id
int64 17
1.89B
| cases
stringlengths 8
539k
| labels
stringlengths 38
1.25k
| instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|
115,640,482 |
punishable under Sections 294, 323 (323/34), 506 Part-II of IPC and under Section 3 (1)(x) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities)Similar is the position with the statement with regard to uttering obscene words in the name of the caste of the complainant or that any annoyed was caused to the complainant by these obscene words.Therefore, acquittal of the accused respondents from the charges under Sections 294, 323 (323/34), 506 Part-II of IPC and under Section 3 (1(x) of SC &ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act does not call for any interference.As far as the evidence of causing injuries by thrashing (Maar-Peet) is concerned, the learned trial Court has appreciated the evidence of the prosecution in para 8 & 9 of the judgment.Considering the contradictions and omissions in the statements of the eye witness and their contradiction from the statement of the doctor and report of medical examination as well, the learned Trial Court has reached on the conclusion that the prosecution could not succeed to prove the charges beyond doubt.On considering the aforesaid and on perusing the impugned judgment, I find that there are no merits in the contentions put forth by the Counsel for the petitioner/State.Therefore, the petition for grant of leave to file appeal is rejected, resultantly the M.Cr.C. is stands dismissed and disposed off.
|
['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
115,653,090 |
Shri Manish Mishra, Advocate for the appellant.Smt. Pratibha Mishra, PL for the State.Call for the record.Heard on I.A. No. 25326/2014, which is an application under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.The appellant has been convicted by the trial Court under Section 8 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Sections 506-I, 323 of the IPC and sentenced to R.I. for 3 years with fine of Rs.3000/-, R.I. for 1 year with fine of Rs.2000/- and R.I. for 1 year with fine of Rs.1000/- respectively with default stipulations.There is no likelihood of hearing of this appeal in near future, hence jail sentence of the appellant be suspended and he be released on bail.Learned counsel for the State has opposed the application.Remaining jail sentence of the appellant is hereby suspended and it is directed that subject to depositing the fine amount and furnishing the personal bond in a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court concerned, the appellant shall be released on bail with further direction to appear before the registry of this Court firstly on 25.3.2015 and also on such other dates as may be fixed by the registry in this regard during the pendency of this appeal.List the case for final hearing in due course.Certified copy as per rules.(G.S.Solanki) Judge PB
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
115,656,674 |
(i) That the accused no.1 company, namely, Today Homes & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (THIPL) in furtherance of their business started building a Mall in North Delhi named as "North Gate Mall";(ii) That respondent nos.2 and 3, Sh.(vii) That based on the said inducement and assurances, the petitioners had invested their hard earned savings and entered into their individual agreements-to-sell with the accused no.1 company;(viii) That the agreements-to-sell entered into between the complainants and the accused provided that the rent would be exclusive of water, electricity and maintenance charges, which were payable by the lessees/ brand owners who would take the portions of the constructed Mall of the complainants on lease;(ix) That the accused also showed to the complainants various Letters of Intent (LOIs) and Memorandum of Understanding (MOUs) entered into by the accused in this regard, which showed that they had entered into agreements with famous brands qua the units/ shops/ areas agreed to be purchased by the complainants;(x) That the Mall was to be completed latest by 01.07.2007 as per the agreement.(xi) That they made extensions/ deviations in the Mall without any authority/ permission/ sanction, and had also sold illegal areas to the nave customers like the complainants;(xii) That the accused failed to pay the promised and assured monthly return on the shops/ areas booked by the complainants despite repeated requests and assurances given to them;(xiii) That the accused had neither let out their shops to the lessees/ brand owners as promised, nor did the accused nos.1 to 3 hand over possession of the shops of the complainants to them, nor the said accused paid the promised and assured monthly returns/ rents on the shops of the complainants.The complainants set out, from their respective agreements, the obligation undertaken by the accused no.1 company to lease out their respective portions to named reputed brands on handsome monthly rent "as per the terms and conditions as already been settled by the intending seller with the intending lessee".There were slight variations in the agreements entered into by each of the complainants with the respondent no.1 company in relation to the dates of commencement of the lease; the names of the leading brand owners/ lessees, and; the rate of rent payable by the said leading and popular brand owners/ lessees.The complainants state that by the agreed date, the named proposed lessees/ brand owners did not take possession of the areas, including the areas/ shops of the complainants, and thus the accused no.1 company became liable to pay the agreed monthly rental to them.Under their respective agreements, the complainants were also entitled to get security deposits, which were never paid to them.The accused no.4 was illegally and wrongfully created by the accused no.1 to 3 and 5 to 6 so that nave and innocent people like the complainants could be duped and the aforesaid accuseds can wriggle out of the contractual obligations towards the complainants.The aforesaid was done with a pre planned criminal objective to cheat i.e. to wrongfully gain at the expense of the innocent investors like the complainants.The aforesaid accuseds also while illegally and wrongfully cheating the accused under the apparent and evident acts of criminal breach of trust as the transfer was bestowed upon the accused by criminal acts of the aforesaid persons.The criminal acts committed by the accused in connivance and conspiracy with each other committed the aforesaid criminal offences of criminal breach of trust, cheating, also committed offences of fraud and forgery upon the complainants.That the accused further committed acts of criminal breach of trust, cheating, fraud and forgery as the accused no.4 paid to most of the investors for a period in 2009 when the documents as have now been provided by the accused to the most of the complainants show that in April, 2009 itself.The accused had entered into a lease agreement with inter alia other companies and while doing so had categorically stated in the lease deed that the accused no.1 to 5 had W.P.(CRL) 1645/2013 & all connected matters Page 11 of 66 consent with the complainants to such consent was not given by the complainants to the accused to enter into the lease deed with respect to their portions and that too when the accused no.4 was paying rent to the complainants and in March, 2011 had informed the complainants that they had already vacated the entire Mall and that in case the possession is not physically taken by the complainants of their respective portions, it shall be assumed/ deemed possession have been handed over by the accused no.4 to the various complainants".W.P.(CRL) 1645/2013 & all connected matters Page 12 of 66The respondent denied that they had made any promise to get a reputed brand as lessee, and had stated that the shops are ready for possession after all legal compliances.The petitioners/ complainants further state that under the agreements entered into with each of them, the said respondents had undertaken to pay rent for the premises agreed to be purchased by each of the petitioners/ complainants, till the expiry of rent free and fit-out period, as mentioned in the agreements with each of the petitioners/ complainants, or till the leasing of the premises agreed to be purchased by each of the petitioners/ complainants, whichever is later.W.P.(CRL) 1645/2013 & all connected matters Page 43 of 66I have already taken note of the particulars of the proposed lessees; the relevant dates from which the obligation to pay the rent had to commence, and; the rate of rent payable to the purchasers in paragraph 4 hereinabove.Under the said agreement the petitioners, Arun Saxena and D.K. Saxena agreed to purchase Unit No. UGF- 33 on the upper ground floor admeasuring 599.28 sq. ft. super area, for a consideration of Rs.50,93,115/- as the basic sale price.The said petitioners paid the sum of Rs.10,00,000/- at the time of signing of agreement to sell.The accused had entered into a lease agreement with inter alia other companies and while doing so had categorically stated in the lease deed that the accused No.1 to 5 had consent with the complainants to such consent was not given by the complainants to the accused to enter into the lease deed with respect to their portions and that too when the accused No.4 was paying rent to the complainants and in March, 2011 had informed the complainants that they had already vacated the entire Mall and that in case the possession is not physically taken by the complainants of their respective portions, it shall be assumed/ deemed possession have been handed over by the accused No.4 to the various complainants".The complainants stated that accused nos.1 to 3 required the complainants to give them unconditional power for leasing their shops in the Mall.Accused nos.2 and 3 requested the complainants to sign undated W.P.(CRL) 1645/2013 & all connected matters Page 8 of 66 letters, granting permission to the accused nos.1 to 3 to find suitable lessees for the shops of the complainants.In furtherance of their malafide intentions and nefarious designs, and with ulterior motives, the said accused got the self addressed letters signed from the complainants.After taking the said letters, accused no.4 Sea Shore Pvt. Ltd. emerged, and introduced itself as the tenants of, inter alia, the shops of the complainants, which was to the total ignorance of the complainants.Thus, the complainants questioned the same.W.P.(CRL) 1645/2013 & all connected matters Page 11 of 66Since the complaints made by the complainants to the police at PS Barakhamba Road, New Delhi were not actioned and no FIR was registered despite disclosure of the commission of cognizable offences including under Section 406/ 420/ 468/ 471 IPC read with section 120B IPC, they preferred the aforesaid applications under Section 156(3)The learned Magistrate called for the Action Taken Report (ATR).The ATR filed by the police in respect of the complaint of Arun Saxena and D.K. Saxena, inter alia, stated that inquiry had been conducted on the complaint of the said complainants with the officials of the accused company.They stated that MOU/ LOI was executed between PJL Clothing India Ltd. and the accused no.1 company prior to the complainants approaching the accused company to buy the shop admeasuring approximately 1167 sq. ft., but the proposed lessee did not fulfill the agreement and hence the accused no.1 company paid the rental to the complainants.In terms of clause (v) of the agreement to sell executed between the accused no.1 company and the complainants, the complainant had given their consent and accepted the W.P.(CRL) 1645/2013 & all connected matters Page 12 of 66 cheque towards rent from M/s Sea Shore Properties Pvt. Ltd. M/s Sea Shore Properties Pvt. Ltd. is entirely a different company from the accused no.1 company and it gave rent for five month to the complainants.If M/s Sea Shore Properties Pvt. Ltd. vacated the shop of the complainant, that was a dispute between the complainant and M/s Sea Shore Properties Pvt. Ltd. The ATR concluded that the dispute raised by the complainant was of purely a civil nature.The ATR stated that no cognizable offence was made out as the complainants have filed a civil suit in the Delhi High Court, and the matter is already subjudice.The respondent further stated that various fit out are also going on in the Mall, and the complainants may start running the shops.The learned Magistrate in the impugned order, inter alia, observed:The order shows that respondent No.4 could not be served.The order dated 21.07.2014 shows that the premises at which the respondent No.4 company was located, was found locked and no one could provide information about the said company.Even inquiries made by the local police officials of PS Parnashree, Kolkata from the local residents and shopkeepers did not yield any information about the said company.The amended memo of parties was taken on record.W.P.(CRL) 1645/2013 & all connected matters Page 16 of 66The counsel stated that the vakalatnama shall be filed within two days along with a copy the board resolution and authorization in favour of the person who signs the vakalatnama.The petitioners were directed to supply a copy of the petition to counsel for respondent No.4 within 2 days.They were permitted W.P.(CRL) 1645/2013 & all connected matters Page 17 of 66 to file a reply within two weeks.W.P.(CRL) 1645/2013 & all connected matters Page 17 of 66On 14.09.2016, Mr. Mohd. Faraz, Advocate who had appeared on behalf of respondent No.4 on the previous date, stated that he appears only for Mr. Sanjay Kumar-respondent No.6 and not for respondent No.4 company.He stated that respondent No.4 company is a defunct company.He explained that he did not have the copy of the memo of parties on the previous date when he made the statement - that he appear for respondent No.4, and he had made this statement under misimpression.This explanation of learned counsel Md. Faraz was rejected by this Court while observing as follows:The order dated 29.07.2016 shows that the counsel was also directed to place on record the Board Resolution and authorisation in favour of the person who signs the Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No.4 company.If there would have been any confusion in the mind of learned counsel, the same would have been got cleared upon hearing the order that was passed in open Court.W.P.(CRL) 1645/2013 & all connected matters Page 18 of 66List for arguments on 26.09.2016"On 23.03.2017, the parties expressed their desire to arrive at a mediated settlement.The parties were, accordingly, referred to the Delhi High Court Mediation & Conciliation Centre.The matter was listed before the Court on the same day i.e., 28.03.2017 when broad terms of settlement were discussed between the parties.They were recorded as an "aide memoire".They were also communicated to the parties on the same day.The matter was adjourned thereafter from time to time in the hope that the parties would settle their disputes.Consequently, the matter was directed to be listed for further hearing.On 22.09.2017 another offer was made by respondent Nos. 1 to 3, that they would sell certain flats through a Court appointed commissioner, so as to settle the claims of the petitioners.Even the said proposal was not found feasible and, consequently, arguments were finally heard and concluded on 13.10.2017 and judgment reserved.The prayer made in CRL(WP) 1645/2013 preferred by Arun Saxena and Anr.reads as follows:"set aside the impugned order dated 06.11.2012 passed by the court of sh.Ashok Kumar, ld.metropolitan magistrate (new delhi)-05, patiala house courts, new delhi and for also setting aside the order dated 01.08.2013 passed by the court of sh.Dharmsh Sharma, ld.ASJ, New Delhi in the criminal revision no. 23 of 2013 preferred by the petitioner against order passed by sh.to seek a direction to respondent No.7-SHO, PS Barakhamba, New Delhi to register their First Information Reports on the basis of their complaints.The petitioners averred in their applications that they had given their written complaints in PS Barakhamba Road and, despite their best efforts, no case had been registered by the police.ASJ have applied the correct principles of law while rejecting the petitioners applications under Section 156(3)W.P.(CRL) 1645/2013 & all connected matters Page 30 of 66The appellants then preferred their Special Leave Petitions before the Supreme Court, which were granted and appeals registered.Thus, the background in which the petition was preferred before this Court, was similar to the present cases.W.P.(CRL) 1645/2013 & all connected matters Page 44 of 66"It is agreed between the parties that the intending Seller shall have unrestricted rights to lease out the said premises to any reputed brand in the market at the market prevailing rates.However the intending purchaser is also free to lease out the said premises subject to the written approval of the intending seller".(emphasis supplied)Thus, under the agreement to sell, the said petitioners Arun Saxena and Arun Saxena agreed to purchase the defined Unit No. UGF- 33 on the upper ground floor admeasuring 599.28 sq. ft. super area.The respondent Nos. 1 to 3- being the intended sellers, retained an unrestricted right to lease out the said premises.However, this right was subject to two representations/ promises made on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, namely, that the premises would be let out "to any reputed brand in the market" and "at the market prevailing rates".The intending sellers/ respondent Nos. 1 to 3 also undertook to provide necessary basic amenities/ facilities, such as electric power/ meter, sub-meter etc. to the intending purchaser on charged basis.The agreement to sell dated 13.12.2006 with the petitioners Arun Saxena and D.K. Saxena contains the following endorsement jointly signed by the parties:The petitioners/ complainants were shocked to receive the communication from accused No.4- M/s Sea Shore Properties Pvt. Ltd whereby respondent No.4 introduced itself as the tenant of the shop of the petitioners/ complainants.They also raised a grievance with regard to the leasing of their shop/ premises by accused Nos. 1 to 3 to accused No.4 without prior permission and authority.The petitioners state that being unmindful of the criminal and mala fide intention, nefarious designs and ulterior motives of respondent Nos. 1 to 3, they presented the cheques for encashment.W.P.