keep his wife under check, so that the life of Harkesh is not ruined.Azad Singh flew into rage and started hurling abuses telling those persons that they were unnecessarily bringing bad name to his wife.Pratap Singh tried to send Azad Singh inside the house but the latter took out a chhuri and gave blows on the left side of the chest and arm of Pratap Singh.On receipt of the injuries, Pratap Singh fell down.Jai Parkash and Ramesh caught hold of Azad Singh with the chhuri.In that process, Azad Singh also received minor injuries.They immediately raised noise, on hearing of which, many persons of the mohalla assembled.Jai Parkash and one Ashok Kumar took Pratap Singh to the Willingdon Hospital in a three wheeler scooter, where the doctors declared him dead.Message was flashed to the Police Station, as a consequence of which, S.I. Didar Singh first went to the hospital, procured the medico-legal report, recorded the statement of Jai Parkash and got registered a case u/s. 302 I.P.C. He also collected the blood-stained clothes of Pratap Singh from the hospital.Thereafter, he came to the spot, got the scene of occurrence photographed and plan prepared.Azad Singh, appellant was convicted for the offence under S. 304(I) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to R.I. for 7 years.The period already undergone by him was set off by virtue of S. 428 Cr.P.C. He filed the appeal through Superintendent, Jail.At his request, Miss Nandita Chandra, Advocate was appointed amices curiae.She worked hard on the case and has ably put the arguments before this Court.The weapon of offence was taken into possession.Blood was lifted from the spot, statements of the witnesses were recorded, the accused was arrested Jai Prakash was also got medically examined.During the course of the investigation, the I.O. obtained the post-mortem report, completed the investigation and filed the challan.The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial.The prosecution examined a number of witnesses out of which Jai Parkash and Ramesh are the witnesses of the actual occurrence.The accused while under examination u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. admitted that Pratap Singh, Jai Parkash and Ramesh were living near his house in village Shadipur.Shri Harkesh, his friend, was on visiting terms to his house.He, however, denied that Harkesh had illicit relations with his wife Saroj or he was spending his salary on her.He denied having attacked Pratap Singh or had given him chhuri blows.In fact, Pratap Singh and his companions had come inside his house and shouted to kill him.They started giving him beating.He acted in his self-defense.The knife used by him was not a chhuri but a small kitchen knife.He, however, led no evidence in defense.The learned lower court on consideration of the oral as well as documentary evidence on record believed the prosecution version and convicted and sentenced the accused as stated earlier.Learned counsel for the accused has raised four-fold contention.According to her, the occurrence took place inside the house of the accused where the complainant party had levelled the allegations of immoral and unchaste conduct of his wife.The complainant party also gave beating to the accused who in order to save himself and to ward off the danger gave one blow with a pen knife in his self-defense.She also urged that there is a delay in recording the F.I.R. no independent witness has been produced and the injuries on the person of Azad Singh have not been fully explained.Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has controverter the submissions and has taken me through the record showing that none of these arguments are borne out from the evidence.The accused was present at his house when PW Jai Parkash, Ramesh and Pratap Singh has gone there.It is the case of the prosecution that the Pws made imputations of immoral character to Saroj, the wife of the accused.The accused admits the presence of the PWs but according to him, these persons had given him beating inside the house.He acted in self-defense by inflicting injury on the person of Pratap Singh by a small vegetable-cutting knife.If the incident took place inside the house then certainly some blood would have fallen in the compound of the house.This is not so.According to the I.O. and the attesting witnesses of the memos, the blood had fallen in the street and was lifted from there.Admittedly, the PWs had gone to the house of the accused unarmed and had no intention to quarrel or cause any bodily injury.On that account, there was no occasion for them to go inside the house of the accused or cause any injury to him.The first submission as such has no substance.It may be that except PW Jai Parkash and Ramesh the prosecution has not produced any other eye-witnesses but for that also, there is a valid explanation.The fact of the matter is that at the time of the actual occurrence, no other person was present except the deceased and the two P.Ws.Others came on the scene after hearing the noise.Furthermore, it was the month of March and generally the people are expected to be indoors at about 9.15 p.m. The presence of Jai Parkash and Ramesh PW is amply admitted by the accused.The prosecution rightly did not try to introduce any other witness to this occurrence as in fact there was none.Even accused had not thought it worthwhile to examine his wife, father or mother to falsify or contradict the version of the prosecution.Whether Jai Parkash and Ramesh are near relations or interested persons will not make any difference insofar as they narrate the actual sequence of the occurrence which goes completely with the prosecution story.Their testimony has rightly been believed by the learned trial court and I have also no hesitation to accept the same as reliable and correct.The time of the occurrence is 9.15 p.m. The deceased was removed to the Willingdon hospital.Constable Harnam Singh was on duty.He gave the information at about 10.10 p.m. to the Police Station, Patel Nagar.The entry was recorded in the Daily Diary at serial No. 28-A. Its copy was given to Didar Singh who went to the hospital.In the meantime, the Police Control Room had also been informed of the incident at about 9.30 p.m. A.S.I. Ram Kishan went to the spot.Azad Singh was produced before him by PW Raj Pal and Ramesh with Chhuri.A.S.I. Ram Kishan did not move in the matter except guarding the scene of occurrence and waited for the arrival of the I.O. At the hospital, Didar Singh managed to obtain the medico-legal report and the blood-stained clothes of the deceased and after some persuation.He then recorded the statement of Jai Parkash PW and sent the ruqa to Police Station for the registration of the case.Thereafter, he came to the spot and completed the other formalities.It took some time but there was no question of fabricating the evidence or falsely implicating the accused who had been apprehended immediately after the occurrence and handed over to the Police at about 9.30 p.m.The medical evidence fairly and squarely supports the ocular testimony of the P.Ws.On examination at the hospital, the post-mortem doctor noticed as many as 7 external injuries on the person of Pratap Singh, deceased.These were mostly abrasions which could be the result of falling on the ground or while being taken to the hospital in a three wheeler scooter.Injury No. 7 was described as incised stab wound 3/4" x 1/2" x ? vertically placed on the left side chest wall in mid auxilliary line 4.5" below the armpit.In the opinion of the doctor, injuries Nos. 1 to 6 were caused by blunt object/force and the incised wound on the chest wall was caused by sharp-edged weapon and was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.The death was due to haemorrhagic shock resulting from the injury.The prosecution has also given a valid explanation of the injuries on the person of the accused.Dr. J. K. Handa had found abrasions on the nose and chest, contusion on the left thigh and lateral side of chest.Even according to Azad Singh, there was some scuffle and grappling before he gave knife blow to Pratap Singh.It also admits of no doubt that the complainant party must have given him beating after disarming and overpowering him to give vent to their anger and aroused emotions.This in my opinion sufficiently explained the injuries on the person of accused Azad Singh and there is nothing to doubt the prosecution story on this account.The story of self-defense set up by the accused has also not been accepted and in my opinion on valid grounds.In this behalf, the learned lower court has referred to numerous judgments against which there was nothing substantial for the learned counsel to argue.However, I am in respectful agreement with the conclusion of the learned lower court that in the present case, the accused had flared up when Pratap Singh, Ramesh and Jai Parkash had asserted that his wife was unchaste and was indulging in illicit love affairs with Harkesh.By this time he has earned remission of more than six months.During this period, his father has expired and his aged mother is suffering from a deadly disease.He has no brother or any other relation to look after his wife and an infant child and that he is a young man of 26 years of age with no previous conviction.Ordered accordingly.The accused be released immediately if not wanted in any other case.Order accordingly.
|
['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
97,416,377 |
This is first bail application filed on behalf of the applicant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The applicant is in custody since 09.05.2020 in connection with Crime No. 85/2020 registered at Police Station- Badagaon Dhasan, District- Tikamgarh (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 294, 323, 324, 325, 326, 307/149 and 506-II of IPC and Section 25/27 of Arms Act.Prosecution case, in short, is that on 05.05.2020 complainant Naval Kishore Kushwaha was taking Mahua from his filed.At that time, present applicant/accused reached there and prevented him from doing so.Present applicant/accused has country made pistol and thereafter co-accused persons Gandharv Singh & Sujan Singh, armed with wooden sticks, reached there and Pratap Singh, armed with axe, reached there.Present applicant/accused fired with his country made pistol to the complainant/Naval Kushwaha but he did not receive any injury.Thereafter, co- accused persons inflicted injuries the complainant on his head, shoulder and hand.Thereafter, he cried for help then Hari Kushwaha, Jhabu Kushwaha, Raju Kushwaha, Chhota Kushwaha, Ghanshyam Kushwaha, Laxam Kushwaha, Manua Kushwaha reached there.Present applicant/accused also fired from country made pistol to the Hari Kushwaha, Hari Kushwaha received grievous injury.Other co-accused person also inflicted injuries the other victim.Thereafter, on the report of complainant, a case has been registered against the present applicant and other co-accused for the aforesaid offences.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant/accused has falsely been implicated in this case.Actually, the complainant parties assaulted the present applicant/accused and other co-accused persons Pratap Singh and Satyavrat Singh due to which they also received simple injuries.Other co-accused persons have already been granted bail by this Court.It is the time of COVID-19, due to which further proceedings of trial is withheld in the trial Court, so trial will take time for its final disposal.
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
97,420,970 |
Uday Umesh Lalit, J.Fourteen accused including appellants 1 to 13 were convicted and sentencedby Sessions Judge, Patan in Sessions Case No.27 of 2008 as under:-| 1 to 14 |u/s 147, 148 IPC | Fine of Rs.1000/-, i/d no || | |separate imprisonment.|| 1 and 7 |u/s 326 r/w 149 IPC|R.I. of 2 years + || | |Rs.35,000/-(towards || | |compensation) ||2 to 6 and|u/s 326 r/w 149 IPC|R.I. of 2 years+ Rs.500/-, ||8 to 14 | |i/d 10 days.According to the prosecution 2 to 3 days prior to 10.10.2007, the tractorof one Ganeshbhai i.e. son of the complainant had dashed against the motorcycle of one Bhikhabhai Ratnabhai.Nursing a grudge on account thereof, on10.10.2007 at about 1230 hrs.all the accused forming an unlawful assemblywent to the place of said Ganeshbhai with weapons like tamancha, dharia andsticks.|| 1 to 14 |u/s 324 and 149 IPC| Fine of Rs.2000/-, i/d 15 || | |days || 1 to 14 |u/s 325 r/w 149 IPC| R.I. of 2 years || 1 to 14 |504, 506(2) r/w 149|No separate sentence is || |IPC |passed as the accused are || | |already convicted under || | |Section 326 IPC |All the convicted accused, being aggrieved preferred Criminal Appeal No.947of 2011 while the State preferred Criminal Appeal No.969 of 2011 seekingenhancement of the sentence imposed by the Trial Court.During the pendencyof the appeal original accused No.1 having passed away, the appeals stoodabated qua him.Accused No.1 was armed with a tamancha, accused No.7 was armed withdharia, and others were armed with sticks.Since Ganeshbhai did not openthe house, the accused proceeded to the house of Gelabhai.All the accusedare stated to have attacked complainant Gelabhai who was sleeping in thecourtyard and caused serious injuries to him.Gelabhai was taken to Civil Hospital, Mehsana where he remained an indoorpatient for more than 40 days and according to Dr. Setalwad who treated himand was later examined as PW10 in the trial, said Gelabhai had sustainedfollowing injuries:-“1. CLW of about 5cm x 2cm x bone deep in size on the rt.Leg middle onethird, anterior aspect compound fracture.Incised wound of about 3cm x 1cm x skin deep inside on the forearmmiddle one third anterior aspect oblique in direction.Incised wound of about 4cm x 1cm x skin deep in size on the ant aspectof the middle one third of it leg, upper part.Incised wound of about 2cm x ½ cm X skin deep in size on the left legbelow knee outer aspect.Incised wound of about 1cm x ½ cm x skin deep in size on the upper 1/3rdleft leg, anterior aspect.Abrasion & contusion 10cm x 6cm in size, irregular in shape with D.T.S overthe left forearm lower one third.Incised wound of about 1cm x ½ cm x skin deep in size, on the Ft. armlateral aspect.D.T.S and fracture deformity Rt.Arm, middle part on which Redish contusionof about 8cm x 2.5cm in size oblique in direction on the anterolateralaspect.Fracture of shaft hummers (right)2. Fracture on Left Tibia and FibulaFracture of Radius and Ulna.”Statement of Gelabhai recorded by PW 13 Sub-Inspector Nathabhai led toregistration of Crime No.164 of 2007 against all the accused.After dueinvestigation, charge-sheet was filed against all the accused underSections 307, 325, 324, 504, 506(2), 147, 148, 148(9) of the IPC and underSection 30(A) of the Arms Act. During trial, the prosecution examined 15witnesses and also produced documentary evidence.The accused denied havingcommitted any offence and submitted that they were falsely implicated inthe case because of old rivalry.At the conclusion of the trial, byjudgment and order dated 08.06.2011 the Trial Court acquitted the accusedof charges under Section 307 IPC and Section 30(A) of the Arms Act. Thoughthere was no charge under Section 326 of the IPC, according to the TrialCourt the material on record was sufficient to prove the case of theprosecution as against the accused under Section 326 read with Section 149of the IPC.The Trial Court thus convicted and sentenced all the accused asstated hereinabove.As regards the plea forenhancement of sentence by the State, the High Court found that thesentence of 2 years as imposed by the Trial Court for the offence underSection 326 of the IPC was not commensurate with the gravity of the offenceand as such while partly allowing the appeal preferred by the State, itenhanced the sentence from 2 years to 5 years rigorous imprisonment for theoffence under Section 326 read with Section 149 of the IPC.These appeals by appellants seek to challenge the correctness of thedecision of the High Court.Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi, learned Senior Advocateappearing in support of the appeals submitted inter alia that though therewere 8 injuries on the body of the injured, 14 persons were arrayed asaccused suggesting clear case of over-implication, that the injured personhad not suffered any serious injuries and that the High Court was notjustified in enhancing the sentence.Hemantika Wahi, learned Advocate appearing for the State andMr.Purvish Jitendra Malkan, learned Advocate appearing for the complainantsupported the judgments of conviction by the Courts below but wereagreeable to the submission that the actual imprisonment could be reducedwhile enhancing the amount of fine.We have gone through the record and considered rival submissions.All of them attacked theoriginal complainant-injured eye witness at his place.Setalwad shows that injuries 2 to 5 and 7 though inflicted by sharp cuttingweapons were deep upto the skin and were classified as injuries of generaltype.Injury No.1 according to the prosecution was attributed to accusedNo.1 who died during the pendency of the appeal.Injuries 6 to 8 arebruises and swellings which could be attributed to sticks.The record indicates that amount of Rs.70,000/- has accordingly been deposited with the Trial Court.In the circumstances we deem it appropriate to maintain the order ofconviction and sentence as imposed by the Trial Court subject to themodification that each of the appellants shall pay Rs.55,000/- by way ofcompensation to the injured Gelabhai.Such compensation shall be depositedby each of the appellant with the Trial Court within two months from todayand the deposited amount shall be made over to the complainant.The amountof Rs.70,000/- deposited by original accused Nos.1 and 7 shall also be madeover to the complainant.
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 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 325 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
97,421,723 |
Appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 14- A(2) of the SC/ST (PA) Act, 1989, feeling aggrieved with the order dated 14/12/2017, rendered by Special Judge (SC/ST), Shajapur, in B.A. No.602/2017, whereby the prayer for regular bail has been declined.As per prosecution story, on 21/10/2017, at about 8.00 am, when victim along with her brother-in-law was sitting at the bus-stand, at that time, four persons came and hurled abuses.It is alleged that they caught her hand in order to outrage her modesty and upon victim raising alarm for her rescue, her husband and her brother-in-law came there.It is further alleged that the accused persons assaulted them by kicks and fists and fled away from the spot.High Court of M.P. Bench at IndoreLearned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant the name of the appellant is arrayed as accused on the basis of the statement of victim recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. Appellant is in custody since 14/12/2017, investigation is over and charge-sheet has been filed.It is also submitted that co-accused Prahladsingh has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 27/02/2018, passed in Cr.A. No.607/2018 and the present appellant claims parity with the co-accused as the case of the present appellant is similar to that of co-accused.Under these circumstances counsel prayed for grant of regular bail of appellant.Learned Public Prosecutor for the State submits that no sufficient ground is made out for releasing the appellant on bail, hence the application filed by the appellant be dismissed , but he fairly admitted the parity claimed by the applicant.Considering the facts and circumstance of the case and the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that the appeal filed by the appellant may be accepted.Certified copy as per Rules.(Virender Singh) Judge Amit Digitally signed by SOURABH YADAV Date: 2018.04.21 16:07:50 +05'30'
|
['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
97,424,742 |
Mr. Sur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor (APP), submits from the materials placed before this Court that the piece of apparel incriminating the petitioners, particularly the petitioner No. 2, has been seized from the place of occurrence.The statements of both the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 as recorded by the Investigating Officer are also 2 relied upon by the learned APP.Accordingly the prayer for bail stands rejected.Urgent Xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties, subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Subhasis Dasgupta, J.) (Subrata Talukdar, J.)
|
['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.
|
974,248 |
JUDGMENT Rajeev Gupta, J.The appellant has been found guilty of causing injuries on the right thigh of deceased Guddu @ Shahzad by means of knife, in the evening of 26-8-88, leading to his death the same night.At the trial, accused Prem Nepali @ Prem Bahadur abjured his guilt and pleaded false implication to the charge framed by the Trial Court under Section 302, IPC.The charge of 'murder' against the accused was sought to be proved on the evidence of Bhole Shafiq (P.W. 1), Mohd. Nazir (P.W. 2), Dr. Abdul Hakeem (P.W. 3), Rameshwar Pandey (P.W. 4), Ram Palat Pandey (P.W. 5), Brijwasi Prasad (P.W. 6), Laxman Singh (P.W. 7), Dr. Suneet Kaur (P.W. 8), Dr. Daryav Singh Badkur (P.W. 9), J.P. Garg (P.W. 10), Abdul Majid (P.W. 11), Vishnu Prasad Tiwari (P.W. 12), Noshe @ Majju (P.W. 13), Habib Khan (P.W. 14), Vijay Singh (P.W. 15), Uma Shanker (P.W. 16), Kalideen Gupta (P.W. 17), Haseen Khan (P.W. 18), Ilias (P.W. 19) and Narayan Prasad (P.W. 20).The accused did not examine any witness in his defence.The Trial Court on the ocular and medical evidence led by the prosecution at the trial held it proved that deceased Guddu @ Shahzad sustained external injuries on his right thigh, in the evening of 26-8-88, and died a homicidal death on account of those injuries.Relying upon the eye-witness account of Mohd. Nazir (P.W. 2), the Trial Court held accused Prem Nepali @ Prem Bahadur guilty of causing those injuries on the thigh of the deceased which resulted in his death.On the above findings, the Trial Court convicted and sentenced accused Prem Nepali @ Prem Bahadur as mentioned above.Neena Khera, the learned Counsel for the appellant, vehemently argued that the Trial Court has erred in relying upon the solitary eye-witnesses account of Mohd. Nazir (P.W. 2), whose evidence suffers from serious infirmities.Shri R.K. Verma, the learned Panel Lawyer, on the other hand supported the impugned judgment of conviction and contended that the evidence of Mohd. Nazir (P.W. 2) does not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever and, therefore, the Trial Court has not committed any illegality in recording the appellant's conviction on his evidence.The facts that deceased Guddu @ Shahzad sustained external injuries on his right thigh by means of a knife, in the evening of 26-8-88, and died a homicidal death on account of those injuries were neither in dispute at the trial nor are under challenge before us in this appeal.Even otherwise, there is sufficient ocular and medical evidence on record to establish the above facts beyond any shadow of doubt.True, the other eye-witness Ilias (P.W. 19) did not support the prosecution case at all and the appellant's conviction is founded on the solitary eye-witness account of Mohd. Nazir (P.W. 2).In his evidence in the Court Mohd. Nazir (P.W. 2) has categorically deposed that on the fateful day some wordy quarrel took place between the appellant and the deceased and it was during this quarrel that the accused suddenly took out a knife and dealt blows on the thigh of the deceased.It is further in his evidence that at this juncture deceased Guddu @ Shahzad also dealt a stick blow on the head region of the deceased.In his cross-examination, he frankly admitted his relationship with the deceased.He stood firm in his cross-examination and his evidence could not be shaken at all.This gap of 6 months appears to have resulted in some minor discrepancies in his evidence.We do not find any material in his cross- examination which may render his evidence unworthy of credence.To us, he appears to be a truthful witness and his evidence can safely be acted upon.On a close scrutiny of the evidence of Mohd. Nazir (P.W. 2), we are satisfied that the Trial Court has rightly believed his evidence in holding appellant Prem Nepali @ Prem Bahadur guilty of causing those injuries on the right thigh of the deceased which resulted in his death.The next question which crops up for consideration in this appeal is about the nature of the offence proved against the appellant.The learned Counsel for the appellant placing reliance on the dictum of the Apex Court, in the case of Krishna Tiwari and Anr.v. State of Bihar, reported in JT 2001 (3) SC 331, submitted that as there was no prior ill-will between the deceased and the appellant; that the deceased came to sustain injuries at the hands of the appellant during the course of a sudden quarrel; and, that the appellant dealt blows on the thigh (a non-vital part of the body) of the deceased, the offence against the appellant would not be one of 'murder', punishable under Section 302, IPC.It has been admitted by the prosecution witnesses that prior to the incident relations between the brothers were cordial.It has been specifically stated by informant Anil Tiwari (P.W. 7) in his cross-examination that they were having best of relations with the accused prior to the incident.He has also denied the suggestion that there was property dispute between them.The witness has also admitted that the appellant Krishna Tiwari came empty-handed and that incident took place because they scolded Manoj Kumar and deceased removed him from the middle of the door.He has also stated that after coming down Krishna Tiwari caught hold of the collar of Paramhans and asked him why his cleaner was beaten.So, it is apparent that some quarrel took place between the deceased and Krishna Tiwari.At that moment, it is alleged that Krishna Tiwari uttered the word 'assault' and thereafter Dadan Tiwari inflicted two knife blows.It is true that the first knife blow proved fatal; with regard to the second knife blow, admittedly, it is a simple injury which is skin deep.From the record, it is apparent that the prosecution has suppressed the evidence of other witnesses, particularly that of Manoj Kumar who was the cause of quarrel.Therefore, the Trial Court has convicted him by resorting to Sections 109 and 111 of IPC.Further, it is admitted that relationship between the brothers and the family members were cordial prior to the incident.The incident took place all of a sudden and without any pre-meditation.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
97,425,466 |
The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:(i).On 08.02.2008 when PW1's son Ponnusami was sitting in the Vinayagar Temple in their village, both the accused came and due to the previous enmity by using M.O.1 and M.O.2 stout stick attacked him on the head.At the same time, PW1 and PW2 and one Ramakrishnan were talking together, near to the place of occurrence.On hearing the hue and cry of the deceased Ponnusami, PW1, PW2 and Ramakrishnan rushed to the scene of occurrence.On seeing them, the appellants ran away from the place of occurrence.PW2 is the grandson of one Kappinigounder.(ii).After registering the case, PW13, the then Head constable forwarded the F.I.R to the Inspector of Police for investigation.Ex.P.13, is the printed F.I.R.(iii).On receipt of the FIR, PW14, Mr.Rajagopal, the then Inspector of Police, Vadavalli Police Station visited the scene of occurrence and prepared the Observation Mahazar under Ex.On 09.12.2008 early morning at about 7 hours near Najna Gounden Palayam Bridge, he arrested the appellants.After made arrest, the second appellant voluntarily gave a confession before the PW14 and the same was recorded by him in the presence of PW6 Subramaniam.In the confession statement, the second appellant has stated that he is willing to hand over the wooden logs used in the crime now hidden underneath to the bridge in Natha Gounden Palayam.(iv).The Seizure mahazar is exhibited as Ex.Further, the investigation Officer recovered a shirt (M.O.5) which was worn by the deceased through the Mahazar Ex.During the time of preparing the observation mahazar, he recovered the blood stained soil M.O.3 and soil without blood M.O.4 from the scene of occurrence.On the same day at about 13 hours, he received the death intimation of Ponnusamy from the Ramachandra Hospital.Thereafter, he altered the Section of law as 302 IPC under Ex.(v).After receiving the death intimation, he rushed to the hospital and prepared an inquest report in the presence of the witnesses and panchayatars.The inquest report is exhibited as Ex.Thereafter, he sent a requisition letter to the Hospital authorities, Coimbatore Medical College Hospital for conducting autopsy over the dead body of the deceased Ponnusami.(vi).Diffuse Subdural and subarachnoid hemorrhage noted over entire brain surface dense over left parieto temporo occipital surfaces.Laceration of brain 3x1x0.5 cm over right occipital lobe, 3x2x0.5 cm over left temporo occipital lobes with hemorrhagic contusion of left temporo occipital lobes 5x2x2-1 cm.Intracerebral hemorrhage noted in brain stem region 1x1x1 cm."She issued Ex.P.10 post mortem certificate.She opined that the deceased would appear to have died due to Cranio Cerebral injuries sustained by him.(vii).After completing the post mortem, PW14 made arrangements for handing over the dead body to the relatives of the deceased.The appellants are arrayed as first and second accused in S.C.No.5 of 2010 on the file of the learned First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.The Trial Court convicted them under Section 304(2) IPC and sentenced to undergo 5 years Rigorous Imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs.2,000/- each in default to undergo 1 year Simple Imprisonment.Immediately, they took the deceased Ponnusami and admitted in the Ramachandra Hospital.Thereafter, PW1 lodged a complaint before the Sub-Inspector of Police, Vadavalli, Police Station under Ex.Based on the complaint given by PW1, a case has been registered in Cr.No.724 of 2008 under Section 307 IPC.Pursuant to the confession, the accused produced the wooden logs and the same was recovered by PW14 under the cover of mahazar.Admitted portion of confession statement was marked as Ex.After receiving the request, on the same day at about 10.15 hours P.W.11 Dr.Malliga attached with the Coimbatore Medical College and Hospital, conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased and found the following ante mortem injuries:"Reddish abrasion seen over back of right shoulder 11x2 cm and left forehead 7x5 cm.On dissection of scalp, sub scalpal contusion noted over entire scalp except right parietal region.Multiple crack fractures noted over skull bones except right fronto temporal bones and the dura over parietal region found torn 5x2 cm.Epidural clot weighing 5 gm over superior parietal surface of brain.Subdural clot weighing 80 gm over superior surfaces of brain.In continuation of the investigation, PW14 sent the M.O's which were recovered during the time of investigation to the Magistrate Court and submitted a requisition letter to the Magistrate for sending the same to chemical examination.(viii).Subsequently, PW.14, examined the Doctor and other witnesses, collected post mortem certificate and chemical examination report and on completing the investigation, he laid charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC.(ix).Based on the above incriminating materials, the Trial Court framed the charges and the accused denied the same.In order to prove the case, prosecution has examined as many as 15 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.15 and marked 18 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10, besides, 7 material objects.Out of the said witnesses, P.W.1 is the father of the deceased.He has stated that prior to the occurrence, due to the land dispute, accused filed a civil case against him, later the same was ended in his favour.Subsequent to that he sold out the property pertaining to the said civil suit.He has further stated that on 08.12.2008, at about 9 p.m., when the deceased Ponnusami is sitting near to the Vinayagar Temple, by using the wooden logs, both the accused attacked the deceased on his head.After hearing the hue and cry made by the deceased, he went to the occurrence place and found the deceased is in unconscious stage.Subsequently, he took and admitted the deceased in Ramakrishna Hospital and lodged a complaint before the Police.4. P.W.2 is the relative of P.W.1 deposed on 08.12.2008, when he was talking with P.W.1 at about 9 p.m., after hearing the sound of the deceased, he went to the scene of occurrence and on seeing, both the accused by using wooden logs, attacked the deceased.Thereafter, along with P.W.1 he also made arrangements for admitting the deceased in the hospital.5. P.W.3 to P.W.5 alleged to be the eye witnesses to the occurrence has not stated anything in support of the prosecution.6. P.W.6 is the resident of the same village, in which, the occurrence had happened, he has stated on 09.12.2008, P.W.14 arrested the accused and recorded the confession given by the second accused.7. P.W.7 has stated about the filing of the civil suit by the second accused.8. P.W.8 has stated at the time of occurrence, there is no power cut in the occurrence place.9. P.W.9 and P.W.10 are the Doctors attached with the Ramakrishna Hospital, Coimbatore has stated about the treatment given to the deceased.P.W.11 is the Doctor attached with the Coimbatore Medical College Hospital, has stated about the particulars of injury found during the time of post mortem and with regard to the opinion in respect to the cause of death.P.W.12, the chemical examiner examined the material objects.P.W.13 and P.W.14 are the Police Officers has stated about the registration of the case, investigation and filing of final report in this case.The learned Trial Court with reference to the incriminating materials adduced by the prosecution questioned the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., for which, they pleaded not guilty.Further, they did not choose to examine any witnesses nor did he mark any documents on their side.Today, when the appeal is taken up for consideration, I have heard the arguments of Mr.A.Nagarajan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mrs.T.P.Savitha, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent and also perused the records carefully.In fact, on go through the evidence recorded in the Trial Court would establish that PW1, PW2 and PW15 are the witnesses to the occurrence.In the said witnesses, since PW15 has not entirely supported the case of prosecution, he was treated as a hostile witness.Even during the time of cross-examination, he had not stated anything in support of the prosecution.On the other hand, the another eye witness PW1 is the defacto complainant, who alone lodged the complaint before the Police officials.The said complaint was marked as Ex.In the complaint, with regard to the occurrence, he has stated during the time of occurrence at somayampalayam, the deceased was sitting in the Vinayagar Temple, at that time, the appellants came to the occurrence place with the wooden logs and due to the previous enmity attacked the deceased on his head.After seeing PW1 and PW2, the appellants were ran away from the scene of occurrence.Thereafter, during the time of giving evidence before the Trial Court, he has stated the occurrence as mentioned in the complaint.Accordingly, he corroborated the contents of Ex.However, according to the cross-examination, he came to the scene of occurrence only after hearing the noise.Further in the cross examination he has stated at the time of occurrence, 4 persons assaulted the deceased, further, they are ran away with wooden logs from the scene of occurrence.Further, in one area of the cross examination, he has stated that before reaching the scene of occurrence, the appellants are ran away from there.Further, he specifically stated when at the time of seeing the deceased, he did not seen the persons who were all participated in the occurrence.So, the evidence given by the PW1 in the cross examination, certainly prove that his evidence alone is not sufficient to believe the case of prosecution.Secondly, in the Trial Court, PW2 has stated in the chief examination, when at the time of occurrence, he casually talking with PW1 and with one Ramakrishnan.Further, he has stated that the distance to the scene of occurrence and to the place on which they are standing is only 50 feet.So it is probable for PW1 and PW2 to seeing the occurrence and for entering into the scene of occurrence, immediately after hearing the noise.Even though PW2 corroborated the evidence given by PW1 in respect to the occurrence, when at the time of giving the evidence in the cross examination he stated that 4 persons were assaulted the deceased.Further, in a certificate issued by Ramachandra Hospital in which the deceased was treated it was mentioned that during the time of occurrence, 4 persons were assaulted the deceased.Further, on go through the evidence given by PW1 and PW2, it appears that the alleged occurrence had happened in a village and nearly 10 persons were witnessed the occurrence.But nobody including PW1 and PW2 intervened into the quarrel and attempted to save the deceased.It would create a doubt whether PW1 and PW2 were present in the scene of occurrence or not.Accordingly, the evidence given by the PW1 and PW2 cannot be given much importance in respect to the assault made by the appellants.The other eye witness PW5 also not in favour of prosecution.In his evidence, he supported the case of prosecution in respect to the preparation of Observation Mahazar and in respect to the confession statement given by the second appellant.He has stated after recording the confession statement, from the scene of occurrence, PW14 recovered the shirt M.O.5 belonged to the deceased under the cover of mahazar (Ex.P7).The learned counsel appearing for the appellants further contended that as per the chemical examination report, the blood found in the shirt and the blood group of the deceased is entirely different one.The difference of blood group also creates a doubt whether the evidence given by the Investigation Officer is true or not.Now, on considering the said submission in the Trial Court, the medical records of deceased Ponnusami contained in page nos.1 to 33 are marked as Ex.P9, in which, it was mentioned that the blood group of deceased is O positive.On the other hand, on going through Ex.P.12, which was the biological reports in which it was mentioned that the blood found in the shirt belongs to A group.So, the evidence given by the Investigating Officer with regard to the arrest of accused is falsified through the result of chemical examination report.Since the shirt containing the A group blood was recovered by the Investigating Officer at the instance of confession statement given by the second accused.Accordingly, in this case, doubts arised as above through the evidence of PW1 and PW2, will necessarily create a doubt as whether the PW1 saw the occurrence or not.Since the other eye-witnesses not supported the case of prosecution, believing, the evidence of PW1 and PW2 is not justifiable.R.PONGIAPPAN,J.In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellants in S.C.No.5 of 2010 dated 10.03.2010 by the learned First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore is set aside and the appellants/accused are acquitted of the charges.The bail bond, if any, executed by the appellants/accused shall stand cancelled.The fine amount, if any, paid by appellants/accused shall be refunded to them.06.07.2018msvIndex:Yes/NoInternet:Yes/NoSpeaking order: Non-speaking orderToThe learned First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.The Inspector of Police, M-5, Vadavalli Police Station, Coimbatore District.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Madras.182 of 2010
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
974,268 |
The case of the prosecution is that Gomadas (P.W. 5) is having two sons, namely, Suresh and Maheshlal.The names of the two daughters of Gomadas are Sulochana Bai and Durga Bai (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased').The deceased Durga Bai was younger to Sulochana Bai.On 16-5-1989 the deceased was married to the accused/appellant.Only two days after the date of the marriage of the deceased, the marriage of Mahesh Lal, the younger son of Gomadas, took place with the sister of accused at Village Lohara.It is said that on 16-6-89 or near about by this date Suresh Lal who is the son of Gomadas along with four near relatives went to take the deceased to Village Lohara where they stayed for two days and brought the deceased back to their house at Rajnandgaon.Thereafter, on 10-9-1989 near about 9 in the morning, the accused brought back his wife (the deceased) under the pretext of some prayer of Navratri festival.It is said that 2-3 years prior to the date of the incident, Gannu (P.W. 11), was serving under accused Babudas and his elder brother Ananddas at their Village Lohara.On 20-9-1989 the accused took away his wife (the deceased) by saying that they were going to see a cinema at Gondia, from where on the next day, the accused alone came back and stated to his mother and brother Ananddas that when they were coming back after seeing the movie at Gondia, at the bus-stand the deceased said that she had to go to discharge the excreta and went for that purpose, but, she did not turn up.Therefore, accused/appellant along with his brother Ananddas and another went in search of the deceased to Rajnandgaon and Waraseoni.On 21-9-1989 Ananddas narrated the story putforth to him by the accused, to Gomadas and Suresh Lal at their house and inquired from them whether the deceased had arrived in their house.This report was transmitted through wireless to all the police stations of District Bhandara.It is the further case of the prosecution that on coming to know the above story, Gomadas and his son Suresh Lal went to search the deceased via Village Lohara to Village Deori, Aamgaon and Gondia where they could not obtain any clue of the deceased, ultimately they on 24-9-1989 lodged a written report (Ex. P-10) in the Police Station, Gondia.The Sub-Inspector, K.K. Tiwari deputed A.P. Mudgal for the inquiry.Thereafter, when Gomadas and his son Suresh Lal came to know that Gannu, who was the servant of accused Babudas, was not turning up on his duties, they went to his Village Hardoli, where they could not find him.However, on the next day, i.e., 25-9-1989 again they went to the place of Gannu and insisted on his coming to Police Station, Gondia and ultimately on this date (25-9-89) Gannu (P.W. 11) lodged the report in Marathi script, the Hindi translation of which is Ex. P-12 (A-A).The other important facts putforth by the prosecution are that on 26-9-1989, Sub-Inspector, A.P. Mudgal along with the accused went to Police Station, Lamata from where along with B.N. Paraste (P.W. 8) went to Charegaon and on the same day, they went up to the Railway Bridge No. 67 which is situated on the other side of the Village Charegaon and from this place they went nearby a 'Nalla' in the jungle, the said Nala was found to be dry at that time and there they could find the dead-body of the deceased, beneath shrubs.On 26-9-1989 when the Station Officer Incharge P.S. Usare (P.W. 9) of Police Station, Lamata while going back after giving the evidence in the Court of Balaghat, in the train at Charegaon Railway Station, one Constable Ashok Kumar gave information to him that in the Village Charegaon the police of Gondia had arrived and was searching for a dead-body.Head lies separately from its attachment, all the hairs, skin, muscles, eye balls, nose, lips, ears are all absent, only bony skull present, teeth were visible, tongue not visible.Upper and lower extremities are highly decomposed, skin absent plenty of maggots present and muscles were soft and loose.In chest only bony cage present and all the chest muscles and skin were absent, hallow cavity visible, inside the cavity soft, blackish indistinguishable mass present.In abdomen all the skin muscles were absent, lumber vertebrae were clearly visible and some soft blackish unrecognisable mass present.Pelvic bones are clearly visible.Left leg separated from its attachment.Foul smelling came out.External genital highly decomposed and skin and part of muscles were absent.Internal Examination:Brain :--Decomposed, Oesophagus, trachea, lungs, membrane, stomach, large and small intestines all were absent.Heart :--Empty, soft and decomposed.Liver : Greenish and decomposed."On 28-11-1989 on receiving the memo (Ex. P-2) sent by the police, Dr. Jaiswal gave his report that the post-mortem was performed on 27-9-1989 and because the dead-body was in mutilated condition and was decomposed up to a very high degree, therefore it was not possible to give any opinion whether the deceased died on account of burn injuries.According to the report of the doctor, at the time of the post-mortem, he could not find any burn mark on the body of the deceased.All the facts mentioned hereinabove are undisputed, according to the Trial Court.In brief, the case of prosecution is that on 16-5-1989 the deceased, got married with the accused and she went to her in-laws' house at Village Lohara.There was a rumour in the village that the accused dis-liked his wife (the deceased) and for this reason on 18-5-1989 when the marriage of the sister of the accused took place with Mahesh who is the son of Gomadas at Village Lohara, the accused was not present on that occasion.The fact that the accused desired to divorce his wife was a matter of discussion in the community.On 10-9-1989 the accused at the insistence of his brother Ananddas went to bring his wife from Rajnandgaon and made a demand of Rs. 10,000/- from his father-in-law, so that he may obtain some employment.This requirement of the accused, could not be satisfied by Gomadas on account of his poor financial condition.On 21-9-1989 when the accused came back to his Village Lohara, he stated to his mother and brothers that after seeing the movie on 20-9-1989 when they were at the bus-stand to come back to their Village Lohara, at that time the deceased went to discharge the excreta and when she did not turn up after half an hour, he searched for her but was unable to find her.Thereafter, his elder brother Ananddas and another brother went to search the deceased at Rajnandgaon and Waraseoni.At the insistence of Ananddas, brother of the accused, Gannu brought a Pujari of Village Ghursodi who with the aid of exorcism tried to find out the whereabouts of the deceased, in between, the accused went inside the house and slept.After some time, Gannu came to him and inquire about the deceased.The further story of the prosecution is that the accused accompanied his servant Gannu to place near the pond where he disclosed the fact to him that he carried his wife (the deceased) to Gondia from where he brought her to Village Charegaon by the train and from the railway station they went to jungle of Charegaon on foot.At the jungle, he gave elderine (a chemical to kill white ants) to drink to the deceased which he brought from his house and he himself drunk some tonic from a bottle which he brought with him.On the consumption of elderine, near about after half an hour the deceased fell down and the accused administered the rest portion of the elderine left in the bottle to the deceased and thereafter he twisted the neck of his wife and killed her and took out the ornaments, namely, two rings, nose rings, Mangalsutra, etc., which were worn by the deceased.Thereafter, in the night he came back to Gondia by train and thereafter kept the ornaments secretly in the village Aamgaon, the bottles containing elderine and tonic were thrown by him in the jungle of Charegaon.JUDGMENT A.K. Shrivastava, J.Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Balaghat in Sessions Trial No. 8/90 convicting the appellant/accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'the IPC) and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment of life, the accused/appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Upon receiving this information, Sub-Inspector Shri Usare went to the spot where the police Gondia handed over the missing person report No. 103/89, its case-diary and accused Babudas.The Sub-Inspector Shri Usare examined the dead-body of the deceased, prepared its Panchnama (Ex. P-9) and vide Ex. P-9A sent the dead-body of the deceased for the post-mortem through Constable Prakash at Primary Health Centre, Lamata.On 26-9-1989, Sub-Inspector Shri Usare registered the Dehati Nalishi (Ex. P-15) on the spot and registered the merg at zero number (Ex. P-16) and sent both the reports along with Constable Roopchand to register the merg at the Police Station, LamataOn 26-9-1989 the Sub-Inspector, in the presence of the witnesses seized the earth from the spot vide Ex. P-7, prepared the spot map (Ex. P-3).After conducting the post-mortem, Dr. G.L. Jaiswal, gave the report (Ex. P-1) which reads as under :--"Body of a young female.The accused instructed his servant Gannu not to disclose these facts to any person otherwise he would kill him.On account of fear, Gannu went to his Village Hardoli and on 25-9-1989, when Gannu reported the matter to Sub-Inspector of Police Station on 26-94989, Sub-Inspector A.P. Mudgal along with the accused went to Police Station, Lamata from where they were accompanied by Sub-Inspector B.N. Paraste and all of them went to Village Charegaon.On the same day, Sub-Inspector Paraste in the presence of the witnesses, made inquiry from the accused and recorded his confession (Ex. P-8).Thereafter the accused brought all the persons on the spot, where Sub-Inspector Paraste wrote the Panchnama (Ex. P-8A).On 27-9-1989 Shri Usare in the presence of the witnesses made inquiry from the accused and recorded his statement which is Ex. P-4 and thereafter at the instance of the accused, seized two bottles vide seizure memos (Exs. P-5 and P-6).Thereafter on 29-9-89, Sub-Inspector Usare in the presence of witnesses made inquiry from accused and recorded his statement (Ex. P-7), in which he has stated that he kept the ornaments of his wife (the deceased) on the roof of the handcart of betel standing on the bus-stand of the Aamgaon.Thereafter, they went to that place and at the instance of the accused on the roof of the handcart of betel of Kewal Ram took out a purse in which the ornaments were kept.The accused was charged under Section 302 of the IPC and the guilt was abjured by him.He pleaded his complete innocence and maladroit implication.In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses and had placed Exs. P-1 to P-18 on record.The learned Trial Judge after considering the oral and documentary evidence came to the conclusion that the charge framed against the accused person is proved beyond all reasonable doubt and, hence by the impugned judgment held him to be guilty of committing the offence under Section 302 of the IPC and eventually passed the sentence against him to suffer life imprisonment.The appellant has thus come up in this appeal assailing his judgment of conviction and order of sentence.We have heard Mr. Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Ajay K. Mishra, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State.It has also been mentioned in the document Ex. P-12 that the accused brought the purse of the deceased with him and kept her purse and chappals nearby the nala where he threw the dead-body of the deceased.Just contrary to this document (Ex. P-12), the police seized the purse and the jewellery from the roof of the betel handcart of Kewalram situated at busy locality of the bus stand of Village Aamgaon.The prosecution did not collect the evidence of last seen which could have been an important link so as to form a complete chain.The circumstantial evidence, collected by the prosecution, is not sufficient so as to make a complete chain pointing the guilt towards the accused/appellant.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
9,742,939 |
The prosecution's case, in short is that, on 7.10.2003 at about 5:00 p.m. in the evening, the prosecutrix (PW-1) was cooking in her house situated at village Juhali [Police Station, Katni District Katni] then, the applicants entered in the house and they held the prosecutrix with evil intention.Thereafter, on the instigation of the applicant Sumera, the applicant Channu gave a slap to the prosecutrix.Thereafter, Yashoda daughter of the prosecutrix came to the spot and therefore, the applicant took the prosecutrix out of the house and assaulted her by the sticks causing various injuries.The prosecutrix lodged an FIR on 8.10.2003 at about 1:00 p.m. in the noon.She was sent for her medico legal examination but no visible injury was found.However, the prosecutrix was 3 Cr. R. Nos.2113/12 & 2195/2012 complaining about the pain in her left shoulder.No fracture was found in her x-ray report.(Passed on 12th day of March, 2013) These two revisions are connected with the common judgment passed by the Magistrate Court as well as appellate Court therefore, both the revisions are decided by the present common order.2 Cr. R. Nos.2113/12 & 2195/2012The applicants were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 354 and 323 of IPC vide judgment dated 21.10.2011 passed by the learned J.M.F.C. (Shri Vijay Kumar Sonkar), Katni in criminal case no.1887/08 and sentenced for one year's S.I. with fine of `1,000/- and six months' S.I. with fine of `500/-.In criminal appeal no.163/2011, the learned Sessions Judge, Katni vide judgment dated 10.10.2012 partly allowed the appeal and the conviction as well as sentence for the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC was set aside but the conviction and the sentence for the offence punishable under Section 452 and 323 of IPC were maintained.Being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgments, the applicants have preferred the present revisions.After due investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the trial Court.3 Cr. R. Nos.2113/12 & 2195/2012The applicants abjured their guilt.They did not take any specific plea and therefore, no defence evidence was adduced.The learned J.M.F.C. after considering the prosecution's evidence convicted and sentenced the applicants for the aforesaid offences but the appellate Court found that it was not a case of Section 354 of IPC and therefore, their appeals were partly allowed and the conviction as well as sentence for the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC was set aside.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, if the evidence adduced by the prosecution is considered, then it is apparent from the evidence given by the prosecutrix (PW-1), Yashoda Bai (PW-2) and Mamta (PW-4) that the applicants entered in the house of the prosecutrix because a quarrel took place between the parties on the reason that the applicants were beating the drums in a loud manner and therefore, the prosecutrix objected.However, the prosecutrix did not state that the applicants entered in the house with sticks.It is alleged by the prosecutrix that the applicant Chunnu gave her a slap inside the house.Thereafter, the applicants took her out from the house and assaulted by the sticks.The evidence given by the prosecutrix 4 Cr.If she was assaulted by the sticks then, she must have sustained some visible injuries on her person but in her medical report, no visible injury was found, however she was complaining about the pain in her left shoulder.It indicates that the prosecutrix was not assaulted by any stick etc.4 Cr. R. Nos.2113/12 & 2195/2012It is apparent that the applicants entered in the house of the prosecutrix and they quarreled with her therefore, they have committed the offence of house trespass but they did not take any weapon inside the house and therefore, it cannot be presumed that they went inside the house with the preparation of assault.Hence, no offence punishable under Section 452 of IPC shall be constituted against the applicant.At the most, the offence punishable under Section 451 of IPC shall be constituted.The learned J.M.F.C. as well as the learned Sessions Judge have committed an error in convicting the applicants for the offence punishable under Section 452 of IPC.It is proved by the statements of the prosecutrix and her daughter alongwith Mamta that the applicants assaulted the prosecutrix.For the completion of the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC, it is not necessary that the visible injury should be caused to the victim.The testimony of these witnesses is duly confirmed by the FIR also.There was no previous enmity between the parties and therefore, the testimony of the prosecutrix and her 5 Cr. R. Nos.2113/12 & 2195/2012 witnesses cannot be thrown away.Hence, it is proved beyond doubt that the applicants had voluntarily caused hurt to the prosecutrix and therefore, both the Courts below have rightly convicted the applicants of the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC.5 Cr. R. Nos.2113/12 & 2195/2012So far as the sentence is concerned, the offence punishable under Section 451 of IPC is a part of the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC.In the present case, to cause of assault, it was for the applicant to went inside the house.However, both the offences are not so grave because it appears that the applicant Chunnu gave a slap and kicks to the prosecutrix and no visible injury was found to the prosecutrix.In such type of crime, only fine could be imposed.However, the applicant Sumera @ Sudesh remained in the custody for three months during pendency of the revision, whereas the applicant Chunnu remained in the custody for one month during the pendency of revision.Under such circumstances, they have already undergone in the custody for a sufficient period.On the basis of aforesaid discussion, the revisions filed by the applicants are hereby partly allowed.The conviction for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC is hereby maintained, whereas the conviction as well as the sentence for the offence punishable under Section 452 of IPC is hereby set aside but the applicants are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 6 Cr.R. Nos.2113/12 & 2195/2012 451 of IPC.The applicants are imposed with the jail sentence of the period, which they have already undergone in the custody for the offence punishable under Section 451 of IPC.No separate fine is imposed for that offence therefore, they would be entitled to get the fine amount back, which was deposited (if any) for the offence punishable under Section 452 of IPC before the trial Court,.6 Cr. R. Nos.2113/12 & 2195/2012At present, the applicants are on bail.A copy of the order be sent to the trial Court as well as appellate Court alongwith their records and for information.(N.K. GUPTA) JUDGE 12.03.2013 pnkj
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
97,429,527 |
Allowed md.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioner subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J. ) 2
|
['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
97,569,153 |
The facts given rise to this revision petition in brief are that on 28.12.2000 the son and daughter of the complainant namely Avinash and Usha were in the house, at that time Ajeet Singh, Surjeet Singh, Datar Singh and Sucheta Kushwaha armed with Katta, Gun and lathi entered in the house of the complainant and started beating Avinash 2 Criminal Revision No.161/2010 (Mahesh Chand Mishra Vs.State of M.P. and others) and Usha and abusing them.The accused persons have also threatened them to kill.(25/07/2014)This revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order dated 19.12.2009 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind in Criminal Appeal No.76/2009, whereby the judgment and order dated 6.7.2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class Bhind in Criminal Case No.215/2008 has been set aside and the respondents no.2 to 5 have been acquitted from the charges under sections 452 and 323 of IPC.Thereafter the report was lodged by the complainant on which Crime No.581/2000 has been registered at Police Station City Kotwali, Bhind.After investigation, charge-sheet has been filed.The case was committed for the trial.The learned Trial Court has framed the charges under sections 294, 506 Part II, 452 and 323 of IPC.After recording evidence, the learned Trial Court acquitted the respondents no.2 to 5 under section 294 and 506 Part II of the IPC, however, convicted them under section 452 and 323 of IPC and sentenced them to suffer six months R.I. and fine of Rs.1000/- under section 452 of IPC and fine of Rs.500/- under section 323 of IPC.Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 19.12.2009, this revision petition has been filed.The learned Appellate Court has not properly analyzed and appreciated the evidence and overlooked the material evidence.Learned counsel for the respondents no.2 to 5 have supported the findings of the learned Appellate Court and prayed for dismissal of the same.I have perused the record of the learned Court below and the judgment passed by the learned Court below.Criminal Revision No.161/2010 (Mahesh Chand Mishra Vs.State of M.P. and others)Mahesh Chand Mishra (PW.3) stated that he has gone to hospital and when he came to the house then his son and daughter told him about the incident, then he has submitted an application (Ex.P.1).Thus, the complainant himself is not the eye-witness of the incident and he also does not say what has been stated by his daughter and son.Avinash Kumar Mishra (PW.2) stated that he was sitting in his house, at that time Datar Singh, Ajeet Singh, Surjeet Singh and Sucheta entered in the house and started beating him.Sucheta caught hold hand of her sister and also gave beating to her.Usha Mishra (PW.1) stated that Datar Singh, Surjeet Singh and Sucheta came and asked her why she has thrown garbage in front of their door through sweeper and when she told that she does not know, then they started beating by means of kicks and fists to her brother and also pulled her hair.9. Rani (PW.4) and Anil Singh (PW.5) have not supported the statement of Avinash Kumar Mishra (PW.2) and Usha Mishra (PW.1).Dr. Ajeet Mishra (PW.6) has examined Avinash Kumar Mishra and found a contusion over right cheek.There is no medical report of Usha Mishra.Thus, the statement of Usha Mishra (PW.1) and Avinash Kumar Mishra (PW.2) are not supported by the medical evidence.According to the prosecution, the incident took place on 29.12.2000 at 12:00 hours, while the report has been lodged on the next date at 8:00 AM while the distance of police station is 1 km. No explanation has been given regarding delay in lodging the report.As noticed earlier the independent witness Rani (PW.4) and Anil Singh (PW.5) have not supported the statements of injured witness even medical evidence does not support the prosecution case.Criminal Revision No.161/2010 (Mahesh Chand Mishra Vs.State of M.P. and others) There is no explanation of delay in lodging the report.There is previous enmity.
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 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.
|
975,699 |
JUDGMENT Chakravartti, C.J.The facts of this case make a most unpleasant impression and had it not been for a very substantial question of law which is obviously implied, we would not have entertained an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court at all.There is however a point of a fundamental character which appears to us to require further consideration.The facts are as follows : There was a case under Section 304 read with Section 324, Penal Code, pending before the Sessions Judge of Burdwan in which two persons, named Istipada Ghosh and Gopiraman Ghosh, were among the accused.Their interests were being looked after by a person called Bhajaharl Mandal, who is the petitioner before us.The prosecution case is that Bhajahari did not confine his activities to supervising the progress of the case in an open and normal way, but also formed the idea of corrupting the jurors and winning over a majority of them by payment of illegal gratification.He was said to have approached one of the jurors, named Baidyanath Mukherjee, on the second day of the trial which had commenced on 2-9-52 & also approached two other jurors, one Dharanidhar Misra who was the foreman & another, named Gangadhar Dawn, independently.Baidyanath who appears to have been approached first is said to have communicated to one Sri Durgapada Choudhuri, the local Public Prosecutor, the attentions he had been receiving from the petitioner and was advised that if he could get the petitioner apprehended in the act of offering a bribe, he would be doing a service to the cause of justice.Baidyanath is said to have contacted the Police thereafter and completed arrangements for laying a trap.So far as the petitioner is concerned, Baidyanath pretended to be willing to consider his proposal and asked him to come with money on 6-9-3952, before the hour when the Court would commence its sittings for the day.The place of meeting fixed was the house of one Dibakar Banerji, a lawyer's clerk, where Baidyanath was temporarily residing.It was alleged that in accordance with that arrangement, the petitioner did go to the house of Dibakar on 6-9-1952, and just as he was handing cover to Baidyanath four ten rupee notes, a Sub-Inspector of Police, who had been hiding in the neighbourhood, appeared on the scene and placed the petitioner under arrest.
|
['Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
97,570,791 |
CRM No. 15748 of 2010 In the matter of an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 12.11.2010 in connection with Sutahata P.S. Case No. 278/2010 dated 18.10.2010 under Sections 147/148/149/186/353/332/ 333/379/325/326/307/427 of the Indian Penal Code, 25/27 of the Arms Act, Section 9(b)(iii) of the Indian Explosive Act, Section 3/ 4 of the P.D.P.P. Act and Section 9 of the M.P.O. Act.He further submitted that no specific role has been attributed against the present petitioners.We have carefully gone through the case diary and found that such submission of the learned Public Prosecutor has a substance.Moreover, the petitioners are in custody for about 44 days.2 Accordingly, we are inclined to allow the petitioners' prayer for bail.The application for bail is, thus, disposed of.(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Asim Kumar Ray, J.)
|
['Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
975,779 |
The impugned order reads as under:Based on your representation dated 31.10.2007, an enquiry was conducted.The enquiry revealed that the officials had dealt with your complaint dated 25.07.2007 in a proper manner and in accordance with procedures.Consequently, no further action was required.As the petitioner alleges that the Inspector wantonly failed to include the main accused in the FIR and then closed the case immediately when he filed a case in the High Court, the allegation may be verified, the correctness or not of the investigation be scrutinised and if required corrective measures taken.The petitioner should also be heard.Details of action taken may be reported within a fortnight.Encl: For Commissioner of Police"In pursuance to the order passed, a detailed enquiry was conducted by the Inspector of Police and translated copy of the report submitted, reads as under:"On a complaint dated 31.10.2007 sent by Tr.Raviprakash Khemka of NEPC Limited to the Secretary to Government, Home Department, it is mentioned that on 23.07.2007 afternoon at about 15:00 hrs, henchmen engaged by Southern Wind Farm, came to the office of Tr.This is for your information.sd../-Joint Commissioner of Police Central Zone, Chennai-8"The petitioner also prayed for a writ in the nature of Mandamus to direct the respondent police, i.e. the Director General of Police to reinvestigate the entire episode by entrusting it to to a special team of CBCID in the light of the directions, issued by the Allahabad High Court, Uttar Pradesh in Crl.The writ petition filed, on the face of it, is misconceived, as it has been filed by the company, registered under Companies Act, which has its own independent legal entity from that of its Chairman or Director, the possibility of alleged threat cannot be to a company.The facts show that, in fact, complaint was filed by company by Thiru Ravi Prakash Khemka, its Chairman qua alleged wrong to him.The facts leading to filing of the present writ petition, as disclosed in the affidavit in support of the writ petition, reads as under:i) Mr.Ravi Prakash Khemka, filed a complaint against 19 accused on 14.12.2006, alleging therein that he had received two threatening calls on his mobile where somebody over the telephone talked in English in filthy language and threatened that Mr.Rajkumar and his family has been spotted in Mumbai and threatened to wipe out the full family at Mumbai itself.iii)Telephone number, from which, threatening calls were received, was also mentioned in the complaint.It was mentioned in the complaint that on the same day, his second son Mr.iv) He was also threatened that in case his brother Mr.Rajkumar Khemka was not withdrawing the complaint against Mr.Rao, Mr.Amitah and Mr.Khandelwal, he would face dire consequences.v) Request was made by the petitioner to investigate the matter and register an FIR and further prayer was also made for giving list of recognized security agencies, so that, their security could be protected.In addition, prayer was also made for necessary protection.The said alleged crime was in Mumbai.But, for the reasons best known to the petitioner, complaint was filed at Chennai.Though in the heading, complaint was said to be on behalf of Mr.Ravi Prakash Khemka, but it was signed on behalf of the petitioner company.Along with complaint, the petitioner also placed on record transcription of the threatening calls.The petitioner also attached with the complaint certain threats, received from Aligarh and Deobund, Uttar Pradesh.The complaint was followed by another complaint dated 25.07.2007d, alleging therein that at about 3:00 p.m., six goondas entered into the office of the petitioner company.Names disclosed of the persons were Raja, Rajesh, Arun and Jay.But it was mentioned that real names of the accused were not known.These people were said to have threatened the company in Tamil.The case of the petitioner set out in the second complaint was that on the complaint, Police reached the spot, but before that, six goondas ran away and that their statements were recorded by the Police.Surprisingly, in the complaint, name of the complainant was not mentioned and it was signed on behalf of the petitioner company by some Director.Allegations of the petitioner are that incorrect FIR was registered by leaving principal and prime accused, named in the complaint.As observed above, in the complaint dated 25.07.2007, no names were disclosed rather it was mentioned that even disclosed names did not reflect correct name of the accused persons.As already mentioned above, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing Crl.O.P.No.26530 of 2007, wherein, specific stand was taken that no complaint had been received by Police.The petitioner, in support of complaint, produced a copy of the receipt, showing despatch of complaint.This Court, without going into controversy, directed the petitioner to give a copy of the complaint dated 25.07.2007 to the respondent police and on receipt of the same, the respondent police was directed to register a case, as the complaint disclosed cognizable offences.The petitioner made another complaint of misconduct against Sub-Inspector of Police, D-1, Police Station, alleging therein that the Police had omitted to include prime accused M/s. Southern Wind Farms Limited.It is not understood, how a legal entity can be guilty of alleged offence.Allegation in the complaint, on the face of it, was misconceived, as no criminal offence could be registered against M/s.The petitioner, thereafter, being dissatisfied by the action of the Police, filed Crl.Criminal Original Petition, filed by the petitioner, was disposed of by this Court on 06.12.2007, by passing the following order:With the above direction, the Criminal Original Petition is closed."It is interesting to note that the petitioner did not choose to implead the alleged accused in Crl.In the writ petition filed in this Court also the accused persons were not impleaded.The operative part of the order reads as under:Having regard to the averments contained in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and the nature of complaint made by the petitioner against the Inspector of Police, D-1, Police Station, Triplicane, Chennai, it is imperative that the respondents bestow their attention to the said complaint and take appropriate action if the allegations contained in the complaint dated 31.10.2007 turns out to be true.No Costs."The reading of order, passed by this Court, shows that the petitioner had chosen not to disclose the order, passed by this Court in Crl.The case of the petitioner, set up in the writ petition, is that he has not received Refer Charge Sheet from the Court of competent jurisdiction, therefore, the petitioner has been denied valuable opportunities to contest the matter before Competent Court having jurisdiction in the matter.Nothing has been shown in the affidavit with regard to steps taken by the petitioner in approaching learned XIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Chennai.The petitioner complains that this order was also not complied with by the respondent police in letter and spirit.The case of the petitioner is that impugned order has been passed without giving opportunity to the petitioner and without disclosing any reasons.The order impugned has been challenged on the following grounds:i) the order has been passed without giving opportunity of hearingii) that in the complaint dated 25.07.2007, principal and prime accused was named, but wrong and incorrect FIR was recorded by suppressing truth, state of affairs, by protecting and shielding the principal and prime accused,On the grounds referred to above, relief as prayed for be passed in favour of the petitioner and against police.Before adverting to merit of the case, it would be appropriate to note that in exercise of powers, conferred under Article 225 of the Constitution of India, the Hon'ble High Court of Madras, has framed rules, regulating proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.The petitioner is also required to name and describe the accused and respondents, which is to be accompanied by an affidavit.The first part of rules has been complied with.In support thereof, learned Government Advocate has placed on record a copy of the order dated 24.03.2008, which reads as under:No.218/S.B.XII/08 Dated: 24-3-2008 Memorandum A copy of representation dated 31.10.2007 of Tr.Raviprakash Khemka and threatened, on 25.07.2007 a complaint was given at D-1, Triplicane Police Station in this regard, there was no immediate action on the complaint, then received order to register a case on a complaint dated 25.07.2007 by the Madras High Court through Crl.O.P.No.26530 of 2007 dated 13.09.2007 dated 13.09.2007, then the case was registered belatedly on 20.10.2007 in D-1, Triplicane Police Station, in the FIR, names of persons belonging to Southern Wind Farm, prime accused in the case were not included, then without taking proper action the case was treated as 'mistake of facts', hence requests action against the Police.As mentioned above by the petitioner in the petition no complaint was given at D-1, Triplicane Police Station on 25.07.2007 stating that henchmen belonging to Southern Wind Farm came to the office of the NEPC Limited situated at No.36, Walajah Road and threatened the petitioner and walked away.To take belated action, the petition Tr.Rajkumar Khemka sent the complaint through Registered Post on 13.09.2007 and based on this complaint, Sub-Inspector of Police of D-1, Triplicane Police Station registered a CSR No.137 of 2007 and conducted enquiry.But NEPC did not cooperate for enquiry.On the same day, the petitioner approached the Madras High Court and got a direction vide Crl.O.P.No.26530 of 2007 to register a case on a complaint sent by Registered Post to D-1, Triplicane Police Station.Radhakrishnan, Sub-Inspector of Plice, D-1, Triplicane Police Station received the above mentioned High Court order on 20.10.2007 and registered a case in D-1, Triplicane Police Station in Crime No. 2085 of 2007 under Section 147, 148, 452 and 506(ii) IPC and was enquiring the witnesses.The investigation carried on after registering the case could not enlighten any such occurrence as alleged by the petitioner and the complaint being untrue, the case referred as Mistake of Fact and the R.C.Notice was refused by petitioner thereby causing it through Registered Post.The Court also sent a notice to the complainant on 27.12.2007 in this regard.The complainant did not attend the Court and was absent.But the petitioner filed Crl.O.P.No.34549 of 2007 for re-investigation which was closed by an order dated 06.12.2007 observing that a protest application to be filed before the Magistrate Court on the referred notice.The MF case file has been submitted to the High Court in a proper way.Southern Wind Farm paid Rs.250 crores to the NEPC and without paying the remaining Rs.150 crores the Southern Wind Farm has been cheating.In this regard, the petitioner lodged a complaint in CCB and based on the direction received from the High Court a case was registered on 07.02.2007 in CCB Crime No.59 of 2007 under Sections 406, 384 and 506(ii) IPC and the case was closed on the grounds of MF.Further, on 03.09.2007, on an order received from the High Court for the above incident, a case was registered in D-1 Triplicane Police Station in Crime No. 1877 of 2007 under Sections 406, 384 and 506(ii) IPC and the case was transferred to CCB.The maintainability of the writ was also challenged on the ground of suppression of material facts.In support of this contention, learned Government Advocate wanted to produce affidavit filed by the petitioner.O.P.34549 of 2007, was not disclosed, vide which, this Court had directed the petitioner to avail its remedy under the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code.On question asked, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that petitioner, in the present case, is only seeking relief for directing the respondents to take action against Police officials for dereliction of their duty.However, this contention, on the face of it, is incorrect, as the prayer in the writ petition is as under:"For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records in Rc.No.407/Camp/JC/(CZ)/08 dated 21.07.2008 / 01.08.2008 on the file of the 4th respondent herein and quash the same as ultra vires, unconstitutional, against the rule of law and against the principles of natural justice and consequently, direct the respondent police, viz. the Director General of Police to reinvestigate the entire episode, by entrusting the same to a special team of CBCID in the light of the directions issued by the Allahabad High Court, Uttar Pradesh in Crl."The appellant was the tenant under the first respondent in respect of the premises taken on lease on 01.06.1972 on a monthly rent of Rs.13,733 (at the rate of Rs.0.85 per square foot).On a request by the respondent for increase in rent, the appellant made a reference to the Hiring Committee for reassessment.The very next day the respondent wrote to the appellant again requesting for reassessment of the rent for the period commencing from 03.08.1988 by referring the matter to the Hiring Committee.The appellant again made a request to the Hiring Committee for reassessment of rent.The appellant was not agreeable for the rent recommended by the Hiring Committee, and wrote to the Hiring Committee to review the reassessment of rent, and furnished several documents in support of its request.The Hiring Committee sent a reply stating that its recommendation in regard to rent will not be reviewed.The respondent thereafter filed a writ petition for directions to the respondents to reassess the rent giving effect to the decision of the Hiring Committee recommending Rs.13.10 per square foot with effect from 03.08.1988 by way of interim reassessment.The writ petition was allowed directing the appellant to pay the rent in regard to the period 03.08.1988 to 25.06.1992, to the respondent in accordance with the recommendations of the Hiring Committee.On the complaint of the petitioner, FIR was registered and investigated.But, the petitioner, for the reasons best known, has chosen not to avail that remedy.In absence of specific order by learned Magistrate, retrial, after filing of cancellation report before Magistrate, would otherwise be hit by principle of double jeopardi, being violative of Article 20 of the Constitution of India.The prayer made, therefore, cannot be granted.For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is ordered to be dismissed.No costs.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.The Secretary to Government State of Tamil Nadu, Home Department, Fort St.The Joint Commissioner of Police, Central Zone, Madras 600 008
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 384 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
975,789 |
Shiela Sandhu constituted a private trust under the name and style of Satazo Trust with Sh.P.N.Mehta as Trustee for the benefit of their children.By a subsequent resolution Mr.H.S.Sandhu and Mrs.Shiela Sandhu resigned and Mrs.Sumitra Chisti became the trustee.In the capacity of a real Estate Agent, the petitioner negotiated for and on behalf of his client M/s Satazo Trust for the purchase of entire 11th floor, measuring 800 sq.ft.in the proposed multistoried building "Marian Manzil" 23, Bara Khamba Road, New Delhi.Negotiations were done with M/s Inder Pratap Singh and sons HUP.On 15th 0ctober,1992 Smt.Sumitra Chisti, applied to the said M/s Inder Pratap Singh, Huf for the allotment of said property.The application was signed by Smt.Sumitra Chisti as Trustee and the petitioner as estate agent.The builder agreed to sell the entire 11th floor to M/s Satazo Trust at the rate of Rs.3,850.00 per sq.ft.Sumitra Chisti the trustee became dishonest.JUDGMENT Usha Mehra, J.(1) SH.SURINDER Arora has sought the quashing .of the First Information Report No.619/94 registered against him under Section 409, 467, 468, 471, 474, 420 and 423 of the Indian Penal Code (in short IPC) in P.S. Connaught Place, New Delhi, and the investigation conducted by the Crime Branch.Quashing, order has been sought, inter alia, on the grounds that the petitioner is the sole proprietor of M/s Liaison Consultancy Services, on 10th August,1984, Mr.H.S.Sandhu and his wife Smt.beside other levies.On 22nd 0ctober,1992 a statement of transfer of immoveable property was signed by Sh.inder Pratap Singh, Huf and Smt.Somewhere in February, 1994 the said Trustee Smt.Sumitra Chisti approached various property brokers because she decided to sell the complete 11th floor.She also indicated her intention to the petitioner for the sale of the said property.Petitioner agreed to purchase the entire 11th floor for a total consideration of Rs.4.84 crores, pursuance to which an agreement to sell was also executed between him and Mr.Sumitra Chisti.Petitioner paid a sum of Rs.4.84 lacs as part payment against the total consideration by cheque drawn on Sanwa Bank Ltd. and also informed the appropriate authorities about the transfer of the said property to the petitioner for a consideration of Rs.4.84 crorers.The appropriate authority issued No Objection Certificate for the transfer of the above said 11th floor in favour of the petitioner.She tried to wriggle out of the agreement with the petitioner.To pressurise the petitioner, Sh.H.S.Sandhu threatened to cancel the agreement to sell in favour of the petitioner and offered to refund the amount.When the petitioner refused to oblige him, Mr.Sandhu threatened to liquidate and kidnap the petitioner.Petitioner was surprised to read public notice appearing in the Evening Newspaper on 15th July,1994, on behalf of the Trust disowning the factum of any agreement in favour of the petitioner and warning the public not to have any negotiation with the petitioner for the purchase of the said property.This also showed that the Trust had become dishonest.Petitioner on 22nd July,1994 lodged the complaint before the Dcp giving the history of the case and dispute between the parties.Petitioner sent a notice for and on behalf of the Trust calling upon to deliver the original documents.Petitioner filed a suit in the High Court praying for declaration and injunction regarding the agreement pertaining to the said property.However, on 15th 0ctober,1994 a case was registered on the complaint of Sh.H.S.Sandhu, former Trustee of M/s Satazo Trust against the petitioner which is the Fir in question.(2) According to petitioner false allegations have been levelled against him by Sh.Further on the same day the petitioner without the knowledge of Mr.Sandhu took another draft agreement to Smt.Sumitra Chisti and obtained her signatures without disclosing to her that it was in fact an agreement to sell in favour of the petitioner.She signed it on the misrepresentation made by the petitioner that the draft had already been approved by Mr.H.S.Sandhu.Accepting this version she signed the agreement without reading.Thus the allegation of the prosecution was that the petitioner was trying to sell the property of the Trust as his own property and, therefore, .public through newspaper was made aware that the documents signed with the appropriate authorities were forged by the petitioner.It has further been alleged in the complaint that there was no account of the Trust where amount of Rs.l.5 lacs had been paid as earnest money.That the petitioner gave wrong address of the Trust to the appropriate authorities.In fact he never paid any consideration with respect to the property in question.Thus complainant tried to build up a case against the petitioner of cheating, breach of trust by fraudulently inducing Smt.Sumitra Chisti to sign on the agreement to sell and thus committed the offence charged against him.(3) It is in this background that the present petitionER has been filed challenging further investigation and the averments of the Fir, inter alia, on the ground that the allegations made in the complaint are totally false and baseless.On the basis of evidence and documents available on record, no case has been made out against the petitioner as alleged in the FIR.In fact it is the complainant who was guilty for filing false reports and creating false evidence against the petitioner.On the basis of this false complaint petitioner has been given mental torture.Moreover, the Trust has not been deprived of the property nor the possession has been passed on to the petitioner and that the signature on the agreement to sell are genuine signatures of Smt.Sumitra Chisti.As regards misrepresentation these are only allegations.Hence the petitioner could not be charged.Investigating agency has not been able to find out any evidence against the petitioner which could for city the allegations made by the complainant Mr.H.S.Sandhu.Rather the evidence collected by the police substantiate the facts stated by the petitioner that Mr.H.S.Sandhu and others have fabricated the evidence against him to lodge a false report.Investigation on the complaint of Mr.H.S.Sandhu has been kept pending to pressurise the petitioner to cancel the agreement dated 13th March,1994, though investigating agency is fully satisfied that no case has been made out.It is in this background that the further investigation and the Fir lodged against the petitioner has been sought to be quashed.(4) Admittedly the chargesheet has not been filed till date.The matter is still at the stage of investigation on the basis of the complaint lodged by Mr.Sandhu.