(CRL) 1645/2013 & all connected matters Page 49 of 66The petitioners/ complainants stated that accused No. 4 continued to pay the assured rent to the complainants for their shop for a few months- as detailed in the respective complaints.In furtherance of their criminal and mala fide intentions and ulterior motives, the respondents stopped paying the W.P.(CRL) 1645/2013 & all connected matters Page 50 of 66 legal dues to the petitioners/ complainants.Accused Nos. 1 to 3 further informed the petitioners/ complainants that they could take the possession of their shop.The said accused had conspired with each other to cheat the petitioners/ complainants.The petitioners/ complainants state that on their enquiry they found that the mall had not been completed and had not been issued a completion certificate by the MCD.The same had been sealed by the MCD and the accused Nos. 1 to 3 had been issued show cause notices for blatant violations/ unauthorized construction in the mall.Harjeet Singh and Sh.The petitioners have made the following concluding averments in the complaint:The accused no.4 was illegally and wrongfully created by the accused No.1 to 3 and 5 to 6 so that nave and W.P.(CRL) 1645/2013 & all connected matters Page 52 of 66 innocent people like the Complainants could be duped and the aforesaid accuseds can wriggle out of the contractual obligations towards the Complainants.The aforesaid was done with a pre planned criminal objective to cheat i.e. to wrongfully gain at the expense of the innocent investors like the complainants.The accused no.1 company had the obligation to pay the rent till a reputed tenant was found on prevailing market rate for the premises of the petitioner/ complainants.Thus, accused nos.1 to 3 could not have leased out the premises of the petitioners/ complainants to any entity which was not a reputed brand, and at a rate of rent which was not the prevailing market rent.The issue that thus, arises is as to how accused nos.1 to 3 found accused no.4- for the purpose of leasing out a huge space of 60,000 W.P.(CRL) 1645/2013 & all connected matters Page 54 of 66 sq. feet on ground floor, upper ground floor and first floor of the mall, and how they agreed to lease out the premises of the petitioners/ complainants to accused no.4 Sea Shore Pvt. Ltd. It requires investigation as to what due diligence was undertaken by accused nos.1 to 3 to ascertain whether accused no.4 fulfilled the criteria of being a reputed brand in the market.W.P.(CRL) 1645/2013 & all connected matters Page 54 of 66Thus, the question arises, as to how a large part of the Mall was leased out to respondent no.4 Sea Shore Pvt. Ltd. and why any independent entity would take such large areas on the Mall on lease when the same could not be occupied or used commercially.These aspects require deep and thorough investigation.Pertinently, it is the case of the petitioners that they were informed by accused nos.1 to 3 that accused no.4 is a bogus company promoted by accused no.1 and that accused no.4 was only a vehicle to make payment of the monthly rent under the agreements to sell, which accused no.1 was not able to pay on account of the on-going investigation in respect of the Ludhiana Mall Scam.W.P.(CRL) 1645/2013 & all connected matters Page 55 of 66The status report dated 16.07.2014 filed by the SHO PS Barakhamba Road, inter alia, states that the I.O. visited the premises of respondent no.4 i.e. 14/1, Netaji Subash Road, Behala, Kolkata, which was found locked and no one could provide information about respondent no.4 company.On inquiry from the local residents and shopkeepers, none of them could provide any information.Two shops on the ground floor of the said premises were found locked.If there would have been any confusion in the mind of learned W.P.(CRL) 1645/2013 & all connected matters Page 56 of 66 counsel, the same would have been got cleared upon hearing the order that was passed in open Court.In any event, since respondent No.4 is stated to be a defunct company, the matter rests there and the hearing shall proceed.W.P.(CRL) 1645/2013 & all connected matters Page 56 of 66List for arguments on 26.09.2016".The status report filed by the police before the Ld.MM was also on the same lines.In this background, it requires investigation as to wherefrom respondent no.4 Sea Shore Pvt. Ltd. received monies, which were paid towards rent to the petitioners/ complainants for a few months that they did.The money trail is essential to be tracked to unearth the fraud and conspiracy as alleged by the petitioners/ complainants.There is no way that they can, on their own, unearth the complete transaction entered into between the respondent nos.1 to 3 on the one hand and respondent no.4 on the other hand.However, if respondent nos.1 to 3 chose to let out the premises/ shops of the petitioners/ complainants to third parties, then they were bound- under the terms of the agreement, to lease out the same to reputed brands on prevailing market rent.The learned MM has clearly omitted to take note of the fact that the petitioners/ complainants were made a clear representation by respondent nos.1 to 3 at the time when the agreements to sell were entered into, that their premises would be leased out to reputed brands at prevailing market rents and, in pursuance of the said assurance respondent nos. 1 to 3 had disclosed the intended lessees, the rates of rent, and the dates from which the lessees would take the premises/ shops on lease.The ld.As I have already noticed herein above, this is certainly not the position.There are various aspects to which the petitioners/ complainants are not privy, and they have no information or knowledge about the same.It is for the accused to explain their conduct, and come out clean on those aspects.I wonder how the ld.ASJ has come to this conclusion.The complainants have disclosed that accused No.4 continued to make payment of rent for a few months.The costs be paid within two weeks.VIPIN SANGHI, J AUGUST 23, 2018 W.P.(CRL) 1645/2013 & all connected matters Page 66 of 66
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 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.
|
1,156,606 |
Civil Rule No. 942 of 1951 has been preferred by one Anwar Ali Sarkar who with forty-nine other persons was tried by a Special Judge appointed under the West Bengal Special Courts Act of 1950 (Act X of 1950)upon charges of murder, conspiracy to murder to commit grievous hurt with deadly weapons, and to commit mischief.There were also charges under the Explosive Substances Act and a charge under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code in respect of causing the disapperance of evidence of murder.In the course of that incident it is said that Anwarali Sarkar and his forty-nine co-accused attacked the officials of Messrs. Jessop and Company's factory, battered them to death and threw their corpses into blazing furnaces.During the course of investigation of these offences Anwarali.JUDGMENT Harries, C.J.The two petitions came before Bose J. for hearing.In the view of the learned Judge the petitions raised points of great importance and difficulty and he accordingly referred them to the Chief Justice for decision by a larger Bench.This Bench of five Judges has been constituted to hear and decide the petitions.
|
['Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
115,663,203 |
Shri V.P. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.Savita Choudhary, learned Panel Lawyer for the non-applicant/State.Heard arguments.Perused case diary and material on record.He has also submitted that after filing of the charge-sheet and committal of the case, Sessions Trial No.464/2014 was registered and the case is pending on the file of Seventh Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal.Having referred to the certified copies of the depositions of the presecutrix PW-1, Jitendra PW-2, Pratap Singh PW-3, and Komal Bai PW-4, who are the brother, father and mother of the prosecutrix respectively, he submits the above witnesses turned hostile.Upon these submissions, prayer is made for grant of bail.Learned Panel Lawyer admits that the above witnesses had been declared hostile by the prosecution.However, she opposses the bail application.Certified copy as per rules.(Rajendra Mahajan) Vacation Judge ac/-
|
['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,141,196 |
The occurrence in question took place in the night of 23/24th of May, 1990 at about 3 or 4 O' clock in the morning in the house of one Param in village Naroda, district Sagar.Report (Ex. P/l) of the incident was lodged on 24-5-1990 at P. S. Khurai at 13.30 hrs.by Param (P.W. 1).JUDGMENT D.P.S. Chauhan, J.1. Having been convicted in S.T. No. 311/91 appellants Deshraj, Rajdhar and Buddha have by means of present appeal approached this Court for setting aside their conviction and sentence.Accused Deshraj and Rajdhar were convicted under Sections 394/397/34 and 450/34, Indian Penal Code and accused Buddha was convicted under Sections 394/397 and 450, Indian Penal Code.2. Appellants Deshraj and Rajdhar were sentenced to 7 years R. I. under Sections 394/397/34 and 3 years R.I. under Sections 450/34, Indian Penal Code and appellant Buddha was sentenced to 7 years R. I. under Sections 394/397, Indian Penal Code and 3 years R. I. under Section 450, Indian Penal Code.The prosecution case in brief is that a dacoity was committed in the house of Param (P.W. 1) in the night of 23/24th of May, 1990 in between 3-4 A.M., which is situated in his field in village Naroda.The appellants entered into the house of Param (P.W. 1) for committing dacoity armed with deadly weapons and robbed away one "Kardhoni" worth Rs. 1200/-.In the night of occurrence Param (P.W. 1) along with his wife Pyaribai and daughters Sonabai and Shantibai was inside his house.Param was sleeping outside the house.In the night at about 3 or 4 A.M. Param (P.W. 1) saw torch light and saw 3 persons adjacent to him, who did not respond to his saying "Ram Ram".All the three persons came near to the complainant Param (P.W. 1), out of whom one was having "Sang" and torch and the other was having "Katarna" and said handover the money and the ornaments as they may be having.The person who was armed with "Sang" hit Param (P.W. 1) on his right rib with that "Sang".The third person was said to have been armed with Lathi, who hit him with Lathi.At that time Sonabai, the daughter of Param (P.W. 1), out of fear ran away to the house of Mansingh.Shanti, the older daughter of Param (P.W. 1), was wearing "Kardhani" of Sonabai hid the same inside her clothes.It was also stated that one person was addressing the other as "Babloo", who entered into the house, and the person "who was armed with "Sang" he searched the bedding where the "Kardhoni" was hidden and he took the same.Thereafter all the three persons went towards Thakur Baba.On hearing hue and cry people of the other hamlets came there and subsequently they went to side of Village Naroda.The appellants as usual denied their involvement in the alleged incident of dacoity, but did not lead any defence evidence.Heard Shri Surendra Singh, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri D. V. Pendharkar, learned Panel Lawyer for the State.9. Learned counsel for the appellants made following six fold submissions :-The appellants were shown to the identifying witnesses in the village of dacoity where they were brought subsequent to their being taken into custody and as such the test identification loses its significance.The test identification was held after lapse of one month and two days subsequent to the arrest of the accused persons, who were taken into custody on 28-6-1991 and were sent to prison on 29-6-1991 and thereafter brought before the Court on 29-6-1991, 12-7-1991 and 25-7-1991 for remand purpose and were not kept "Baparda".(a) As far as appellant No. 1 Deshraj is concerned, Section 397, Indian Penal Code would not apply in his case as be was alleged to have been armed with Lathi which was not a deadly weapon.The witnesses were knowing the accused persons.
|
['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 450 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
114,122,343 |
Geeta, aged about 40 years, wife of the appellant suffered homicidal death sometime around 10:30 p.m. on 06.08.2016 at the first floor of the property described as E-7/445-446, Sultan Puri, it being the property where the deceased was living in a rented accommodation with her family that included the appellant (husband), her daughter Laxmi (PW-10) and a son Vikas (PW-2).The first information report (FIR) No.465/2016 (Ex.PW-11/C) was registered in the Police Station Sultan Puri at 0215 hours on 07.08.2016 pursuant to the rukka (Ex.PW-19/A) of Sub-Inspector Rajender Singh (PW-19) it, in turn, being based on statement (Ex.PW- 8/A) of Sunita (PW-8), an immediate neighbor.As per the FIR, the Crl.Appeal No.26/2018 Page 1 of 7 appellant had stabbed Geeta to death in the presence, inter alia, of the first informant (PW-8) and her son Vikas (PW-2) after a quarrel.The investigation having been completed, report (charge sheet) under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) was submitted seeking trial of the appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), his daughter Laxmi (PW-10) also having been cited as an eye witness.Appeal No.26/2018 Page 1 of 7The appellant was brought to trial on the charge under Section 302 IPC which was framed on 24.11.2016, the gravamen being that he had committed the murder of Geeta on the said date and time at the aforementioned place.The prosecution led evidence, inter alia, by examining the aforementioned three witnesses, described as eye witnesses, also resting its case on recovery of knife (Ex.P1) which had been used in the crime, at the instance of the appellant.The appellant had pleaded innocence, his defence being that his daughter (PW-10) had lodged an FIR for offence under Section 376 IPC against certain persons who used to threaten her and the family and it is those persons who had given the fatal injuries to Geeta either on their own or through their hired associates.The appellant also accused one Praveen, resident of Meerut, to be habitual of giving threats to him and his wife, though pleading ignorance as to reasons for such threats.He did not lead any evidence in defence.The trial court, by judgment dated 15.04.2017, held that the prosecution had proved its case that it was the appellant, who had inflicted the fatal knife injury in the abdomen of Geeta.It, however, Crl.Appeal No.26/2018 Page 2 of 7 took the view that the injuries had been inflicted in the heat of the moment and under strong impulse and consequently attracting exceptions (1) and (4) of Section 300 IPC.As per the judgment of the trial court, the appellant was held guilty for the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, it being punishable under Section 304 IPC rather than for the offence of murder under Section 302 IPC.By the order on sentence dated 26.04.2017, the trial Judge took note of the advanced age (more than 70 years) of the appellant and his frail physical health and consequently took the view that ends of justice would stand satisfied if he were to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years with fine of Rs.5,000/- only, in default further simple imprisonment for a period of two months.The trial court also directed that compensation in the sum of Rs.5 lacs to be paid to the four children of the deceased, the compliance to be made in this regard by District Legal Services Authority from out of victim compensation fund.Appeal No.26/2018 Page 2 of 7The present appeal was filed assailing the judgment and order on sentence passed by the trial court.The prime submission of the appellant being that the trial court has ignored the fact that Laxmi (PW-10), daughter of the deceased who would have been a natural witness has not supported the case for prosecution, it being the argument that PW-2 and PW-8 are witnesses who have been falsely planted by the police, their evidence being not credible.It is also the argument of the appellant that the evidence about the recovery of knife (Ex.P1) as the weapon of offence or about its use cannot be believed, Crl.Appeal No.26/2018 Page 3 of 7 particularly in view of the court observations recorded during the testimony of investigating officer (PW-19) showing the handle to be virtually coming off the hinge, it being not possible to keep the blade straight without it being held along with handle.It is also pointed out that the knife (Ex.P1) did not bear any blood-stains.Appeal No.26/2018 Page 3 of 7The above submissions have been carefully examined, but this court finds no substance in the pleas raised.It may be that PW-10, daughter of the deceased was present at the scene of occurrence and may have accompanied her to the hospital immediately after the incident wherein Geeta indisputably suffered injury in her abdomen, such stabbing having brought her intestine out.From this, it does appear that PW-10 would have been present at the scene or around the relevant point of time.It does appear further that PW-10 had disowned her statement (Ex.PW-10/A) as recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. wherein she would attribute the assault on the person of her mother by her father.But then, it must be noted that PW-10 does not say that it was some person other than her father who had stabbed her mother.She has taken the plea that she was having stomach ache and not feeling well had gone downstairs to arrange for soft drink and while she was downstairs she heard some commotion, in the course of which her mother fell down.She confirmed that her father was present at the scene at that point of time.She does not refer to presence of any intruder or other assailant having been noticed by her either entering or going out of the place.Appeal No.26/2018 Page 4 of 78. PW-2 and PW-8, being the immediate neighbours, are consistent in their evidence confirming that they had heard commotion and had come out noticing that the appellant was quarreling with Geeta.They would confirm that such quarrels were quite frequent.They have testified that the appellant had got infuriated and had uttered words to the effect that he wanted to finish Geeta and in that process stabbed her with the knife, causing the injuries that proved fatal.A lot of argument was raised as to it being not probable for PW-8 to be present at the scene at the time of occurrence.It appears PW-8 would work in some footwear factory.She conceded that she would ordinarily return home by 9:30 or 10:00 p.m. It is the argument of the appellant that unless attendance register maintained at the place of her employer were to be proved, it could not be said with certainty that PW-8 had returned home by the time the incident took place so as to be a witness thereof.The incident occurred at 10:30 p.m. Even going by the version of PW-8, she would normally be at home by 10:00 pm.There is no reason why her presence would require her employer's records respecting her attendance at work place to be insisted upon.It was then the argument of the appellant that PW-8 has spoken about the noise created by utensils falling and this attracting her attention, thereby fact of her attendance as a witness to the occurrence being brought out.PW-8/A) there was no reference to any utensils falling.This, in the opinion of Crl.Appeal No.26/2018 Page 5 of 7 this court, is not such a contradiction as can go to the root of the matter.The witnesses - PW-2 and PW-8 - are consistent in their testimony that the husband (the appellant) and the wife (the deceased) were quarreling with each other.A commotion had ensued which had attracted their attention, bringing them out.The autopsy opinion (Ex.PW-1/B) is only about the possibility of such weapon having been used.But then, no evidence showing any bloodstains on the knife has been brought out.It calls for no interference.Appeal No.26/2018 Page 6 of 7