|
['Section 155 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
9,757,905 |
1 018 L) CRM No. 8246 of 2018 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 18th September, 2018 in connection with Balagarh Police Station Case No. 135 of 2018 dated 05.07.2018 under Sections 342/323/325/306/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In Re:- Bapi Biswas ... Petitioner Mr. Sandip Kundu ... for the petitioner Mr. Rudradipta Nandy ...for the State The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in connection with Balagarh Police Station Case No. 135 of 2018 dated 05.07.2018 under Sections 342/323/325/306/34 of the Indian Penal Code.The State produces the case diary and says that the petitioner and another summoned the victim on the apprehension that the victim had taken uncomplimentary photographs of the petitioner's wife.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioner subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J. ) 2
|
['Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
9,758,417 |
The case of the prosecution began with DD No. 34A dated 17th July 2012 was received at PS Mangol Puri which notes that at around 4.35 pm Duty Constable posted at Sanjay Gandhi Memorial (SGM) Hospital had communicated through telephone that one Tinku a resident of J-1169 of Mangol Puri had been brought by his friend, Pradeep (PW-15) in an injured condition having been shot by a firearm to the SGM Hospital.The MLC No. 11751 of 2012 (Ex.PW-29/A) noted that Tinku was brought dead.The DD noted that this information was then passed on to Inspector Raj Kumar (PW-30) the Investigating Officer (IO).3. PW-30 who proceeded to SGM Hospital along with Sub Inspector (SI) Robin Tyagi (PW-27) and Head Constable (HC) Chander Bhan (PW-5) obtained the said MLC and met PW-15 who was found under treatment in the same hospital.Interestingly, the MLC of deceased, Tinku (Ex.PW-29/A) showed that he was brought dead there by PW-15 at 4.30 pm whereas MLC of Pradeep (Ex.PW-12/B) showed that he was brought to the same hospital at 5 pm by Constable (Ct.) Jitender (PW-26).It must be mentioned that PW-15 was Crl A 835 of 2014 Page 2 of 23 himself injured in the attack having received simple injuries on his right fore arm.Crl A 835 of 2014 Page 2 of 235. PW-30 went along with PW-15 from the SGM hospital to the place of the incident, i.e., main road SGM Hospital, Opposite K Block School, near Andh Kalyan Sanstha, Drain Mangol Puri, Delhi.The crime team also reached at the spot.6. PW-30 observed blood spots on the road near K Block School, on divider and on the road going towards Andh Kalyan Sanstha.The photographs were taken by the crime team of the scene of crime.SI Anil Kumar (PW-1) who was in-charge of the crime team as well as Ct.PW-15/A), which constituted the rukka, was to the effect that PW-15 was working as a Sweeper but for the past one and half months, he was unemployed.PW-15 was a resident of J-1193-1994, Mangol Puri, Delhi and the deceased, Tinku, was residing in the opposite house at J-1169 along with sister Guddi.Tinku was a close friend for over two and half years.On that date, i.e., 17th July 2012 Pradeep (PW-15) called Tinku to accompany him to purchase a remote for a Videocon television set.They then went to the Mangol Puri Chowk but the TV shop did not have the Crl A 835 of 2014 Page 3 of 23 remote and therefore, they decided to return home.They were passing through the main road on which SGM hospital was located when around 3.45 pm in front of Aastha Mandir, a boy on the motorcycle came in front of them He slowed down the motorcycle, and from the right side of his Capri- like pant took out a pistol like weapon, aimed and fired at Tinku.Tinku attempted to run away in an injured condition.He fell on the other side of road near the Kalyan Sanstha and was bleeding continuously.PW-15 then lifted Tinku and took him in a rickshaw to the SGM hospital.There they were met by Ct.Jitender (PW-26) who got them admitted.The tehrir below the statement of PW-15 noted that DD No. 34A had been received by PW- 30 and he was told that Tinku had been brought dead to the hospital." The time since death was estimated at about two days.Further statement of PW-15According to PW-30, on 19th July 2012 PW-15 came to the PS and gave another statement (Ex.PW-15/DX ).He now stated that he felt sorry that that although the main target of the attack was himself (PW-15), Tinku became the victim.Therefore, he had decided to speak the truth.The family of the Appellant was in talks with Ram Saran to get him married to Sonam.The Appellant had objected to PW-15 having the relationship with Sonam and asked him to end it.On 17th July 2012 at 3.45 pm the Appellant had come on his Crl A 835 of 2014 Page 5 of 23 motorcycle, aimed his firearm and fired at PW-15 but PW-15 managed to avoid it.The bullet found the chest of the deceased Tinku.PW15 stated that the Appellant was a wrestler and PW-15 feared that he may become the next target of the Appellant's attack.Therefore, PW-15 decided to come clean about the truth.Arrest and recoveriesAt around 6 pm on 19th July 2012 PW-30 received a secret information that the Appellant was present near S Block chowk, Mangol Puri.PW-30 then proceeded to that spot along with certain other policemen in a private vehicle and on pointing out of the secret informer apprehended the Appellant.Upon his personal search one mobile phone of Huawei make, TATA Indicom was recovered.Upon his disclosure statement a motorcycle bearing No DL8S AH 8700 on which the Appellant was found sitting at the time of his arrest, was seized.The Appellant is stated to have offered to get recovered the weapon of the offence.He was then apprehended and a mobile phone of Virgin make of black colour was recovered from him.According to PW-30, this was the phone used by him to converse with the Appellant.Sachin, was the son of Ram Saran.PW-30 also collected the ownership record of motorcycle DL 8S H 8700 which was in the name of Babloo, the brother of the accused.The charge sheet stated that PW-15 was having illicit relationship with Sonam who was sister of Sachin.According to Sachin, despite trying to dissuade PW-15 he did not listen.He disclosed this fact to the Appellant, Manoj, who was the younger brother of Babloo who was the son-in-law of Ram Saran's elder brother.Even Manoj, the Appellant herein could not persuade PW-15 to change his ways.The charge sheet further stated that Sachin knew that the Appellant had a country firearm and bullets and therefore, he and Manoj conspired to eliminate PW-15 to clear the way for Manoj marrying Sonam.Sachin overheard PW-15 and Tinku Crl A 835 of 2014 Page 7 of 23 conversing about purchasing the TV remote.He then called the Appellant over his mobile phone.The Appellant took his motorbike and kept following PW-15 and Tinku at J Block near Sanjay Gandhi Hospital and thereafter sought to quickly finish the task by firing upon PW-15 but by mistake killed Tinku.Crl A 835 of 2014 Page 7 of 23The present case has been projected by the prosecution as the case of direct evidence with there being two eye-witnesses, i.e. the injured witness (PW-15) and Shaheed Khan (PW-20) who is supposed to have kabadi shop on the road where the incident took place and from where he noted the number of the motorcycle which the Appellant was purportedly riding and which he stopped to fire upon the deceased.The evidence of PW15 is first examined.In his deposition in the trial Court, PW-15 began by stating that at around 3 to 3.15 pm on 17th July 2012 he went to purchase a TV remote, accompanied by the deceased Tinku, to the TV Shop at S Block, Mangol Puri.While returning, when they reached the S Block, the Appellant came on the motorcycle on the road towards Y Block.Thereafter, the Appellant ran away on his motorcycle with his katta.PW-20 claims that he somehow had the mobile number of PW-26 stored in his phone.Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.:This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment dated 19 th April 2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II (North-West), Rohini Courts, Delhi in Session Case No. 38 of 2013 arising out of FIR No. 262 of 2012 registered at Police Station (PS) Mangol Puri convicting the Appellant, Manoj @ Lekhraj, for the offence under Section 120B read with Sections 302, 307 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. This appeal is also directed against the order on sentence dated 28th April 2014 whereby for the offence under Section 302 IPC, the Appellant was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment (RI) for life and a fine of Rs. 2 lakhs and in default to undergo simple imprisonment (SI) for a period of six months; for the offence under Section 120B IPC read with 302 IPC, RI for life and a fine of Rs. 5,000, and Crl A 835 of 2014 Page 1 of 23 in default, to undergo SI for a period of 15 days; he was sentenced to undergo RI for a period of five years and fine of Rs. 2,000 and in default of fine, to undergo SI for a period of one week for the offence under Section 307 IPC; RI for a period of five years and fine of Rs. 2,000 and in default to undergo SI for a period of one week for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act.Crl A 835 of 2014 Page 1 of 23According to PW-2, he took a total of 19 photographs.Thereafter, PW-30 recorded the statement of PW-15 under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (Cr PC) on 17th July 2012 itself.The said statement (Ex.At that stage there was no disclosure by PW-15 about the person who might have fired on Tinku.Crl A 835 of 2014 Page 3 of 23The external injuries noted were as under:Firearm entry wound 3cm x 1.7cm cavity deep, oval shaped, over right side of chest, 7.3cm medial from right nipple.7 cm from sterna notch.Blackening & tattooing seen around the wound margin.Track of wound extends through space between 4 & 5 intercostals space, going downward & medially piercing the mediatinum, pericardium & heart then to stomach, spleen then gets lodged in the space between 8th & 9th intercostals space along the posterior axillary line2. Abrasion 4cm x 3cm over right side of nasal ala.Abrasion 3cm x 2cm over left cheek prominence.Crl A 835 of 2014 Page 4 of 23Abrasion 4cm x 3cm over right frontal eminence area.Abrasion 2.5cm x 1.5 cm over front of left half of chin."On internal examination, the following injuries were noted:"Heart: - laceration 2.3cm x 1.3 cm, cavity deep seen over lateral wall of right ventricle with laceration 2 x 1 cm cavity deep over anterior aspect of apex of heart.Abdomen: - Laceration 2 x 1cm, cavity deep seen over back aspect of fundus and laceration 1.5cm x 1cm cavity deep seen over back aspect of lower part of body of stomach."The opinion as to the cause of death was shock as a result of Injury No. 1 "which could be possible by projectile discharge from a fire arm weapon capable of discharging such a projectile.Crl A 835 of 2014 Page 5 of 23After recording the above second statement of PW-15, on 19th July 2012 he also recorded the statement of one Saheed Khan (PW-20) who came to the PS and gave the registration number of the motorcycle on which the person who had fired upon the deceased had arrived at the spot.He led the police to the vacant land in front of his house and got recovered one country made pistol from beneath the sand.According to PW- 30, the said country made pistol was found kept in a gunny bag when it was Crl A 835 of 2014 Page 6 of 23 recovered.Two live cartridges and one cartridge case (fired shell) was also found in the said gunny bag.Crl A 835 of 2014 Page 6 of 23On the next day, i.e. 20th July 2012, PW-30 received information that one co-accused, Child in Conflict with Law (CCL) Sachin, was present in the area of Y Block, Mangol Puri.Along with HC Niranjan Singh (PW-22) and secret informer, PW-30 went there and found the CCL, Sachin, sitting near the water tank, Shamshan Ghat Road Drain, Opposite Y Block.A supplementary charge sheet was filed on 15th May 2013 upon receipt of the ballistic report from the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) which confirmed that the bullets found in the dead body of Tinku were fired from the pistol recovered at the instance of the Appellant.By an order dated 12th March 2013 the trial Court framed the three charges against the Appellant.The first being for the offence of criminal conspiracy along with CCL Sachin (since juvenile) to commit the murder of PW-15 punishable under Section 120B; the second for committing the murder of Tinku punishable under Section 302 read with 120B IPC and; third for using the country made pistol for committing the murder thereby committing offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act.On behalf of the prosecution, 30 witnesses were examined.Within six days of the filling of the supplementary charge sheet, i.e., on 21 st May 2013, 22 of the 30 prosecution witnesses (PWs) were examined.This was the same day when an Amicus Curiae (AC) was appointed for the Appellant.The Court will dwell on this aspect subsequently in this judgment.In his statement under Section 313 CrPC the Appellant claimed that he Crl A 835 of 2014 Page 8 of 23 has been falsely implicated by PW-15 who wanted to marry Sonam, with whom, the Appellants marriage talks were on.The Appellant claimed that he was not present at the time of incident.Crl A 835 of 2014 Page 8 of 23An additional statement was recorded of the Appellant on 15th April 2014 regarding mobile phone which was recovered on his personal search.He states that he was not using SIM No. 9213963548 at the time of incident.He was using the SIM No. 8750766126 which was issued in the name of his brother Anuj.Anuj had been called to the PS after he was asked to identify the Appellants mobile phone.He identified the Samsung make mobile phone which was then returned to Anuj.A further statement of the Appellant under Section 313 Cr PC was recorded on 17th April 2014 where the Appellant stated that Mobile No. 9212733046 was being used by Babloo, elder brother of the Appellant.Inspector Ashok Kumar was examined as CW-1 to clarify that the aforesaid Mobile No. 9212733046 was issued in the name of Babloo, brother of the Appellant and that customer application form (CAF) for the said phone was issued to him.The trial Court delivered a 153 page judgment dated 19th April 2014 convicting the Appellant of the aforementioned offences.The trial Court believed the oral testimony of PW-15 and held it to be corroborated by the CDR of the mobile phone of the Appellant.The recovery of pistol at the instance of the Appellant and the ballistic evidence which proved that the bullet that killed the deceased was fired from the said weapon were held to further link the Appellant to the crime.The trial Court held that there was no reason to disbelieve the police witnesses as regards the recovery of the country made pistol at the instance of the Appellant.The trial Court then proceeded to discuss the circumstances which, according to the trial Court, were proved beyond reasonable doubt and held the Appellant to be guilty in the manner indicated before.Crl A 835 of 2014 Page 9 of 23By a separate order on sentence dated 28th April 2014 the trial Court sentenced the Appellant in the manner indicated above.PW-15 raised an alarm for help.He thereafter took Tinku to the SGM hospital in a rickshaw.According to PW-15, somebody made a call to the police and Ct.Jitender (PW-26) met them at the entrance to the hospital.Crl A 835 of 2014 Page 14 of 23He now volunteered that on 17th July 2012 he did not disclose the name of offender.PW-15 further admitted that his landlord was Ram Saran and that the Appellant was the younger brother of the son-in-law of the elder brother of Ram Saran.PW-15 admitted that he was on "talking terms with Ms. Sonam the daughter of my landlord Ram Saran" and that the Appellant suspected PW-15 of having illicit relations with Sonam.He admitted that the Appellant had protested and warned PW-15 to discontinue talking to Sonam.He further stated that the Appellant was a wrester and due to fear he did not disclose his name in his first statement.In his cross-examination, PW-15 started by saying that he was an illiterate person.He was immediately confronted with his previous statement in which he had made the following statements:(i) about the Appellant stopping his motorcycle and firing upon PW- 15 and the deceased Crl A 835 of 2014 Page 15 of 23Crl A 835 of 2014 Page 15 of 23(ii) about statement having recorded on 18th July 2012 but in fact there was no such statement.In his cross-examination PW-15 stated that he did not know the difference between a katta, a pistol or a revolver.He admitted that he did not call the police or even the family members of Tinku.Interestingly, he said in his cross-examination as under:"It is wrong to suggest that I had an affair with one Sonam d/o Ram Sharan.She is like my sister and used to tie a rakhi to me.I have not stated in my statement dated 18th July 2012 that "as I was having illicit relation with Sonam, Manoj was having a grudge on me and he told me to severe my relationship with Sonam." Confronted with statement Ex.I am aware if the marriage talks of Sonam with accused Manoj were goinig on.I was told by the police officials regarding this fact.It is wrong to suggest that I could not identify the real culprit who had fired upon Tinku."The above answers makes this witness wholly unreliable for the simple reason that he completely changed the story about the Appellant objecting to his having illicit relations with Sonam.This was supposed to supply the motive for the crime.The third factor is that the Appellant claims to be illiterate; unable to sign his name and not even know the difference between a pistol, revolver and a katta.He did not know what was meant by Atmaglaani The term used in the second statement.43. PW-15 claims to have made a statement to the police on 18 th July, 2012 when in fact no such statement was recorded on that date.From his own showing, he appears to be jalebi-maker having a stall.It is impossible to expect a person of that background to be able to adeptly use the country-made revolver and that too by coming on a motorcycle and firing on another while sitting on the motorcycle.Further, it seems unlikely that the Appellant would choose such a busy thoroughfare to commit such a crime during broad daylight unless he was a person who was a trained professional shooter.Crl A 835 of 2014 Page 18 of 23Evidence of PW-20 unreliablePW20 was supposedly having a kabari (junk dealer) stall on the main road.He states that on 17 th July 2012 he was sitting in front of his shop when he heard the noise of a fire arm shot "from the other side of the road".On hearing the noise, he saw a boy running and coming towards "other side of the road" and his clothes were smeared with blood.He noticed a boy on the motorcycle pointing something which appeared to be a pistol towards the boy who was hit.Thereafter the boy on motorcycle escaped towards the side of the police chowki.Without an idea of the distance from which PW-20 was witnessing this, it is impossible to believe that he could within that short time, somehow note down the motorcycle number, and that too a number written in Hindi.From the police file, the learned APP has produced photograph of the motorcycle having the Hindi number plate on the rear.The alphabets "DL 8S AH" are all written in Devanagari script in such small letters, that it would be next to impossible for a person even from a distance of 3 feet to be able to read that number plate.While the Hindi lettering of 8700 is fairly legible, it is simply not possible that PW-20 would have been able to read the alphabets Crl A 835 of 2014 Page 19 of 23 on top of it written in Devanagari script without a binocular or telescope.This itself makes this witness wholly unreliable.Crl A 835 of 2014 Page 19 of 2349. PW-20 then claims that he immediately called up Ct.Jitendra (PW-26) to tell him that as he had noticed the firing upon a boy.In his cross- examination, he stated "I did not inform Constable Jitendra when I made a call to him about the number of the motorcycle.Vol: I told him after two days.I did not approach police prior to 19 th July 2012."PW-26 claims that he received a call from PW-20 about a person being shot near the ashram of blind persons and giving him at that moment on 17th July 2012 the number written on the number plate of the motorcycle in Hindi.This contradicts PW-20 who states that he did not give this motorcycle number to PW-26 on 17th July 2012 when he called him first.The second inconsistency in the evidence of PW-26 is that he claimed to have met PW-15 and the injured Tinku near the gate of the SGM hospital and taken them to the emergency whereas the MLC shows that it was PW- 15 who brought Tinku to the hospital at 4:30 pm.As noticed earlier, according to PW-30, PW-20 himself came to the PS only two days later to give them the number of the motorcycle.Interestingly in his previous statement to the police under Section 161 of the CrPC recorded on 19th July 2012, PW-26 is completely silent about PW-20 calling him on 17th July 2012 and giving him the number of the motorcycle on which the Appellant was supposed to have arrived at the scene of crime.This is another reason why PW-26 cannot be believed to be a trustworthy witness.Crl A 835 of 2014 Page 20 of 23The Court, therefore, is unable to agree with the Trial Court about the trustworthiness and credibility of PWs- 20 and 26 as well.With the depositions of PWs 15, 20 and 26 not inspiring confidence, the case can no longer be one based on direct evidence as claimed by the prosecution.The trial Court appears to have proceeded as if the case was one of circumstantial evidence.Learned APP placed considerable reliance on the single circumstance of recovery of the weapon of offence at the instance of the Appellant and the ballistic evidence which proved that the bullet which killed the deceased was fired from that weapon.Learned APP placed reliance on judgment dated 31st March 2016 of this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 498 of 2007 (Mahabir Singh v. State) to urge that even where Crl A 835 of 2014 Page 21 of 23 the eye-witnesses to an incident are disbelieved, conviction can still be returned on the basis of the sole circumstance of recovery.Crl A 835 of 2014 Page 21 of 23To begin with, it must be noticed that the recovery was not in the presence of any independent witness but only police witnesses.PW-21 states that the Appellant took out a polythene bag after digging in a corner of a plot in front of his house and from a polythene bag a country-made pistol, two live cartridges was taken out.PWs 26 and 27 state that he took them to the vacant plot, dug the ground from where he got recovered the pistol.Crl A 835 of 2014 Page 22 of 23For the aforementioned reasons, the Court is unable to agree with the trial Court that the prosecution in this case has been able to prove the guilt of the Appellant for the offences for which he has been charged beyond reasonable doubt.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
97,584,187 |
Heard on the question of admission.Record of the trial Court be called for within four weeks.Also, heard on I.A.No.20036/2016 filed by the appellant / accused under section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of his jail sentence awarded by Seventh Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar in Sessions Trial No.31/2016 vide its judgment dated 08.09.2016 convicting the appellant / accused under sections 354 of the IPC and sentencing him to undergo RI for 2 years along with fine of Rs.500/-, section 354-A(1) (2) of IPC and sentencing him to undergo RI for 2 years along with fine of Rs.500/-, section 323 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo RI for 3 years along with fine of Rs.500/-and section 7 read with sec.8 of POCSO Act 2012 and sentencing him to undergo RI for 3 year along with fine of Rs.1000/-, with default stipulation as mentioned in the impugned judgment.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant-accused was on bail during trial and he has never misused the liberty granted to him.The appellant an accused has deposited the amount of fine as imposed by the trial court.Disposal of the appeal will take considerable time.On these grounds, learned counsel has prayed for suspension of execution of jail sentence and grant of bail.Learned PL for the respondent-State has opposed the application and prayed for its rejection.Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this application is allowed.It is ordered that subject to payment of fine amount, if not already deposited, the execution of jail sentence of the appellant/accused Indraj shall remain suspended during the pendency of this appeal and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the CJM, Sagar on 18.01.2017 and thereafter on all other such subsequent dates as may be fixed by the CJM in this regard.In case, the appellant is found absent on any date fixed by the CJM, then the said CJM shall be free to issue and execute warrant of arrest without referring the matter to this Court, provided the Registry of this Court is kept informed.After receipt of the record, the appeal be listed for final hearing in due course as per listing policy.C.C. as per rules.(J. P. GUPTA) JUDGE VS
|
['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.
|
97,584,455 |
Shri S.K.Mishra, Counsel for the objector.Heard the learned counsel for the parties.They do not have any criminal past as such.3 - 4 cases were registered against Jagdish but he was not convicted in any of the them.Jagdish is an old person of 75 years of age.It is alleged against the co-accused Munna Singh that he fired with the gun causing fatal injury to deceased Raju so that he succumbed with the injuries.There is no allegation against the applicants in the FIR that they fired from the firearm.Though the firearms as alleged are recovered from the each of the applicants.No other person has sustained any fatal or grave injury in the incident or firearm injury.Prima facie no offence under Section 307 or 302 of IPC is made out against the applicant either directly or with the help of Section 34 or 149 of IPC.The applicants are in custody without any substantial reason.Consequently, they pray for bail.Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State opposes the application.Learned counsel for the objector has submitted that the applicant have already participated in the crime and they exonerated the main accused Munna Singh.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', '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.
|
67,236,446 |
2.Though many grounds have been raised in the petition, Mr.However, he submitted that the copy of the bail applications in the similar cases, referred to in the grounds of detention were not supplied to the detenu.4.We have given our careful and anxious consideration to the rival submissions put forward by the learned counsel on either side and thoroughly scanned through the impugned detention order and the entire materials available on record.5.It is seen from paragraph No.4 of the Grounds of Detention that in similar cases the accused was granted bail, viz., [a] by the learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate in Crl.M.P.No.593/2009, in respect of the case in Cr.No.26 of 2009 for the offence under Section 379 IPC on the file of R-1 Mambalam Police Station; and [b] by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur, in Crl.M.P.No.2392 of 2012, in respect of the case in Cr.No.1960 of 2012 for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 336, 427, 392, 397 and 506 (ii) IPC on the file of T-1 Ambattur Police Station.
|
['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
67,240,655 |
sdas Allowed C.R.M. 903 of 2020 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 22.01.2020 in connection with Kaliyaganj Police Station Case No. 299 of 2019 dated 01.12.2019 under Sections 448/341/324/326/354A /506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In Re : Paritosh Barman & Ors....... petitioners Mr. Somnath Banerjee Mr. Pronojit Roy .....for the petitioners Mr. Sudip Ghosh Mr. Apurba Kumar Datta ....for the State It is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners that they have been falsely implicated in the instant case due to family dispute between the parties.Learned Counsel appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail.Having considered the materials on record and bearing in mind the nature of allegations against the petitioners and as injuries do not appear to be serious, we are inclined to grant anticipatory bail to them.Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest the petitioners shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- each, 2 with two sureties of like amount each, to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and also be subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and on condition that they shall appear before the court below and pray for regular bail within a period of four weeks from date.This application for anticipatory bail is, thus, allowed.(Suvra Ghosh, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
67,249,769 |
Bibishan Zambare and applicant No.2 - Archana ShrikantZambare, shall be released on bail, in C.R.No.2500 of 2020registered with Sinhagad Road Police Station, Pune, onWakodikar ::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2020 05:35:52 ::: 5/5 11 ABA ST 3056-20.docfurnishing P.R. bond to the extent of Rs.25,000/- each with oneor two sureties of the like amount.::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2020 05:35:52 :::(c) The applicants shall attend the concerned Police Stationon every Thursday between 10.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m. for fourweeks and thereafter, as and when called for.(d) The applicants shall not directly or indirectly make anyinducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted withfacts of case so as to dissuade him from disclosing the facts toCourt or any Police Officer and should not tamper withevidence.BHARATI DANGRE, JWakodikar ::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2020 05:35:52 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2020 05:35:52 :::
|
['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
67,252,723 |
Let the applicantShyamveer @ Shyami, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on 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 SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT.IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL.IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
67,254,443 |
Both the sides are heard.Thepapers of investigation were made available.On the basis ofsecret information received by his office when action was taken andsearch of house of one Khurshida Hamid Shaikh was taken, presentapplicant Shri.Wasim Shaikh was present in that house and in thehouse huge quantity of Pan Masala (Vimal Premium), scentedtobacco (V-1), scented tobacco Bagwan 480, scented tobaccoBagwan 69 was found and the value of these articles was more thanRs.The present applicant admitted that he was the ownerand he had kept the articles there.He did not produce the bills ofpurchase and he did not supply information as to from where he hasbrought these goods.His place of residence was situated opposite tothis place.Both the applications are filed under section 482 ofCriminal Procedure Code for relief of quashing and setting aside theproceedings.The first proceeding is filed for quashing of SessionsCase No. 13/2015, which is pending before the learned AdditionalSessions Judge, Nandurbar and the said case is filed for offencespunishable under sections 272, 273 and 328 of Indian Penal Code ::: Uploaded on - 04/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 30/12/2018 10:45:50 ::: Cri.No. 4353/16 & Anr.::: Uploaded on - 04/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 30/12/2018 10:45:50 :::against the applicant.The second proceeding is filed for quashing ofSessions Case No. 15/2015, which is pending in the same Court andwhich is filed for similar offences.As in Maharashtra, there is ban to manufacture, possessand sell of these goods, the food articles, these pouches were seizedunder panchanama by Food Safety Officer and the report was given.The report was given for aforesaid offences punishable under IPCand also for the offences punishable under the Food Safety andStandards Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) ::: Uploaded on - 04/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 30/12/2018 10:45:50 ::: Cri.No. 4353/16 & Anr.::: Uploaded on - 04/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 30/12/2018 10:45:50 :::and they are mentioned in the F.I.R.The F.I.R. from the second proceeding was also filed bythe Food Safety Officer of Dhule and he had taken action on9.4.2014 on the basis of secret information and he had searched theplace of Daulatram Agrawal, applicant of the second proceeding.During search, many pouches, bags containing pouches of articlesscented tobacco (V-1), Pan Masala (Vimal containing saffron), PanMasala (Vimal Premium), paper box of scented tobacco (V-1) werefound.The value of these pouches was more than Rs.16,600/-.Oninquiry, the applicant did not produce any record in respect of thepurchase of these articles.As in Maharashtra the manufacture ofthese articles, storage and sell, all are prohibited, report was givenby Food Safety Officer under aforesaid provisions of IPC and alsounder the Act.It was argued for the applicants that even if it ispresumed that the applicants were found in possession of aforesaidarticles and they were in huge quantity, the provisions of sections272, 273 and 328 of IPC cannot be used.He submitted that itcannot be inferred only because there was prohibition formanufacture, possession and sale of these articles, these articles areinjurious to health as mentioned in the aforesaid provisions of IPC. ::: Uploaded on - 04/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 30/12/2018 10:45:50 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 30/12/2018 10:45:50 :::No. 4353/16 & Anr.It was also ::: Uploaded on - 04/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 30/12/2018 10:45:50 ::: Cri.No. 4353/16 & Anr.::: Uploaded on - 04/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 30/12/2018 10:45:50 :::Prior to giving of the decision at Principal Seat, at this ::: Uploaded on - 04/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 30/12/2018 10:45:50 ::: Cri.No. 4353/16 & Anr.::: Uploaded on - 04/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 30/12/2018 10:45:50 :::Union of India and Ors.) which wasdecided with connected matters on 23.11.2011 had considered thebad effects of the components of Gutkha, Pan Masala on health.Inthat matter, the manufacturers had challenged the action takenagainst them.In Writ Petition No. 830/2016 (Umraosing JulalsinghPatil Vs.This Court had considered the ::: Uploaded on - 04/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 30/12/2018 10:45:50 ::: Cri.No. 4353/16 & Anr.::: Uploaded on - 04/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 30/12/2018 10:45:50 :::notification of the State Government dated 15.7.2014 and theprovisions of the Act. In that case, the Single Judge had held thatthese substances contain nicotine and magnesium carbonate andthey can take life.This Court had considered the ingredients ofprovision of section 328 of IPC like(i) causes to be taken by any person unwholesome drug and(ii) knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause hurt.Thus, if these two ingredients are made out, then the prosecution foroffences punishable under section 328 of IPC is also possible.Inpresent two matters, huge quantity of tobacco and Pan Masala isrecovered and only inference from the circumstance like the foodarticle was in huge quantity is that the applicants wanted to makemoney by selling it in this State as there was ban for manufacture,possession and sale of these articles.When there is such ban, thepersons like applicants are making more money as the persons whoare addicted to these substances are ready to pay any price.Inrecently decided case Criminal Application No. 4968/2016 (ZahirIbrahim Panja and Ors.The State of Maharashtra and Anr.)decided with other case on 16.10.2018, this Court has againconsidered the applicability of provisions of sections 273 and 328 ofIPC and also the provisions of the Act when such articles are foundin possession in Maharashtra.The relevant portion of the ::: Uploaded on - 04/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 30/12/2018 10:45:50 ::: Cri.No. 4353/16 & Anr.::: Uploaded on - 04/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 30/12/2018 10:45:50 :::observations are at paragraph Nos. 3, 4 and 5 and they are as under:-The learned counsel for applicants in both the proceedings made following submissions :-on 20.09.2018, the Apex Court has considered the various provisions of Special Enactment, the provisions of Indian Penal Code and also the provision of section 26 of General Clauses Act and ::: Uploaded on - 04/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 30/12/2018 10:45:50 ::: Cri.No. 4353/16 & Anr.::: Uploaded on - 04/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 30/12/2018 10:45:50 :::In view of these circumstances, this Court holds that there is no force in the contention that the crime ought not to have been registered.Second contention made against use of provisions of sections 272 and 273 of IPC is also not having any force.The provision of section 272 covers the persons who are responsible for adulteration of any food article, to make such article noxious as found and which is intended for sale.The provision of section 273 of IPC covers the seller and also the person who is exposing the articles for sale and those articles are noxious or in the state unfit for consumption as food.Both provisions can be used against the present applicants as huge quantity of prohibited food articles was found in their possession.This provision shows that whoever administers to or causes to be taken by any person anything which is likely to cause hurt then he can be punished under provision of section 328 of IPC.Specific person to whom the::: Uploaded on - 04/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 30/12/2018 10:45:50 ::: Cri.No. 4353/16 & Anr.::: Uploaded on - 04/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 30/12/2018 10:45:50 :::How these substances are injuries to health is considered by this Court while deciding in Writ Petition No. 3398 of 2011 [Sanket Food Products Private Limited Vs.Union of Indian and others] decided in the year 2011 itself.Further, the aforesaid order dated 15.7.2016 of the State Government shows that for issuing that order of prohibition, the State Government considered the research material of Tata Memorial Hospital, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, research work done by James E. Harner and many other institutes from India and abroad.Scientifically, it is established that areca nut chewing has been classified as carcinogenic to humans.Tobacco and such food, substance like Pan Masala and Gutkha which contain the substances cause cardiac arrest, oral cancer, esophageal cancer, stomach cancer and other diseases.They cause diseases of various internal organs and glands also.The study revealed that in India in the year 2011, the amount has been spent on treatment in respect of::: Uploaded on - 04/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 30/12/2018 10:45:50 ::: Cri.No. 4353/16 & Anr.::: Uploaded on - 04/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 30/12/2018 10:45:50 :::In the result, both the applications standdismissed.VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.] [T.V. NALAWADE, J.]ssc/ ::: Uploaded on - 04/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 30/12/2018 10:45:50 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 30/12/2018 10:45:50 :::
|
['Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
67,255,846 |
Petitioner had written a letter to the Hon'ble Chief Justice and it was grievance of the petitioner that her son prisoner No.14/5046 Atul Shukla S/o.Sukhdev Shukla, R/o.424 Hanumantal, Police Station Hanumantal, District Jabalpur has been punished in Session Trial No.20/86 vide judgment dated 12.5.1995 for an offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.However, it is directed that on a copy of this order along with photocopy of the letter dated 2.3.2012 submitted by the petitioner to Hon'ble the Chief Justice being forwarded to the Principal Secretary (Home) and the Principal Secretary (Law) the authority shall forward the same to the competent authority entitled to grant remission or relief to petitioner's son and the said authority shall take decision on the application within a period of two months of its receipt.That apart, as the petitioner and her husband are senior citizen, more than 75 years of age, and as for a long period of time their son was lodged in Central Jail Jabalpur, the respondents are directed to re-transfer petitioner's son to Central Jail Jabalpur so that the petitioners can atleast have the satisfaction of meeting their son in this old age.With the aforesaid the petition stands disposed of.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
67,257,543 |
::: Uploaded on - 23/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2020 08:10:31 :::5] It is stated that the change reports of the elections since year 2007 till date filed by the applicants are pending before the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Akola.It is further stated that a school by name Tilak Rashtriya Saraswati Mandir Secondary and Higher Secondary School, Akola, run by the aforesaid trust, was having vacancies for the posts of teachers, the applicant nos. 6 and 7 who were working in the said school as peon and librarian respectively had applied to the applicant no. 1 who was then headmistress of the school for the posts of Shikshan Sewak as they acquired the educational qualification while in employment.6] It is the case of the applicants that the applicant no. 1 sent a letter to the management for filling up the vacant posts by appointing the applicant nos. 6 and 7 as they were eligible for the said posts.It is further stated that after following the due procedure and obtaining necessary approval from the Education Officer, the applicant nos. 6 and 7 were appointed as Shikshan Sewak in the said school.10] At the outset, learned APP could not point out any material from the police case diary as regards the interest of the present applicant nos. 1 to 5 for appointing the applicant nos. 6 and 7 as Shikshan Sewak.Undisputedly, the proceedings of the change report for the election of the::: Uploaded on - 23/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2020 08:10:31 ::: Judgment 5 apl398.14.odt management of the trust is pending before the Assistant Charity Commissioner.It is stated that the present applicants, being the trustees of the aforesaid trust, are managing the affairs of the trust and the school which is under the said trust.DATED : 30/09/2019 JUDGMENT : (PER:- PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, J.) 1] Heard finally with the consent of Shri P. V. Ghare, Advocate h/f Shri A.M. Ghare, Advocate for the applicants and Shri M.K. Pathan, APP for the non-applicant/State.2] This is an application for quashing of F.I.R. No. M-79/2014 registered with Police Station Ramdaspeth, Akola for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 408, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.3] The impugned first information report came to be registered vide order dated 06/06/2014 passed by the Court of J.M.F.C., Akola in Private Criminal Case No. 148/2014 under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.::: Uploaded on - 23/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2020 08:10:31 :::7] A complaint by the non-applicant no. 2 herein was lodged against these applicants before the Court of Magistrate, Akola under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for not following the due::: Uploaded on - 23/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2020 08:10:31 ::: Judgment 4 apl398.14.odt procedure in the appointments of the applicant nos. 6 and 7 as Shikshan Sewak.Learned Magistrate vide order dated 06/06/2014 found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and directed PSO Ramdaspeth Police Station to carry out the investigation under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Accordingly, the impugned first information report came to be registered against the present applicants.8] The allegations against the present applicants in the impugned first information report are that the applicants in furtherance of their common intention created a bogus school committee and appointed applicant nos. 6 and 7 as Shikshan Sewak and availed Rs. 1,76,000/- from the government.::: Uploaded on - 23/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2020 08:10:31 :::9] With the assistance of learned advocate for the applicants and learned APP on behalf of the State, we have perused the documents placed on record.The documents on record would reveal that after obtaining necessary approval and permission from the Education Officer, the applicant nos. 6 and 7 came to be appointed who were eligible to be appointed as Shikshan Sewak.The applicant nos. 6 and 7 are stated to have been working in the said school since more than 10 years as peon and librarian respectively.There were vacancies for the posts of Shikshan Sewak.It appears from the record that the applicants may not have followed the proper procedure in the appointments of applicant nos. 6 and 7, however, we do not find any mens rea on the part of the applicants to attract any criminal liability.Undisputedly, the appointments of applicant nos. 6 and 7 as Shikshan Sewak have been cancelled.Nothing is brought on record to our notice about any malafide intention of the applicants in the said appointments in order to attract alleged offence.In our considered view, the material on record does not disclose the alleged offence of cheating or breach of trust or forgery.In this view of the matter, we are inclined to allow the application and the same is accordingly allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) as follows:-::: Uploaded on - 23/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2020 08:10:31 :::"(a) Quash and set aside the F.I.R. M-79/14 registered with Ramdaspeth Police Station, Akola, for the offences punishable under Sections::: Uploaded on - 23/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2020 08:10:31 ::: Judgment 6 apl398.14.odt 406, 420, 409, 467, 468, 471 R/w Sec. 34 of I.P.C and order dated 06/06/2014 passed by the J.M.F.C., Akola in Private Criminal Case No. 148/2014."::: Uploaded on - 23/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2020 08:10:31 :::::: Uploaded on - 23/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2020 08:10:31 :::
|
['Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 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.
|
67,258,230 |
% P.S. TEJI, J.By this petition filed under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Cr.P.C.) the petitioner seeks bail in FIR No.502/2014 under Section 498-A/306/304- B/34/174-A of IPC, at Police Station Mahendra Park, Delhi.In a nutshell, the prosecution case is that the married lady/wife of accused Pradeep and sister in law (bhabhi) of the petitioner died under unnatural circumstances by burning within seven years of her marriage.After her death, Tehsildar/Executive Magistrate recorded the statement of parents of the deceased wherein it was mentioned by the parents of the deceased that the marriage of their daughter took place on 24.06.2011 with accused Pradeep and there was no trouble at Bail.No.492/2016 Page 1 of 6 her matrimonial home in the first year of her marriage but thereafter the in-laws of the deceased started harassing her on account of their daughter giving birth to a girl child, whereas their daughters were blessed with male children.They also taunted the deceased that after her marriage with accused Pradeep, her father in law also continuously remained ill.No.492/2016 Page 1 of 6The aforesaid statement was recorded by the Executive Magistrate and had made endorsement thereon to the effect that no clear cause of dowry death was made out with remarks that foul play cannot be ruled out, which is a matter of further investigation.Thereafter, on 01.09.2014, father of the deceased filed a hand written five pages complaint to the SDM, Model Town in which details were mentioned, carrying the allegations regarding taunts as well as demands of dowry.It was specifically mentioned that the father of the deceased had spent Rs.20 lacs in the marriage and thereafter his daughter was harmed on account of demand of dowry.Investigation of the case was concluded, charge sheet for the offences punishable under Section 498-A/306/304-B/34 of IPC were framed against all the accused.However, the petitioner surrendered before the court of ACMM on 07.01.2016 and was arrested formally in the case.Thereafter, supplementary charge Bail.The petitioner applied for his bail, which was declined by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide order dated 25.02.2016 and consequently, the present bail application is filed before this court.No.492/2016 Page 2 of 6Mr. R.N. Vats, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the father of deceased has cagtegorically mentioned in his statement that her daughter was married about three years ago and she was not having any problem in the matrimonial home except some small bickering.Apart from the aforesaid contentions, it is vehemently contended on behalf of the petitioner that the main accused, i.e. husband of the deceased - Pradeep has already been granted bail in the present case and the other co-accused - Ramrati @ Guddi has been discharged by the Trial Court vide order dated 03.02.2015, as no Bail.No.492/2016 Page 3 of 6 prima facie case was found to be made out against her.Mr. Rajat Katyal, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State vehemently opposed the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner remained non- cooperative during the investigation and despite best efforts, he could not be arrested and he was declared a proclaimed offender.I have heard the submissions of learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as the submissions of Bail.No.492/2016 Page 5 of 6Before parting with the order, this Court would like to place it on record by way of abundant caution that whatever has been stated hereinabove in this order has been so said only for the purpose of disposing of the prayer for bail made by the petitioner.Nothing contained in this order shall be construed as expression of a final opinion on any of the issues of fact or law arising for decision in the case which shall naturally have to be done by the Trial Court seized of the trial.With aforesaid directions, the present bail application stands disposed of.P.S.TEJI, J APRIL 19, 2016 pkb Bail.
|
['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
122,738,012 |
This is an application for grant of temporary bail for 15 days, filed by the applicant, under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The applicant is in custody since 24.9.2016, in connection with Crime No.419/2016 registered at Police Station Mandla, District Mandla (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 364 & 302 of IPC, in alternate 302 r/w Sec. 34 and 201 of IPC.The applicant has filed this temporary bail application on the ground of marriage of his younger brother and in support thereof, he has produced marriage card.Perusal of that marriage card reflects the name of the present applicant as elder brother of groom has been printed.On these grounds, learned counsel for the applicant prays for grant of bail to the applicant.Per-contra, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State opposes the temporary bail application.After hearing arguments of the parties and looking to the marriage of younger brother of applicant, I am of the considered view that it would be appropriate to release the applicant on temporary bail, therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, application of the present applicant namely, Rishi @ Rinku Jyotishi under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. seems to be acceptable.It is directed that applicant be released on temporary bail for a period of 15 days on his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.60,000/- (Rupees Sixty Thousand) with two sureties of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) each, to the satisfaction of the JMFC concerned or trial Court for his appearance before them on 16 th day i.e. immediately after completion of the aforesaid period of 15 days.It is further made clear that as soon as the period of 15 days is over, the applicant shall surrender himself on the next day positively, and if, the applicant does not surrender before the trial Court after expiry of the aforesaid period of temporary bail immediately, the trial Court should take steps for arresting the applicant.Certified copy as per rules.(H.P. Singh) JUDGE A.Praj.
|
['Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
122,740,358 |
The further allegation is that the petitioners who were friends of A1 Santhosh had abetted him.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioners are innocent and they were falsely implicated in this case.He would further submit that A1 Santhosh had love affair with Santhiya, who is the daughter of the defacto complainant and both of them eloped and got married.Since the petitioners happened to be the friends of A1 and they have been arrested.He would further submit that there is no allegation against the petitioners, as if, they committed any harassment to the victim girl.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would further submit that A1 Santhosh had kidnapped the minor daughter of the defacto complainant and married her.He would further submit that the victim has been secured.He would further submit that the allegation against the petitioners is that they have assisted A1 in the offence.http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.9288 of 2020(a) Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on executing their own bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only),each before the Superintendent of the concerned prison, in which the petitioners have been confined and thereafter on their release;(b) the petitioners shall execute two sureties for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) each, before the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Krishnagiri, within 15 days from the date of lifting of the lockdown and the commencement of the Court’s normal functioning, failing which the bail granted by this Court shall stand dismissed automatically;(c) the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the learned Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;(d) the petitioners shall report before the respondent police every day at 10.30 a.m. for a period of one week and thereafter as and when required for interrogation.http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.9288 of 2020(e) the petitioners to furnish the correct details of address along with mobile number to the Investigating Officer and to the concerned Court.(f)the petitioners shall not commit any offences of similar nature;O.P.No.9288 of 2020 24.06.2020(The case has been heard through video conference) The petitioners who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 27.05.2020 for the alleged offence punishable under Section 1/6http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.9288 of 2020 Girl Missing @ 363, 366(A), 366 of IPC and 5(1) r/w 6 of POCSO Act 2012 in Crime No.364 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.During the investigation, it was found that A1 Santhosh had kidnapped the victim girl and forcibly married her.(h) the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;(i) on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560];(j) if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.6.With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition is ordered.24.06.2020 ms 4/6http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.9288 of 20201.The Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Krishnagiri.2.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Salem.3.The Inspector of Police, Pochampalli Police Station, Krishnagiri District.4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.9288 of 2020 A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.ms Crl.
|
['Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
122,743,707 |
The prosecution case in short is that, on 21.9.1995 at about 1:10 a.m., in the night Umrao Singh was called by Sahodra Bai.When Umrao Singh went inside her house, he was caught by the appellants and beaten by kicks & fists and sticks.Umrao Singh (since deceased) sustained fatal injuries over his head and other parts of his body.Umrao Singh was brought to the police station and after sometime he died.On the intimation of Shyam Singh, merg was registered by the Police Ashta, District Sehore.On the dehatinalishi lodged by Umrao Singh, police registered a case against the appellants.After 2 Criminal Appeal No.1768/1996 due inquest, offences under Sections 302, 342/34 of the IPC and section 3(2)Case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Sehore.3. Charges under Sections 302, 342 and 120(B) of the IPC have been framed by the trial Court.The appellants abjured their guilt.They pleaded that they were innocent and falsely implicated in this case.No witness has been examined by the defence.After considering overall prosecution evidence, learned trial Court convicted the appellants under Sections 304 part-II, 342 of the IPC and sentenced for 10 years RI with fine of Rs.2,000/- and six months RI with fine of Rs.500/- respectively.5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.As per statement of sub-inspector Shyam Singh (PW-16), in the intervening night of 20 and 21.9.1995 at about 1:10 a.m., on receiving telephonic massage at police station Astha, he went to the spot.He lodged Dehatinalishi ExP/30 on the report of Sahodra Bai.P/31 on the report of the deceased, Sahodra Bai reported that the deceased entered into her house.Therefore, Umrao was tied up at their otlay (Chabutra).On the other hand, the deceased Umrao himself reported Dehatinalishi Ex.P/31 at 1:00 a.m. in the midnight, Sahodra Bai called him inside her home.Thereafter he was caught hold and beaten by the appellants Shiv Narayan, Kanhaiyalal, Ramchander, Asharam and Radheshyam.Learned counsel for the appellants contended that Dehatinalishi has not been lodged by the deceased.This Court is not in agreement with 3 Criminal Appeal No.1768/1996 above contention, because so many witnesses saw that the police brought the deceased from the premises of the appellants in injured condition.Gokul Bai (PW-1) wife of the deceased and Dhapu Bai (PW-5) sister of the deceased heard his cries before his death, from the appellants' house.Learned counsel for the appellants submits that Gokul Bai (PW-1), Phool Singh (PW-2) and Prahlad (PW-3) are relatives and interested witnesses, hence on the basis of their evidence, the appellants cannot be convicted.L.J. 4827," "Yogesh Singh Vs.Mahabeer Singh, 2017 Cri.L.J. 291 (SC) and "Dalbeer Kour Vs.State of Punjab, 1976 Cri.L.J. 418" it was held by the Supreme Court that:-"interested witnesses and relative witnesses are natural witnesses, they are not interested witnesses.Their testimony can be relied upon." Thus the testimony of the related witnesses cannot be ignored.Learned counsel for the appellants also contended that the statements of the witnesses are contradictory and so many omission were present in their testimony.L.J. (NOC) 126 (MP)" and "Yogesh Singh Vs.Mahabeer Singh, 2017 Cri.L.J. 291 (SC) it was held that:-"Minor discrepancies in statements occurring due to illiteracy of witness and long gap between recording of testimony and offences - Not a ground to discard evidence".In the light of above principle, this Court does not find any contradiction which adversely effected the prosecution case.4 Criminal Appeal No.1768/1996ASI Shyam Singh (PW-16) denied the suggestion of learned counsel for the appellant that dehatinalishi report has not been lodged by deceased Umrao Singh.It may be considered as "dying declaration" under Section 32 of the Evidence Act. Hence, the same is reliable.As per the statements of Gokul Bai (PW-1) wife of the deceased and another eyewitness Hari Narayan (PW-12), previously the deceased was working at the house of appellant Shiv Narayan.His love relations developed with Madhu, who is the daughter of appellant Shiv Narayan.Therefore, such incident occurred.Hari Narayan (PW-12) deposed that the deceased was arrested earlier on the report of appellant Shiv Narayan.Gokul Bai (PW-1) and Hari Narayna (PW-12) have also stated that at the time of incident, Madhu was staying at her parental house.Naturally, the appellants were annoyed with the deceased.Hence, motive of the accused persons has been proved.It seems doubtful that the deceased trespassed into the house of Sahodra Bai to commit any offence against her.The version of Gokul Bai (PW-1) and Dhapu Bai (PW-15) are found more reliable that at midnight, Omprakash came to their house and called the deceased.Then, deceased Umrao Singh went to house of the accused along with Omprakash.After sometime, Gokul Bai (PW-1) and Dhapubai (PW-5) went towards the spot and heard the cries of deceased, who said "eq>s cpkvkss".Their evidence is quite reliable, which is not rebutted in their cross-examination.Hence, learned trial Court has properly found that the incident took place at the premises of the accused.Ranjeet (PW-4) has also corroborated the prosecution story.He saw 5 Criminal Appeal No.1768/1996 the deceased at the spot tied with rope and at that time he was injured.Dilip (PW-7) also saw that police took the deceased from the spot (premises of the accused persons) in injured state.Dhapubai (PW-5) informed the incident to Dev Singh and Meharban Singh.On her request, they went to call her brothers.Phool Singh (PW-2), Prahlad (PW-3) and Meharban Singh (PW-6) have also corroborated the testimony of Dhapubai.Due to fear of the accused persons, Phool Singh (PW-2) and Prahlad (PW-3) directly went to the police station.They saw the deceased at the police station in critical condition.Hari Narayan (PW-12) and Santosh (PW-15) are neighbours of the appellants.This fact has not been challenged by the appellants.Hari Narayan (PW-12) and Santosh (PW-15) deposed that there was sufficient light in front of their house and they saw that the appellants Shiv Narayan, Kanhaiyalal and Ramchandra were assaulting the deceased by wooden sticks.Thereafter, the appellants tied the deceased with rope.They pushed and dragged him.Even then their objection, the appellants inflicted blows to the deceased.The deceased wanted to drink water but the appellants refused it.Choukidar, Asharam came there and he also saw the incident upto arrival of the police on the spot.The appellants were beating the deceased.Police rescued the deceased and brought him to the police station.Thereafter, Umrao Singh died.Presence of Hari Narayan (PW-12) and Santosh (PW-15) near the spot is unrebutted.Their version has been quite natural and also unrebutted.Accused persons are known to them.It is not difficult to them to recognize the appellants when they assaulted the deceased.Their testimony is wholly reliable, which establish that the appellants knowingly caused fatal injuries to 6 Criminal Appeal No.1768/1996 the deceased after detaining him.There is no conflict in ocular evidence or medical evidence.The testimony of eyewitnesses is consistence on all material of particulars is reliable.The appellants have been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 342 and 304 part-II of the IPC.Dr. M.H. Ansari (PW-8) conducted the postmortem of the body of the deceased Umrao Singh and he found the following injuries:-(i) Lacerated wounds 3"x1/2"x 1/2" on right side of parietal temporal region with heavy bleeding,(ii) both eyes were turned black,(iii) one abrasion 2"x1/2" at right side of lip,(iv) one abrasion 2 "x1" on left side of cheek,(v) a contusion 5"x3" with bluish colour over right sholder(vi) a lacerated wound 1"x1/2"x1/4" on left thumb and index finger,(vii) nail of left middle finger was loose in condition with bleeding,(viii) one contusion 4"x3" over right thigh in blackish blue colour,(ix) a contusion 10"x5" over right thigh and hip,(x) a contusion 8"x4" over left thigh backside,(xi) a contusion 2"x1" over right thigh in front part of right thigh,(xii) abrasion over 1"x1/2" over left knee,(xiii) contusion over 3"x1" at left lumber region,(xiv) so many contusions over back of the deceased in different sizes, After the internal examination, doctor found haematoma over right side of head about 3"x3" along with fracture at right parietal bone.Haematoma about 3 "x 2 " at middle parietal region.Subdural haemorrhage over right parietal brain, right occipital fossa was filled up with blood.All the injuries were caused within 24 hours from the postmortem and 7 Criminal Appeal No.1768/1996 homicidal in nature.Cause of death is due to comma and injuries over vital organs.In the opinion of this Court, number of injuries and nature of injuries also indicate that the deceased Umrao Singh was beaten by more than one person and fatal injuries were caused by the appellants as stated by Hari Narayan (PW-12) and Santosh (PW-15).Dr. Ansari (PW-8) examined wooden sticks, which were seized from the possession of appellants Shiv Narayan and Kanhaiyalal at articles A,B,C,D and E. As per opinion of Dr. Ansari, the injuries of the deceased Umrao Singh can be caused by wooden sticks.On the above discussion, the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant is not found acceptable.There is sufficient evidence against the appellants, which establish that due to love relations with Madhu daughter of appellant Shiv Narayan, they wrongly detained Umrao Singh and knowingly the appellants and other co-accused persons caused the fatal injuries to the deceased, which were sufficient to cause his death.There is absence of kill, accused persons had not used any sharp cutting weapon against Umrao Singh.20. "Roop Narayan Mishra Vs.State of U.P., 2017 Cri.L.J. 1487," it was held that:"Direct evidence- Testimony of the witnesses is clear, cogent and trustworthy as to time, place, manner of committing crime and identification of accused.Prosecution is able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts against accused.Accused held guilty of offence."8 Criminal Appeal No.1768/1996In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the view that the learned trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 304 part-II and 342 of the IPC.Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.At present, the appellants are on bail.Their entire custody period during trial and appeal shall be adjusted with the main sentence.Copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court along with the record for information and an immediate compliance.(Smt. Anjuli Palo) JUDGE pn
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
122,746,249 |