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
114,124,996 |
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the material on record.By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no. 145 of 2019, under Sections 323, 376D IPC, P.S. Expressway, District Gautam Budh Nagar, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is not named in the FIR.As per the FIR, the informant and two others ladies work in a business of prostitution.The allegation made in the FIR is that two persons are alleged to be the customer and there is dispute regarding money and rate.The name of the applicant neither figured up in her statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. nor named in the FIR and has been falsely implicated in the present case.Learned counsel for the applicant lastly submitted that the applicant is in jail since 19.06.2019 and is entitled to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of trial.Learned A.G.A opposed the prayer for bail.Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.Let the applicant-Anjani@Chhotu, involved in case crime no. 145 of 2019, under Sections 323, 376D IPC, P.S. Expressway, District Gautam Budh Nagar be released on bail 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 WOULD FULLY COOPERATE IN THE CONCLUSION OF TRIAL WITHIN ONE YEAR AND ANY TEMPERING OR WILLING TACTICS ON THE PART OF THE APPLICANT TO DELAY THE TRIAL WOULD WARRANT THE AUTOMATIC CANCELLATION OF BAIL.(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT.IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.(iii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS COUNSEL.IN CASE OF HIS ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
11,413,203 |
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the contention of appellants with this mention that trial Judge has appreciated facts and law, placed before, it in correct perspective of law.Accused Karan Singh died during trial, hence trial against him was abated, whereas Dhruv Singh and Kailash were convicted and sentenced as above.Registration of this case was entered in General Diary Entry at report no. 29 at 21.30 P.M. of 16.01.2003 by Constable Mansha Ram Yadav, posted with this witness and under acquaintance of his writing and signature.6. PW-2 is Udai Bhan Singh, an employee of Forest Department and witness of occurrence dated 26.11.1996, when at about 1.00 A.M., this forest employee, along with another employee Ahmad Khan, was at surveillance duty in the forest, when four persons were busy in cutting wood of sandal tree and they were identified under light of torch to be Karan, Sirnam, Pappu and Bhola and when torch light was flashed, they ran from spot, but Sirnam was apprehended from spot, whereas rest have managed to escape.One saw was recovered from spot, whereas one saw and cycles was recovered from the possession of Sirnam.12 logs of Sandal wood was lying thereat.The person apprehended was taken at police station where report was got lodged upon written report of this witness.Photocopy of same Chick FIR as paper no. 9A/2 was on record, which, as per his knowledge, was correct one and signature of this witness was original on same.Another occurrence of same type was occurred on 17.10.1997 while this witness along with Devendra Kumar Chaturvedi was in surveillance of sandal tree, some of miscreants were found to cut sandal wood tree.Two of them were apprehended at about 4 A.M. from forest.They were Laxman and Mulla.On the basis of above First Information Report was got lodged at police station, carbon copy of same is attached with file and as per information of this witness same was correct one.This Karan, Sirnam, Pappu and Bhola are criminals and they used to commit theft of sandal wood.They used to earn money from those trees, resulting terror in society.7. PW-3 Gulab was having enmity regarding land from accused persons.This was gone through from record of police station and found to be a true information.Hence, there was no other option than to take action under this Act. Gang chart was prepared on 12.01.2003, which was got approved by the then District Magistrate, Lalitpur.This witness got this case registered on the basis of information given by informer and record of police station, whereas in all the nine cases, shown in gang chart against convict appellant Dhruv Singh, he had been acquitted.Judgment of all those cases were on record, in which no case was proved, but for the sake of argument and appreciation of evidence placed before trial Court testimony of PW-2 reveals that he is an employee of Forest Department and he tried to establish that these accused persons were involved in theft of sandal tree and wood of Forest, for which two cases were said to have been alleged by this forest employee.One was said to be of 26.11.1996, when this witness along with Ahmad Khan was in surveillance duty in forest, where he found four persons under the light of torch doing cutting of sandal wood.They were identified to be Karan, Sirnam, Pappu and Bhola, but present convict appellants were not apprehended on spot nor was there any recovery from them nor it was any act causing terror in society.Rather it was an act of wood theft in the night in the forest area and those persons were not apprehended on spot.It was said that three of them could manage to run and one was apprehended with cycles and saw.He was Sirnam.Present two appellants were neither apprehended on spot nor was there any recovery from them and they have been acquitted of above offence.The next occurrence was of 17.10.1997 when this witness along with one other Devendra Kumar Chaturvedi was in surveillance of forest.Four persons were seen under light of torch while cutting sandal wood and they all run from spot.This Appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. has been filed by convict appellants against judgment of conviction dated 07.07.2018 and sentence made therein by Court of Special Judge (Gangster Act) / Additional Session Judge (Fast Track Court No. II) Lalitpur in G.S.T. No. 284 of 2003, arising out of Case Crime No. 25 of 2003, under Section 2/3 Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), Police Station Bar, District Lalitpur with a prayer for setting aside the judgment of conviction and sentence made therein.2. Learned counsel for convict appellants argued that both the convict appellants have been convicted and sentenced with five years' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.6,000/- and in default with further imprisonment of one month, which was a severe sentence, against the evidence on record.Trial Court failed to appreciate facts and evidence placed before it, resulting this perversity.Nine criminal cases were shown as criminal history against appellant Dhruv Singh in gang chart, wherein he has been released and acquitted in all criminal cases mentioned in it.The appellant Kailash was shown to be with criminal history of four cases, but he is on bail in each of them, but this false accusation for offence under Section 2/3 of the Act was got lodged.There was no independent witness of public to prove prosecution case, except police and official witnesses, who were examined before trial Court.Both the convict appellants are neither member of any gang nor they have worked as gangsters.There was no anti-social activities of them.No credible evidence was there.Hence, offence punishable under Section 2/3 of the Act was not made out.Even then, charge sheet was submitted and judgment of conviction with sentence, as above, was passed.Hence, this appeal with above prayer.After approval of District Magistrate, Lalitpur, gang chart, having nine cases lodged against Dhruv Singh including Case Crime No. 34 of 1981, under Sections 147, 325, 504 I.P.C., Case Crime No. 246 of 2000, under Sections 147, 447, 427, 323 I.P.C., Case Crime No. 323 of 2002, under Sections 379, 411 I.P.C. read with Section 26 of Forest Act, Case Crime No. 9 of 1987, under Sections 394, 302, 411 I.P.C., Case Crime No. 189 of 1998, under Sections 41/109 Cr.P.C., Case Crime No. 7 of 1984, under Sections 151, 107, 116 Cr.P.C., Case Crime No. 131 of 1996, under Sections 151, 107, 116 Cr.P.C., Case Crime No. 106 of 1996, under Sections 107, 116 Cr.P.C., Case Crime No. 324 of 2002, under Section 25 Arms Act, lodged at Police Station Bar, District Lalitpur, was in gang chart.Four cases including Case Crime No. 34 of 1981, under Sections 147, 325, 504 I.P.C., Case Crime No. 246 of 2000, under Sections 147, 447, 427, 323 I.P.C., Case Crime No. 323 of 2002, under Sections 379, 411 I.P.C. read with Section 26 of Forest Act and Case Crime No. 40 of 1987, under Section 60 of Excise Act, at Police Station Bar, District Lalitpur was against accused Kailash and on the basis of above gang chart this Case Crime No. 25 of 2003, under Section 2/3 of the Act was got registered and investigated, resulting submission of charge sheet.Accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial for the charges levelled against them.Prosecution had examined PW-1 informant Abdul Rajjak, the then S.O. of Police Station Bar, PW-2 Udai Bhan Singh, an employee of Forest Department, PW-3 Gulab, an independent public witness, PW-4 Mansha Ram Yadav, the then Head Constable, who had proved prosecution case beyond doubt and on the basis of those cogent evidence, judgment of conviction with sentence, as above, was passed.Hence, this appeal is baseless.Heard Sri Shiv Prasad, learned counsel for appellants and Sri K.K. Rajbhar, learned A.G.A. for State.Perused the impugned judgment and record of trial Court.Station Officer Abdul Rajjak of Police Station Bar (PW-1) got this case registered at Police Station Bar under Section 2/3 of the Act on the basis of gang chart approved by District Magistrate, Lalitpur against Dhruv Singh, Kailash and Karan Singh on 16.01.2003, which was got investigated and charge sheet was filed, cognizance over it was taken and after hearing learned counsel for accused Dhruv Singh, Kailash and Karan Singh as well as learned A.G.A., Special Judge, vide order dated 09.07.2004, framed charges for offence punishable under Section 2/3 of the Act against them.Charge was read over and explained to accused persons, who pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.Rest two could manage to ran from spot, but they were identified to be Karan with one unknown.Seven logs of sandal wood with saw were recovered from spot.Recovery memo was got prepared and on the basis of above, First Information Report was got lodged at police station concerned.In Narbada Prasad v. Chhaganlal & Ors.; AIR 1969 SC 395, Apex Court has held that in an appeal the burden is on appellant to prove how the judgment under appeal is wrong? He must show where the assessment has gone wrong?Under above perspective of law the impugned judgment and the evidence placed on record is to be appreciated.Charges levelled against Kailash, Karan Singh and Dhruv Singh was that they are an organized gang and being leader and member of above gang by violence, threat of violence and show of violence, they used to commit crime, thereby disturb public peace and public order and with a view of gaining undue temporal, pecuniary, material and other advantages used to commit offence punishable under Chapter XVI, XVII or XXII of the Indian Penal Code given in gang chart.As 18 cases were against them, hence they committed offence punishable under Section 3 of the Act. Accused pleaded not guilty and prosecution was to prove those essential ingredients.Ka-1 on record.Meaning thereby, none of above accused person was doing any crime or was of public terror or involved in any offence provided under Chapter XVI, XVII or XXII of the I.P.C. nor they were involved in anti-social activities within the knowledge of this S.O. Rather an information by informer was given and on the basis of above information police record of police station was searched and on the basis of cases written in it gang chart was got prepared and thereafter approved from the then District Magistrate, Lalitpur and this Ext. Ka-1 was got lodged at police station concerned i.e. no offence under knowledge of this PW-1 was there except on the basis of information and going through record of police station.When cross examined this witness has categorically said that "gang chart maine apni marji se taiyar kiya tha.Kisi ke kehnepar nahi kiya tha.Thane ka record dekh kar taiyar kiya tha.Kitne baje se kitne baje tak taiyar kiya tha, main nahi bata sakta hun.Pradarsh Ka-1 gang chart ka taskara maine G.D. me ankit nahi kiya tha.Pradarsh Ka-2 me gang chart ki nakal maine nahi ki thi.Gang chart ki nakal pradarsh Ka-3 me bhi nahi hai."[I have prepared gang chart at police station.This was under my own volition and not on the basis of saying of someone else.Rather it was on the basis of record of police station.When it was prepared was not under his answer.This has neither been written in Ext. Ka-1 nor in G.D. Entry (Ext.Ka-2) nor in Ext. Ka-3.] (English translation by Court itself).This witness has categorically said that he had never visited home of accused persons nor there was any declaration of prize against them by State nor this witness is under knowledge of property of accused persons. "gang chart taiyar karne ke purva main abhiyuktgano ke ghar nahi gaya tha.......Shashan dwara mulzimano ke upar koi inam ghoshit nahi kiya gaya tha.Mulzimano ki sampatti ke bare me maine jankari nahi ki thi.Mulzimano ko apraadh karte huye maine nahi pakda hai."[Prior to preparation of gang chart, I never visited house of accused persons.........No prize declaration by State was there against accused persons.I am not aware of property of accused persons.I have not apprehended any of them while committing any offence.] (English translation by Court itself).Meaning thereby, neither informant PW-1 visited house of accused persons nor he is aware of their property nor they were ever apprehended by him while committing offence nor there was any prize declaration by State against them nor this witness was under personal knowledge of accused persons.Hence, with a view to Section 2(b) of the Act for gang and offence, which is punishable under Section 3 of the Act and ingredients of charge framed, as above, this witness is of no importance because neither he is aware of property of accused persons nor he has ever visited their house nor they were ever apprehended by him, while committing offence nor there was any declaration of any prize against them nor this witness was ever aware of whereabouts of these accused persons.After search in the forest two of them could be apprehended.They were Laxman and Mulla.Third one was recognized as Karan.Fourth was unknown.But admittedly present convict appellants were neither apprehended on spot nor was there any recovery from them nor they were there except one Karan and Karan had died.Trial against him stood abated.So far as convict appellants are concerned, neither they were apprehended on spot nor this case was against them nor any property of them, said to be maintained or procured out of above offence of theft, could be said by this court witness.In cross examination, this witness has categorically said that all four run from spot and in subsequent chase and search two persons were apprehended from forest, but none of convict appellants were there nor they were named in it.Specifically this witness has replied in his cross examination that "yeh kahna sahi hai ki maine Kailash, Karan Singh, Dhruv Singh ko range hatho nahi pakada.Thane me jo surakshakarmi ham logo ke saath baramadshuda saaman thane lekar gaye the aur saman ko thane rakhkar chale aaye the.Maine iss surakshakarmiyon ki baat maine apni tahriri report me nahi likhi thi.Yah log dainik vetan bhogi log hai.Dainik vetan bhogi logon ke naam isliye nahi likhaye hai ki wah log sarkari karmchari nahi hai."