(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi, J.) Both the above mentioned criminal appeals, which arise out of the same judgment and order dated 19.1.2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/ F.T.C. No. 5, Gautam Budh Nagar, were connected and both are being decided by this common judgment.Three Sessions Trials, S.T. No. 51 of 2007, State vs. Rajpal and Hariom, S.T. No. 482 of 2007, State Vs.Smt. Dropa and Rajiv and S.T. No. 507 of 2007, State Vs.Anil, arising out of the same occurrence registered as Case Crime No. 387 of 2006, under sections 498A, 304 B I.P.C. and 3/ 4 D. P. Act, Police Station Kasna, District Gautam Budh Nagar, were consolidated by the trial court at the stage of evidence.All the accused persons including the husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and two brothers-in-law of the deceased Manju were tried together.The court below vide impugned judgment dated 19.1.2011 found mother-in-law of the deceased, Smt. Dropa Devi and Hari Om (husband of the deceased) guilty and convicted and sentenced them for ten years R.I. under section 304B I.P.C. Both were awarded two years R.I. and fine of Rs. 5000/- was imposed on each for their conviction under section 498A I.P.C. For the offence under section 4 of the D. P. Act both of them were sentenced to one year's R.I. and fine of Rs. 5000/- was also imposed on each of them.All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.In default of payment of fine imposed under section 498A I.P.C. both the convicts were to undergo four months' additional imprisonment and for the default in payment of fine under section 4 of the D.P. Act both of them were to undergo four months' additional imprisonment.Rest of the accused namely Rajpal (father-in-law of the deceased), Rajiv and Anil (brothers-in-law of the deceased) were acquitted by the trial court vide the impugned judgment.The prosecution case in brief is that the complainant Brijesh Kumar (PW1) (brother of the deceased bride Manju) lodged an FIR at Police Station Kasna, District Gautam Budh Nagar, on 11.10.2006 against seven accused persons namely Hari Om (husband of the deceased), Smt. Dropa (mother-in-law of the deceased), Rajpal (father-in-law of the deceased), Rajiv and Anil (brothers-in-law), Kumari Rashmi and Kumari Anupma (sisters-in-law/ Nanads of the deceased) alleging therein that the marriage of his sister Manju was solemnized with Hari Om as per Hindu rites and rituals on 8.12.2004 with sufficient dowry.However, her husband and her in-laws named in the FIR being dissatisfied with the dowry given at the time of marriage started cruel treatment and harassment of Manju, demanding seven Bighas of land, Rs. One Lakh in cash and a Maruti 800 Car as additional dowry.After the marriage, when Manju became pregnant, the accused persons tried to get rid of her two and half months pregnancy by getting it aborted forcefully.After about five and a half months, on 14.4.2006 when Manju was pregnant with 8 months she was taken back by the accused persons on assurance that she would no more be harassed in future and stating that the birth of first child should take place in its parental home.However, after lapse of only two days, the accused persons got her eight months' pregnancy terminated, causing aspersions on her character stating that as she had returned to her matrimonial home after staying for nine and half months and had conceived the child from some other person while living in her parental home, they would not keep the child.After the abortion, the brother of Manju/ complainant visited her matrimonial home several times to bring her to her 'Maika' but she was not permitted to go with him.On 11.10.2006 some unknown person telephoned the complainant that Manju's husband and in-laws in a pre-planned manner had administered poison to her in the preceding night and they had admitted her to Kailash Hospital to show their bonafides giving it a colour of suicide.The parents of Manju were never informed about her death.On receiving such information, Manju's brother (PW1) rushed to the hospital where he found Manju already dead in the I.C.U. The complainant immediately lodged the FIR against all the family members including even the two minor sisters-in-law.It is relevant to mention here that there is clear overwriting on the number 5-1/2 (five and half months) in the FIR and five and half months has been made 9-1/2 (nine and half months) by overwriting on it, which is visible from the naked eyes.PW1 is Brijesh Kumar, who is the first informant and brother of the deceased Manju.PW2 Balbir Singh is the father of the deceased, PW3 Dhiraj is the scribe of the FIR, he is also a witness of inquest, PW4, Yogesh is also the brother of the deceased, PW5, Sohan Lal is a co-villager of the deceased's parental village, PW6 Dr. Madan Lal, is the doctor, who has conducted autopsy of the deceased, PW7 is S.I. Rajbir Singh, who has prepared the inquest report, PW8 S.S. Yadav, is the first Investigating Officer, PW9 J. P. Gupta is the Executive Officer, who was posted as Tehsildar at Tehsil Sadar, District Gautam Budh Nagar, at the time of occurrence.He has proved the inquest report, PW10 Om Prakash, is the police personnel, who registered the FIR, prepared the check report and made entries in the G.D., PW11 Mani Ram Yadav is the second Investigating officer, and PW12 Smt. Bhudevi is the mother of the deceased.Hon'ble Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi,J.The case was investigated and charge sheet was submitted against all the aforesaid accused persons.Being triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions court where charges were framed against all the accused persons under sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and 3/ 4 D.P. C. Act. During course of trial both the sisters-in-law of the deceased namely Km.Rashmi and Km.Anupma were declared juvenile and their files were sent to the Juvenile Justice Board.In the trial court the prosecution in order to prove its case, produced 12 witnesses in all, a short description of which is as follows:-The defence has examined three witnesses DW1 Raghubir Singh, is a co-villager of the accused persons.DW2 Vashishtha Kumar, is a co-villager of the deceased's parental village, and DW3 Dr. Kaushal Kumar Maurya, Head of the Department, Agro Processing and Rural Industries, Mahamaya Agriculture Engineering and Technology College, Akbarpur, District Ambedkar Nagar, has been produced by the defence in order to prove alibi of the accused- Rajiv.Learned trial court, after a thorough discussion and appreciation of entire evidence available on record, held Smt. Dropa (mother-in-law of the deceased) and Hari Om (husband of the deceased) guilty for all the offences they were charged with.However, both the brothers-in-law of the deceased namely Rajiv and Anil and father-in-law of the deceased namely Rajpal were acquitted by the trial court.We are first proceeding to take up this appeal.Sri Brijesh Sahai, learned counsel for the appellants Dropa Devi and Hari Om, has assailed the reliability and truthfulness of prosecution case mainly on the following grounds:-The FIR has been lodged naming seven accused persons but no specific role has been assigned to any one of them.Learned trial court has recorded a clear finding that the FIR in this case is ante-timed.It is an admitted fact that the FIR of this case was written within the premises of police station as per the direction and guidance of the police inspector.There is no dispute that the husband's family members took the deceased to the hospital, which conduct itself is sufficient to prove their innocence.It is an admitted fact that there was no demand of dowry either at the time of engagement or at the time of marriage.It is also an admitted fact that the financial status of accused persons is better than the financial status of the complainant's family.Neither the husband nor in-laws of the deceased had committed any cruelty with the deceased in connection with dowry.Due to the reason that the deceased was better looking in comparison to her husband and the situation had worsen after the husband got a paralytic attack and became unemployed, and also due the reason that the deceased, who had returned to her matrimonial home with eight months pregnancy after staying at her maternal home for about nine and half months, Manju committed suicide by consuming poison because of ignominy and feeling of shame.Sri Brijesh Sahai has vehemently argued that the statements all the material witnesses clearly reflect that the relations between the parties were cordial.This fact is also undisputedly evident that there was no demand of any dowry either at the time of engagement or at the time of marriage.While drawing our attention to the statement of PW1 Sri Brijesh Sahai has contended that PW1 has admitted that Manju had very cordial terms with her husband Hari Om, which is clearly evident from the following statement of PW1, who has himself stated that "eatw gfjvkse ls vR;f/kd I;kj djrh FkhA".Learned counsel has contended that under these circumstances there is no question of any harassment by the husband because no wife can love a husband, who use to harass her.It is next argued that there is no such evidence on record, providing a link between suicide by the deceased and the demand of dowry and even in the FIR, the reason behind termination of pregnancy of Manju is given as follows:-"fQj ;s yksx vk'ok'ku nsdj eatw dks vius ?kj ys vk;sA dkluk esa nks fnu ckn 8 eghus dk xHkZ eatw dk xHkZikr djk fn;k x;kA D;kssafd eatw 9 1@2 eghus vius firk ds ;gkW xkao esa jgdj vkbZ FkhA"It is next contended by Sri Brijesh Sahai that even in the dowry death cases, the initial burden is always on the prosecution to prove its case against the accused persons, but the prosecution in this case has miserably failed to prove the presence of all the essential ingredients of section 304B I.P.C. He has vehemently argued that in absence of initial discharge of its burden by the prosecution, the presumption under section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act is not attracted.In support of his contention, Sri Sahai has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Baljeet Singh and another Vs.State of Haryana reported in 2004(49) ACC 21 (SC) wherein the Apex Court has held that to attract applicability of Section 113Bof the Evidence Act, it must be proved by the prosecution that the deceased woman married within seven years of death as well as the fact that death was otherwise than in normal circumstances and soon before her death, the woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment.Sri Sahai has contended that in the present case there is absolutely no evidence that any cruel treatment was meted out to Manju soon before her death.The postmortem report shows that the doctor has not found any external mark of injury or any abnormality in her internal organs.As the cause of death could not be ascertained her viscera was preserved.It has next been argued by Sri Sahai that the impugned judgment is totally silent on the evidence of two defence witnesses DW1 and DW2, both of whom have categorically stated that Manju's suicide was not a result of harassment for dowry demand but the reason was different.He has vehemently assailed the correctness of the impugned judgment by arguing that the court below should at least have recorded a finding about the credibility of statements of DW1 and DW2 whether reliable or unreliable but without discarding their credibility, the learned trial court has just ignored their testimonies and has arrived at a wrong conclusion while convicting the appellants Smt. Dropa Devi and Hari Om.Advancing his arguments further learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the conduct of the family members of the appellants clearly shows their bonafide and innocence as they have tried to save the life of Manju by getting her admitted to the hospital.However, the trial court has convicted Smt. Dropa, the mother-in-law of the deceased, only on the ground that she did not accompany the deceased to the hospital.The submission of Sri Sahai is that only on this ground that the mother-in-law Smt. Dropa Devi had not accompanied her daughter-in-law to the hospital, she should not have been convicted when the father-in-law having the same role, has been acquitted only on the ground that he took the deceased to the hospital.On the aforesaid grounds learned counsel has prayed that the appeal filed by Smt. Dropa and Hari Om against their conviction be allowed and that part of the impugned judgment, which relates to the conviction and sentence of the aforesaid appellants be set aside.Per contra Sri Rajiv Gupta, learned AGA, and Sri S. A. Imam, learned counsel appearing for the complainant Brijesh Kumar (the brother of the deceased and the appellant in connected appeal u/s 372 Cr.P.C.), have opposed the aforesaid arguments by contending that all the ingredients of section 304B I.P.C. have been successfully proved by the prosecution, therefore, the presumption under section 113B of the Evidence Act, would arise against all the accused persons and the burden of rebuttal would shift upon them.Learned counsel for the complainant, Sri Imam has submitted that the unfortunate death of Manju was certainly an unnatural death as the viscera report itself reveals that the poison Aluminum Phosphide was found during its examination, which is evident from the report of the F.S.L. Agra, available on record.There is also no dispute that the death was caused within seven years of the marriage.The marriage was solemnized on 8.12.2004 and Manju had died on 11.10.2006 i.e. within two years of the marriage.All the witnesses are through consistent and cogent in their testimonies that after the marriage all the accused persons treated Manju with cruelty, demanding additional dowry in the shape of seven bighas of land, Rs. One lakh in cash and a Maruti 800 Car.Sri Imam has submitted that the witnesses have categorically stated that the accused persons had earlier tried to forcibly terminate her two and half months pregnancy, therefore, on the telephonic information given by her, her parents took her to their home where she had to stay for five and half months under the compelling circumstances.Thereafter the husband and the father-in-law of the deceased visited to her parental place and tendered apology before the Panchayat giving assurance that they would not make any demand of dowry in future.On their assurance Manju was sent to her matrimonial home but just after two days her eight months' pregnancy was terminated and even after termination of her pregnancy she was not allowed to go to her parental place and ultimately within six months Manju met her end under suspicious circumstances in her matrimonial home.The submission of learned counsel for the complainant is that under these circumstances the presumption under section 113-B and 113-A of the Evidence Act would arise and the burden would shift on the appellants to prove their innocence but they have failed to do so.Therefore, the court below has rightly convicted them and there is no need to interfere in the impugned judgment.Advancing his arguments further Sri S. A. Imam has contended that Manju has met her unnatural death inside four corners of her matrimonial home, therefore, under Section 106 of Evidence Act too, the burden is on the appellants to explain under what circumstances Manju met her tragic end.The submission of Sri Imam is that even assuming that it was a case of suicide, it will not make any difference because suicide is also an unnatural death and suicidal cases are also covered under section 304B of I.P.C. The defence has failed to discharge the onus shifted on it and to rebut the presumption by any cogent evidence as to what was the immediate cause that led Manju to take such extreme step of consuming poison.Sri Imam has vehemently contended that the documents regarding admission of the deceased in the hospital, the treatments provided to her, the death certificate issued from the hospital etc. should have been filed by the defence but this was never done in the present case.Therefore, merely on the basis of the fact that Manju was hospitalized by the accused persons, it cannot be presumed that they are innocent.While drawing our attention to the statement of the accused-appellants recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. Sri Imam has vehemently assailed the story of the defence stated therein that Manju was staying at her parental place since nine and half months and in the meantime she conceived a child with some other person, for this reason, out of shame she committed suicide.Sri Imam has contended that this story is ridiculous because had it been true, the deceased had several occasions while residing in her Maika to get her pregnancy terminated.In fact Manju never stayed in her Maika for nine and half months.She had stayed there only for five and half months, which is clearly evident from the statements of witnesses, who have mentioned the specific dates when Manju was taken to her Maika and when she was taken back by her husband and in-laws to her matrimonial home.Advancing his arguments further Sri Imam has submitted that in the FIR also five and half months was written by the scribe but the absurd story of living at her Maika for nine and half months was developed by the defence without any basis and that is why the accused himself, in connivance with the police, made manipulation in the FIR by writing nine over the number five, which manipulation is apparent even with the naked eyes.While drawing our attention to page no. 11 of the impugned judgment, Sri Imam has contended that the learned trial court has rightly come to the conclusion that tampering and overwriting in the FIR has been made by the accused persons with a view to corroborate their defence story.He has further argued that eight months pregnancy of a woman is visible from the naked eyes and it cannot be concealed.Even assuming the defence story to be correct, it appears unnatural conduct on the part of the accused persons, that even though knowing that the deceased was pregnant with some other person, they tendered apology before Panchayat and took back the deceased to their place stating that the first child should be delivered at its parental home.On the aforesaid grounds, it has been submitted by Sri Imam that Criminal Appeal No. 368 of 2011 filed by convicted appellants be dismissed.In support of connected appeal filed under section 372 Cr.P.C. it has been submitted by Sri Imam that the role of father-in-law Rajpal does not differ from the role of the two accused persons, who have been convicted by learned trial court.Merely on the basis of his presence in the hospital at the time of death of Manju, it cannot be said that he is innocent.The submission of Sri Imam is that being the head of the family, he was under obligation to look after his daughter-in-law with care and affection specially when she was in a state of depression due to miscarriage of her eight months pregnancy, but he failed to do so.Learned counsel has vehemently argued that there is no distinction between the role of Dropa Devi, Hari Om and of Rajpal, hence he is also liable for severe punishment as prescribed under law.He has further prayed that the convicted appellants be punished more severly and their sentence be enhanced.In support of his argument Sri Imam has placed reliance on the following judgments:-(1998)3 SCC 309, Pawan Kumar and others Vs.State of Haryana,2. 2014 AIR SCW 4411, Davinder Singh Vs.State of Punjab,3. 2014 IR SCW 3400, Dinesh Vs.State of Haryana.Sri Brijesh Sahai has contested Appeal No. 1192 of 2011 under section 372 Cr.P.C. almost on the same grounds taken by him in Criminal Appeal by him filed against conviction of Dropa Devi and Hari Om and there is no need to repeat the same.Laying stress on the arguments advanced by him earlier, he has submitted that the learned trial court has rightly acquitted the father-in-law Rajpal and brother-in-law Rajeev (respondent nos. 2 and 3).The points for determination, which arise in both these appeals are as under:-A careful scrutiny of evidence available on record shows that although all the prosecution witnesses have repeated the same facts that there was consistent demand of seven bighas of land, Rs. One lakh in case and a Maruti 800 Car as additional dowry, however on an over all assessment of their depositions it appears that they are not stating the true facts.As an example the following statement of PW1may be quoted here:-** tc esjh cgu eatw s ekjus dh dksf'k'k dj pqds gSA tykdj o tgj nsdjA rFkk /kedh nsrs gS fd vxj ngst dh ekax iwjh uk dh xbZ rks ,d fnu rsjk dRy dj fn;k tk;sxkA vkSj eq>s 'kkjhfjd o ekufld ;kruk;sa jkst nsrs gS rFkk eq>s gj rjg ls izrkfM+r fd;k tkrk gS ** The aforesaid statement of PW1/ informant shows that Manju had informed him and his family members that her husband and in-laws, on two previous occasions also, had attempted to kill her by setting her ablaze and by poisoning.PW1 during his cross-examination has admitted the fact that after five or six days of the termination of the pregnancy his parents asked him to go to Manju's matrimonial home and to take her back.He went to Manju's matrimonial home where Manju informed him that her in-law and her husband had forcefully terminated her pregnancy.It means that near about 19/20.4.2006 the informant might have visited her matrimonial home.However, in the circumstances of this case Manju had to travel during this period.In preponderance of probabilities it appears that due to over strain of travelling from her parental home to her matrimonial home, Manju would have given birth to a still born child and as her husband had become paralytic, she could not conceive another child.Under such depressed state of mind she ended her life by consuming Sulphas tablets easily available to her for the reason that her father-in-law was an employee in Food Corporation of India.It appears unnatural that a financially sound family would try to terminate the much awaited first pregnancy of their only daughter-in-law.The following statement of PW2 (the father of the deceased) is also relevant:-**gfjvkse vius ifjokj esa lcls cM+k yM+dk gSA vkSj ;s rhu HkkbZ gS ckdh nks tks NksVs gSa mudh 'kknh ugh gqbZA eatw ds isV esa tks cPpk Fkk og igyk gh cPpk FkkA** PW1, during his cross-examination, has admitted that there was no demand of dowry at the time of settlement of marriage, which was settled with the help of his Phupha "Dhanni" after making necessary enquiry about the financial status and business of the appellants' family.He has stated that he has three brothers and three sisters, his two borhers are studying and he and one of his brothers are jointly earning Rs. 10-15 thousand per month by private job.He has further stated that there is no landed property in the name of his father.There is 18 bighas of ancestral land in the name of his mother, out of which 12 bighas is leased land.He has also admitted that appellants had purchased 16 Bighas of land in his village.All these facts show that the family of victim was financially weaker than that of appellants.PW1 has stated that after one year of the marriage the husband of Manju- Hari Om suffered paralysis attack.He (PW1) and his parents had gone to see Hari Om and found that the right side of the body of Hari Om had become twisted due to paralysis attack.Manju was such quite perturbed due to paralysis of Hari Om.PW1 has further stated that when he had visited to see Hari Om during his ailment, at that time also Hari Om's family members made demand of dowry from him.The aforesaid statement of PW1 does not inspire confidence and appears wholly unreliable.A father, whose son is badly suffering from paralysis having his right side body twisted due to paralysis attack and who has become unemployed, will not make any dowry demand for such son, who is not even able to do his daily routine work without help of anyone.PW2, the mother of Manju, has repeated the statements made earlier by her other family members.During cross-examination she has admitted that at 11.00 O'clock she got the news about the abortion of Manju but she did not make any complaint to any one.She has stated that she had met her daughter after 4 or 5 days of the abortion and had seen blood on her Salwar Suit but even then she did not ask from her husband or in-laws as to how it happened or at which hospital they got the pregnancy of Manju aborted.Although PW4 Yogesh has stated that at the time when Manju was driven out from her matrimonial home, several neighbourers including PW4 had reached there, but PW4 has failed to name any of such witnesses.The Court then examined the question whether the accused could be convicted under Section 306 IPC and in that connection considered the effect of non- framing of charge for the said offence.On the basis of the above discussion the impugned judgment appears to be perverse in some respect and is liable to be set aside.Accordingly, Criminal Appeal No. 368 of 2011 deserves to be partly allowed.We do not find any good ground to interfere in the judgment of acquittal and Criminal Appeal U/s 372 Cr.P.C. No. 1192 of 2011 filed by the complainant against the acquittal of respondents Rajpal and Rajeev is hereby dismissed.Accordingly, Criminal Appeal No. 368 of 2011 against the conviction is partly allowed and the conviction of the appellants Smt. Dropa Devi and Hari Om under sections 304B, 498A I.P.C. and 3/ 4 D.P. Act is hereby set aside and both the appellants are acquitted of the aforesaid charges.The appellant Hari Om is found guilty under section 306 I.P.C. and is convicted under the aforesaid section.Now the question is what punishment would be proper and justifiable to be awarded to the appellant Hari Om keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, particularly when there is no direct evidence against him that he abetted the commission of such suicide and he has been convicted under section 306 of I.P.C. with the aid of section 106 of the Evidence Act.In view of this situation, it appears that the ends of the justice would meet if Hari Om is punished with five years imprisonment along with fine of Rs. Twenty five thousand, payable to the parents of the deceased Manju.Accordingly, the appellant Hari Om is sentenced for five years R.I. and a fine of Rs. Twenty five thousand is imposed on him, which shall be paid to the parents of Manju.In case of default of payment of fine, the appellant Hari Om shall have to under go additional imprisonment for six months.The period of imprisonment of five years shall be adjusted in the period already undergone by the appellant Hari Om.Both the appellants are on bail.The appellant Smt. Dropa Devi has been acquitted.Her bail bonds are cancelled and the sureties are discharged.The appellant Hari Om has been convicted.His bail bonds are also cancelled and the sureties are discharged.He be sent to jail for serving out the sentence.Let a copy of this judgment along with lower court's record be sent to the concerned court below for compliance.Order Date :- 19.02.2016 Pcl
|
['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
122,746,455 |
C. No.42843/2018 This is first application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of applicant - Kaliram as he is in custody since 3 16.04.2018 in connection with Crime No.177/2018 registered at Police Station Kotwali District Seoni for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B/34 of IPC.Apart from the above mentioned conditions, the applicants shall also abide by the following conditions :With the aforesaid, all the applications filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. stands disposed of.as per rules.(Subodh Abhyankar) Judge DV Digitally signed by DINESH VERMA Date: 2018.12.20 14:55:22 +05'30'
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
122,752,683 |
The learned Special Judge, after taking cognizance of the offences, had taken the final report on his file in C.C.No.31 of 2009 .After furnishing copies to the accused 1 and 2 as required under Section 207(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure the learned Special Judge had framed four charges:The first accused was the deputy Chief Engineer, construction, Southern Railways, My Ladyes Garden, Park Town, Chennai and the second accused was a partner of M/s. C.T.Ramanathan & Co., and also a working Contractor under the Southern Railways.The Southern Railways had floated an open tender for the provision of third line between Korukupet and Athipattu Stations-Earth Work in forming bank and other incidental works from 15/950 km. to 18/800 km. including a major bridge No.46. Since the previous contractor with whom the work had been entrusted had abandoned it, fresh tender was floated and the contract was awarded to the second accused at a total cost of Rs.21.91 cores.In the evening of 17.10.2008, P.W.7 deputy Superintendent of Police attached to Anti Corruption Branch of CBI Chennai had received an information, informing that the first accused Mr. K.S.S.V,P,Murthy Raju, who was working as Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), Southern Railway was carrying a huge cash after receiving the same as bribe from various contractors of Railways in A/C Coach of train No. 3352 Allappey Dhanbad Express towards his native place or his wifes native place.11. P.W.7, Deputy Superintendent of Police as per the orders of Superintendent of Police, CBI had organized a team of Officers under his lead and proceeded to conduct surprise check in the above said train , departing from Chennai Central Railway Station towards Dhanbad Railways Station on 17.10.2008The train had left the Chennai Central Railway Station at 22.30 hrs.on that day.Then, he had contacted P.W.1 Mr. N.Prabakar Rao, Chief Ticket Inspector who was manning A/C Coaches.13. P.W.7 had introduced himself to A1 and asked him to identify himself.He (A1) had in turn, identified himself as K.S.S.V.P. Murthy Raju working as Deputy Chief Engineer (Constructions).Then P.W.7 had asked him to identify his baggage.Accordingly, he had identified one samsonite bag, one VIP sky bag and on carton box of custard appeals .A1s son had identified one brown, black stripped bag to be of themselves.Pushpavalli, wife of Mr. Murthy Raju (A1) was carrying a black colour hand bag with her.Thereafter, PW.7 had asked A1 to open and reveal the contents of the packages.During this process, P.W. 7 had found five bundles of 1000 rupee currency notes amounting to Rs.5 lakhs in a plastic bag of landmark Chennai .That bundles bore slips of City Union Bank T.Nagar, Chennai.When asked Tmt.Pushpavalli had produced her hand bag which contained an amount of Rs.1,65,000/- in the denomination of 22 x Rs.1000 currency notes, 100X Rs.1000 rupee notes and 86 X 500 Rs notes in three bundles.When questioned A1 had answered in an unconvincing way and stated that amount was belonged to P.W.30 Kotteweswara Rao.15. P.W.7, DSP, had then sized the amount of Rs.6,65,000/-,(MO 4 series) the 11 slips of papers, the plastic cover landmark (MO 3) Chennai and black brown stripped zip bag (MO 1).Subsequent to that, with the help of one Inspector Sundararaman (not examined) P.W.7 had drawn the proceedings of the surprise check.(Ex.P2) .P.W.1 Mr. N.Prabakara Rao, Chief Ticket Inspector had signed as one of the witnesses to the abovesaid proceedings.Thereafter he had requested Mr.Murthy Raju (A1) to come along with him to Chennai for further interrogation.The surprise proceedings were completed at 1.00 a.m. on 18.10.2008 and by that time, the train had just crossed Naidupeta Railway Station.After arriving at the CBI Office at 5.15 am on 18.10.2008,P.W. 7 had discussed with the Superintendent of Police CBI (ACB) Chennai and registered a case in Crime No. RC/51/A of 2008 at 6.30 am.After making a search of the house of A1 at about 3.45 p.m. he was arrested after following all the legal formalities.My submission to this is as follows:I am now working as Deputy Chief Engineer in south western Railway.The time at which the information was received has not been stated.This bill was passed by Mr. Murthy Raja (A1) as part bill.The net value of the bill was Rs.1,26,01,634/-.Judgment Invoking the provisions of Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure these memorandum of criminal appeals have been directed against the Judgment and order of conviction, dated 23.12.2014, recorded against the appellants/A1 and A2 in the Criminal Case in C.C.No.31 of 2009, on the file of the learned Special Judge for CBI Cases (Addl.16. P.W.7, the Deputy Superintendent of Police had then visited City Union Bank T Nagar Branch, Chennai and seized cheque No.1600 dt. 17.10.2008 for Rs.20 lakhs (P.12)drawn by M/s. C.T.Ramanathan Infrastructure Private Ltd., from the Account No.92810 of the company at City Union Bank.Then the first accused was produced before the learned special Judge at 5.40 p.m. for being remanded to judicial custody.The First Information Report was marked as Ex.Then P.W.7 had entrusted the case records with P.W.29 Mr. C.Poonazhagan Inspector of Police for further investigation.He had continued the investigation and recorded the statements of prosecution witnesses.During the course of his investigation he had collected the material and vital documents to support the case of prosecution.After obtaining the order of sanction, (Ex.P50) dated 31.08.2009 from P.W.24 Mr.With the evidence of P.W.30, the prosecution has closed its side.When the incriminating circumstances arising out of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were explained and put to the accused 1 and 2, as required under Section 313(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, while they had denied the evidences adduced by the prosecution witnesses, they had replied denying that the case was foisted against them.The first accused as well as the second accused had given their respective oral statements which were reduced into writing and recorded by the learned Special Judge.The oral statement of the first accused is extracted as under: It is a false case against me.I am not in any way connected with the award of the subject contract to A2 or his firm.The bills to A2 was passed in regular manner and there was no violation of rules or unfair favouritism On 17.10.2008, I was leaving along with my family to our in laws place Guntur by train.Before leaving, myself and my wife were having a total cash of Rs.10 lakh.Rs.5 lakh was the money given by Dinesh at my request through Sivaramaraju to my wife which I came to know subsequently and Rs.5 lakhs was given to my wife by Koteeswaran for handing over to his mother in Guntur.Out of the said Rs.10 lakhs, we kept Rs.5 lakhs apart as Koteeswarans money and my wife was carrying some amount which I learnt subsequently as amounting to Rs. 1.65 lakhs for some expenses.The balance of Rs.3.35 lakhs was in my house which Police never seized.Myself, my family and my bungalow peon with his brother had travelled by a car brought by my bungalow peon brother for which I paid an amount of Rs. 300/- to him.We never stopped midway anywhere nor talked to any one.We reached Railway Station and boarded the train.Shortly, after the train departed the CBI officials came and asked me to open the bags and I accordingly opened my bags and shown to him.When asked about Rs.5 lakh I told that it was for one Kotteswaran.Though I was ready to tell the details, the Police Officer did not allow me to say and took the Rs.5 lakh cash and Rs.1.65 lakhs carried by my wife.We were brought back to Chennai and this case was falsely filed against me.The second accused Mr. R.Adaikalams oral statement is also extracted hereunder:This case was falsely filed against me. Neither oral nor any documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the defence.Equally he has also not stated as to who had received the information.In this case a total sum of Rs.6,65,000 was seized from the 1st accused while he was travelling in the train bearing No.3352 from Chennai to Guntur along with his family.According to prosecution, there was a conspiracy between the accused 1& 2 and in pursuance of the same, the 1st accused had awarded the contract for the work of provision of 3rd line between Korukupet and Athipattu Stations- Earthwork in forming bank and other incidental works from 15/9.50 km to 18/800 km. including a major bridge No.46 to the 2nd accused in an illegal manner and for and exorbitant rate of Rs. 21.91 crores and passed the bill No.CC4 and part dated 15.10.2008 violating several rules and standing guidelines of Railway Board and for that the 1st accused had received illegal gratification from the 2nd accused.It is significant to note here that as per the case of prosecution, a sum of Rs.1,65,000/- which was seized from the wife of the 1st accused was received by the 1st accused from various contractors.The trial court has held that the prosecution had failed to prove that the amount represent the proceeds of any crime and this represents the sum of ts.1,65,000 to the 1st accused.The Learned Senior Counsel has further continued that, the tender in question was awarded after following all the rules and procedures and hence, the Learned Trial Judge was not correct in coming to the conclusion that the 1st accused had conspired with the 2nd accused and in consequence thereof, the 1st accused had abused his official position in awarding the contract in favour of the 2nd accused.While advancing this argument Mr. B. Kumar, Learned Senior Counsel has drawn the attention of this court to the evidence of PW6 in cross who was, at the material time working as Junior Engineer in the Office attached to Deputy Chief Engineer, Construction.He has spoken to about the awarding of Contract to the 2nd accused.The Investigating Officer (PW29) had, in his cross examination admitted that the documents relating to the award of contract at an exorbitant rate were not marked has exhibits in this case.He has also stated in his cross examination that the Chief Engineer had awarded the tender and signed the contract and only thereafter, the 1st accused was assigned with the supervisory work of the contract.To a question, Is it correct to say that till the signing of ex.This bill was passed for R.1,74,39,339/-.It was initiated by JE (PW6) on 14.10.2008 and he had conducted test-check on 14.10.2008 for which he had certified the bill as Executive Engineer on the same date.Then the bill was forwarded to Deputy Chief Engineer Office for passing the bill.From the proceedings Exhibit P22 (dated 30.10.2008) it is made clear that the Investigating Officer PW29 had checked the work done by the 2nd accused.From the testimonies of PW5 & PW6 as well as of PW29 (I.O.) it is explicit that it is only the Chief Engineer who recommended for payment by cheque and not by the 1st accused as can be seen from the Ex. P26 and therefore the 1st accused cannot be made liable.Mr. V.S. Venkatesh, Learned Counsel appearing for the 2nd accused has contended that the 1st accused had not awarded the contract to the 2nd accused and that when he had not fixed the rate which as per the prosecution was exorbitant to the tune of Rs.21.91 crores and when there was no violation of any rule or guideline of the Railway Board, there was no question of conspiracy between the accused for the commission of an offence punishable for the Sec.13 (1) (d) of the provision of corruptionHe has stated that :Venkatesan for the recommendation of awarding the tender for a value of Rs.21.91 crores, the tender committee namely the above said three persons are responsible.It is correct to say that based on the above recommendations Shri. Yes, the documents related to the events are not marked as exhibits in this case.With regard to the work done by A2, four bills have been passed. Yes, as per statement of LW6 (PW5) those details are correct.It is correct to say that all these four bills were paid as per usual manner.Mr. B. Kumar, Learned Senior Counsel has raised another important question as to whether the prosecution has brought home the charge of receipt of bribe or gratification of Rs.5 lakhs by the 1st accused. The 1st accused in his oral statement given during the proceedings of 313 (1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has admitted, that he was in position of Rs.5 lacs when he was travelling.But the prosecution has failed to prove that the said sum of Rs.5 lacs was received by the 1st accused as bribe from the 2nd accused.It is pertinent note here the PW30 Kooteswara Rao had turned hostile.The defense case of 1st accused is that at the time of seizer the said amount of Rs.5 lacs was given by PW30 Kooteeswara Rao.In this connection, Mr. B. Kumar, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 1st accused has submitted that Mere recovery of money from the 1st accused would not amount to establish any offence under Sec.13 (1) (b) of the prevention of Corruption Act.In so far has this case is concerned, the prosecution witness viz., PW1 has spoken to that as sum of Rs.5 lacs was seized from the 1st accused while he was travelling in train along with his family.As rightly pointed out by Mr. B. Kumar, Learned Senior Counsel no question was posed to the 1st accused during the 313 Cr.P.C. proceedings that he had demanded a sum of Rs.5 lakhs from the 2nd accused.In order to fortify his argument Mr. B. Kumar has made reference to Mr. SELVARAJ Vs.PW10 Mr. Poorna Srinivasan has stated that he was working in M/s. C.T. Ramanathan & Co., and that he was looking after the work relating to Bank.He has deposed that he had withdrawn a sum of Rs.20 lakhs on 17.10.2008 and given Rs.17 lacs to the wife of the 2nd accused and handed over the remaining amount of Rs.3 lacs in the office of the 2nd accused.In this connection, PW3 in his cross examination has stated that he never identified the bundles shown by the CBI.PW13 who was working as cashier in City Union Bank, T. Nagar Branch has spoken to that he could not identify the cash bundles.It may be relevant to note here that Pw13 was treated as hostile.PW1 Chief Ticket Inspector, had counted all the 5 bundles of Rs.1000 currency notes and found that the amount was Rs.5 lakhs.In his cross examination he has stated that no slips were available on the bundles on that day and that the colour of M.O.1 bag was entirely different at the time of his giving evidence.His evidence with reference to this point is extracted hereunder:In the bundles (2) shown to me no slips were available on that day.At the time of proceedings, afterwards recording the statement, no mention about the slips in the date.M.O.1 apart from brown and black colour, yellow colour and white colours are there.In the bag M.O.1 produced before this court, before recording this proceeding, bag colour is entirely different now.The Investigating Officer has admitted in its cross examination that at the time of his examination PW7 did not mention about the date seal of 17.10.2008 on the packing slip of M.O.4, the seal of Pothys on one of the currency bundles of M.O.4 and the date seal of 16.10.2008 on the reverse side of packing slips of M.O.4 currency bundles.66.The Investigating Officer PW29 has also admitted that in exhibit P2 (surprise check proceedings) nothing was stated about the seal of City Union Bank or the date seal of 17.10.2008 or the seal of Pothys or the date seal of 16.10.2008 of Pothys.PW1 who has attested Ex.P2 has not spoken about these aspects.PW7 who had prepared Ex. P2 has admitted that he did not mention about the date on the packing slips.PW29 (I.O.) has not put any question in respect of this fact to PW7 and even PW13 Cashier of City Union Bank has not spoken to about this fact.It is to be noted that PW10 to 13 were treated hostile as they have not supported the case of prosecution.68 .It may also be relevant note here that M.O.4 cash bundles were not deposited in the Court for a period of 38 days and therefore Mr. B. Kumar, Learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge Nos. 2 & 3 as against the accused.PW3 had not identified the currency notes seized by the 1st accused (M.O.4 series).PW13 was not able to identify the cash bundle.Though PW13 was treaded hostile still his evidence assumes importanc,.as he is an employee of City Union Bank, T. Nagar Branch.Ex. P2 mahazar drawn by PW7 does not say about the bank slips which were said to be on the bundle.Ex. P2 does not speak about the signature or any date thereon.The investigating Officer (PW29) has admitted that he had neither asked PW7 nor PW13 at the time of his examination during the time of investigation about any date seal.The case of prosecution that the 2nd accused had given Rs.5 lakhs to the 1st accused as illegal gratification was disproved as the witnesses who were examined in this connection were turned hostile.It was indicated by Mr. B. Kumar that the prosecution had pressed into service the telephonic conversation which the 1st accused had with PW11 to prove that the cover containing cash bundles was handed over to the 1st accused.It is pertinent note here the PW11 has not supported the case of prosecution.The Supreme Court further held that the conditions and safeguards under Section 65N(2) and 65B (4) are to be followed to ensure the source and authenticity which are the two hallmarks pertaining to electronic record sought to be used as evidence and since electronic records are more susceptible to tampering, alteration, transposition, excision, etc., without such safeguards, the whole trial based on proof of electronic records can lead to travesty of justice.On the other hand, the learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases has fairly admitted while advancing his argument that the dispute is in respect of Rs.5 lakhs alone.He has also invited the attention of this Court to Ex. P2 dated 17.10.2008 (proceedings of surprise check) conducted on 17.10.2008 in Train No.3352, Alleppey - Dhanbad Express.The prosecution has mostly trusted upon the evidence of PW30 Mr. Kotteswaran who has not supported the case of prosecution as he had turned hostile.With regard to the encashment of 20 lakhs rupees from City Union Bank, T. Nagar Branch by way of cheque (Ex.P9).He has raised a question as to whether the disputed Rs.5 lakhs form part of Rs.20 lakhs .Even for this question also the prosecution has miserably failed to answer in their favour.Even PW3 has fairly admitted in his cross examination that he had not identified the currency notes seized from the first accused i.e. M.O.4 as belonged to or having been given by the bank.As already stated, PW10 to PW13 have turned hostile.The evidence of PW29 is suffered from several infirmity as there is inefficiency in investigation.At the time of hearing the appeal this court had called for M.O.4 series from the Trial Court and personally verified, and found that excepting PW1s signature and CUB seal no other signature was found.The slip rapped on the bundle did not contain any bank officials signature.This Court has considered the submissions made by Mr. B. Kumar, Learned Senior Counsel assisted by Rajnish Pathyil who is on record for the 1st accused and Mr.V.S. Ventakesh, Learned counsel appearing for the 2nd accused and also the submission made by Mr. K. Srinivasan, learned Special Public Prosecutor.This court has also perused the impugned Judgment of the Trial Court and found that the Learned Trial Judge has failed in many aspect to consider and appreciate the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.Having regard to all the relevant and circumstances this court is a firm view that all the charges (1 to 4) have not been proved by the prosecuting agency beyond all reasonable doubts.In the result both the appeals are allowed.
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
122,760,406 |
The allegations in the complaint are that the complainant was appointed as Management Trainee (Administration) vide SAIL Appointment letter dated 10th May, 1991 and joined the organization at Rourkela plant.Thereafter he was posted at various positions and lastly he was the Manager at E-4 grade.In the complaint it is stated that the petitioner belonged to Crl.M.C. No.2004/2009 Page 1 of 15 Scheduled Caste community and though as per the Directive Principles of the Constitution of India representation of SCs/STs in each cadre/group of services was required to be improved including within Group-A posts, however, contrary to the policy of the Constitution and the objectives of the Directive Principles, the SAIL Management vindictively in the name of merit denied promotion to the petitioner by three years, depriving him of the benefits of the reservation policies in promotion and victimized him.It is alleged that except the SCs/STs, all the other seven general category candidates of the year 1991, MT (A) batch were promoted to E-4 grade w.e.f. 30th June, 2001, however, the promotion of the petitioner was delayed by three years.Assessment grades were never communicated to the petitioner at the end of each year and promotions within Executive Cadre upto E-7 grade were not based on vacancy and were decided upon the suitability of the candidates considered for promotion.M.C. No.2004/2009 Page 1 of 15It is further alleged that in the year 2003, petitioner was superseded by his juniors.Realizing that some officers were silently spoiling the service record of the petitioner without disclosing the same to him, petitioner exercised his right under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (in short 'RTI Act') to have access to his own file.However, the same was also denied to him without specifying any concrete reason.In order to annoy the petitioner, senior officers unilaterally changed his job profile from Marketing Division to Civil Maintenance, wasting his 15 years of experience in marketing.Further the petitioner was also annoyed deliberately when he was unilaterally excluded and discriminated from amongst the 38 officials (Executives) of SAIL-ISP's Branch Sales Office who were transferred to SAIL-CMO in March/April, 2006 after dissolution of Branch Sales Offices Crl.M.C. No.2004/2009 Page 2 of 15 at IISCO.Later IISCO branch offices were merged with SAIL-CMO in April, 2006 and six staff personal, subordinate to the petitioner were also transferred to SAIL-CMO offices at Delhi itself.Further with mala fide motive and to annoy the petitioner, he was transferred and the transfer/ release order was served simultaneously at his residence on 20th April, 2006 while he was availing his leave for MBA examination.The transfer/release order was served deliberately on the petitioner on his anniversary date to further annoy him and increase his pain.It is alleged that officials were intentionally giving the petitioner wrong replies under the RTI Act. Despite extraordinary achievements and exceptional performance at Okhla Stockyard and excellent record of past ten years, accused persons deliberately discriminated with the petitioner only for the reason that he belonged to Scheduled Caste community and awarded him poor grade in assessment with sole intention and knowingly to annoy him to deprive him of his due legal rights.M.C. No.2004/2009 Page 2 of 15The petitioner filed a complaint being Crl.Complaint No.1037/1/06 titled as Mukesh Kumar vs. Dr. Manoranjan and others, before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate seeking summoning of the accused for offences punishable under Sections 420/468/471/166/167/120B/34 IPC and Sections 7 and 10 of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 (in short 'the Act').Aggrieved by the order dated 6th May, 2008 summoning them as accused respondent Nos. 1 and 2 along with Steel Authority of India and Union of India who were also impleaded as accused Nos. 12 and 13 filed a Crl.M.C. No.2004/2009 Page 3 of 15 revision petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge.Vide the impugned order dated 4th May, 2009 the revision petition was allowed and the summoning order dated 6th May, 2008 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate was set aside.M.C. No.2004/2009 Page 14 of 15Petition and application are dismissed.
|
['Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,227,620 |
Three children were born out of the wedlock.The deceased died an unnatural death on 13.08.1997; she succumbed to extensive burn injuries.The Petitioner alleged that after 12 days of marriage, the deceased complained to him that she was being harassed for dowry, by the husband and the other accused respondents.The mother-in-law and sister-in-law (Jethani) Vimlesh used to harass and beat her.It was alleged that in 1996 the husband allegedly visited the Petitioner and took him on his scooter to a Society in Mandawali.He thereafter put a bottle in the Petitioner's mouth and demanded a plot of 50 sq. yards along with Rs. 2 lakhs.It is alleged that the husband used to beat the deceased and his children.The prosecution alleged that one day prior to alleged unnatural death of the deceased, the husband beat her up in the Petitioner's presence.The petitioner was also pushed out of the house.On 13.08.1997 at 9.30 A.M., the deceased's mother was informed that she was hospitalized due to burn injuries.She was sure that the brutal act was committed by the husband and his relatives i.e. the other Respondents.The prosecution case was further that the deceased had died an unnatural death, within 7 years of her marriage.The records of the trial Court were called for.Counsel for the parties relied upon the depositions and statements, in support of the contentions.The deceased Anju died of extensive (100%) burn injuries.15. PW-1 and PW-3 are the most material witnesses; they are parents of the deceased.The petitioner, PW-1, in his deposition stated that he had witnessed the husband severely beating his daughter and strangling her.When he tried to rescue her the accused gave him fist blows on his face and also gave a knee blow, pushed him outside the house and asked him to take his daughter away.He also stated that he was abusing loudly.People had gathered there and advised him not to take back his daughter at that time.Thereafter he went away to spend the night in a relative's place.He deposed that the next day he went to the husband's mothers place at Janakpuri, when the accused Vimlesh informed him that Anju had sustained burn injuries and was admitted at RML Hospital, New Delhi.The Petitioner stated that he went to RML Hospital at about 8 P.M and his daughter expired at about 8.10 P.M. The police had recorded his statement and he signed it.The police did not record his wife's statement.The Petitioner stated in his statement that after about 15 days of marriage the accused Shanti, Dinesh, Suresh and his wife Vimlesh and her husband Ashok demanded dowry.He further stated that at the time of the incident his daughter was living in the upper portion of the house and the ground floor was vacant.JUDGMENT S. Ravindra Bhat, J.The accused respondents were acquitted of charges under Sections 304-B/498-A Indian Penal Code (IPC).The brief facts necessary to decide this petition are that the petitioner is the father of Ms. Anju (hereafter referred to as "the deceased").She was also subjected to dowry harassment and cruelty in her matrimonial home.The petitioner and his wife, i.e. parents of the deceased made specific allegations against all the Respondents.The Trial Court framed charges under Sections 304B/498A/34 IPC against all the accused.It acquitted the other Respondents and convicted the husband, under Section 304 IPC.The present petition is directed against the acquittal of the Respondents.The extracts of the order of the trial court dated 16.09.2004 are as follows;in the absence of any direct or substantive evidence against the accused persons namely Shanti, Dinesh, Suresh and Smt. Vimlesh, and the fact that when two views from the evidence are possible, the view favorable to the accused should be adopted and benefit of doubt should be extended to such accused and the fact that the fact that prosecution has failed to prove any demand soon before the death of the deceased Anju, by the accused Shanti, Dinesh, Suresh and Smt. Vimlesh and there is lack of any corroborative evidence.The materials on record in this case amply prove, as discussed and noticed hereinabove, that "soon before the unnatural death of Anju, which took place within seven years of her marriage, she was subjected to cruelty and harassment both for and in connection with a demand for dowry by her husband Ashok and that the facts brought on record further prove the existence of a proximate and live link between the effect of dowry demand and the concerned death.The incident of cruelty and demand is not remote in time.The evidence on behalf of accused persons of DW1 to DW3 does not inspire any confidence and is also not relevant.I have gone through the case laws cited by the Ld. Counsel for the accused Ashok, but I do not find them helpful to the case a accused Ashok, as the facts of those cases differ from the facts of present case.Accused Ashok Kumar has miserably failed to substantiate his defense or rebut the main allegations and presumption Under Section 113B of the India Evidence Act Hence in view of the above facts.I have no hesitation to hold that in view of the evidence on record as well as presumption under Section 113-B of Indian Evidence act, that accused Ashok Kumar has failed to rebutt the presumption.Hence, prosecution has proved that on 13.08.1997 at A-355, Janakpuri, Delhi, accused Ashok being husband of deceased Anju caused dowry death of deceased Anju, which is punishable Under Section 304B, IPC.Ms. Sunita Jonwal, learned Counsel, submitted that the trail court fell into manifest error in improperly appreciating the materials and evidence on record, which were sufficient to lead to conviction of all the accused respondents, and not merely the husband.She relied upon the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2, parents of the deceased, who maintained in their statements under Section 161, as well as 164 (recorded before the Magistrate) about the repeated and specific acts of cruelty and dowry harassment meted out to the deceased, throughout her married life.It was submitted that the marriage took place on 12-2-1993, and the death occurred due to 100% burns on 13-8-1997, i.e within seven years of the marriage.Learned Counsel urged that the trial court committed grave error in not giving any weight to the letters written by the deceased to her parents, which had been produced, as Ex A and Ex-B; in which she leveled specific allegations of dowry demands.It was submitted that these documents were admitted by the accused; they disclosed their guilt.Hence, the prosecution did not have to prove contents of the letters.It was also contended that the contradictions, and discrepancies pointed out by the defense, i.e the petitioners were minor and inconsequential in nature.They, in any case, could not have deflected from the only finding that should have been rendered, on a correct appreciation of the evidence, i.e the guilt of all the accused.Shri I.C. Tewari, learned Counsel opposed the petition.It was contended that the accused were living separately away from the couple's matrimonial home.Two children were born out of the wedlock.The death occurred within seven years of marriage.Her husband was convicted on both counts.The Petitioner further stated that no members of the public had come into the place of occurrence before he reached there.PW-3: Smt. Vijaywati mother of the deceased stated that at the time of marriage they had given articles of dowry to the accused, beyond their financial capacity.After a fort-night of marriage, the husband, mother-in-law Shanti, sister-in-law Vimlesh and brothers of accused namely Raju and Suresh started harassing them for more dowry.They were demanding a cash of Rs. 20,000/- and a plot of land measuring 50 square yards, This was informed about 15 days prior to death.They used to threaten the deceased with death if those demands were not met with.PW-2 stated that on 13.08.1997, at about 9.30 A.M. some neighbours of the accused informed her that Anju had been set on fire by accused persons.She further stated that her daughter expired on the same evening at 5.30 P.M. PW2 further stated that the deceased had disclosed that the husband and his brothers treated her badly and harassed her for dowry.The trial Court discussed the above evidence, and also the statements recorded during the inquest.On the basis of its overall assessment of the materials, it concluded that the husband's guilt had been established.It proceeded to convict him, under Section 304-B. So far as other accused were concerned, the Court concluded that there was no substantive evidence against them, indicative of their role in threatening Anju with cruelty or harassment, soon before the death, for purposes of dowry, warranging conviction for that offence.The analysis of Ex.PW-1/A (statement of PW-1 in the inquest) and Ex.PW-3/A (statement of PW-3 in the inquest) disclose that both had identically deposed as to the role of the husband in the demand for dowry, just before the date of incident, when he asked to be paid Rs. 2 lakhs, besides purchase or handing over of a 50 square yard plot.PW-1 also mentioned about the incident when he was threatened on that account.However, there was a significant variation when the deposition was recorded in court, after some time.This time, though the names of other accused were mentioned by PW-3, no specific details were given.
|
['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
140,573,946 |
Aktar Ali, son of late Sk.Mofi before about three months from the date of complaint and after her marriage her husband, husband's sister and mother inflicted torture upon her regularly.The complainant was informed on 12-06-2001 that his daughter had hanged herself to death.He alongwith his family members immediately rushed to his daughter's house and found his daughter hanging by a knot tied with a cloth.Marks of injury were found on her chin and the inmates of her matrimonial home were absent.The appeal is directed against judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court - II, Uluberia, Howrah, in S.T. Case No. 289/07 whereby the learned trial Court convicted the appellants for offence punishable under section 498A/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short I.P.C.) The learned trial Court sentenced the appellants 2 to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months for offence punishable under Section 498A of the I.P.C. and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 10 months for offence punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.C., both the sentences to run concurrently.The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that the defacto complainant Jamsed Mallick lodged complaint on 12-06-2001 before Shyampur P.S. to the effect that his daughter Rausnara Biwi aged about 19 years was married to Sk.The complainant believed that the husband, mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the victim jointly murdered her.On receipt of the complaint, Shyampur P.S. Case No. 50 dated 12-06- 2001 was registered under section 498A/302/201/34 of the I.P.C., setting the criminal law in motion.Charge sheet was submitted against the appellants and another under section 498A/302/201/34 of the I.P.C. after completion of investigation.The case was committed 3 to the Learned Sessions Judge, Howrah, and was subsequently transferred to the Court of Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court - II, Uluberia for trial/disposal.No execution report with regard to warrant of arrest issued against accused Arjina Begum was received and the case was filed for the present in respect of the said accused.Upon consideration of the material on record, charge was framed against the appellants under section 498A/302/34 of the I.P.C. Substance of accusation was read over and explained to the appellants to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.Wearing apparel of the victim was produced and marked as Material Exhibit - I. The defence case, as it appears from the trend of cross-examination as well as statement of the appellants under section 313 of the Cr.P.C., is a denial of the prosecution case and a plea of innocence.No witness was however examined by the appellants.In conclusion of evidence, the learned trial Court, by the judgment impugned, convicted the appellants for offence punishable under section 498A/302/34 of the I.P.C. and sentenced them accordingly.Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the appellants have come up in appeal before this Court, praying for acquittal.In refuting the judgment impugned, learned advocate for the appellants submitted that no case of demand of dowry was made out in the First Information Report and alleged demand of bicycle has 4 cropped up for the first time in the evidence led by prosecution witnesses.The alleged neck injury of the victim has also not found place in the F.I.R. (First Information Report).The allegation of demand of dowry was not disclosed before the Investigating Officer by the witnesses and the neighbours of the victim were also not examined.Mere absence of the appellants from the place of occurrence after the death of the victim does not ipso facto suggest that the appellants were guilty of the alleged offence.The medical report of the victim also does not support the prosecution case.Apart from the close relatives of the victim, the other witnesses deposed that the victim led a happy conjugal life in her matrimonial home.PW-2 who is the victim's mother stated in her evidence that the victim was married to Aktar Ali about 7 years and 2 months prior to her death and therefore alleged demand of a bicycle by the appellants after so many years of marriage is highly improbable.Drawing the attention of the Court to the contradictions and discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses, learned advocate for the appellants has submitted that the evidence on record is too scanty to bring home charge against the appellants under section 498A/302/34 of the I.P.C. and as such, the appellants deserve an order of acquittal.The State supported the impugned judgment and stood by it.It was submitted on behalf of the State that the death of the victim was homicidal as appears from the post-mortem report.It was categorically stated by PW-3 and PW-4 that despite giving cash and gold ornaments to the appellants at the time of marriage as per their 5 demand, the appellants continued to create pressure upon the victim on demand of a bicycle and inflicted torture upon her which was reported to them by the victim.The victim admittedly died in her matrimonial home.According to the prosecution, the allegations against the appellants have been proved to the hilt by sufficient and adequate evidence and therefore, the judgment and order impugned should be affirmed and the appeal dismissed.Alleged demand of a bicycle led to deprivation of the precious life of a newly wed girl even before she could fulfill her cherished dreams of a happy married life.The post-mortem report confirms that her death was "due to asyphyxia following strangulation which is ante mortem and homicidal in nature".The moot question for consideration is whether the appellants or any of them are/is responsible for such homicidal death of the victim.In order to arrive at a decision regarding the guilt of the appellants or otherwise, it is necessary to scan and weigh the evidence led by the prosecution.PW-1 Jamsed Mallick who is the de facto complainant and the father of the deceased submitted that he gave cash and gold ornaments to his daughter at the time of her marriage with Sk.Aktar Ali as demanded by him but was unable to meet the demand of a bicycle as a result of which the appellants created pressure upon his daughter and inflicted torture upon her.The victim died within two months of her marriage by hanging in the western part of her matrimonial home.Mark of injury was detected on her chin and right side of her throat.When PW-1 reached her daughter's home after receipt of news of her 6 death, the members of the matrimonial home were found absent.This witness could not recollect whether grant of Rs. 4,000/- and gold ornaments was stated in the written complaint but he was aware that the demand of cycle and torture upon his daughter on such demand were mentioned in the First Information Report (F.I.R.).9. PW-2 who is the mother of the victim reiterated the version of PW-1 and added that she found injury marks on the chin and right cheek of her deceased daughter.10. PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5 are related to the victim and have spoken in tune with the parents of the victim.PW-3 stated that the victim was not allowed to mix with co-villagers.The victim disclosed before her mother and aunt (kakima) 4-5 days prior to her death that the appellants might kill her if their demand for a bicycle was not met.11. PW-6 is a co-villager and had visiting terms with the appellants.Both these witnesses turned hostile.13. PW-10 claimed to have no knowledge about the incident and was declared hostile.PW-12 who was known to the appellants also turned hostile.PW-13 held inquest of the body of the deceased and sent the body for post-mortem examination.15. PW-14 is the autopsy surgeon who opined that death of the victim was "due to asyphyxia following strangulation which is ante mortem and homicidal in nature."PW-15 received the written complaint and registered the case.Keeping in mind the mental state of the complainant at the time of lodging the complaint on the day when he lost his daughter, it is quite normal that he was unable to gather himself to give out a detailed and vivid picture of the torture meted out upon his daughter, resulting in her demise.It transpires from the evidence of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-4, and PW- 5 who are the relatives of the deceased that the deceased disclosed before them that she was tortured and assaulted by the appellants on demand of a bicycle.PW-5 stated that the victim stated that there was every possibility of her being murdered by the appellants if their demand was not satisfied.It is a fact that all these witnesses are related to the victim.But law enjoins that evidence of such witnesses cannot be discounted merely on the ground that they are related to the victim and may blindly speak in favour of the prosecution case irrespective it being devoid of truth.The evidence of these interested witnesses should be tested on the touchstone of truth and credibility and there is no bar in placing complete reliance upon the same if they are found to be credible.In the present case, the victim died within two months of her marriage and there can be no conceivable reason 9 which would prompt these witnesses to falsely implicate the appellants with whom their cordial relation had just developed.Despite having such opportunity while being examined under section 313 of the Cr.P.C., appellant no. 1 offered no such explanation and only evasively denied the allegations put forth against him.In the premise, it can be safely presumed that appellant no. 1 and none else was responsible for the unnatural death of the victim and is therefore the perpetrator of the offence punishable under section 302 of the I.P.C. The material on record, however, is far from sufficient to implicate appellant no. 2 in the alleged crime as no direct nexus between this appellant and the incident of murder of the victim has transpired from the evidence on record.In the light of the observations made herein above, I am of the view that conviction and sentence of both the appellants with regard to offence punishable under section 498A of the I.P.C. should be upheld.The prosecution has failed to substantiate the offence under section 302 of the I.P.C. against appellant no. 2 and she deserves to be acquitted from the said charge.Both the sentences awarded to appellant no. 1 shall run concurrently.C.R.A. 66 of 2011 is disposed of accordingly.Urgent certified website copies of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties expeditiously on compliance with the usual formalities.I agree.
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
140,575,294 |
This is first application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 25/2015 registered at P.S. Birsa District-Balaghat for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366-KA, 376(2)(Dha) of the IPC and 5-Ta and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual OffencesEarlier the applicant was granted bail, however, during trial he was absent, hence his bail was cancelled.(S.K. GANGELE) JUDGE MISHRA
|
['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
140,575,637 |
to 8, who were also named in the F.I.R., have not been arrested.So far as the prayer made by the petitioner for issuing a direction to the police to arrest the accused persons is concerned, the same cannot be granted.The Supreme Court in the case of D. Venkatasubramaniam v. M.K. Mohan Krishnamachari reported in (2009) 10 SCC 488 has held as under :-The High Court, within a period of one month from the date of filing of the petition, finally disposed of the same observing that, "it is obligatory on the part of the respondent police to conduct investigation 2 in accordance with law, including recording of statements from witnesses, arrest, seizure of property, perusal of various documents and filing of chargesheet.It is also needless to state that if any account is available with the accused persons, or any amount is in their possession and any account is maintained in a nationalised bank, it is obligatory on the part of the respondent police to take all necessary steps to safeguard the interest of the aggrieved persons in this case".The Court accordingly directed the police to expedite and complete the investigation within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.The said order of the High Court is impugned in these appeals.
|
['Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
140,576,309 |
Jabalpur averring that he is proprietor of Anant Enterprises and applicant and co-accused Rajendra K. Pakki and Sachin Bandu Salunke run business of manufacturing undergarments for kids in the name of STR International in Navi Mumbai in the brand name of Algebra.On 20.11.2016 the complainant was appointed as C & F agent of STR International for M.P. region.In this regard, there was an agreement among the applicant, complainant and other co-accused according to which complainant gave four cheques amounting to Rs. 25,00,000/- to applicant and other co-accused, but they did not supply any material to start the business.Then the complainant made request to the said company regarding return of the money, but as there was delay, the complainant enquired the matter and came to know that office of the company had already been closed.Then he tried to contact the with the applicant and co-accused, but all in vain.On that police registered Crime No.190/2018 for the offences punishable u/s 420, 406, 120-B of IPC against applicant and other co accused.This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant :-The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;The applicant will cooperate in the trial;The amount so deposited by the applicant in fix deposit, shall be subject to final outcome of the case.on payment of usual charges.(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) JUDGE as Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 25/10/2018 11:27:06
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
14,057,731 |
General condition fair.General condition fair.Conscious (9.20 a.m.) Patient is able to give statement (Supply Officer 9.20 am to 9.40 am.) 12.20 hours General condition poor and patient conscious.13.08.2006 General condition low.General condition low.Pulse 92 (1.00 a.m.) per minute.::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 17:32:43 :::(13)(1.30 a.m.) General condition same.Pulse 74 per minute (2.15 a.m.).General condition low.Pulse 64 per minute feeble.(2.30 a.m.) General condition low.Patient gasping.Pulse feeble.(2.45) a.m. patient stopped breathing.Pupils dilated and fix.JJ Judgment reserved on : January 17, 2009 Judgment pronounced on: January 20, 2009 Judgment (Per: Dabholkar, J.)The present appellant was tried for offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 302 of Indian Penal Code and was held guilty for offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. She is sentenced to suffer life imprisonment, fine ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 17:32:43 ::: (2) Rs.10,000/=, in default, simple imprisonment for six months.Fine amount, if deposited, is ordered to be paid to PW-1 Chagan (father of victim Nandabai) by way of compensation.::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 17:32:43 :::(2)The incident in question took place on 10.8.2006 at about 2.00 p.m. at village Shiral, Taluka Pathardi, District Ahmednagar.The victim of the incident Nandabai-the wife of Nanabhau Tagad, was the daughter-in-law of appellant Ashrabai (appellant is the mother of Nanabhau the husband of the deceased).The prosecution story, as can be gathered from the "dying declaration"" of deceased Nandabai (Exh.21), recorded by ASI Shri Bhimrao Ghuge (PW-3) which was treated as FIR, can be briefed as under;The victim Nandabai was married to Nana Tagad about three years prior to alleged incident.The victim, her husband, father in law Bapusaheb, mother-in-law Ashrabai (appellant) and Badrinath-the brother of the husband, were the family members.It is claimed that at the material time, the victim was in the third month of pregnancy.When Nandabai proposed that she should be taken to doctor for examination, appellant had angrily expressed that it was the duty of ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 17:32:43 ::: (3) her parents.It is the claim of the victim that, mother-in-law always used to talk to her in a pricking manner.She used to express dissatisfaction about what was offered to the parents of the groom at the time of the marriage.::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 17:32:43 :::(3)On the date of incident i.e. 10.8.2006, the victim had been to the agricultural land.Mother-in-law reached there and reprimanded Nandabai for inadequacy of the work done by her.Nandabai disclosed that she was not feeling comfortable and her inner wear was spotted with blood stains.expressed anger, because daughter-in-law had not obeyed her command of going to the doctor.She picked up the stove, poured kerosene from it on the person of the deceased and ignited her with a match stick.As the clothes on her person caught fire, the victim ran outside the house.Pintu Nana (cousin brother of victim's father-in-law), extinguished fire and took Nandabai to Civil Hospital, Ahmednagar.The dying declaration (Exh.38) which is first in time, was recorded by Naib Tahsildar Shri Vilas Late (PW-7) between 9.20 a.m. to 9.40 a.m. The dying declaration which was treated as FIR (Exh.21) was recorded by ASI Ghuge (PW-3) between 11.30 p.m. to 11.50 p.m., also on 13.8.2006 itself and consequently, the offence was registered on 14.8.2006 at about 8.20 a.m. Probably, because Exhibit 21 was recorded by ASI Shri Ghuge of Pathardi Police Station, within whose jurisdiction the incident occured, the same is treated as FIR.(Learned APP tried to explain that since Exh.38 was recorded by PW-7 at Ahmednagar, it must have been recorded at the request of local police station, within whose territorial limits, civil hospital is located and the same must not have reached Pathardi Police Station, before ASI Shri Ghuge of that Police Station recorded the statement of Nandabai.::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 17:32:43 :::According to case papers filed at Exh.28 (paperbook pages 71 to 80 and particular page 74), Nandabai expired on 14.8.2006 at 2.45 hours on the night between 13th and 14th August 2006).After due investigation, Police inspector Dilip ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 17:32:43 ::: (5) Karwale (PW-9) filed charge-sheet in the court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pathardi and upon committal, the case has ended in conviction as narrated hereinabove.::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 17:32:43 :::The prosecution has examined in all nine witnesses.Chagan Virkar (PW-1) is the father of the victim and we may state here itself that he claims to have heard the victim inculpating the appellant for burn injuries suffered by her, on 10.8.2006 at about 5.00 p.m. when he reached civil hospital, Ahmednagar, upon telephonic message about Nandabai having suffered burn injuries.When ASI Ghuge (PW-3) recorded dying declaration (Exh.21), fitness of the patient to make a statement was certified by Dr.Shrikant Pathak (PW-6).Recording of dying declaration (Exh.38) by Supply Officer/Executive Magistrate Vilas Late (PW-7) was attended by Dr.A.S.Dhawade (PW-4), who certified fitness of the patient to make a statement.PW-8 Dr. Manoj Ghuge (Exh.40) was the Casualty Medical Officer at civil hospital, Ahmednagar, when Nanadabai was admitted there and he has recorded in the case papers (Exh.28), the history of injuries suffered by patient as "H/O-burns at about 2.00 p.m. on 10.8.2006".(Statement of Dr.Ghuge that the patient was admitted on 12.8.2006 is apparently erroneous).Ashok Ingle ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 17:32:43 ::: (6) (PW-5) had performed autopsy and he has opined the probable cause of death to be "septicemic shock due to extensive burns (90 per cent)".::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 17:32:43 :::(6)PW-2 Ramdas Bute is the panch witness to the panchanama of scene of offence and seizure of articles therefrom.As already stated hereinabove, Police Inspector Dilip Karwale (PW-9) carried out investigation.In her statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.1973, the appellant denied entire prosecution case.She claimed that father of the deceased was demanding money from them and as his demand was not satisfied, he has filed false case.She has also filed a short written statement on 5.7.2007, when her statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded.According to this written statement, father and relatives of Nandabai demanded Rs.1,50,000/= from her husband and son.They also threatened to prosecute, if the amount is not paid.They could not prosecute husband of the deceased and his father, due to peculiar time of the incident, when, in fact, they were working in the agricultural land.The appellant states that mother-in-law being a female family member, can easily be believed to be at home at noon hours.Such a ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 17:32:43 ::: (7) contention of their being at home was not available against husband and father in law of the deceased and, therefore, monther-in-law is prosecuted.According to Appellant, Nandabai caught fire while she was preparing tea for herself at home, when the appellant was working in the field with her husband and son.::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 17:32:43 :::judgment, the learned judge never seems to have given a second thought to this aspect.If the accused (mother-in-law) had never ill-treated the deceased, the learned trial judge lost sight of the fact that the prosecution had lost "motive", "motive" upon which it relied to say that due to petty disobedience on the part of the daughter-in-law i.e. she was preparing tea for herself in stead of going to the doctor, mother-in-law punished her with death.In any case, learned Judge has recorded a ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 17:32:43 ::: (8) negative finding so far as charge under Section 498-A is concerned and the State has not preferred appeal against the same.::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 17:32:43 :::But, so far as paragraph 10 is concerned, he has accepted those dying declarations even before determining their nature to be voluntary, truthful and acceptable.In para 10 of his judgment, the learned judge recorded thus;::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 17:32:43 :::(9)The deceased made two dying declarations vide Exhs.38 and 21 before two different authorities, by stating the consistent facts therein by involving the accused in the alleged crime.However, the evidence of PW 5 clearly indicates that deceased died due to burn injuries.Learned trial judge has described the submissions by learned A.P.P. and defence counsel in paragraphs 11 and 12 of the judgment, at length.In paragraphs 13 to 15, he has discussed dying declaration Exh.38 recorded by Executive Magistrate Vilas Late (PW-7) and supported by Dr.Dhawade (PW-4).Similarly, in paragraphs 16 and 17, he has discussed second dying declaration at Exh.21 as recorded by ASI Ghuge (PW-3) and supported by Dr.Pathak (PW-6).The manner of discussion can be said to be common.The learned Judge has described at length, the depositions rendered by the recording officers and Medical Officers, who ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 17:32:43 ::: (10) certified fitness of the patient and through the said narration, he found that all of them have followed correct procedure.The recording officers were required to record the statements.Doctors had examined the patient and ascertained, so also certified; her fitness to make a statement.Even the recording officers themselves have ascertained the fitness of the patient and thereafter they have recorded the statements.In paras 20 and 21, the learned judge has discussed evidence of father of victim, Chagan (PW-1) and found his narration that the daughter made oral dying declaration to him on 10.8.2006 at 5.00 p.m., also to be acceptable.In paragraph 30, the judge has considered the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. 1973, wherein she claimed that she was in the agricultural field along with her husband and son, when the deceased suffered burn injuries.Finding that she has not examined any defence witness to prove this alibi, ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 17:32:43 ::: (11) learned Judge has recorded that she has taken a false defence, which is additional link to complete the chain of prosecution case.::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 17:32:43 :::::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 17:32:43 :::In order to make out a case that possibly, the victim could not have been in a state, fit to make a statement, learned counsel for the appellant has referred to various entries in the case paper (Exh.28).::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 17:32:43 :::No pulsation felt.No heartbeats heard.At 3.00 a.m. There seems to be official entry regarding death of the patient.