[It is true that Kailash, Karan Singh and Dhruv Singh were never caught red handed by this witness.The forest security employees, who took the accused at police station and came back from there were not written in report or were never named because they were daily wagers.] (English translation by Court itself).Neither those recovered goods were proved before trial Court nor they were placed on record nor both the convict appellants were named in above case or stood on trial in above case.This witness has categorically answered that he is not aware as to whom these convict appellants have extended threat or how many cases against them are pending.Meaning thereby, this witness and his testimony is not of this nature to prove the existence of essential ingredients of offence for which charge was levelled against convict appellants.PW-3 Gulab, admittedly an inimical witness, against whom some property dispute was said to be there and it was specifically said by each of convict appellants in their statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that there was a dispute in between Gulab and convict appellants regarding land for which he became instrumental for getting this case lodged.This PW-3 Gulab in his testimony has said about the same quarrel regarding land, which was purchased by family member of convict appellants from Panna Lal, who was co-tenure holder with father of this Gulab.This witness has categorically said in cross-examination that accused persons did tress pass in the land of Panna Lal and got it occupied, but he has said that as this land was purchased from Panna Lal, hence in case of this occupation this witness or his family members have no objection except a request for getting above land allocated before possession otherwise to be in joint possession.Hence, testimony of this witness is of no any assistance to prosecution for proving that there was any violence, or show of violence or use of violence for commission of any offence under Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII or Chapter XXII of the I.P.C. or doing any act for earning property or money, as above, required for offence of gangster under this Act.PW-4 is Head Constable Mansha Ram Yadav.He is formal witness of Chick FIR (Ext. Ka-3) and entry in General Diary of police Station (Ext. Ka-4), which is just a formal statement about registration of this case which was said to be formally got registered.These all were evidence before trial Court, but trial Court failed to appreciate essential ingredients for offence punishable under this Act and alleged proof of prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.Even rule of evidence in this said Act regarding above offence could not be taken into consideration because no property or valuable things were recovered from the possession of convict appellants nor it was proved to be earned or procured out of above anti-social activities.Rather there was no evidence at all except a formal registration of case on the basis of formal approval given by District Magistrate concerned over gang chart prepared on the basis of information of hidden informer and record of police station, in which all cases ended under acquittal.Moreso, sanction given by District Magistrate filed as paper no. 5-A on record is also with no application of mind by District Magistrate nor with any mention of gang chart having specific offence given under Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII or Chapter XXII of the I.P.C. or offence by way of earning property or likelihood of creating any terror in public thereby abusing public order.This judgment of trial Court was not substantiated with evidence on record and prosecution was not successful to prove the fact against convict appellants.Hence, this appeal merits its allowance.Accordingly, this appeal succeeds and is allowed.Let a copy of this judgment along with lower court's record be sent back to the court concerned for immediate compliance.Order Date :- 25.07.2019
|
['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
114,132,966 |
Charge-sheet was filed and trial Court, while passing the impugned order framed charges punishable under Section 294, 307, 307/34 of IPC.This order is under challenge in the present revision petition.Therefore counsel prays for setting aside the impugned order.To the contrary, learned Public Prosecutor submits that the complainant has received grievous injury on his head, therefore, the impugned order passed is on the basis of material placed on record with the charge-sheet, thus no interference is called for.Having considered the rival submissions and perusal of documents placed on record, this Court is of the opinion that framing of charges for offence punishable under Sections 307 and 307/34 of IPC is improper for the reasons that only one injury has been found on the skull of complainant-Omprakash although the injury is on vital part of the body, however, the same was not fatal and if the applicant had intention to commit murder then, despite having opportunity to inflict repeated injuries, he did not do so.Secondly, the 'x-ray' of injury was advised, however, no 'x-ray' report is available on record.As per the medical report of Lal Bahadur Shastri Hospital, Bhopal, 'x- ray' of chest and cervical spine of the complainant are normal and CT- scan of head was also found normal, therefore, the injury was simple in nature.A copy of this order be sent to concerned Court for information and necessary compliance.(S. K. AWASTHI) JUDGE sumathi Digitally signed by Sumati Jagadeesan Date: 2018.04.09 15:14:05 +05'30'
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
114,136,107 |
Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. No.1325/2019, first application under Section 389 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of custodial sentence.The appellant has been convicted as under:Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was on bail during the trial and he did not misuse the liberty so granted to him.(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=efbfc3440fe5c2b9ad17e337cf112e002d7e642f5045463ce8cbb19 KAUSHAL b4483f79f, 2.5.4.45=0321003C8C77756C4EB805A439FCC7F54BE8B815EBB0F9381AC 223E9197351961BC38D, cn=MUKTA KAUSHAL Date: 2019.02.22 15:46:45 -08'00'
|
['Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
114,139,025 |
::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2014 00:08:37 :::It is the case of the prosecution that the present appellant / accused and his wife Suman (referred to as 'the victim' hereinafter) resided at Khilne Vasti Surudi, taluka Ashti, District Beed.On 16th February, 2010, the accused and the victim were at residence.At about 8 p.m. On that day, the accused poured kerosene on the person of the victim and set her on fire with the help of a burning lamp (chimani).It is the prosecution case that the accused quarreled with the victim to satisfy his need of money for drinking liquor since he was habitual to same.After the said incident, people from the locality including PW 1 Sakharabai arrived at the spot and the victim was taken to the hospital.Accused absconded from the spot after the incident.Investigation was entrusted by Police Inspector Gaikwad to P.S.I. Malwade.After death of the victim, offence was altered to section 498-A read with igsection 302 of I.P.C. On 18.02.2010, the Investigating Officer conducted the spot panchanama at Exh.45 and also seized articles from the spot.On 22nd February, 2010, the Investigating Officer received information that the victim had succumbed to injuries.On 23.2.2010, the accused was arrested from his village.Husband is in habit of drinking liquor.On many occasions, she told her husband not to drink liquor.However, in spite of her advice, her husband consumes liquor and demand money.She works as a labourer, some small amount is saved so as to purchase household articles.Her husband used to quarrel with her and by pressurizing her, used to demand money.He used to abuse and also assault her frequently.::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2014 00:08:38 :::Prior to four days on the day of Shivratri her husband returned back to the house.Their two sons reside outside village for work and one for taking education.She stated that yesterday i.e. on Tuesday she went for labour work in agricultural field of some other farmer.She returned back in the evening from work.Since flour was not available, she started cooking rice by igniting stove.At that time, she received message that, there is phone call to her from her son on telephone in the neighbours house.Therefore, she went to receive said call and returned back thereafter to house.Husband was sitting at the door.She learnt that her husband was consuming liquor since afternoon and therefore, she told her husband to do some work instead of consuming liquor, so that it would be helpful for the welfare of their family.Husband started abusing her by uttering abusive words.When she entered inside the house, the husband came and gave four - five fist blows and lifted ::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2014 00:08:38 ::: 14 kerosene drum and poured kerosene on her person.The lamp (Chimani) was burning in house.He lifted the same and set her sari on fire.After sari, petticoat started burning.ORAL JUDGMENT: [Per S.S. SHINDE, J]1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 11th March, 2011 passed by the Sessions ::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2014 00:08:37 ::: 2 Judge, Beed in Sessions Case No.77/2010, the appellant / accused has preferred this criminal appeal.::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2014 00:08:37 :::On the basis of the statement given by the victim in the hospital, complaint (Exh.35) was recorded.Offence was registered vide Crime No.77/2010 under Section 498-A read with section 307 of I.P.C., at Ashti Police Station.The Investigating Officer, on 6th March, ::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2014 00:08:37 ::: 4 2010 requested the Tahsildar to draw a map of scene of offence.::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2014 00:08:37 :::The original post mortem notes of Dr. Gade and also the Muddemal seized at the spot were sent for chemical analyzer's report.On 19th May, 2010, charge-sheet was filed and thereafter, charges were framed.The accused pleaded not guilty.Therefore, full-fledged trial was conducted and by the impugned judgment and order, the appellant came to be convicted for the offences as alleged against him.Hence, this appeal.The learned Counsel (appointed) for the appellant - accused invited our attention to the notes of evidence and submits that the prosecution evidence suffers from serious infirmities, omissions and contradictions.It ::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2014 00:08:37 ::: 5 is submitted that medical history shows that the victim died due to accident.It is submitted that P.W.2 Vishnu brother of the victim admitted in his cross-examination that he told the victim how to give the statement to the police and, therefore, according to the learned Counsel for the appellant - accused, the complaint - first dying declaration recorded by the Constable Shinde and all other evidence is required to be disbelieved.It is further submitted that there was no any intention or motive as such to kill the victim.::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2014 00:08:37 :::::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2014 00:08:37 :::It is submitted that though there was another doctor in-charge of Burns Ward, Dr.Ghule examined the patient and also gave endorsement on the dying declaration.In fact, when an expert doctor was available, there was no reason for the prosecution to ask Dr.Ghule to examine the patient and give an endorsement.On the other hand, learned APP for the State submits that both the dying declarations are consistent with each other.There is no variance as such.::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2014 00:08:37 :::declaration, victim was in a fit mental condition and well oriented to give her statement.It is submitted that the appellant / accused has admitted in his statement u/s 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure that quarrel had taken place.It is submitted that the appellant accused has admitted his presence at the time of incident and, therefore, he was bound to explain under what circumstances victim caught fire and died.Therefore, according to the learned APP, appeal deserves to be dismissed.We have given anxious consideration to the submissions of the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned APP for the State and also perused the entire evidence placed on record and the original record made available for our perusal.::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2014 00:08:37 :::Upon perusal of the first dying declaration at Exh.35 ig recorded by constable Shinde, it appears that there is an endorsement of the medical officer as 'patient is in a condition to give statement.' It further appears that the said dying declaration was read out to the victim and victim stated that the contents of the said dying declaration were correct.It is stated in the said dying declaration by the victim that on 16th February, 2010 at about 6 p.m., her husband returned to house from his work, he was under influence of liquor.The victim was cooking food on a stove.They received a phone call from their son Mahadeo who is at Bengalore in Karnataka.The accused ::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2014 00:08:37 ::: 9 asked the victim whether she wants to cook food quickly or not, and started abusing her and assaulted the victim.In continuation of the said act, husband poured kerosene from drum on the person of the victim and by burning lamp (ििमनी) ignited 'Sari' on her person.Due to the said act of the accused, the victim started shouting and she came out of house.One Vishnu Kekan and other adjoining neighbours came and poured water on her body and extinguished fire.::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2014 00:08:37 :::She further stated that in the same incident, she suffered burns on her entire body.She stated that villagers took her to the hospital at Nagar and she is under medical treatment and fully conscious.she stated the dyng declaration is read over to her and, same is correct as per her narration.Prosecution has examined PW 4 Ajay Laxman Laad.We have considered his evidence in its entirety.In his cross-examination, he stated that he told ::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2014 00:08:38 ::: 10 Suman - victim how to give statement to the police.His version in vernacular as appeared in the cross-examination is "हे खरे आहे िि मी सुमनला सांिितले िि पोिलसाला अशा पिारिा जबाब दावा लािेल".::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2014 00:08:38 :::Therefore, so far as first dying declaration is concerned, in view of the admission of PW 4 Ajay that he stated to victim how to give statement to police, the first dying declaration is not believable and, therefore, we discard the same.There is another dying declaration at Exh.It appears that on the request of Tofkhana Police Station, the Special Judicial Magistrate proceeded to record the statement of victim in Government Hospital at Ahmednagar.He met Dr. Jaideep Deshmukh, Medical Officer on duty and asked him to give ::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2014 00:08:38 ::: 11 endorsement whether the patient is conscious and well oriented to give statement.The said doctor gave endorsement that 'patient is conscious and well oriented and can give statement'.The said endorsement was given on 17th February, 2010 at 11.15 a.m. It appears that the Special Judicial Magistrate asked the relatives and also the police officers to go outside the ward and after they went outside the ward, he ascertained that there was no any other person nearby the patient.He further ascertained that the victim is in a fit mental condition and well oriented to give statement.::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2014 00:08:38 :::He appraised the victim at about 11.18 p.m. that he has come to record her statement.He asked her name and place of residence.The victim replied her name as Suman Sakharam Garje, r/o Suradi, Tq.Ashti, Dist.It was further asked, whether she knows Marathi language and answer was in the affirmative.The Magistrate further asked the victim as to how many persons are residing in her house and ::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2014 00:08:38 ::: 12 in reply, victim stated that she along with husband and other three children resides in the house.The Magistrate further asked the victim to tell without fear the truth as to how she suffered burns.In reply, she stated that on 16th February, 2010 (Tuesday) at about 8 p.m. she suffered burns.Her husband works as driver occasionally, some times he is doing job of driver in Mumbai area and some times, he resides at Suradi in their own house.There is small piece of land owned by family and victim works in the said land and also as agricultural labourer in the field of other farmers.::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2014 00:08:38 :::::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2014 00:08:38 :::Thereafter, when she started shouting, her husband left the house.She removed her burning sari and ran outside the house on small platform in front the house.She started rolling on the ground.Outside the house, one Vishnu Kekan and her nephew's wife Sakhar came there.Sakhar started pouring water on her person.Thereafter, other people also arrived there.Husband did not stay there.Neighbours and other villagers took her to hospital in a jeep.She further stated that, her husband continuously ill-treated her and troubled her and he poured kerosene on her person and set her on fire.He has not even come to see whether she is alive or dead.She stated that, the statement was recorded as per her narration and contents of dying