(note:- The highlited contents in bracket against item dated 13.08.2006 with timing 9.20 am to 9.40 am above, regarding Supply Officer, as also in item also dated 13.08.2006 declaration with timing 11.50 regarding before police, although find place in dying the xerox copy of the case papers at paperbook page 76, such entries are not there in the original.) .It is evident from entries, which we have reproduced almost all available, that there is no regular periodical recording.Right from 10.8.2006 4.00 p.m. till the time of the death, patient is said to be conscious and oriented, specifically on two occasions when her dying declarations are recorded.Otherwise, entries are cryptic giving general condition, temperature, pulse rate, hydration etc. Yet, it cannot be ignored that although patient was ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 17:32:43 ::: (14) admitted on 10.8.2006 at 4.00 p.m., there is no attempt to record her statement till 13.8.2006 9.20 a.m. i.e. for 2-1/2 days.The only possible inference is that, the patient must not be in a fit condition to make a statement.If a patient admitted with 90% burns was semi conscious and disoriented on 10.8.2006 at 7.15 a.m. and expired on 14.8.2006 at 2.45 a.m., the contention that the patient improved only on 13.8.2006 and was in a fit state to make a statement on both the occasions when dying declarations were recorded, is difficult to swallow.The fact that no dying declaration was recorded till 13.8.2006 morning, is sufficient to infer that till then the patient was not in a fit condition to make a statement.Nandabai was admitted to civil hospital at a district place.It is a common practice that a small police unit of the local police station is stationed in the premises of civil hospital, as out post of the police station to attend to medico-legal cases.Otherwise, Medical Officers informing the police station, regarding admission of medico-legal case and with increase in the dowry death cases, the women having suffered burn injuries, is ordinarily presumed to be a medico-legal case.::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 17:32:43 :::(14)::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 17:32:43 :::(15)Learned Judge while giving credit to the doctors for no wrongful / false certificate of fitness of the patient on 13th August, because on 11th August there was specific entry that patient was in a fit state to make a statement, lost sight of natural course.If the patient was in a bad shape on 10th, 11th and 12th, ordinarily; such patient cannot be believed to have suddenly improved for 18 hours before death on 14th at 3.00 a.m. .Learned Judge certainly lost sight of crucial admissions on the part of father of the deceased, PW-1 Chagan.Chagan has in his cross examination para 5 admitted;The condition of my daughter has (had) become serious since morning of dated 13.8.2006 and on that day, she was in 'unconscious' condition."This is a version of a person interested in the success of the prosecution, because the prosecution is ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 17:32:43 ::: (16) his own cause.When two views are possible on the basis of evidence, in a criminal case; the courts should accept the one favouring the accused.::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 17:32:43 :::(16)Nandabai and also some incidents which clearly indicate that Nandabai's statement could have been prepared by relatives, which also includes a crucial falsehood.In order to make out an opportunity to tutor, learned Counsel for appellant has referred to the admissions by the father in paragraph 4 of his cross examination, as follows;After receiving the said message, I ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 17:32:43 ::: (17) myself, my brothers, my two nephews, Bapusaheb Nivrutti Tambe and Nanasaheb Tambe and Savleram Gawade had come at Nagar.We were at Nagar till the death of my daughter."::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 17:32:43 :::(17)Thus, from 5.00 pm.on 10.8.2006 till death of Nandabai, she was accompanied by relatives from parents' side.This stands further confirmed by admission in paragraph 5 on the part of Chagan, to the effect; "Our relatives had also halted in the hospital near my daughter."Although father denied the suggestion that the daughter was not able to talk properly during the period between 10.8.2006 to 13.8.2006, the denial is required to be ignored as pale denial.This is because, otherwise; there was no reason why statement of the victim was not recorded during that period.::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 17:32:43 :::(18)In order to examine the submission of learned counsel Smt.Jadhav for appellant that the dying declarations could have possibly been drafted by the relatives, it is now necessary to refer to the text of the two dying declarations (Exhs.38 and 21).Comparatively, Exhibit 38 is a shorter version and Exh.with blood stains, when mother-in-law advised her to go to doctor.She returned home and put on the stove for preparing tea.At that time, mother-in-law also reached home and expressed her anger because the victim was doing something at home, although she was asked to go to doctor.Saying this, mother-in-law poured kerosene from the stove upon the person of Nandabai and ignited her with match-stick.Having caught fire, victim Nandabai shouted and rushed outside the house.Pintu Nana arrived, extinguished her and took her to hospital.::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 17:32:43 :::(19)Exhibit 21 contains these very details in a consistent manner, but there are two more introductory paragraphs before this dying declaration starts.In this context, another admission by Chagan is required to be referred from paragraph 3 of his deposition.At the time of marriage of my daughter, we have decided to sell my agricultural land but father in-law of my daughter did not allow me to sell the same.The marriage of my daughter and son-in-law has taken place in the engagement ceremony so as to avoid further expenses. "It is a case, where engagement ceremony itself was ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 17:32:43 ::: (20) converted into solemnization of marriage, with a view to avoid expenses and yet it is a part of the dying declaration, wherein deceased says that her father did appropriate "---------".::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 17:32:43 :::(20)In the second introductory paragraph, victim narrates that she had completed about 2-1/2 months pregnancy.Hence, she had requested mother-in-law to take her to the doctor for general examination, when mother-in-law had angrily expressed;i.e. "Why your parents cannot take you to the doctor, are they dead ? Or whether all their property is burnt ? "After this narration, victim had also complained that mother-in-law always used to talk to her in pricking manner by observing that nothing was offered to them in the marriage.The trial judge has disbelieved the story of ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 17:32:43 ::: (21) the victim about illtreatment by mother-in-law.Her claim that she was pregnant is supported by her father Chagan, by saying that his daughter was pregnant and was also admitted in hospital at Ghodegaon, by her husband.Column 21 of the p.m. notes is pertaining to abdomen and there is specific entry regarding "organs of generation".The observation against this entry is "uterus empty".If this observation of PW-5 Dr.Ashok Ingle, who performed post mortem, is taken into consideration, deposition of the father and the contents in the dying declaration at Exh.21 that the deceased was pregnant, are required to be ignored as falsehood.The existence of pregnancy is one circumstance, which may speak against mental frame to commit suicide.::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 17:32:43 :::(21)Thus, it can be said that Exh.21, which is a dying declaration later in point of time and recorded just within three hours before the death, is a lengthier statement, containing couple of false statements as indicated hereinabove.It is difficult to swallow that the patient, who had started gasping at 2.30 a.m. and when pulse rate had gone down from 92 per minute to 74 per minute between 1.00 a.m. to 1.30 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 17:32:43 ::: (22) a.m., could have made such a lengthy dying declaration running into two pages.It cannot be ignored that Exh.21 is certainly an improvement over and above Exh.38, by adding history suitable to charge the accused for an offence punishable u/Sec.498-A IPC.::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 17:32:43 :::(22)Lastly, we may refer to an admission by the father, which is dealt with by the learned trial judge, in a very casual manner.We quote admission in paragraph 5 of the deposition of PW-1 Chagan.That, on 13-08-2006, there was a meeting in the hospital in which I feel (felt) that marriage expenditure should have been recovered.At relevant time, we demanded Rs.1,50,000/= from my son-in-law ; and the accused.It is correct to say that my son-in-law and husband of accused stated that they are unable to pay such amount and on that ground the said meeting collapsed.At relevant time we have told to them that we would lodge the criminal case if they would not give that amount.The accused have not given that amount to us and therefore we filed this case. "::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 17:32:43 :::(23)This aspect is dealt with by the learned trial judge in paragraph 21 of his judgment and the judge observed;In the concluding part of deposition of father Chagan, there is following denial.It is not correct to say that we have filed false case for money only."The observations of the learned Judge that there is no such suggestion given, is against the record and we are of a considered view that when such a huge admission was obtained from the father, it was not necessary for defence to specifically suggest that a false case is filed.::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 17:32:43 :::(24)No doubt, on the basis of admission by father, two inferences can be drawn.One, incident was true but father was to keep quiet, if he had received the desired amount.Secondly, the incident was not true, yet father wanted price of not filing false case.In either case, when two inferences are possible, one favouring to the accused, is required to be accepted.The learned Judge, we must say; very lightly accepted the version of the father of the victim that he spoke to the daughter on 10.8.2006 at 5.00 p.m. and that she had narrated that she was ignited by her mother-in-law (appellant).The father, in his cross examination, went a step further, by saying;I have narrated the said incident to police there.The police have reduced it into writing the same there.That, on 10-8-2006, I narrated the said fact to police. "Yet, the prosecution does not offer any explanation as to why crime was not registered on 10.8.2006 itself, either by Tofkhana Police Station of Ahmednagar, within whose jurisdiction the civil hospital is located, or by Pathardi police station, within whose territorial limits the alleged incident took place.The fact that no offence was registered on 10.8.2006 boomerangs upon the version of father that he had heard inculpatory ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 17:32:43 ::: (25) dying declaration from the daughter on that day.::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 17:32:43 :::(25)Although both the learned counsel have placed reliance upon few reported judgments, since our findings are based upon facts and circumstances of the case, it is not necessary to refer to the reported judgments relied upon by respective learned counsel.For all above reasons, the appeal is allowed.::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 17:32:43 :::(26)The finding of guilty, conviction and sentence recorded by Ist Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar against the appellant at the conclusion of Sessions Case No.195 of 2006 by his judgment dated 17.8.2007, is quashed and set aside.The appellant is acquitted of the charges for which she was tried.She be set to liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.Fine amount, if is deposited, shall be refunded to the appellant-accused.(N.D.DESHPANDE,J.) (N.D.DESHPANDE J.) (N.V.DABHOLKAR, J.) pnd/uniplex criapl340.07 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 17:32:43 :::::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 17:32:43 :::
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
140,579,190 |
Heard Sri Irfan Alam, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. Meera Tripathi, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.The applicant has no criminal history.Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.Order Date :- 1.5.2015 shiraz
|
['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,405,802 |
JUDGMENT R.N. Aggarwal, J.Shri Mehra lodged a report at the P.S. Kalkaji which was registered under P.I.R. No. 55 dated 22nd January, 1972 under section 379 IPC.The report was filed as untraced.The said car was insured with the National Employers Mutual General Insurance Association Limited.The insurance company paid the claim of Shri Mehra for the loss of the car.(2) On 25th July, 1972, Nazir Ahmad accused was arrested.On information given by Nazir Ahmad, Ambassador car bearing registration No. Mhn 1523 was seized from Nasib Singh from Kashmir, Dist.The investigation revtaled that Nazir Ahmad had sold the car Mhn 1523 to Jai Bhagwan who further sold it to Prem Sagar who in turn had sold it to Nasib Singh on 23rd June, 1972 for Rs. 16,000.00 .The certificate of registration of the car Mhn 1523 was seized from Nasib Singh.On an enquiry from the Regional Transport Office, Nagpur it was found that vehicle No. Mhn 1523 was purchased by the registered owner Duli Ram and the said registration number was of a tractor and not of a car.On an examination of the Ambassador car in question, it was found that its chasis number and engine number had been tempered with.(3) The insurance company made an application to Shri K.B. Andley, Addl.Chief Judicial Magistrate, for handing over the custody of the car to it on supardari Shri K B. Andley passed an order that the car be given on supardari to the in surance company.Against the order of Shri Andley, Nasib Singh went in revision to the Sessions Judge.The revision was heard by Shri N. C. Kochhar, Addl.Sessions Judge.
|
['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
140,587,412 |
Allowed md.CRM No. 5537 of 2018 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 31.7.2018 in connection with Domjur Police Station Case No. 504/2018 dated 11.07.2018 (G.R. No. 3682/2018), presently pending before the Court of the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah, alleging commission of offence under Sections 417/323/313/376/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In Re:-Amit Ghosh ... Petitioner Mr. Arindam Sen, Advocate Mr. Saurav Basu, Advocate Mr. Asit Bera, Advocate .. for the petitioner Mr. Arijit Ganguly, Advocate Mr. Avik Ghatak, Advocate ..for the State The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in connection with Domjur Police Station Case No. 504/2018 dated 11.07.2018 (G.R. No. 3682/2018), presently pending before the Court of the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah, alleging commission of offence under Sections 417/323/313/376/34 of the Indian Penal Code.The petitioner is the principal accused in the matter and claims that despite the victim consenting to having a sexual relationship with the petitioner for a long time, the complaint 1 2 has been lodged upon the petitioner declining to marry the victim.The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed subject to the conditions as indicated above.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioner subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J. ) 2 3 3
|
['Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
29,165,519 |
ap C.R.M. 7348 of 2016 In the matter of: an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 08.09.2016 in connection with Jagaddal Police Station Case No. 39 of 2015 dated 14.01.2015 under Sections 302/120B of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act.And In re.: Ankit Shaw.......... Petitioner Mr. Angshuman Chakraborty....... for the petitioner Mr. Partha Pratim Das..... for the State Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that his client is in custody for 301 days and in this case, investigation is over and charge-sheet has been submitted.He further submits that out of two charge-sheeted accused persons, one has already been enlarged on bail and till date, no charge has been framed.The details of those criminal cases are as follows: (1) Jagaddal P.S. Case No. 39 dt. 14.01.15 u/s 326/307/34 IPC and 25/27 Arms Act (& adding Section 302 IPC); (2) Jagadal P.S. Case No. 50 dt. 16.01.14 u/s 342/323/325/506/34 IPC & 25/35 Arms Act;(3) Jagaddal P.S. Case No.41 dt. 19.01.12 u/s 147/148/149/353/435/186 IPC;(4) Chakdaha P.S. Case No. 414 dt. 18.06.14 u/s 302/34 IPC & 25/27 A. Act, 9B IE Act;(5) Jagaddal P.S. Case No. 794 dt. 13.08.14 u/s 302/201/34 IPC.We direct the Trial Court that if finally charge is framed then to proceed with the trial as expeditiously as possible and all attempts 3 should be made to conclude the trial preferably within 10 months from the date of framing of charge.The details of criminal cases pending against the petitioner in writing filed in Court be taken on record.(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Malay Marut Banerjee, J.)
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
291,691 |
There will be noorder as to costs.(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).R.K. Jain and R.P. Singh for the Petitioner.C.V.S. Rao for the Respondents.It has been further stated that he is entitled to bereleased both under the Punjab Borstal Act as well as underparagraph 5 16-B of the Punjab Jail Manual and has thereforeprayed for his pre-mature release as provided under thePunjab Borstal Act and also under paragraph 5 16-B of thePunjab Jail Manual.1980 by the SessionsJudge, Rohtak and he was sent to District Jail, Rohtak toundergo the sentence passed upon him.It has been furtherstated that at the time of conviction he was 19 years of ageand as such he was sent to B.I. & J. Jail, Hissar.It has also been observed further that "Section433-A, Cr. PC would not operate where a person is detainedby an order under Section 10-A of the Act. Section 433-A ofthe Code was introduced not to set at naught provisions like10-A of the Act which dealt with a special class of offend-ers like adolescent offenders but only to regulate capri-cious and arbitrary decisions under Section 432 of the Codeand the remission rules sometimes reducing the sentence ofimprisonment for life imposed on persons who had been con-victed of capital offences but had been sentenced to impris-onment for life to short periods like five to six years."On a conspectus of the aforesaid decision as well as ona consideration of the facts and circumstances the onlyconclusion follows that the petitioner who has alreadyundergone actual imprisonment for seven years is entitled tobe released from detention and from imprisonment.He being convict-ed by the Sessions Judge the maximum period of detention asprescribed by the Act is seven years.We have already saidhereinbefore that such an inmate of the Borstal Institutecannot be transferred to Jail on the ground that he hasattained the age of twenty-one years as the said Act doesnot provide for the same.The only provision for transfer toJail is in the case of incorrigible inmate or inmates con-victed of major Borstal Institution offence.The petitionerwho was' detained in a Borstal Institute is entitled to bereleased and to be set free as he has already undergonedetention for a period of seven years.The Writ Petition istherefore allowed.The respondents are directed to releasethe petitioner from imprisonment forthwith.
|
['Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 2 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
29,170,323 |
His earlier application was rejected on merits.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
29,176,467 |
Shri Hari Krishna Singh Chauhan, counsel for the respondent No.2- complainant.This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the F.I.R. in Crime No.31/2016 registered by Police Station Belgada, Gwalior for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 294, 336, 506-B/34 of IPC on the basis of compromise.The necessary facts for the disposal of the present application in short are that respondent no.2- complainant lodged a F.I.R. on the allegation that he is working as Supervisor in Shiva Group and on the date of incident at about 04:00 pm, when he along with Shivendra Singh, Subash Sharma and Mahendra Singh was returning on a vehicle bearing registration No.MP06ME1000 from the site, in the midway applicant No.1 Chhattar Pal Singh stopped the vehicle and at that time, the remaining applicants who were having 12 bore gun, mousers and lathi came there, abused the complainant and threatened him not to run the mine and fired at the complainant, but the complainant did not sustain any firearm injury.The Principal Registrar, after recording the statements of the parties, has given the following report :-Ballu Khan @ Hamid Ali, No.2 Abid Ali, No.4 Sabir Ali & No.5 Sabu Khan @ Sazid Ali are recorded matter perused, inquired and heard as to factum of compromise.After verifying from parties present before me that that they have arrived at compromise voluntarily without any fear or force.
|
['Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
29,180,660 |
This is second application under Section 438 of CrPC for grant of anticipatory bail.The applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No. 638/2017 registered by Police Station Joura, District Morena for offence under Sections 323, 294, 506, 307 and enhanced 302 of IPC.It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the offence under Section 307, 323, 294, 506-B of IPC was registered and considering the allegations that only one lathi blow was given on the head of the victim, the applicant was granted bail.However, subsequently, the deceased Dhaniram expired because of the injuries sustained by him in the assault.The application is accordingly dismissed.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
29,189,053 |
None of those persons have even been traced.DATE : 3rd JANUARY, 2020ORAL JUDGMENT1 This appeal is filed by appellant- Vipin Shantilal Shah,impugning an order and judgment dated 6-6-2002, passed by the LearnedAdditional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, acquitting respondent no.2 ofoffence punishable under Section 452 (House-trespass after preparation forhurt, assault or wrongful restraint) read with Section 109 (Punishment ofabetment if the act abetted is committed in consequence and where noexpress provision is made for its punishment ) of IPC and Section 395(Punishment for dacoity) read with Section 109 of IPC.::: Uploaded on - 07/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2020 03:47:19 :::p.m., 4 persons (original accused nos.2, 3 and 4 and 1 unknown person)entered the office of complainant and forcibly entered his cabin andinformed complainant that they have come on behalf of respondentno.2/accused to collect the shares, stocks, debentures of one Mrs.Respondent no.2 who was original accused no.1, was not oneamong them.Complainant informed them he did not have it.At that time,Shobhraj, Original accused no.4, who was one of the 4 persons, telephonedrespondent no.2 from the cabin of complainant and asked what should bedone, to which, according to complainant he overheard the instructions tothe effect "Unko Khatam Kar Dalo".Thereafter, one of them, who had givenhis name as Rajan, took out a revolver from his pocket and said that hewould kill him with the weapon and put the same on the left side temple ofcomplainant.Thereafter, Rajan snatched certain keys from complainant andopened the drawer and started searching in the cabin for share certificates.They did not find any share certificate but found Rs.1,00,000/- in cash in abriefcase and table drawer, which they took away.In view thereof,complainant went to MRA Marg Police Station on 3-4-1992 and he wasadvised to give the complaint in writing.According to complainant, on thenext day, i.e., on 4-4-1992, he went to the police station to give his writtencomplaint and obtain acknowledgment which was not accepted.Thereafteron number of occasions he visited the police station but the police refused toMeera Jadhav ::: Uploaded on - 07/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2020 03:47:19 ::: 3/9 apeal-1212-03(408).doctake cognizance of the case and register FIR.Only when complainantapproached the DGP, who instructed the concerned ACP, the FIR came to beregistered on 24-4-1992 for offences under Section 395 and Section 452read with Section 120B of IPC, against 4 named persons and against 4 otherunnamed persons.The 4 named persons are respondent no.2 Smt. RoshanDelkha, Rajan, Sharekhan and Shobhraj.Rajan, Sharekhan and Shobhrajwere never traced by the police and these 3 persons and 4 unnamed personsnever stood trial.::: Uploaded on - 07/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2020 03:47:19 :::3 Respondent no.2, was the only accused, who stood trial anddenied all allegations and claimed to be tried.The Trial Court by itsjudgment and order dated 6-6-2002 acquitted respondent no.2 and alsoobserved that the existence of Rajan, Sharekhan, Shobhraj itself is doubtfuland complainant has given fictitious names.4 To drive home their point, prosecution led evidence of 5witnesses.I haveconsidered the charge.The LearnedAPP says, and I agree with the Learned APP, that the charge againstrespondent no.2 is only under Section 109 - abetment.::: Uploaded on - 07/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2020 03:47:19 :::
|
['Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
291,946 |
Rule 7 vests the supervision and control of centralised service in State Cadre Authority, Regional Administrative Committee and District Committee, and has laid down the constitution of these Committees.Sub-rule (4) of Rule 7 which provides for constitution of the District Committee is as follows :"7 (4).There shall be a District Administrative Committee in each district which shall consist of the following :(i) Chairman/Administrator of the District Co-operative Bank--Chairman ex officio,(ii) District Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Uttar Pradesh--Member/Secretary,(iii) A Block Development Officer nominated by the A.D.M. (P)/District Planning Officer of the District--Member,(iv) Chairman of a Society to be nominated by the Regional Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies.(ii) To transfer the members from one place to another within the district ;(ii) convene meeting of the Committee and maintain proper record of such meetings :(iii) arrange to carry on correspondence on behalf of the District Committee ;There being conflicting decisions of this Court regarding power of the Member/Secretary of the District Administrative Committee to suspend a member of the centralised service in the absence of prior decision of the District Administrative Committee (hereinafter referred to as the District Committee) to initiate, the disciplinary proceedings.Division Bench has referred the controversy to Full Bench for resolving the conflict.As the Division Bench did not frame any question of law and has referred ail the cases to Full Bench for decision, the learned counsel for the parties, apart from the aforesaid main issue, have also raised the following other questions :(i) Whether prior concurrence of the Assistant Registrar is a condition precedent for suspending a member of the centralised service even if the order of suspension has been passed by a Member/Secretary of the District Committee, who himself is the Assistant Registrar?(ii) Whether the District Committee can suspend a member of the centralised service?(iii) Whether Member/Secretary of District Committee, while suspending a member of the centralised service, can appoint an inquiry Officer to hold inquiry into the conduct of the member and to submit his report?Petitioners are the Secretaries of Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Societies (hereinafter referred to as the Society).They have been suspended by the Member/Secretary of the District Committee.Feeling aggrieved by the orders of suspension, they have filed these writ petitions.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.As more than one question is to be answered by us, we are dealing with each of those questions separately as under:Main Question.--Power of Member/Secretary of the District Committee to suspend a member of the centralised service :In exercise of power conferred on it by Section 122A of the U. P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the Government of U. P. has created centralised service of Secretaries of the Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Societies and has framed rulesknown as Uttar Pradesh Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Societies Centralised Service Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) for regulating their conditions of service.In all these writ petitions the Member/Secretary while suspending the petitioners has appointed Inquiry Officers to make inquiry into the alleged misconduct of the petitioners and submit their reports.Under the circumstances, the Member/ Secretary could not have appointed Inquiry Officers for conducting inquiry.From the tenor of the impugned orders, it is apparent that the Member/Secretary while suspending the petitioners has also initiated the disciplinary proceedings.
|
['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 2 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
29,195,010 |
2.The petitioner is the sole accused in C.C.No.38 of 2016, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alandur.The case of the Prosecution is that the complainant, the 2nd respondent herein is the Administrative Officer of a leading Multi Specialty Hospital at Pallikaranai, which was initially established as a proprietary concern and subsequently, in the year 2005, it was converted to Private Limited Company by Dr.In and around May and June, 2010, the Management of the Hospital, while auditing of accounts discovered certain fraudulent finance transactions which included misappropriation / embezzlement of money to the tune of Rs.7 Crores.The entire administration including the finance management of the Hospital was in the hands of the petitioner Mr.Ganapathy, since he was appointed as a Finance Controller of the Hospital by the Managing Director Dr.The petitioner with the clear intention of misappropriating the funds of the hospital, created several forged transactions.R.V.Jayanthi and Krishna Construction as detailed below :-(i) On 23rd April 2007, a sum of Rs. 27,00,000/- (Twenty Seven Lakhs) was transferred from the CC Account No. 2363 of Dr. Kamatchi Hospital Pvt. Ltd to the account No. 15161, jointly held by the accused Ganapathy and his wife Pushpalatha Ganapathy.(ii) On 13th April 2007, a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- ( Twenty Lakhs only) was withdrawn through cheque No. 895868 dated 13.04.2007 of Dr. Kamatchi Hospital Pvt. Ltd., and credited into the Savings Bank Account No.17000, jointly held by the accused Ganapathy and his own brother S. Venkatramani in IOB, R.K. Salai Branch.(iii) On 12th May 2007, an amount of Rs. 26,50,000/- (Twenty six Lakhs and fifty thousand) was falsely accounted in the book of accounts as repayment of loan made to Mr. T.G. Harikrishnan from the CC account No. 2363 of Dr. Kamatchi Hospital Pvt. Ltd.,.This amount was withdrawn through a Cheque No.470098 of Dr.R.V.Jayanthi from Krishna Constructions.The complaint received by the respondent was registered for the offences under Sections 408, 419, 471, 477(A) r/w 109 of Indian Penal Code and subsequently, laid final report before the trial Court for the offences under Sections 420, 408, 465 and 467 of Indian Penal Code.Thereafter, summons was issued to the petitioner copies was furnished to the petitioner and posted for questioning.3.While so, the petitioner herein filed a petition for discharge from the said case in Crl.M.P.No.6451 of 2016 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alandur on the following major Points:-(i) A false case has been foisted against the petitioner / accused and the same is motivated and not sustainable under law.(ii) No prima facie materials available in the charge sheet to implicate the petitioner as accused.(iii) Further the brother of the petitioner / accused who is in U.S.A. made investments through RBI in the Hospital run by the De-facto complainant.Brother of the petitioner / accused demanded shares for the investments made by him.As per the agreement the shares were not allotted to brother of the petitioner / Accused.Hence, there was a dispute between the Brother of the petitioner / Accused and the De- facto complainant.The De-facto complainant to avoid allotment of shares to the brother of the petitioner / Accused for the investments made by him, has preferred a false complaint against the petitioner / Accused.Hence, the entire proceedings are based on a false complaint without any truth.(iv) The alleged offences allegedly taken place when the petitioner / accused discharged his duties as an employee of Indian Overseas Bank.As per banking practice, the money transaction cannot be performed by only one official i.e. the petitioner / accused.But, the present case has been filed against the petitioner / accused only.(v) No sanction for prosecution is available in this case to prosecute the petitioner / accused who is / was public servant.Hence, the prosecution is not maintainable.4.The learned Judicial Magistrate, Alandur, by order dated 25.07.2017 dismissed the said discharge petition.Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed the present revision before this Court.5.I heard Mr.(i) No sanction has been obtained by the prosecution to take cognizance for the alleged offence from the competent authority as the petitioner was an employee of Indian Overseas Bank and the alleged act was committed while discharging the duty as a bank employee.(ii) A False case has been foisted against the petitioner and no prima facie material is available in charge sheet.The 1st respondent filing the charge sheet had alleged that the petitioner had committed offence U/s.Brother of the petitioner / accused demanded shares for the investments made by him.As per agreement shares were not allotted to brother of the petitioner / Accused.Hence, there was a dispute between the Brother of the petitioner / Accused and the De-facto complainant.The De-facto complainant, to avoid allotment of shares to the brother of the petitioner / Accused for the investments made by the brother of the petitioner / Accused, has preferred a false complaint against the petitioner / Accused.Hence, the entire proceedings are based on a false case without any truth.(iv) The entire investigation in this case is contrary to Law and investigation is defective which goes to the root of the prosecution and caused prejudice to the petitioner accused and entire charge sheet is liable to be quashed Important witnesses namely Suresh, Venkataramani and Pushpalatha are not examined and hence the investigation is vitiated.(viii) No fair investigation and No fair trial (Cognizance order reveals no judicial application of mind)Kamatchi Hospital in Current Account No.2363, and credited into the Account No.17000, jointly held by accused Ganapathi and his own brother Venkatramanai in IOB, R.K. Salai.(iv) On 18th June 2007, a sum of Rs.5,90,000/- ( Five Lakhs and Ninety Thousand) was withdrawn through cheque No.470877 of Dr.Kamatchi Hospital Pvt. Ltd., Current Account No.2363 and credited into the Account No.17000, jointly held by accused Ganapathi and his own brother Venkatramani in IOB, R.K.Salai.This was withdrawn for remitting fees towards ROC.(v) On 16th July 2007, a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- ( Twenty Lakhs only) was credited into the SB Account No.702 of Dr.In support of his contention, he relied on judgment reported in 2016 (2) SCC 143 (N.K. Ganguly Vs CBI New Delhi).11.The learned Senior Counsel for the 2nd respondent had submitted that the witnesses had given statement against the petitioner.Learned Counsel has also filed the written submissions.In this case the discharge application was filed before framing charges and that discharge application was dismissed against which this revision petition was filed.19.In the result:(a) the Criminal Revision case is allowed and the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alandur in Crl.M.P.No.6451 of 2016 dated 25.07.2017 is set aside;(b) the petitioner is discharged from the charges leveled against him in C.C.No.38 of 2016, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alandur.No costs.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.11.04.2018vsIndex: Yes/NoInternet:Yes/NoSpeaking order/Non-speaking orderToThe Judicial Magistrate,Alandur, Chennai.M.V.MURALIDARAN.J,vsPre-Delivery Judgment made inCrl.R.C.No.1119 of 2017andCrl.M.P.No.10560 of 201711.04.2018
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
29,196,924 |
Therefore, the present complaint is nothing.As a counter blast, the present complaint was lodged against the petitioners herein.No grievous injury sustained by the second respondent and he had never visited any hospital for treatment.He would further submit that therefore, they would not attract an offence u/s 324 of IPC, absolutely there is no allegations.http://www.judis.nic.in 2/8 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19254 of 2016The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent would submit that on 29.08.2016 when the second respondent was on construction work the accused persons said to have come to the place of occurrence and started quarrel with him.They also abused him with filthy language and threatened him with dire consequences.They also assaulted and as such the second respondent sustained simple injury.Therefore, there are specific allegations as against the accused persons to attract the offences under Sections 294(b), 324, 506(ii) of IPC.He would further submit that the FIR and as such it has to be enquired and found the truth.This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the impugned FIR in Crime No.1732/2016 on the file of the Respondent Police.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the entire allegations could not constitute any offence or make out the case against the petitioners.Infact, the first petitioner already lodged a complaint with regard to unauthorised transaction done by the second respondent herein.Further there was no wordy quarrel in the public place and the offences under Section 294(b) & 506(i) of IPC also not attracted as against the petitioners.Therefore, he prays for quashment of the impugned FIR.Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.The learned Government Advocate (crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police would submit that, on a complaint lodged by the second respondent the first respondent has registered a case in Crime No. 1732 of 2016 as against the petitioner.On 29.08.2016, the petitioners went to the place of occurrence and abused the defacto complainant with filthy language and also assaulted with sticks and therefore, the second respondent sustained simple injury and also lodged a complaint before the respondent police.http://www.judis.nic.in 3/8 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19254 of 20165. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (crl.Side).It is seen from the records that there are totally three accused in which the petitioners are arrayed as A-1 to A-3 and the first petitioner herein lodged a complaint before the Commissioner, Madurai Corporation with regard to the unlawful construction done by the second respondent herein.On 12.05.2016, the officials concerned are about to take appropriate action with regard to the unauthorised construction put by the second respondent herein.In pursuance of the same, the second respondent has lodged the present complaint as against the petitioners herein.According to the second respondent, on 29.08.2016 when the second respondent was in construction they went to the place of occurrence and scolded him with filthy language and also attacked with hands thereby he sustained simple injuries.It is revealed from the records that the complaints lodged by the first petitioner in respect of unlawful construction put up by the second respondent before the officials concerned are pending.The ingredients of the offence under Sections 294(b) and 506(i) of I.P.C. are not madehttp://www.judis.nic.in 4/8 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19254 of 2016 out as against the petitioners.Therefore, the offence under Section 294(b) of I.P.C. is not at all made out as against the petitioners herein.In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioners also relied upon the judgment of this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11030 of 2014 (Abdul Agis Vs.State through the Inspector of Police), which reads as follows:-“7.It is seen from the statements recorded under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C. of the second respondent/ defacto complainant that it does not contain any obscene words, which were uttered by the petitioner herein and the entire allegations are very simple in nature.It is also seen from the statement of one Uthami, that the petitioner threatened the defacto complainant with dire consequences when he dashed the defacto complainant.The entire allegations are trivial in nature.Further, to attract the offence under Section 506(i) of I.P.C., there was a threatening only by words.As pointed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the threat should be a real one and not just a mere word when the petition uttering does not exactly mean what he says and also when the person to whom threat is launched does not feel threatened actually.The above Judgements are squarely applicable the case on hand.The impugned FIR cannot be registered as against the petitioners since no offence is made out as against the petitioners.That apart, the present complaint has been lodged only with a malafide intention and only to wreck the vengeance on the petitioners for the reason that the first petitioner had lodged a complaint as against the second respondent in respect of construction put by the second respondent.Therefore, the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed.In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the FIR in Crime No.1732 of 2016 is quashed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.09.10.2020 Internet: Yes/No Index : Yes/No ksa Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.http://www.judis.nic.in 6/8 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19254 of 20161.The Inspector of Police Avaniyapuram Police Station, Madurai City.The Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in 7/8 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19254 of 2016 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN.J, ksa Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19254 of 2016 09.10.2020http://www.judis.nic.in 8/8