declaration were read over to her and same are correct.It appears ::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2014 00:08:38 ::: 15 that the victim has put her thumb impression of left hand at the end of the said dying declaration.The Medical Officer has also put his endorsement as 'patient is conscious and oriented throughout statement and at the end of statement.'::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2014 00:08:38 :::Upon careful perusal of the said dying declaration, ig there is endorsement of the Medical Officer in the beginning that 'patient is conscious and well oriented and can give statement'.Learned Counsel for the accused - appellant ::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2014 00:08:38 ::: 16 submitted that there is possibility of adding some sentences at the end of dying declaration.::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2014 00:08:38 :::However, upon perusal of the dying declaration in its entirety and even the concluding part, we do not find any tampering or subsequent insertion of words in the said dying declaration.The said dying declaration fulfills the requirement of procedural aspects inasmuch ig as, there is endorsement of the Medical Officer in the beginning and at the end of the dying declaration.It further appears that the Special Judicial Magistrate by asking certain questions to victim, has ascertained that the victim was in a fit mental condition, well oriented to give dying declaration.It further appears that, victim stated that the contents of said dying declaration are as per her narration and same was read over to her.In the present case, apart from two dying declarations recorded by the Police Constable and the Special Judicial Magistrate, ::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2014 00:08:38 ::: 17 respectively, there are four oral dying declarations made by the victim to PW 1 Sakharabai w/o Dinkar Garje, PW 2 Vishnu Maroti Garje, PW 4 Ajay Laxman Laad and PW5 Sainath Sakharam Garje.PW 1 Sakharabai stated in her evidence before the Court that on the date of incident, she was in her house.She saw some fire in front of the house of the accused.::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2014 00:08:38 :::She went running towards house of the accused.By that time, one Vishnu Kekan already came there.Sumanbai wife of the accused was ablaze.They tried to extinguish the fire.She poured water on Suman and tried to extinguish fire.Many villagers gathered there.Jeep owned by Anna driver was brought from Suradi village and thereafter, one Vishnu Garje, Anna driver and other villagers took Suman to the Government Hospital, at Nagar.In vehicle,on the way to the hospital, Suman told them that her husband set her on fire.It further appears that in cross-examination, she stated that Suman's health condition was not ::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2014 00:08:38 ::: 18 good.The defence Counsel, relying upon the cross-examination of this witness, submitted that Suman was not in a fit mental condition and conscious in vehicle so as to believe that Suman told to PW 1 Sakharabai and others that, accused set her on fire.However, it appears that there was re-examination of PW 1 Sakharabai by the Public Prosecutor and in the said re-examination, PW 1 reiterated that Suman told that her husband set her on fire.::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2014 00:08:38 :::Therefore, the evidence of PW 1 Sakharabai is trustworthy.There is evidence of PW 2 Vishnu Garje at Exh.12/C. In his evidence, he stated about the number of members in the family of the accused and other details about the said family and, thereafter, he stated that the accused is residing in the same Vasti where the PW 2 is residing.On 16th February, 2010, PW 2 returned to his house at about 7 p.m. He heard shouts/cry from Sakharam's house.He saw that ::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2014 00:08:38 ::: 19 Suman is in burning condition.He further stated that Sakharabai Garje and Vishnu Kekan powered water on Suman's person and extinguished the fire.PW 2 Vishnu Garje called vehicle of one Anna Garje.Suman was taken in the vehicle to the Government Hospital, Nagar for treatment.On the way to hospital, Suman stated that her husband set her on fire.::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2014 00:08:38 :::He has stated further details in his statement.PW 5 Sainath Garje in his evidence before the Court has stated that his father i.e. Accused was addicted to liquor.Many times, he quarreled with his mother.At the relevant time, he received phone call from his maternal uncle Bapu Laad that accused set Suman on fire and thereafter, he proceeded to Nagar.Therefore, the statement of this witness also corroborates the version stated in the dying declaration.::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2014 00:08:38 :::The cause of death opined in the post-mortem report is 'death due to CRA due to Septicemic shock due to burns'.It further appears that there was 93% burns.Dr. Ghule in his evidence before the Court has stated that he was on duty on 16th February, 2010 in the hospital as Casualty Medical Officer from 9 p.m. till 9.00 a.m. On that day at about 10.15 p.m. patient by name Suman Sakharam Garje was brought to the hospital.It was a burn case, she was admitted and intimation was given to the police chowky.It appears that the medical papers were shown to him and he admitted his endorsement on the medical papers.He further stated that when the dying declaration was recorded by police constable at 3.30 a.m. on 17th February, 2010, he went to the Burns Ward to examine the patient and found that she was conscious and was in a position to give a statement.He has identified the endorsement given to that effect and also his handwriting and signature thereon.He has denied every ::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2014 00:08:38 ::: 21 suggestion given by the defence that victim died due to accidental burns.Upon careful perusal of post-mortem report and evidence of the doctor, the defence of the accused that victim died of accidental death is completely ruled out.In case of accidental death, burning stove could have exploded into pieces.::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2014 00:08:38 :::However, there is no recovery to that effect There was no reason for the accused - appellant to run away from the spot.On the contrary, he should have attended his wife in case there was accidental burns.In his examination u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, while replying Question No.6, accused stated that, he had quarrel with victim.Even at the time of answering Question No.12, he did not refuse that he is addicted to liquor and used to quarrel and assault victim.There is also report of Chemical Analyzer wherein it is stated that kerosene residue was found on the clothes of victim and articles.::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2014 00:08:38 :::That also lends support to the prosecution case that Suman died due to burns.The conduct of the accused to leave house and even, not to attend funeral of the wife is also indicative of the fact that he has committed murder of his wife by pouring kerosene and setting her on fire.Death of Suman was unnatural.The possibility of accidental death is completely ruled out since there was no recovery of stove or explosion of stove.Possibility of suicide is completely ruled out.Therefore, death of victim was homicidal.The medical reports show that the victim died due to 93% burns.Investigating Officer has stated in his evidence before the Court about the recovery from the spot of incident, recording of dying declarations and all other steps taken.His evidence is not shattered in the cross-The Medical Officer has also stated in his ::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2014 00:08:38 ::: 23 evidence that he has given endorsement on the dying declarations that patient was conscious and well oriented and in a position to give dying declaration.There is also another endorsement on the dying declaration at the end of the dying declaration.The contention of the Counsel for the accused that some other medical officer was In-charge of Burns Ward and therefore, ig evidence of medical officer Dr. Ghule cannot be accepted, deserves to be rejected.There is no requirement in law that only the In-charge of the Burns Ward should give the endorsement after examining the patient at the time of recording dying declaration.::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2014 00:08:38 :::Upon appreciation of the entire evidence on record, we find that the impugned judgment and order is in consonance with the evidence on record and therefore, needs no interference in the present appeal.::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2014 00:08:38 :::In the result, appeal is dismissed.We appreciate the sincere efforts taken by the learned Counsel (appointed) for the appellant.We quantify his fees at Rs.5,000/-.[V.M. DESHPANDE, J] [ S.S. SHINDE, J ] Kadam/* ::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2014 00:08:38 :::::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2014 00:08:38 :::
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,141,394 |
The details of the adverse cases are as under:-(Order of the Court was made byP.MURGESEN, J.) The petitioner is the detenue.She has been detained under Section 3(1) ofthe Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-offenders, Forest-offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic offenders, Sand Offenders,Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), by orderof the first respondent in C.P.O/TC/IS/DO No.36/09 dated 08.07.2009, by brandingher as a 'GOONDA'.There are two adverse cases and one ground case as against the detenue.Police Station Section of LawNo.and Crime No.1. Woraiyur Police Station 363(A) IPC @ 420, Crime No.230 of 2008 120(b), 467, 468, 363(A)In the absence of anymaterial, it is clear that the detaining authority had not satisfied itself asto the real possibility of the detenue coming out on bail.Therefore, we are ofthe considered view that on this ground, the detention order is liable to be setaside.In view of the above, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and theorder of detention in Order No.C.P.O/TC/IS/DO No.36/09 dated 08.07.2009 passedby the first respondent is set aside.The detenue is directed to be releasedforthwith unless her presence is required in connection with any other case.1.The Commissioner of Police, Tiruchirapalli City, Tiruchirapalli.3.The Asst.Commissioner of Police, Law and Order, Srirangam Range, Trichy District.
|
['Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
114,139,941 |
Earlier application was dismissed vide order dated 12/01/2015 with the following observation:-"I have perused the case diary alongwith statement of witnesses recorded before the trial Court.It is true that during investigation this applicant also sustained the injuries but at the same time main allegation against this applicant is that he assaulted the deceased Amar Singh by using an axe and ultimately Amar Singh succumbed to the injuries.Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that it is not a fit case for grant of bail.Accordingly, petition is hereby dismissed."As per the status report received form the trial judge, the evidence of prosecution witnesses have still not been over.The applicant is in jail for more than five years.(S.K. GANGELE) JUDGE MISHRA
|
['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
114,141,271 |
M.C. No.2877/2014 & Connected Matters Page 1 of 42 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC for short).M.C. No.2877/2014 & Connected Matters Page 1 of 42Since all these thirteen petitions have arisen out of different charge sheets in respect of different first information reports registered pursuant to the complaints of investors, who have invested in the Housing Projects launched by M/s. A.J.S. Builders Pvt. Ltd. (herein after referred to as accused company) and involves identical question of law, they are being disposed of by this common order.3. Crl.M.C. 2877/2014 pertains to FIR No. 88/2010 registered at P.S. E.O.W, Crl.M.C. 2932/2014 pertains to FIR No. 25/2010 registered at P.S. E.O.W, Crl.M.C. 2938/2014 pertains to FIR No. 110/2009 registered at P.S. Mandir Marg, Crl.M.C. 2977/2014 pertains to FIR No. 87/2010 registered at P.S. E.O.W, Crl.M.C. 2979/2014 pertains to FIR No. 86/2010 registered at P.S. E.O.W, Crl.M.C. 2995/2014 pertains to FIR No. 24/2010 registered at P.S. E.O.W, Crl.M.C. 3002/2014 pertains to FIR No. 89/2010 registered at P.S. E.O.W, Crl.M.C. 3006/2014 pertains to FIR No. 75/2010 registered at P.S. E.O.W, Crl.M.C. 3015/2014 pertains to FIR No. 03/2010 registered at P.S. Mandir Marg, Crl.M.C. 3023/2014 pertains to FIR No. 50/2010 registered at P.S. E.O.W, Crl.M.C. 3025/2014 pertains to FIR No. 109/2009 registered at P.S. Mandir Marg, Crl.M.C. 3031/2014 pertains to FIR No. 169/2009 registered at P.S. Mandir Marg and Crl.M.C. 3037/2014 pertains to FIR No. 74/2010 registered at P.S. E.O.W.The concise facts of the case as borne out from the charge-sheet are that a number of investors filed their complaints against accused Crl.M.C. No.2877/2014 & Connected Matters Page 2 of 42 company which were clubbed under different First Information Reports.All the complainants came up with identical allegations of inducements, misrepresentations etc. by the Directors of the accused company.The accused company gave an advertisement on 18.03.2006 in the newspaper The Hindustan Times to induce the general public for investment in their project at Gannaur, Sonepat.However, the accused company and its Directors were found to be engaged in cheating innocent customers by way of misrepresentation of facts through their various advertisements in print as well as electronic media.M.C. No.2877/2014 & Connected Matters Page 2 of 42As per the charge sheets Ms. Madhu Singh (Managing Director of accused company) along with others induced innocent investors for investment in aforementioned residential project of the accused company, in defiance of rules and regulations embedded in their agreement.Further, the company and its Directors neither obtained necessary permissions / land use change/ approved building plans, nor acquired the project land for the proposed project, but collected investments from a large number of investors, running into hundreds of crores.Investigating agency claimed that accused company and its Directors amassed funds running in several crores of rupees by cheating innocent customers with misrepresentation of facts while advertising the project of Gannuar, District Sonepat, Haryana as a township of 300 acres with 60% of the land dedicated to greenery, whereas, till the charge sheet was filed, the accused company had executed sale deeds in respect of 83 acres of land only and that too without making full payments to the land Crl.M.C. No.2877/2014 & Connected Matters Page 3 of 42 owners.Further, the accused company started collecting funds from the innocent investors for its aforesaid township, even when the accused company had only 2 acres of land in their possession.M.C. No.2877/2014 & Connected Matters Page 3 of 42During investigation, it was observed that the accused company and its Directors misused the funds between the years 2005-2008, ranging to hundreds of crores of rupees which have been collected from a large number of investors for various residential projects of the company and utilization of which could not be proved, thus investigating agency concluded that the same have been used for the lavish living of the Directors of the accused company.Investigation revealed that the accused company has a Board of Directors, comprising of three Directors namely Ms. Madhu Singh (CMD), Ms. Kailash Rani (mother of accused Madhu Singh) & Ms. Geeta Singh (Sister-in-Law of Madhu Singh).Initially Economic Offences Wing registered a case F.I.R. No. 56/09, under sections 406,420 read with section 120-B IPC, against the accused company and its Directors.Further, during the pendency of investigation various investors filed complaints against the accused company and its Directors.It was further revealed during investigation that the Corporate office of the accused company situated at 8, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Marg, First Floor, Gole Market, New Delhi was purchased by the accused company through its Director Smt. Madhu Singh from one Smt. Suman Lata Singla W/o Sh.S.K. Singla vide Sale Deed dated 21.07.2006, for a total consideration of Rs.45,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Crl.M.C. No.2877/2014 & Connected Matters Page 4 of 42 five lakhs only).Since the booking of projects started w.e.f. 2005 onwards, investigating agency suspected that the payments which were made to the vendor were done out of the cheated funds which were collected from investors.Investigation further revealed that the original title documents of the said property were mortgaged with Allahabad Bank, Parliament Street, New Delhi for seeking loan by the accused company, wherein overdraft limit of Rs.200 lakhs (Rupees Two hundred lakhs) and bank guarantee limit of Rs.3.91 crores (Rupees Three crores and ninety one lakhs) was sanctioned.As per the investigation, following properties were mortgaged against the loan A/c of the accused company:M.C. No.2877/2014 & Connected Matters Page 4 of 42I. Office of the accused company i.e. Property no. 8, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Marg, New Delhi.Two Fixed Deposit Nos.124225 for Rs.18,60,375/- (Rupees Eighteen lakh sixty thousand three hundred and seventy five) dated 29.02.2008 and 124226 for Rs.79,07,250/- (Rupees Seventy nine lakh seven thousand two hundred and fifty) dated 29.02.2008 were also kept as security against Bank Guarantee.M.C. No.2877/2014 & Connected Matters Page 5 of 42By way of these thirteen petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.), the petitioner seeks to set aside the order dated 03.06.2013, passed by learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-II, Patiala House Court, New Delhi, as well as quashing of charge sheets for the offences punishable under sections 406/ 409/ 420/ 201 read with section 120-B Crl.During investigation, it was also revealed that the said Corporate office of the accused company at 8, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Marg, Gole Market, New Delhi was sold to the petitioner by accused company through its Director/Authorised Representative, Ms. Madhu Singh vide registered Sale Deed dated 15.12.2009 against a total sale consideration of Rs.2.25 crore (Rupees Two crore and twenty five lakhs).Investigation further revealed that on 12.09.2010, petitioner, individually as well as through his Company M/s. Habitat Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. purchased 50 % equity of the accused company by paying a sum of Rs.4,35,35,200/- (Rupees Four crores thirty five lakhs thirty five thousand and two hundred).Based upon its investigation, investigating agency concluded as under:-"From the investigation conducted so far, evidence collected (oral as well as documentary), it is crystal clear and proved that accused Madhu Singh, Director of M/s AJS Builders Pvt. Ltd. in collusion and connivance with other associates i.e. Smt. Geeta Singh (sister in law) and Smt. Kailash Rani (mother), hatched a criminal conspiracy, with the common intention and sole object to cheat the innocent public right from the very beginning.Accused Harvinder Singh had also joined the accused Ms. Madhu Singh & others during the alleged period for the commission of the offences."Investigating agency arrived at a conclusion that the Sale Deed dated 15.12.2009, in respect of the property of the accused company at 8, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Marg, New Delhi, is a sham transaction, purportedly executed by accused Ms. Madhu Singh to avoid its attachment.In order to sustain its conclusion, investigating agency has primarily relied upon following circumstances:-M.C. No.2877/2014 & Connected Matters Page 6 of 42(a) The property has been purchased by the petitioner without due diligence and no bona fide purchaser would buy a property without originals of the previous chain, whereas stipulations 5 and 6 of the Sale Deed dated 15.12.2009, make it clear that original chain of the title documents was not furnished by the Vendor, which makes the Sale a sham transaction.(b) The property has been sold at a much cheaper price than its actual market price.To arrive at this conclusion, investigating agency is making reference of valuation of the said property at the time of seeking loan, when it was assessed as approximately Rs.7.57 Crore (Rupees Seven crore and fifty seven lakhs) in the year 2007 whereas, petitioner purchased the same in the year 2009 at a much less value of Rs.2.25 Crore (Rupees Two crore twenty five lakhs) only.(c) The payments which have been made to the Vendor by the Vendee have been reflected and corresponding debit / credit entries have been checked.After examination, Chartered Accountant (CA) stated that these transactions are sham transactions.(d) Statement of co-accused Ms. Madhu Singh, who subsequently claimed that the property in question was sold by her to the petitioner.The investigating agency is Crl.M.C. No.2877/2014 & Connected Matters Page 7 of 42 of the opinion that the property in question has been transferred with the apprehension that the said property could be attached by the investigating agency in order to recover the cheated funds collected from the investors.M.C. No.2877/2014 & Connected Matters Page 7 of 42Further Investigating agency imputed the petitioner for witnessing the Agreement dated 05.02.2011, executed between M/s. Best Realtech (India) Pvt. Ltd. and accused company, in respect of development of the project of accused company at Gurgaon, Haryana, which as per the investigating agency was detrimental to the interest of the investors.In order to sustain its claim that the petitioner was incharge for day to day functioning of the accused company, investigating agency has relied upon statement of one Mr. Harjit Singh, Director of M/s. Best Realtech (India) Pvt. Ltd. in addition to the statements of witnesses recorded under section 161 of Cr.P.C.During the course of proceedings before this Court, the complainants Mr. Keshav Sethi (in Crl.M.C.2977/2014), Ms. Kusum Jain (in Crl. M.C.2995/2014), Mr. Dev Raj (in Crl.M.C.3037/2014) and Mr. Vipul Kochar (in Crl.M.C.3023/2014) were impleaded as respondent No.2 on their respective applications.On 17.09.2014 learned counsel for the complainants Mr. Mohit Mathur, on instructions from Mr. Akhil Mittal, Advocate submitted before this Crl.M.C. No.2877/2014 & Connected Matters Page 8 of 42 Court that he will move an appropriate application on behalf of the complainants for impleadement in all the respective petitions.However, on 23.09.2014 Mr. Akhil Mittal, Advocate submitted that all the remaining complainants were not interested in moving impleadement applications.Thereafter, respondent No.2/ complainant filed reply.M.C. No.2877/2014 & Connected Matters Page 8 of 42While impugning the conclusion of the investigating agency regarding culpability of the petitioner, Mr. Kohli, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under the influence of Ms. Madhu Singh and a few well connected investors, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case by the investigating agency.It was argued by the counsel for the petitioner that in order to sustain conjectural hypothesis about culpability of the petitioner, investigating officer has deliberately concealed vital facts and infact, has arbitrarily given deaf ears to the representations/ complaints of the petitioner, wherein the petitioner has unfolded various illegal acts of Ms. Madhu Singh, Mr. Tejwant Singh, Mr. Harjit Singh, etc. and his victimization by accused Ms. Madhu Singh and others.It was argued that induced with the various projections of the accused company and its functionaries, petitioner and his family members also invested in Gurgaon Project of the accused company during the period 2007 to 2009, but despite specific complaints by the petitioner, none of his complaints have been considered by the investigating agency, whereas similarly circumstanced other investors have been arrayed as complainants / witnesses in the cases registered against the accused company.M.C. No.2877/2014 & Connected Matters Page 9 of 42It is case of the petitioner that like other investors, petitioner had visited the corporate office of the accused company for refund of his and his family members investments in the beginning of the year 2009, where he was trapped by accused Ms. Madhu Singh, Tejwant Singh and others to purchase property bearing no. 8, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Marg, New Delhi, under the pretext that the accused company had invested its substantial liquidity towards purchase of major landholdings and thus is finding shortage of liquidity and the rumours about the bankruptcy of the accused company has caused damage to the extent that despite sound position, owing to the slump in realty sector, the Company was unable to fetch finances to meet out unprecedented demand of refund by investors.Per contra to the finding of the investigating agency that the petitioner did not conduct any due diligence before purchase of the property, it was contended by the counsel for the petitioner that before execution of the Sale Deed, petitioner had duly conducted due diligence of the property (both physical and title search) and had also obtained duly certified copies of the complete chain of title documents of the property which clearly reflected a clean title in favour of the accused company and since there was no encumbrance on the property, petitioner purchased the said property.To fortify his contentions, Mr. Daman Kohli has shown certified copies of the previous chain of title documents, copies of which have already placed on record.It was further contended on behalf of the petitioner that in terms of the Sale Deed, petitioner took possession of the First Floor of the property whereas built up structure on the 2nd floor of the property was retained by the sister concern of the Crl.M.C. No.2877/2014 & Connected Matters Page 10 of 42 accused company, from where even the accused company started operation of its business activities.It was also submitted that the delay in furnishing original title documents by the seller is clearly stipulated in the Sale Deed and it is with full caution that the petitioner got the complete chain of previous title documents duly stamped and signed by the seller on each and every page.Mr. Kohli also submitted that the nephew of Ms. Madhu Singh who is also a shareholder of the seller/ accused company is also a witness to the duly registered sale deed.M.C. No.2877/2014 & Connected Matters Page 10 of 42It was also submitted by Mr. Kohli that victimization of petitioner subsisted when petitioner was further lured to part with substantial sum of Rs.4,35,35,200/- (Rupees Four crore thirty five lakhs thirty five thousand and two hundred), towards 50% equity of the accused company in favour of the petitioner and his company M/s. Habitat Buildtech Pvt. Ltd.It was further submitted that on 05.02.2011, being the 50% equity holder of the accused company, petitioner also became witness to the execution of the Agreement executed inter se accused company and M/s. Best Realtech (India) Pvt. Ltd.. Mr. Kohli has drawn my attention towards relevant clauses of the said Agreement, whereby M/s. Best Realtech (India) Pvt. Ltd. undertook to bear all costs and expenses for developing Housing Project of the accused company in Gurgaon, on the same terms on which the accused company has invited investments from different investors, besides undertaking to refund, if any of the investor in the said project of the accused company so desired.However, when the perpetuating dishonest and fraudulent intent of accused Ms. Madhu Singh and her associates became apparent to the petitioner, he made various representations disclosing their illegal acts and also his victimization.Attention has been drawn to various complaints/representations, addressed at all levels ranging from S.H.O. Mandir Marg, New Delhi to Commissioner of Delhi Police, but despite complaints/ representations disclosing commission of cognizable offence, no action has been taken by the investigating agency.M.C. No.2877/2014 & Connected Matters Page 11 of 42It was further submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that endeavour of the investigating agency to array the petitioner as a conspirator with accused Ms. Madhu Singh, against whom the petitioner is fighting in different courts and forums, is liable to be deprecated.On mention by the counsel for the petitioner this fact is also not disputed that there are multiple complaints filed by the petitioner Crl.M.C. No.2877/2014 & Connected Matters Page 12 of 42 against the threat to life extended to the petitioner by accused Ms. Madhu Singh and her men.M.C. No.2877/2014 & Connected Matters Page 12 of 42M.C. 3037/2014 The above applications are dismissed as infructuous.
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 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.
|
2,677,364 |
A1 to A3 in the instant case are the Financial Establishments, out of which, A1 and A3 are partnership firm and A2 is a company registered under the Companies Act and A4 to A25 canvassed and collected deposits from general public on various dates, but they failed to return the deposit amounts with interest.In the above circumstances, one Mullaikodi, lodged a complaint against the accused before the Additional Director General of Police, EOW-II, Vellore and based on the above complaint, EOW-II, Vellore registered a case in Crime No. 3 of 2007 for the offences under Section 5 of the TNPID Act and Section 420 IPC.During investigation, it was found that A4 to A25 collected deposits in the name of A1 company from 184 depositors to a total sum of Rs.8,03,19,400/-, but defaulted repayment with interest to a sum of Rs.1,92,19,898 and total defalcation comes to a sum of Rs.9,95,39,298/-.They have also collected deposits in the name of A2 company from 176 depositors, totalling a sum of Rs.2,69,17,000/- and failed to repay with interest accrued for a sum of Rs.1,68,21,099/- and they committed default to the total sum of Rs.4,37,38,099/-.Apart from that A4 to A25 also collected deposits in the name of A3 firm from 120 depositors , totalling a sum of Rs.1,78,48,500/- and the interest accrued would comes to Rs.43,34,385/- and they totally committed default in payment for a sum of Rs.2,21,82,885/-.The present Criminal Revision has been filed challenging the order of dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 239 Cr.P.C. to discharge him from the criminal case.The petitioner is an accused in a criminal case in C.C.No.3 of 2012 on the file of the Special Court under TNPID Act for the offences under Section 5 of the TNPID Act and Sections 420, 406 r/w.120(b) IPC.Earlier the petitioner herein filed an application before the Court below to discharge him from the above criminal case and the Court below dismissed the said application.Challenging the same, the present revision has been filed.In total, A4 to A25 collected a total sum of Rs.12,50,84,900/- and the accrued interest of Rs.4,03,75,382/- and they defaulted to the total sum of Rs.16,54,60,282/-.The petitioner herein is one of the partner in the A2 Financial Establishment and he is also jointly responsible for the management of the affairs of the Financial Establishments and also has collected deposits from the depositors.Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Section 239 Cr.P.C to discharge him from the above criminal case on the ground that he is not responsible for the affairs of the company.The Court below dismissing the application held that the petitioner is one of the partner of A2 Financial Establishments and the deposits were collected from the general public and there are also prima facie material available on record to show that the petitioner also canvassed and collected deposits.Challenging the above order, the petitioner has filed the present revision before this Court.Thereafter, he has not signed any deposit receipts.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) would submit that the petitioner is one of the partner of the A2 financial establishment and there are materials available on record in the form of the complaint as well as the statement of the witness under Section 161 Cr.P.C and primafacie materials show that the petitioner also canvassed and collected deposits from the depositors and the Court below considering all the materials, dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner and there is no reason to interfere with the well considered order of the Court below.I have considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on records carefully.Admittedly, the petitioner is one of the partner in the A2 company and the deposits were collected from the depositors and the question is whether there are any materials available on record prima facie to show that the petitioner also canvassed and collected deposits.Since there are primafacie material available on record to show that the petitioner also canvassed and collected deposits from the depositors and the Court below considering the entire materials, came to a conclusion that there is prima facie material available on record, the question whether the petitioner is actually in charge of the company or responsible for the company cannot be decided at this stage and it is always open to the petitioner to let in evidence to prove the same.In the above circumstances, I find no merits in the criminal revision case.In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.15.05.2017 (1/9)Index:Yes/NoInternet:Yes/NoSpeaking order/Non-speaking ordermrpToThe Special Judge under TNPID Act, Chennai.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.R.C.No.420 of 201515.05.2017
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
26,774,459 |