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
29,197,072 |
All the six accounts were allowed by A-1 S.K. Pathrella.Further allegations are that modus operandi adopted was to open different accounts with different banks by the accused persons, issue cheques in the name of the companies or the persons having account with Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony Branch, New Delhi, thus Crl.M.C. No.2569/2015 Page 4 of 9 opened by the accused persons, and to get the same purchased in conspiracy with each other.M.C. No.2569/2015 Page 4 of 99. 8 cheques amounting to Rs.25,04,008/- issued from different accounts, were submitted and allowed to be purchased by A-1 S.K. Pathrella in account no.2804 in the name of M/s. Bharat Adhesive.The petitioner / Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had registered first information report (RC no.1996/E/006 of CBI/SIU-X, New Delhi) on the basis of some information on 31.12.1996 concerning, inter alia, the offences of cheating by use of forged documents allegedly pursuant to criminal conspiracy in which certain public servants were involved to cause wrongful loss to Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony, New Delhi.The investigation resulted in final report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. PC) being submitted seeking prosecution, inter alia, of the two respondents, they having been described as accused no.4 (A-4) and accused no.5 (A-5) respectively, the others sent up for Crl.The concession to the above effect on the part of the second respondent notwithstanding given the lack of assistance on the part of the first respondent, the case against him requires to be examined independently.The modus operandi adopted was, six accounts were opened with the Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony Branch, New Delhi in the name of(i) M/s. Star Time (Account No.2547/1712), the account opened by A-2 Sanjeev Arora as Proprietor on 28.06.1994, (ii) M/s. Pushtron Electronics (Account No.2584), the account opened by A-3 Vikram Arora as a proprietary concern on 17.02.1995, (iii).One cheque amounting to Rs.4,75,230/- was deposited in current account no.2773 of M/s. Ashok Industries, the cheque was allowed to be purchased by A-1 S.K. Pathrella.The proceeds were availed, but the cheques returned unpaid resulting in wrongful loss to the tune of Rs.4,75,230/- to Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony Branch, New Delhi."It must be added here that the Special Judge in the aforementioned order also took note of the similar transactions in certain other accounts, reference thereto being not relevant at this stage for consideration of the case against the first respondent.The account was opened on the introduction of one Manish Agarwal of M/s Jay Bee Lamination Ltd. Eight cheques amounting to Rs. 25,04,008/- issued from various accounts opened by A-2 Sanjeev Arora and A-3 Vikram Arora, were purchased in this account.Introducer of the account, Manish Agarwal, has been examined as a witness during investigation of the case, under Section 161 Cr.P.C., and as per the statement, he has stated that he was not knowing account holder Virendra Rajora personally and he had introduced the opening of account by him on the asking of A-1 S.K. Pathrella, he being a customer of the bank and frequent visitor to the bank.The only evidence collected by CBI against A-4 Virendra Rajora is that questioned signatures appearing on the documents, being the account opening form and the endorsement relating to account no. 2804, were sent to Government Examiner of Questioned Documents alongwith his specimen signatures and he was opined to be the author of the questioned signatures.Other evidence is in the form of statement of PW-66 Raj Kumar Sharma, recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., who had stated that he was associated with the Arora Group of concerns for the last several years as C.A., which were controlled by A- 2 Sanjeev Arora and A-3 Vikram Arora and he was knowing A-4 Virendra Rajora being their employee and since he had seen Virendra Rajora writing and signing, he can identify the signatures of A-4 Virendra Rajora and had in fact, stated that he was identifying the signatures appearing on the documents relating to account no. 2804 with the Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony Branch, New Delhi.The cheques in question, through which the money was withdrawn, were not sent to the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents for comparison and there is no evidence collected by the prosecution during investigation that A-4 Virendra Rajora was in any way Crl.M.C. No.2569/2015 Page 5 of 9M.C. No.2569/2015 Page 6 of 9Another allegations against A-4 Virendra Rajora is that he opened account No. CA-32242 dated 26.07.1995 as proprietor of M/s Subnit Enterprises.Cheques from this account were discounted in group accounts of A-1 Sanjeev Arora and A-2 Vikram Arora, the main beneficiaries and introducer of the account had been examined during investigation of the case.As such, there is not sufficient material disclosed from the investigation and the material collected by the prosecution to proceed against A-4 Virendra Rajora for the offences for which he has been chargesheeted.In this view, the order passed by the Special Judge trashing the case against A-4 at the threshold by pronouncing he to be "discharged" was erroneous.The error being grave and serious needs to be corrected by this court.M.C. No.2569/2015 Page 7 of 9
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
29,199,356 |
2 MCRC No.3884/2018Admitted facts are that respondent No.2 is a Doctor by profession.He is residing at Anuppur.On 26.02.1997 marriage between Mehjabi Anjum and Mushtaq Mansoori/(son of respondent No.2) was solemnized.On 18.01.2000, Mehjabi Anjum (daughter-in-law of respondent No.2) submitted a written report against her husband and his relatives for causing cruelty and harassment to her due to non- fulfillment of demand of dowry.Accordingly, a case under Sections 498-A and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3 read with Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act was registered against her husband (Mushtaq), mother-in-law (Sugratan Bi), and father- in-law/respondent No.2, brother-in-law (Mohammad Rasheed, Lateef) and sister-in-law (Najma) at Mahila Police Station, Jabalpur.3 MCRC No.3884/2018As per the petitioner, on 06.07.2000 the police party led by Smt. Laxmi Kushwaha, the then SHO of Mahila Thana, Jabalpur and comprising of petitioner Smt. Surekha Parmar ASI, Head Constable Rohini Prasad, Constable Mohd. Aqeel Khan, Constable Pramod Sharma, Constable Meena Gusai, Constable Lakhan Singh and Constable Smt. Usha Gupta proceeded to Anuppur to arrest all the accused persons.On 26.07.2000, respondent No.2 filed a complaint against the petitioner.It contained the following averments:-(a) On 07.07.2000, at about 5.30 a.m., the petitioner with police party suddenly entered into the house of respondent No.2 situated at Anuppur without any authority.Petitioner Surekha Parmar and Laxmi Kushwaha started abusing and beaten him with kicks and fists after dragging him out of his room by holding his hair.In the meanwhile, the remaining 4 MCRC No.3884/2018 police personnel also trespassed into other rooms.They forcibly brought Mohd. Mushtaq to his room and started beating him with kicks, fists and dandas.On sustaing injuries, Mushtaq fell down.A golden chain, weighing 1 tola, which was worn by Mushtaq was snatched by Surekha Parmar.Police forcibly took out Mohd. Rasheed and Mohd. Lateef, the younger brothers of Mohd. Mushtaq, out of their rooms.Surekha Parmar and Laxmi Kushwaha had taken cash amount of Rs.15,000/- and some ornaments from their house.4 MCRC No.3884/20188 MCRC No.3884/2018It is pertinent to note that in pursuance of Crime No.04/2000 registered under Sections 498-A and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, the Police Officials from Mahila Thana, Jabalpur consisting of Ms. Surekha Parmar and others had gone to Shahdol (now Anuppur) for arresting respondent No.2/complainant and other accused persons.In this regard, a copy of concerned Rojnamcha Sanha (Annexure-P/4) and record of Police Station, Anuppur (Annexure-P/3) have been brought on record of the case to show that the complainant and others tried to create hurdle and had threatened the police people.(13/11/2018) This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure being aggrieved by the order dated 11.12.2017 passed by I st Additional Sessions Judge, Anuppur in Criminal Revision No.67/2017 whereby order dated 24.09.2016 passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Anuppur, for framing the charges against the 2 MCRC No.3884/2018 petitioner under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506-II read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code has been affirmed.On the same night, the family members of Mushtaq Mansoori were brought to Jabalpur and beaten by the present petitioner and other police personnel of Jabalpur.Thereafter, respondent No.2 filed a complaint under Sections 451, 323, 294, 506- B, 382, 395 and 504 of IPC against the petitioner and other police personnel.5 MCRC No.3884/2018Learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506-II read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed a criminal revision before the Court of I st Additional Sessions Judge, Anuppur to set aside the charges levelled against her.Learned revisional Court held that earlier revision petitions filed by the petitioner i.e. MCRC No.9469/2004, MCRC No.10137/2009 and MCRC No.10147/2009 were dismissed by this Court holding that the charges against the petitioner are properly framed by the trial Court on the basis of prima facie material available on record.Hence, criminal revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed.This petition has been filed on the grounds that the observations made by the High Court in WP No.22648/2017 have not been considered by the Courts below in proper perspective.The Courts below failed to appreciate the principles of law laid down by the various Courts in this regard.Hence, the petitioner prayed to quash the entire criminal proceedings initiated in furtherance of the complaint filed by respondent No.2 and also to set aside the impugned order.6 MCRC No.3884/2018They gave reference of the orders passed in different petitions against the petitioner.They also submitted that on the same grounds, earlier M.Cr.were dismissed.They further argued that the pending trial is at the advance stage for recording of accused statement before the trial Court.Accused were absconding.Hence, this petition deserves to be dismissed.respondent No.2 and respondent No.9 to 13Learned counsel for respondent has placed reliance in the case of B.S. Sambhu Vs.T.S. Krishnaswamy 1983 CRI.Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.Again accused persons created nuisance and threatened the petitioner and others police official at Jabalpur.After arrest, they were produced before the concerned Magistrate.The 9 MCRC No.3884/2018 complainant/respondent No.2 neither complained of anything against the petitioner and others before the Magistrate, nor he filed any written application before the Court.During the inquiry held by senior Police Officer, the allegations of the complainant/respondent No.2 were found baseless.9 MCRC No.3884/2018
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
115,637,976 |
In the said case, P.W.1 is the second eye witness.The Manitha Neethi Pasarai is headed by one Farook.The accused belong to Farook group.P.W.1 belongs to Sunni Muslim and there was hatred between P.W.1's group and M.N.P. Further, there was also hatred between Muslim Iyakkia Peravai (Hereinafter referred to as the 'M.I.P' for brevity) and P.W.1's group in connection with missing of one Bharkath Jameen.She said to have been kidnapped by two persons viz., Muthupalkees and Palani and in this regard, a case was registered in the Arumuganeri Police Station.P.W.1 is said to have helped Muthupalkees / accused in that case to obtain bail.The group which was against P.W.1 had held demonstration and protest seeking ex-communication of P.W.1 from the Village.The accused were against the Sunni Muslims.In this background, on 03.05.2009, at about 09.30 p.m., when P.W.1 and P.W.2 were walking back home, near Jalalia Grocery Shop at Nainar Street, Kayalpattinam, threehttp://www.judis.nic.in4/36 Crl.A.(MD).Nos.306 & 320 of 2013 persons wrongfully restrained, abused, threatened and questioned him, about the complaint against Farook and at that time, the accused attacked P.W.1 with Aruval on his right and left hand, wrist, both leg and knee and thereby, P.W.1 sustained grievous injuries and thereafter, fell un-conscious.When P.W.1 cried in pain, at that time, P.W.2, Alimshamuthu and wife of P.W.1 viz., Jannath came there.Thereafter, he was sent in ambulance to the Sushrushah Hospital at Nagercoil, for further treatment.4.(2).Thereafter, on receipt of information, P.W.12-the Sub Inspector of Police, attached to the Arumuganeri Police Station, had gone to the Hospital, taken down the statement from P.W.1, registered a case on 04.05.2009 at about 05.00 a.m. in Crime No.193 of 2009, for the offences under Sections 294(b), 341, 307 and 506 (ii) I.P.C. Thereafter, he sent Ex.P.6-printed F.I.R to the higher officials.P.W.14-the then Inspector of Police, attached to the Arumuganeri Police Station, took up investigation, examined witnesses, visited the scene of occurrence, prepared observation mahazar-Ex.P.3 and thereafter, on his transfer, P.W.15-Inspector of Police, Arumuganeri Police Station has taken up further investigation.In the meanwhile, P.W.1 filed Crl.In order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution as many as 17 witnesses were examined as PW.1 to P.W. 17 and 8 documents were marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.On the side of the accused, two witnesses were examined as D.W.1 and D.W.2 and no document marked.On 03.05.2009 at about 09.25 p.m., when P.W.1 was walking along with P.W.2, suddenly, P.W.1 was brutally attacked by three persons with aruval and he sustained severe injuries.Thereafter, P.W.2, P.W.1's wife Jannath and one another Muthu took P.W.1 to the K.M.T. Hospital.Thereafter, P.W.1 was taken in ambulance to the Sushrushah Hospital, Nagercoil for further treatment.In the medical memo, it is seen that his right wrist could have got amputated, but for timely medical treatment.Thereafter, registered the case-Ex.P.1, prepared First Information Report- Ex.P.6 and forwarded Ex.P.6 to the higher officials.P.W.14-the Inspector of Police, attached to the Arumuganeri Police Station, who received First Information Report on 04.05.2009 at the early hours, visited the scene of occurrence, prepared observation mahazar-Ex.P.3 and rough sketch-Ex.P.8, examined the witnesses and Doctor, who gave treatment, thereafter, on transfer.P.W.15-the Inspector of Police, took up the case forhttp://www.judis.nic.in16/36 Crl.A.(MD).Nos.306 & 320 of 2013 further investigation.P.W.15 had also produced the history sheet records of the appellants.In the meanwhile, the case was transferred to the file of the respondent as per the orders of this Court and the Additional Director, C.B.C.I.D, Chennai and hence, the entire case diary and materials were handed over to the respondent.Further, P.W.1 in his evidence states that when he was walking along with P.W.2, the accused attacked him with aruval.12.(4).It is also seen that in the complaint, the occurrence is said to have been taken place at about 09.30 p.m., Thereafter, P.W.1 was taken to the K.M.T. Hospital at about 10.00 p.m. and thereafter, he sent Sushrushah Hospital at Nagercoil for further treatment at 00.30 hours.The Distance between the K.M.T. Hospital and the Sushrushah Hospital is roughly around 100 Kilometres.12.(5).Further P.W.9-the Doctor, who treated P.W.1 categorically states that nearly for five hours, P.W.1 was in the operation theatre and was given treatment and during this period, no- one was allowed to meet him other than the person treating him.http://www.judis.nic.in29/36 Crl.A.(MD).Nos.306 & 320 of 201312.(6).Further P.W.12 states that the statement was recorded by Boomithan, Head Constable, the said Boominathan has not been examined as the witness.12.(7).On perusal of Ex., there is no mention of statement was recorded as per the request of P.W.1 and recording was read over, admitted to be true.Though the statement was recorded in the Hospital, it was not recorded in the presence of Doctor and no attestation was obtained from the Doctor.12.(8).12.(9).12.(10).P.W.2 is said to have accompanied P.W.1 to the Hospital and no blood stained clothes has been recovered in this case.Further, there is nothing to show that there was any blood stainshttp://www.judis.nic.in30/36 Crl.A.(MD).Nos.306 & 320 of 2013 available in the scene of occurrence.The place of occurrence as per Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.8 are contrary.The injuries sustained as per Ex.Accused Nos.1 to 3 and P.W.1 are residing in the same place and it is not mentioned that P.W.1 has been attacked by known persons.There is vast difference between the known persons and the persons identifiable.No description or any identified features been provided.In the complaint-Ex.The reason of fear given by P.W.1 for non disclosure of name of the appellants are not convincing.The presence of P.W.2 during the occurrence and the being eye witness is also highly doubtful.No blood stained clothes were produced.Criminal Appeal No.306 of 2013 filed by Accused No.1, Criminal Appeal No.295 of 2013 filed by Accused No.2 and Criminal Appeal No.320 of 2013 filed by Accused No.3 against their conviction in S.C.No.33 of 2013, by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Tuticorin, judgment dated 10.09.2013, convicting the accused for thehttp://www.judis.nic.in2/36 Crl.A.(MD).Nos.306 & 320 of 2013 offences under Sections 341 and 307 I.P.C., against which, the present Criminal Appeals are filed.As regards Crl.After trial, Accused Nos.1 to 3 convicted and sentenced as under:-The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the remand period undergone by the accused is ordered to be set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.The case of the prosecution briefly to be stated as under:-4.(1).The case of the prosecution is that the accused and P.W.1 belong to the Kayalpattinam Village.P.W.1 is running a Goldsmith Shop at Kayalpattinam, who is also secretary of thehttp://www.judis.nic.in3/36 Crl.A.(MD).Nos.306 & 320 of 2013 Kathiriya Kodimara Siru Nainar Mosque.During the year 2005, the Chinna Muthuvappa Dharga compound wall was demolished, for which, M.A.G.Moulana lodged a complaint with the Arumuganeri Police Station against 15 accused persons.Thereafter, P.W.16-Inspector of Police, C.B.C.I.D., Thoothukudi, had taken up the investigation, examined the witnesses and thereafter, on his transfer, P.W.17-Inspector of Police, C.B.C.I.D. concluded investigation, filed charge sheet against the appellants for the offences under Sections 341, 307, 506 (ii) r/w 34 I.P.C.When the appellants were questioned u/s 313 Cr.P.C. about the incriminating circumstances appearing against them, they denied the same.The trial Court, on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence, acquitted the appellants for the offences under Sections 294 (b) and 506 (ii) I.P.C., convicted and sentencedhttp://www.judis.nic.in6/36 Crl.A.(MD).Nos.306 & 320 of 2013 the accused to undergo one month Simple Imprisonment for an offence under Section 341 I.P.C. and seven years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- each in default to undergo six months rigorous Imprisonment for an offence under Section 307 I.P.C., against which, the present appeals have been filed.The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants made the following submissions:Thereafter, P.W.1 is said to have been taken to K.M.T.Hospital at Kayalpattinam, at about 10.00 p.m. and after first aid on 04.05.2009, at about 00.40 hours, he was admitted in Sushrushah Hospital, Nagercoil for further treatment.The complaint-Ex.P.1 was recorded by P.W.12, is said to be at 00.30 hours on 04.05.2009, which is highly improbable.➢ Further, P.W.9 in his evidence has categorically stated that he treated P.W.1 in the operation theatre in the Sushrushah Hospital for five hours.During that time, nobody had access to him and hence, the registration of the complaint-Ex.P.1 itself is clouded with suspicion and highly doubtful.http://www.judis.nic.in7/36 Crl.A.(MD).Nos.306 & 320 of 2013 ➢ Further, in the complaint, P.W.1 had mentioned that three persons belonging to M.N.P. had attacked him and in his evidence, he had stated that he can identify them.The appellants are residing in the same Village.But, P.W.1 had not named the accused persons by name and as known persons and without any description.It is only mentioned that the persons could be identifiable.➢ Further, the appellants are not the members of M.N.P. and there is no material to show that the appellants are the members of M.N.P.➢ Further, in the complaint-Ex.P.1, it has been mentioned that the persons viz., Mohamed Ali, Muthu Mohamed and P.W.1's wife Jannath had seen the occurrence.On the date of occurrence, the said Mohamed Ali was not in India and this was admitted by P.W.17-the Inspector of Police, C.B.C.I.D. P.W.17 in his chief- examination, further confirms by V.A.O certificate for the same.➢ Further, it is highly improbable that P.W.12 could have reached the Hospital at Thoothukudi and recorded the statement at about 00.30 hours on 04.05.2009 and registered a case at 05.00 a.m. The complaint and F.I.R. had reached the Court with delay.➢ Further in the petition filed before the High Court by P.W.1, there is no mention about the appellants being the assailants.http://www.judis.nic.in8/36 Crl.On his confession, the two other accused viz., Accused Nos.2 and 3 have been brought in.The alleged confession has not been marked in this case.The witness to the confession namely P.W.5-Village Administrative Officer has not stated anything other than the arrest of Accused No.1 in his evidence.➢ In the 164 statement which was recorded as on 22.09.2011, the names of accused Nos.1 and 2 were only mentioned.In the meantime, P.W.1 had nowhere mentioned anything about the appellants.On the other hand, P.W.1 admits that he was enimical with two persons viz., the group of Manitha Neethi Pasarai and Thowsith Jamath for various reasons.Further, it is submitted by P.W.1 in his evidence that when P.W.1 and P.W.2 were talking and walking together, the occurrence is said to have been taken place.But, P.W.2 in his evidence states that he went along with one Alimshahsmuthu, at that time, they saw P.W.1 being assaulted by the accused, which creates serious doubt about the presence of P.W.2 and being eye witness.http://www.judis.nic.in9/36 Crl.A.(MD).Nos.306 & 320 of 2013 ➢ Further, it is seen that the cut injuries inflicted on P.W.1 suggest profuse bleeding of blood to have taken place.Neither P.W.1 produced any blood stained clothes nor P.W.2, who is said to have taken him to the Hospital, which creates serious doubt against P.W.1 and P.W.2, no reason had been given for the same.There was no mention of any blood stains in the scene of occurrence as could be seen from Ex.P.3-observation mahazar.➢ P.W.1 and P.W.2 had also not given any reason for not naming the appellants / accused at the initial point of time.The reason given by P.W.1 and P.W.2 is that they were in fear, due to which, they had not named the appellants.➢ P.W.3 is the witness to the observation mahazar.➢ Further, it is seen that the occurrence is said to have been taken place infront of Jalaliya stores.But as per Ex.➢ The occurrence is said to have taken place at the night hours and P.W.1 and P.W.2 had not mentioned anything with regard to the availability of light.P.W.6-Assistant Executive Engineer, who marked Ex.P.4, has categorically stated that on 03.05.2009http://www.judis.nic.in10/36 Crl.A.(MD).Nos.306 & 320 of 2013 and 04.05.2009 there was no power cut.Further, P.W.6 admits that he had not signed Ex.The person who gave Ex.P.4 had not been examined.➢ P.W.8-Doctor, attached to the K.M.T Hospital, Kayalpattinam had not produced Accident Register copy or any material to show that P.W.1 was given first aid in the Hospital, despite, it was a medico legal case.➢ P.W.9-Doctor, attached to the Shuruksha Hospital, Nagercoil, who marked Ex.P.5/wound certificate, categorically states that he had not furnished and produced x-rays / M.O.1 series.➢ P.Ws.10 and 11 had been examined to show that the appellants had previous cases and both admitted that those cases ended in acquittal.➢ P.W.12, P.W.14 and P.W.15 are the Police officials from the Arumuganeri Police Station.P.W.12 had registered the complaint, who prepared First Information Report.As submitted earlier, it is highly doubtful the time and manner at which the complaint came into existence.The said Boomiraja had not been examined.Further, there is no mention in Ex.P.1 that the complaint was written as per statement ofhttp://www.judis.nic.in11/36 Crl.A.(MD).Nos.306 & 320 of 2013 P.W.1 read over, explained, admitted to be true.Thus, Ex.P.1- complaint and Ex.P.6-F.I.R., coming into existence are true version.According to the appellants, these doubts are doctored version prepared to suit the case of the prosecution.➢ P.W.15-Inspector of Police attached to the Arumuganeri Police Station states that he had given request for call details of the suspects and of the victim, the same has not been produced.➢ P.W.16 and P.W.17-Investigating Officer of C.B.C.I.D admit that they have taken earlier examination statement of witnesses before the Arumuganeri Police Station as true.Except examining few other witnesses, they have not carried out any investigation and they have not given any justifiable reason how first accused was identified and arrested as on 28.11.2011, after two years of the occurrence based on what materials.P.W.1 admits that on the arrest of the accused by the Police, he identified by him in the Police Station.P.W.1 identified A-2 alone.It is pertinent to note that in her complaint Ex.In her evidence, she had also admitted that at the Police lock-up.A-2 was identified to P.W.So her identifying A-2 before P.W.9 Magistrate at the Test Identification Parade could not be accepted.” ➢ The appellants have been falsely implicated in this case.➢ The statements and materials had reached the Court along with the charge sheet.➢ P.W.1 categorically asserts that already two named groups were enimical against him, the appellants does not belong to both the groups and in view of the same, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants prayed for acquittal.➢ P.W.9-Doctor, who treated P.W.1 in the Sushrushah Hospital had produced Ex.P.5 / Wound certificate and M.O.1/ X-rayhttp://www.judis.nic.in13/36 Crl.A.(MD).Nos.306 & 320 of 2013 series.The alleged weapon were not found and recovered.1. P.W.5 would admit that X -ray was taken.The opinion of P.W.5 in Ex.In the absence of X-ray relating to P.W.1, it cannot be legally accepted that P.W. 1 had sustained grievous injury.It may be noticed here that even the weapon stated to have been used by the first accused while P.W.1 was attacked was not even recovered.P.W.16-the Investigating Officer, on 09.06.2011 took up investigation.He had examined P.W.1 and other witnesses, recorded their statement, was informed about Accused No.1 / Sathik Ali assaulted P.W.1 along with two others.Therafter, Accused No.1 was arrested on 28.10.2011 in the presence of P.W.5-Village Administrative Officer.Accused No.1 gave confession, since two years time had gone by then, the weapon could not be recovered as per the disclosure statement.Accused Nos.2 and 3 obtained anticipatory bail.When Accused Nos.2 and 3 appeared to sign before the Police, P.W.1 identified accused Nos.2 and 3 being the other assailants at the occurrence in the presence of P.W.http://www.judis.nic.in17/36 Crl.A.(MD).Nos.306 & 320 of 2013Perusing the C.D. file and documents, P.W.17 examined the witnesses and thereafter, filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offences under Sections 341, 307 and 506 (ii) read with 34 I.P.C. ➢ Before the Lower Court on the side of the prosecution, 17 witnesses were examined and 8 documents were marked and one material object was marked and on the side of the accused, two witnesses were marked.➢ On perusal of the evidence and the materials, the trial Court had rightly convicted the appellants and hence, he prayed for dismissal of the appeals.State of Tripura reported in (2014) 4 SCC 747 as well as in the case of Baldev Singh Vs.State of Punjab reported in (2014) 12 SCC 473 and in the case of Pargan Singh Vs.http://www.judis.nic.in18/36 Crl.A.(MD).Nos.306 & 320 of 2013The learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant / P.W.1 made the following submissions and filed his submissions:-➢ There is no delay in lodging the complaint and registering the First Information Report.As could be seen from Ex.P.1- complaint, P.W.1 was brutally attacked by the accused.Thereafter, he was immediately rushed to the K.M.T Hospital, Kayalpattinam, where, he was given treatment by P.W.8-Doctor, who gave first aid to P.W.1 on 03.05.2009 at about 10.30 p.m. and thereafter, he was rushed to the Sushrusha Hospital, Nagercoil for further treatment.He reached the Hospital at 04.05.2009 at 00.30 hours, where, P.W.12 came there, recorded the statement from P.W.1, which is Ex.Thereafter, registered the First Information Report-Ex.P6 on 04.05.2009 at about 05.00 a.m. The First Information Report sent to the higher officials and to the Court.It was received by the Court on 05.05.2009 at about 11.00 a.m. Hence, there is no delay in registering the First Information Report.➢ The identification of the accused was not revealed immediately by P.W.1 for the reason that P.W.1 was put to \ fear and he did not mention the names of the accused persons.But on the other hand, he has clearly stated to the Doctors as well as in the complaint that three persons from M.N.P. had attacked him andhttp://www.judis.nic.in19/36 Crl.A.(MD).Nos.306 & 320 of 2013 he can identify them.The reason for not disclosing the identity of the accused has been clearly explained.Since Arumuganeri Police was not conducting the investigation in a proper manner, P.W.1 filed a petition in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.1414 of 2011, before this Court.Thereafter, as per the order of this Court, the case was transferred to the respondent.➢ P.W.1 had sustained grievous injuries which has been categorically spoken by P.W.9 / Doctor and Ex.P.5 is the wound certificate and M.O.1 is the x-ray series.➢ The motive and the previous enmity between P.W.1 and accused has been clearly established in the evidence.P.W.1 belongs to Sunni Muslim, the accused belong to Manitha Neethi Pasarai.The People belong to Manitha Neethi Pasarai and Muslim Ikkiya Peravai were against the Sunni Muslim People and Muslim Iyakkiya Peravai were against P.W.1, since the year 2007 wherein, 15 persons damaged the wall of the Mosque at Kayalpattinam and a case was registered against the accused group.The accused in these cases belong to Farook group.The M.N.P. Group headed by Farook believed P.W.1 was the reason for the complaint and developed enmity against him.One week prior to the attack, the accused who were travelling in a Bolero car had followed P.W.1, attempted to dashhttp://www.judis.nic.in20/36 Crl.A.(MD).Nos.306 & 320 of 2013 against him.P.W.1 escaped from the incident and did not give much importance.Thereafter, on 03.05.2009 P.W.1 was attacked with aruval by the accused.Further, P.W.1 had given 164 statement before P.W.13 / Judicial Magistrate which is Ex.He had identified the accused in the Police Station.The prosecution should take precautions and should establish before the Court that right from the day of his arrest, the accused was kept "baparda" so as to rule out the possibility of his face being seen while in police custody.http://www.judis.nic.in21/36 Crl.A.(MD).Nos.306 & 320 of 2013The State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tuticorin Rural, (Crime No.95 of 2004) of Murappanadu Police Station, Tuticorin District reported in 2015 SCC online Mad 48.http://www.judis.nic.in27/36 Crl.Further P.W.14-the Inspector of Police, received the First Information Report, reached the occurrence spot, prepared observation mahazar and rough sketch.From Ex.P.3-observation mahazar, it is seen that no blood stains or any incriminating materials were found in the scene of occurrence.P.5 profuse bleeding of blood to have taken place.12.(11).P.W.9-the Doctor, who treated P.W.1 in the Sushrushah Hospital had produced Ex.P.5 / Wound certificate and M.O.1/ X-ray series.He categorically states that he had not produced X-rays and there is nothing to show that x-rays were taken in the Hospital and there is no radiology report.12.(12).It is seen that the Inspector of Arumuganeri Police Station, P.W.14 had examined eight witnesses and P.W.15 had examined 17 witnesses and six suspects.It is also seen that P.W.14 had given a request to obtain call details.Thereafter, there is nothing more.Hence, P.W.14 and 15 during the investigation they had examined 25 witnesses and six suspects.Who are the witnesses and the suspects and what is the description of the assailants all are withheld, kept in dark.Thereafter, on transfer of investigation, the respondent Police without any materials on 28.10.2011 shown arrest of first accused and thereafter, on his confession, the role of Accused Nos.2 and 3 seems to have unfolded.There is no disclosure statement or any material to show that the involvement of the appellants / accused.http://www.judis.nic.in31/36 Crl.A.(MD).Nos.306 & 320 of 201312.(13).It is strange to believe that P.W.1, who sustained such injury for the two years was keeping quiet and thereafter, disclosing the name of the assailants.It is to be seen that P.W.1 had categorically stated in the complaint as well as to the Doctor that three persons were attacked with aruval.He states three persons attacked him can be identified.P.1, P.W.1 mentions one person namely Mohammed Ali being present during the assault, said Mohammed Ali has not been examined.Added to it, P.W. 17-Investigating Officer admits that the said Mohammed Ali was not in the country during the relevant period and certificate of Village Administrative Officer confirms the same.P.W.1 had not mentioned the name of the assailants for 2 ½ years from the date of the attack despite the appellants and P.W.1 hail from the same palce.The injuries as per Ex.P.5 would indicate profuse bleeding of blood.There is nothing in the evidence to show how P.W.2 had identified the appellants are the assailants.12.(14).Further it is admitted that Accused Nos.2 and 3 were identified in the Police Station at the the instance of the Police.12.(15).P.W.17 admits that there are no materials to show that the accused belong to M.N.P.Considering the inordinate delay at the manner in identifying the assailants creates grave suspicion, this Court finds that there is no evidence and materials to show that the appellants being the assailants, who attacked P.W.1 and the evidence of P.W.1 does not inspire confidence.The evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 are contradictory to each other and the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts.Considering the rival submissions as discussed above and the other materials available on record, this Court is inclined to interfere with the findings of the Trial Court.http://www.judis.nic.in33/36 Crl.A.(MD).Nos.306 & 320 of 2013 ConclusionIn the result, the Criminal Appeals are allowed.The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants in S.C.No.33 of 2013, on the file of the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi, dated 10.09.2013 are set aside and the appellants are acquitted of the charges framed against them.The bail bonds, if any, executed by the appellants shall stand cancelled.The fine amounts, if any, paid by the appellants shall be refunded to them.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.1) The II Additional Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi.2) The Inspector of Police, Crime Branch C.I.D. Thoothukudi.3) The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.4) The Section Officer, Records Section (Criminal, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in35/36 Crl.A.(MD).Nos.306 & 320 of 2013 M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.tsg PRE DELIVERY COMMON JUDGMENT IN CRL.A. (MD) Nos.306 & 320 of 2013 Dated 22.01.2020http://www.judis.nic.in36/36
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 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.