Appellant Attro Devi became a widow at a very young age.She used to reside at A-3/367, Sultanpuri.Anup Singh (since deceased) took a fancy to the Appellant; both developed intimate relations and started residing together without formal marriage.Anup Singh's relations had no objection to this arrangement between the two.On 14.05.1992, as usual, Anup Singh came to the Appellant's house at about 5:00 P.M. At about 9.00 P.M. on receipt of wireless Crl.A No.467/1997 Page 1 of 17 message through PCR, ASI Suraj Bhan reached the spot and found Anup Singh in burnt condition and took him to DDU hospital; Dr.Vijay Kumar Gupta (PW-3) prepared MLC and found 90% burn injuries on his person.He was subsequently shifted to RML hospital.A No.467/1997 Page 1 of 17On receipt of DD No.29A (Ex.PW8/A) at about 8:50 P.M. police of PS Sultanpuri came into motion and reached RML hospital where the victim was found unfit to make the statement.On 15.05.1992 on being declared fit IO D.D.Kalshan recorded his statement in the presence of Manjit Singh (PW-4) and Jai Karan Singh (PW-5).Anup Singh disclosed that he had visited the Appellant's house on 14.05.1992 at about 5:00 P.M., given her `2,500/- towards domestic expenses and had consumed liquor.The Appellant demanded more money and when he expressed inability to pay more, she quarreled with him and in a fit of rage, set him on fire by pouring kerosene oil from the plastic can lying in the room at about 8:30SI D.D.Kalshan (PW-9) made endorsement on the statement and sent the rukka at about 2:45 P.M. for lodging FIR against the Appellant for committing offence punishable under Section 307 IPC.On 18.05.1992 at about 11:35 A.M. Anup Singh succumbed to the injuries and Section 302 IPC was added in the FIR.During investigation IO prepared the site plan; seized burnt clothes and other articles lying inside the room and prepared the necessary seizure memos.The Appellant was arrested on 15.05.1992 and her disclosure statement was recorded.Subsequent investigation was taken over by Insp.Tilak Ram Mongia.Post-mortem of the dead body was conducted and the dead body was released to Tarif Singh (brother of the deceased).PW-4 (Manjit Singh) and PW-5 (Jai Karan Singh) also testified facts disclosed by deceased to them before his death.All the witnesses have stated that Anup Singh had told them that a quarrel had taken place with the Appellant and in the quarrel, she poured kerosene oil and set him on fire with a match-stick.A No.467/1997 Page 3 of 1711. PW-3 (Dr.Vijay Kumar Gupta) had examined Anup Singh on 14.05.1992 at about 10:00 P.M. and had prepared MLC Ex.PW-3/A. The MLC prepared by the said doctor states 'patient was having alleged history of being burnt by wife after pouring kerosene oil when he was drunken'.At the time of examination, no relative of the deceased was present near him.Anup Singh had made statement to SI D.D.Kalshan:"I have been coming to Attro r/oA-3/367 for the last 10/12 years as her husband Ram Singh @ Subhash has expired and to whom he Crl.A No.467/1997 Page 4 of 17 treats as his wife.I have been paying monthly expenses to her.On 14.05.1992 at 5:00 P.M. I had come to Attro and had handed over to her `2,500/- towards expenses and he had taken liquor alongwith her at her house.After taking liquor, Attro had demanded from him more money for expenses.I told her that he had no more money.Consequently, Attro started quarrelling with him and had uttered the word Tune Mujhe Bahut Pareshan Kar Rakha Hai, Aaj Tera Kam Tamam Kar Deti Hoon.On saying so, Attro had poured kerosene oil over him from the plastic can which was lying there and thereafter, she had thrown the match stick after lighting it.I was sitting inside on the cot and after he was set on fire, he had run out side.Lot of people had collected there who had extinguished the fire after pouring water on him.I had then become unconscious.Attro had earlier picked up the quarrel so many times with him who used to demand money from him.Attro had tried to kill him by setting on fire yesterday at about 8:30 P.M. I want that legal action should be taken against her."A No.467/1997 Page 4 of 17The above statement of Anup Singh was recorded by SI D.D.Kalshan after he was declared fit for statement by Dr.PWs 4 and 5 also corroborated the version given by IO D.D.Kalshan regarding the declaration/statement made by Anup Singh.In their deposition before the court both PWs 4 and 5 categorically proved the statement made by Anup Singh to SI D.D.Kalshan in their presence.Again both these brothers had no ill-will against the Appellant to falsely implicate her for the incident as none of them had ever objected to the relationship of the deceased with Crl.The incident admittedly happened at the Appellant's residence.She failed to give any plausible explanation how and under what circumstances the deceased had been burnt.She failed to explain as to why she or her family member present there did not intervene to extinguish the fire.There is no explanation why the Appellant did not take the deceased to the hospital to provide medical assistance.She gave a false explanation alleging that, she sustained burn injuries on her person Crl.A No.467/1997 Page 6 of 17 while saving the Appellant.PW-23 Dr.Jitender Kumar had conducted the medical examination of the Appellant on 15.05.1992 itself and had prepared report Ex.She admitted that Anup Singh used to visit her house for the last 17 years.She claimed herself to be Anup Singh's wife.She admitted that Anup Singh sustained burn injuries in her house but took a plea that on 14.05.1992, he came to her at 1:00 P.M. after having a quarrel over property issues with his brothers.She had told Anup Singh not to quarrel with his brothers and that she would maintain him.Thereafter, Anup Singh went out and returned after consuming liquor.In the mid night at about 1:00 A.M. she got up on hearing the cries of Kesar's son that 'papa was burnt'.(S.P.GARG) JUDGE (S. RAVINDRA BHAT) JUDGE February 08, 2012 sa Crl.A No.467/1997 Page 17 of 17A No.467/1997 Page 17 of 17Exhibits were sent to Crl.A No.467/1997 Page 2 of 17 CFSL; its report was collected subsequently; statements of concerned witnesses were recorded and after completion of investigation police filed challan against the Appellant.A No.467/1997 Page 2 of 17To prove its case, the prosecution examined 23 witnesses.Appellant's statement was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. where she denied her involvement in setting Anup Singh on fire.After appraisal of the evidence and considering rival contentions of the parties, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the Appellant for the offence described above.Learned counsel for the Appellant urged that there was no worth while material before the Trial Court to convict the Appellant as she had no ulterior motive to commit the crime.Both Appellant and the deceased were living together happily for more than 10 years and there was no occasion for the Appellant to set him on fire.She was falsely implicated by the deceased's brothers with the intention of grabbing her property.9. Learned APP for the State submitted that there was ample evidence in the form of consistent dying declarations of deceased to base a conviction.In all the dying declarations, Appellant was held responsible for setting the deceased on fire.The Appellant's conduct in the incident is inconsistent and unnatural as she did not intervene to save the deceased or to take him to the hospital.We have considered rival contentions of the parties.At the outset, it may be mentioned that prosecution case is based upon Crl.A No.467/1997 Page 3 of 17 circumstantial evidence only.The prosecution has heavily relied upon the dying declaration made by Anup Singh before Dr. Dr.Vijay Kumar Gupta (PW-3), who medically examined him at the first instance.Again, his dying declaration was recorded by SI D.D. Kalshan (PW-9) after he was declared fit for making statement.As per the testimony of Dr. Vijay Kumar Gupta, the alleged history was recorded on the basis of the statement made by the patient who was conscious.Vijay Kumar Gupta had no ulterior move to fabricate the alleged statement recorded in the MLC Ex.P-3/A where the deceased had clearly stated that he was set on fire by his 'wife'.Another dying declaration was recorded by PW-9 (SI D.D.Kalshan) in the hospital on 15.05.1992 vide Ex.PW4/A in the presence of PW-4 (Manjit Singh) and PW-5( Sh.A No.467/1997 Page 5 of 17 her.Lengthy cross-examination of both these witnesses failed to bring out any material discrepancy or contradictions to disbelieve them.A No.467/1997 Page 5 of 17All these dying declarations have been discussed in detail by the Trial Court.Cogent reasons have been enumerated in the judgment for believing the contents of dying declarations made at different times to different persons including doctor Vijay Kumar Gupta.We find no reason to doubt the dying declarations made by the deceased to the doctor, IO and to his brothers Manjit Singh (PW-4) and Jai Karan Singh (PW-5).Some contradictions and discrepancies in the statements of the prosecution's witnesses brought to our notice to discard the dying declarations are trivial and do not go to the root of the case to throw away the entire prosecution's case.PW23/A in which no burn injuries were found on her person.A No.467/1997 Page 6 of 17We are of the view that the dying declarations made by Anup Singh to all these witnesses are true, reliable and are not the result of any tutoring.On being informed, the neighbors rushed to extinguish the fire.She tried to save her husband and in the process, sustained injuries.The Appellant, however, failed to produce any evidence, even her daughter Kesar or neighbours were not brought forward to prove her defence.The story presented by Appellant does not appear plausible as the information regarding the fire incident was received by the police at about 8:45 P.M. and PW-20 (SI Suraj Bhan) had reached the spot at 9:00 P.M., taken Anup Singh in his PCR van to the hospital.PW-3 (Dr.Vijay Kumar Gupta) had examined injured Anup Singh on 14.05.1992 at about Crl.A No.467/1997 Page 7 of 17 10:00 P.M. and prepared the MLC (Ex.PW-3/A).From the MLC, it stands confirmed that ASI Suraj Bhan had got Anup Singh admitted in the hospital.There was, thus, no possibility of Anup sustaining burning injuries at about 1:00 A.M. as alleged.A No.467/1997 Page 7 of 17No complaint was ever lodged either by the Appellant or by the deceased Anup Singh against his brothers to show any animosity over property.Contents of the dying declarations find corroboration in the Appellant's MLC where she was found under the influence of liquor.In her statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. she admitted that the Appellant had also consumed liquor.In the absence of glaring defects in the prosecution's case, we find no reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the trial court on conviction.We are also of the view that it was the Appellant who set Anup Singh on fire at her house and as a result he sustained burn injuries and expired subsequently.This takes us to the alternative plea taken by the learned counsel for the Appellant that the offence would not be murder but would be culpable homicide not amounting to murder and would fall within Exception 4 of Section 300, IPC, which reads as under:-"300, Murder.-committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of Crl.A No.467/1997 Page 8 of 17 passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offenders having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.A No.467/1997 Page 8 of 17Explanation.- It is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault.It is clear from the testimonies of PWs 4,5 and 16 that there was no previous animosity between the Appellant and deceased Anup Singh.Both had intimate relationship for more than 10 years and were living as husband and wife without any objection from any relation.Appellant was a widow and both started living together without formal marriage.There was no complaint about the Appellant's conduct and behavior at any time by the deceased or his family members.Nothing has come on record if at any time prior to the occurrence, any serious quarrel ever took place between the two.Even on the date of incident, initially there was no hostility between the two.The deceased had come to the house as usual at about 5:00 P.M. and had given `2,500/ to the Appellant to meet the domestic expenses.Both had consumed liquor on that day.A sudden quarrel took place thereafter when the deceased allegedly expressed his inability to pay more money to the Appellant on her demand.Appellant got enraged as the deceased was spending money on liquor without working or earning.The incident took place without premeditation.The time gap between exchange of hot words and the second incident of pouring kerosene is a few minutes.This clearly indicates that it was a sudden fight and there was no time for tempers to have cooled so as to allow in the concept of premeditation.Observation of the learned Trial Court in para (35) of the impugned judgment reads as under:-A No.467/1997 Page 9 of 17"In fact, from the evidence of both these witnesses, it is quite clear that the deceased also disclosed to them that the accused had set him on fire after he could not fulfil her demand of more money after he had paid `2500/-.In fact the deceased had also disclosed to them that the accused while setting him on fire had also uttered the word that you have harassed her a lot and I will finish you today.The said uttering made by accused to the deceased prior to setting him on fire clearly shows that the accused had become desperate and had become disgusted with the behavior and conduct of the deceased who was unemployed and perhaps was not giving any expenses to the accused who was dependent upon him for her survival."We see no evidence that Appellant had taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.The Appellant had set fire in a fit of rage.It also resulted in burn injuries on the Appellant's person.It also burnt the gadda, bed-sheet and the cot.After the deceased was set on fire, he went outside and neighbours extinguished the fire.He did not succumb to the injuries at the spot and remained admitted in the hospital for about four days."Her involvement stands confirmed from the fact that she did not try to extinguish the fire as a result of which deceased had sustained 90% burn.In my opinion, if the deceased would have been rendered timely help and fire would have been extinguished in time, he would not have sustained extensive burn on all over the body to the extent of 90%."The Appellant had also sustained injuries on her person in the occurrence.PW-23 Dr.Jitender Kumar medically examined the Appellant and prepared her MLC Ex.PW23/A in which one abrasion on the left fore-A No.467/1997 Page 10 of 17arm was found on her person.The prosecution failed to explain injuries on the Appellant's person.The deceased slapped the Appellant for no fault of his.The quarrel was sudden and on account of the heat of passion.The accused went home and came armed in the company of others without telling them of his intention.The time gap between the quarrel and the fight was a few minutes only.In the present case, there are three head injuries, two on the scalp and one on the left parietal region.The first two injuries are, undoubtedly, fatal injuries.As a result of those injuries, multiple fractures of the right parietal bone occurred, the membranes got severed and there was injury to the brain matter.The doctor did not Crl.A No.467/1997 Page 13 of 17 even say what impact this third injury had internally.All the three appellants inflicted injuries on the head of the deceased with the weapons in their hands according to the prosecution witnesses.There is an allegation that after the deceased fell down all the three went on giving blows on the leg and waist.Certain injuries were found on the knee joint, elbow joint and left forearm of the deceased....A No.467/1997 Page 13 of 17XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX ...intention that can be safely imputed to Appellants 1 to 3 o 3 was to cause bodily injuries to Pyara Singh which were likely to cause death.It is this common intention which, in our view, had developed on the spot.Therefore, the offence committed by Appellants 1 to 3 would be culpable homicide not amounting to murder and they are liable to be convicted and punished under Section 304 (Part I).They are also liable to be convicted under Section 148 IPC for the offence of rioting.On the basis of the evidence on record and the findings recorded by the High Court, there is no escape from the conclusion that the appellants were members of an unlawful assembly of five or more persons having the common object falling within the scope of clause (iii) of Section 141, though the common object was not to kill or hurt the deceased person.We, therefore, convict Appellants 1 to 3 under Section 304 (Part I) read with Section 34 and also under Section 148 IPC.The conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC is set aside.Coming to the question of sentence, we are informed that Appellants 1 to 3 have already suffered imprisonment for a period of about eight years.We are of the view that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, imprisonment for eight years coupled with the enhancement of fine would be adequate punishment for the main offence they committed under Section 304 Part I. Accordingly, they are sentenced to eight years' RI and at the same time we consider it just and proper to enhance the fine to Rs 2000 in the case of each of the three appellants.It is further directed that in default of payment of enhanced fine within a period of one month from today, they should suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of nine Crl.A No.467/1997 Page 14 of 17 months.Appellants 1 to 3 are sentenced to one year's RI for the offence under Section 148 IPC.The sentences for the aforesaid two offences should run concurrently.A No.467/1997 Page 14 of 17XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXThe intention to cause murder of Suku deceased, could not be attributed to him and the medical evidence also shows that the injuries attributed to him were not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death of the deceased.The conviction of appellant 1, Subran, for the substantive offence under Section 302 IPC is therefore unwarranted and cannot be sustained.That Suku deceased died as a result of injuries inflicted on him by all the four appellants is not a matter which is in doubt.A No.467/1997 Page 15 of 17They would be responsible for their individual acts.The injuries caused by Rajan and Preman appellants 2 and 3, were with a torch, iron rod and a cycle chain.We, therefore, convict each of the two appellants Rajan and Preman, for an offence under Section 325 IPC and sentence them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years each.XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX"A No.467/1997 Page 16 of 17The Appellant certainly knew, even if it is assumed that it was not intended to cause death of Anup Singh, that by pouring kerosene oil and setting him on fire, it would result in causing such bodily injuries as were likely to cause death.We are of the view that the Appellant be punished under Section 304 Part I, IPC.We notice that the Appellant has already remained in custody in this case for more than seven years.Ends of justice would be met if she is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for the period already spent by her in custody.Her conviction for murder is set aside and she is convicted for committing culpable homicide not amounting to murder in view of Exception 4 of Section 300, IPC and is sentenced accordingly.The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
|
['Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 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.
|
26,776,904 |
2] Present appellant was convicted by the IInd Addl.The deceased narrated about the illtreatment when she had visited the ::: Uploaded on - 01/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 07:25:31 ::: 4 appeal351-02.odt house of the complainant at the time of Panchami festival.Not only this, a day prior to the death of deceased i.e. on 30th August, 1999, the appellant himself had visited the house of the complainant and personally made demand of Rs.50,000/- for purchase of a jeep.Sessions Judge, Ambajogai vide judgment and order dated 24th April, 2002 in Sessions Case No.14 of 2000 for the offences punishable under Section 498-A and 306 of Indian Penal Code.He was ::: Uploaded on - 01/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 07:25:31 ::: 2 appeal351-02.odt sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code.He was also sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code.Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.::: Uploaded on - 01/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 07:25:31 :::Hence, the present appeal.The appellant's relatives i.e. original accused nos.2 to 4, however, were acquitted by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge.3] The prosecution case, in brief, is as under :-That, deceased Suman, sister of the complainant PW 4 - Amalak Pawar was married to the present appellant about six years prior to her death on 31st August, 1999 due to drowning in a ::: Uploaded on - 01/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 07:25:31 ::: 3 appeal351-02.odt well.After the marriage, the appellant along with other co-accused always used to beat, starve and illtreat the deceased over the domestic issues.::: Uploaded on - 01/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 07:25:31 :::On the basis of the F.I.R. of the deceased, a criminal case for the offences punishable under Section 498-A read with 34 of Indian Penal Code was also lodged at Yusuf-Wadgaon Police Station against the present appellant and co-accused.Thereafter, however, there was settlement between the parties and cohabitation was resumed.However, since for a period of six months preceding to the death of the the deceased Suman, the appellant and the co-accused started beating and starving her on the ground that she should bring an amount of Rs.50,000/- from her parents for purchase of a jeep.The complainant, however, showed inability.The appellant, therefore, returned to his house and on the next day, a message was received that deceased Suman has died due to drowning in a well.::: Uploaded on - 01/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 07:25:31 :::Therefore, on the very same day, the complaint came to be filed with the police.The inquest panchnama was recorded.The dead body was sent for post mortem examination.Spot panchnama was also recorded.::: Uploaded on - 01/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 07:25:31 :::the relatives of the deceased i.e. her mother, brothers and sister were recorded.In view of the allegations that, earlier a complaint was filed by the deceased, the Investigating Officer took out extract of the register of said crime maintained in the police station.It was also found that the deceased had earlier filed an application for grant of maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.He also collected photocopy of the judgment and the maintenance petition and ultimately, the charge sheet came to be filed.5] Before the learned Addl.Sessions Judge, besides the panch witnesses, Investigating Officer, the prosecution examined PW 2 - Kamlakar, another brother of the deceased, PW 3 - Ratnamala, wife of the complainant, PW 4 - Amalak Pawar - the complainant and PW 5 - Anjanabai, mother of the deceased, to prove the fact of illtreatment.::: Uploaded on - 01/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 07:25:31 :::due to drowning in the well and the only issue is, as to whether she had committed suicide or she met with an accidental death.In the circumstances, the post mortem examination note Exhibit 31 was admitted by the defence.7] The learned Addl.Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the deceased has committed suicide due to cruelty at the hands of the present appellant only.Therefore, the appellant came to be convicted, as detailed supra while the other co-accused were acquitted.8] Mr.Satej Jadhav, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the immediately filed F.I.R. would show that during the earlier cohabitation, allegedly, there was illtreatment only over domestic affair while after resumption of cohabitation, it is alleged that the ::: Uploaded on - 01/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 07:25:31 ::: 7 appeal351-02.odt illtreatment was for unlawful demand of Rs.50,000/-.He further submitted that the prosecution witnesses have admitted that three ladies from the relations of these witnesses were very much residing near the house of the present appellant being married to other villagers.::: Uploaded on - 01/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 07:25:31 :::Still, there is no evidence from any of them to fortify the case of the prosecution, that they had at any time, witnessed any incident between the appellant and the deceased.He further submitted that while the complaint alleged that the illtreatment was over unlawful demand of Rs.50,000/-, PW 3 - Ratnmala, wife of the complainant and PW 5 - Anjanabai, mother of the deceased added that the appellant had illicit relations with his brother's wife namely, Shobha, which was one of the cause of cruelty to the deceased.They however deposed that during the previous cohabitation itself, the deceased ::: Uploaded on - 01/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 07:25:31 ::: 8 appeal351-02.odt disclosed that such illicit relations existed.::: Uploaded on - 01/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 07:25:31 :::However, the petition filed by the deceased under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or in the proceedings for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code, these allegations are conspicuously absent.Satej Jadhav pointed towards the admitted fact that the deceased was unable to conceive, as she had certain physical infirmity, therefore, finding that the deceased has met with unnatural death only on suspicion, the FIR was filed making false allegations that the deceased was being illtreated for the unlawful demand of Rs.50,000/-.In the circumstances, he submitted that the learned Addl.Sessions Judge ought to have acquitted the appellant also.9] On the other hand, learned A.P.P. submitted that previous to the present episode, the deceased ::: Uploaded on - 01/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 07:25:31 ::: 9 appeal351-02.odt was required to leave the matrimonial home due to illtreatment at the hands of the appellant.Even after resumption of the cohabitation, the illtreatment continued, which ultimately forced the deceased to commit suicide.::: Uploaded on - 01/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 07:25:31 :::He further submitted that the neighbors of the appellant would naturally be reluctant to come forward to be a witness in a matrimonial affair.In the circumstances, he supported the reasons forwarded by learned Addl.Sessions Judge and submitted that the appeal may be dismissed.10] On the basis of this material, following points arise for my determination :-I] Whether the prosecution has proved that on 31st August, 1999 at village Paithan, Tq.Kaij, Dist.Beed deceased Suman met with suicidal death ?::: Uploaded on - 01/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 07:25:31 :::10 appeal351-02.odt II] Whether the prosecution has proved that the present appellant, during his cohabitation with deceased Suman, has subjected her to cruelty, to meet the unlawful demand of Rs.50,000/- ?III] Whether the prosecution has further proved that the present appellant has abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased ?My findings to all the above points are in the negative.The appeal is, therefore, allowed and the appellant is acquitted from the offences punishable under Section 498-A read with 306 of Indian Penal Code for the reasons to follow :-R E A S O N S 11] The deposition of PW 1 - Dhananjay coupled with panchnama of spot of occurrence at Exhibit ::: Uploaded on - 01/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 07:25:31 ::: 11 appeal351-02.odt 27, would show that the well where the deceased was found, is in the field of the appellant.::: Uploaded on - 01/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 07:25:31 :::There was no rim to the well.Not only this, some black soil was also seen caved in the well.In that view of the matter, since the deceased has died in her own well, which had no rim, it cannot definitely be concluded that the deceased has committed suicide by jumping in the said well.12] As regards the material regarding the cruelty at the hands of the appellant to the deceased, the F.I.R. at Exhibit 35, would show that while during the first cohabitation, there was illtreatment only on domestic affair; after resumption of cohabitation for a period of six months prior to the death, the deceased was subjected to cruelty for unlawful demand of Rs. 50,000/-.There are no allegations that during the first cohabitation it was disclosed that the appellant had illicit relations with his sister-in-law.PW 3 - Ratnamala ::: Uploaded on - 01/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 07:25:31 ::: 12 appeal351-02.odt and PW 5 - Anjanabai, however, deposed that during that period, the appellant had illicit relations with his sister-in-law.::: Uploaded on - 01/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 07:25:31 :::Not only this, the deceased had earlier filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for maintenance against the appellant.The certified copy of the application at Exhibit 54 coupled with the judgment delivered by the learned Judicial Magistrate F.C. in the said case at Exhibit 33, would show that the deceased had no complaint of any illicit relationship of the appellant.What she had complained was that there was failure to satisfy the demand of the accused of giving gifts as honour (Aher) and the appellant has expressed his intention to perform second marriage.The extract of the register collected by the Investigating Officer regarding registration of the earlier crime for the offence punishable under Section ::: Uploaded on - 01/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 07:25:31 ::: 13 appeal351-02.odt 498-A i.e. Exhibit 43 would show that there were allegations that the present appellant along with his relatives used to subject the deceased to cruelty over unlawful demand of amount.::: Uploaded on - 01/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 07:25:31 :::Thus, the material would show that contradictory grounds for alleged illtreatment were made at different points of time by different witnesses and deceased.While according to the complainant, only a day prior to the death of deceased, the appellant had been to the house of the complainant and made demand of Rs.50,000/-, PW 3 - Ratnamala, his wife merely deposed that the appellant had visited their house in order to escort deceased Suman to her own house.Thus, this incident of personally making demand by the appellant, cannot be accepted.::: Uploaded on - 01/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 07:25:31 :::13] The learned Addl.Sessions Judge was impressed by the fact of earlier disruption in the cohabitation between the deceased and the appellant.It was found that though the deceased lady had again returned to cohabit with the appellant, she ultimately died due to falling in the well, therefore, holding the same as suicide, the learned Addl.Sessions Judge concluded that the suicide was result of the illtreatment, as deposed to by the witnesses.14] The learned Addl.Sessions Judge, however, failed to take into consideration that all these prosecution witnesses are the near relatives of ::: Uploaded on - 01/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 07:25:31 ::: 15 appeal351-02.odt the deceased.They were naturally aggrieved by her sudden death.Further, as there was earlier disruption in the cohabitation between the deceased and the appellant, they had an axe to grind against the appellant.There was vast variance in the prosecution case as detailed supra.The deceased was admittedly unable to conceive and in the state of affair, the learned Addl.Sessions Judge ought to have extended benefit of reasonable doubt to the present appellant also.::: Uploaded on - 01/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 07:25:31 :::15] In the circumstances, the appeal deserves to be allowed and the appellant deserves to be acquitted from the offences.16] Hence, the following order :-::: Uploaded on - 01/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 07:25:31 :::April, 2002 passed by the learned IInd Addl.Sessions Judge, Ambajogai, Dist.beed convicting the appellant for the offences punishable under Section 498-A and 306 of Indian Penal Code is hereby set aside.The consequential sentences are also set aside.D] Fine amount, if any, be refunded to him after expiry of a period of ten weeks from the date of this judgment.[M.T. JOSHI, J.] kbp ::: Uploaded on - 01/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 07:25:31 :::::: Uploaded on - 01/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 07:25:31 :::
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
267,783 |
ORDER Randhir Singh, J.This is an application in revision against the order of conviction and sentence passed by a Magistrate, first class, which was also upheld in appeal by the Sessions Judge.It appears that one Sri G. S. Chaudhary and another gentleman by the name of Sri M. P. Srivastava were robbed of some of their belongings while travelling and reports were lodged.Ultimately, some property was recovered from the possession of the applicant and two others in a search made by the police.The property recovered from the possession of the applicant was identified to be a part of the stolen property.The applicant and the other two persons, from whose possession property was recovered, were ultimately sent up for trial.The applicant then went in appeal but his appeal was rejected.The applicant had raised the point before the Sessions Judge that the trial of the case by the Magistrate was illegal inasmuch as he had no jurisdiction to try the case, the case being triable exclusively by the Panchayati Adalat.
|
['Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
26,784,020 |
The present criminal original petition has been filed praying to call for the records pertaining to C.C.No.495 of 2015 on the file of the V Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai and quash the same.The second respondent is the defacto complainant.She preferred a complaint before the first respondent/police against her husband, the petitioner herein and his family members, alleging that she had been harassed and subjected to cruelty for want of dowry.Based on the said complaint, a case was registered in Crime No.7 of 2014 under Sections 498(A), 506(ii) IPC.Now, the petitioners have come forward with the present petition, praying to quash the same.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the trial Court has not considered the report of the District Welfare Officer (Prevention of Anti Dowry Act) and no ingredients under Sections 498-A, 406 and 506(ii) of IPC were made out against the petitioners and absolutely, there was no occasion to harass the defacto complainant or demand the alleged dowry by the petitioners.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the defacto complainant has made specific allegations against the petitioners that she had been subjected to cruelty being harassed mentally by the petitioners for want of dowry and thereby, the requirements under Sections 498A IPC and 506(ii) IPC are made out and hence, he sought for dismissal of the petition.5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the first respondent and perused the entire materials placed on record.It is the specific case of the petitioners that no ingredients under Sections 498-A IPC were made out as the defacto complainant was not subjected to cruelty since she was not harassed physically.But it is to be noted that the defacto complainant made specific allegations that she was mentally harassed for want of dowry.The veracity of the allegation cannot be gone into at this stage in these quashing proceedings.Therefore, it cannot be construed that the allegations made by the petitioner cannot satisfy the requirement of Section 498-A and 506 (ii) IPC.The grounds made by the learned counsel for the petitioners are purely matter of defence, which can be raised at the time of trial.In such view of the matter, I am not inclined to entertain this petition.Accordingly, the present Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.Consequently, interim stay granted on 11.08.2015 in M.P.No.1 of 2015 is hereby vacated.However, the petitioners are at liberty to file a petition to dispense with their personal attendance before the Court below and on such filing, the Court below is directed to consider and pass orders therein.The Miscellaneous Petitions are ordered accordingly.
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
267,914 |
Ramadhin P. W. was the highest bidder.He purchased the leaves and paid Rs. 76 then and there.ORDER Wali Ullah, J.The applicant, Prem Chand, has been tried and convicted of an offence under Section 420, Penal Code.The sentence passed upon him is one of six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of RS.100, in default one month's further rigorous imprisonment.Both the conviction and the sentence of the applicant have been confirmed by the appellate Court.It appears that the applicant, who is a member of the District Board of Etawah, sold by public auction, leaves of Khajur trees standing on the roadside between Debiapur find Phaphund.This was done by him on 11-9-1948, without any authority from the District Board.What he describes as a Kachchi Rasid, EX.P. 1, was given to Ramadhin, A proper receipt from the District Board, however, was promised to him after the amount had been deposited in the office of the District Board.Later it came to the knowledge of Ramadhin that the applicant had no authority to sell the leaves of the Khajur trees.Apparently, on knowing of this, the applicant seems to have deposited the amount of RS.Both the learned Magistrate as well as the learned Sessions Judge, who heard the appeal, have found that the applicant had acted dishonestly in inducing Ramadhin to believe that he (the applicant) had authority to sell and, thus under that deception, he induced Ramadhin to purchase and to part with RS.The question of sentence, however, in this case, deserves serious consideration.The applicant, as mentioned above, is a member of the District Board.
|
['Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
26,793,385 |
The petitioner, apprehending arrest in connection with Amdanga P.S. Case No.33 of 2015 dated 01.02.12 under section 307of the Indian Penal Code, has approached this Court for anticipatory bail.Admittedly, this is a second application for anticipatory bail.Earlier, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner was rejected on merit by a coordinate Bench of this Court.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
267,987 |
JUDGMENT Shah, J.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 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.
|
24,135,879 |
Appeal appears to be arguable hence, admitted for final hearing.No fresh notice is necessary to the respondent as Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State has appeared.Appearing counsel for the parties heard on I.A.No.1116/2018 first application filed under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C, 1973 for suspension of custodial sentence of appellants No.1-Karu, No.3-Preetam Singh, No.4-Bhan Singh, No.5-Ravindra and No.6-Abhilakh Singh awarded by the trial Court and record of sessions trial and reply to I.A.No.1116/2018 filed on behalf of respondent/State are perused.Each of the above-mentioned appellants has been convicted and sentenced by the trial Court as under:-According to prosecution story on 31.01.2015 at 11am, when the injured/complainant-Vijaypal Singh (PW-2) going to meet his relatives, then suddenly all the appellants met him and appellant No.2 Janved Singh Yadav fired from his firearm which caused injury to the complainant on abdomen and though appellant No.7 Sonu Singh also fired on complainant, but as complainant had fell down, second fire could not cause injury to the complainant.Appearing counsel for the appellants contends that according to dehati nalishi (Ex.P-3) lodged by complainant, appellant No.1,3,4,5 and 6 were having sticks in their hands but only appellant No.2-Janved Singh has fired single shot from his firearm which caused single entry wound over abdomen of the complainant and according to medical evidence one entry wound and one exist wound caused by firearm were found.It is further argued that the evidence given by the injured Vijaypal Singh (PW-2) and alleged eye- witnesses Vinod Yadav (PW-1) and Banti (PW-4) is mutually contradicted as Banti (PW-4) deposed that before firing, all seven appellants had encircled the complainant, but this fact has not been deposed by complainant (PW-2) and Vinod Yadav (PW-1).Similarly Vinod Yadav(PW-1) deposed that before firing all the appellants were abusing and threatening to complainant, but this fact is not supported by complainant Vijaypal Singh(PW-2) and Banti(PW-1) Vijaypal Singh(PW-2) 3 CRA.1312/2018 deposed that only appellant No.2 Janved Singh threatened him that complainant had helped in Panchayat election to his relatives, hence, he would be killed.It is also argued that no overt act has been attributed to appellants No.1, 3,4,5 and 6, but they have been convicted by the trial Court for the offence punishable under Sections 307/149 and 148 of the IPC though appellants No.1, 3,4,5 and 6 did not cause any injury to the complainant and similarly their common object as a member of an unlawful assembly was also not established from the prosecution evidence available on record and there is no possibility of early hearing of this criminal appeal before this Court.Hence, it is prayed that the jail sentence of appellants No.1, 3,4,5 and 6 be suspended.Per contra learned Public Prosecutor has strongly opposed this prayer of suspension of jail sentence of the above-mentioned appellants on the grounds that it is clear from the prosecution evidence that due to election rivalry in relating Grampanchayat the incident occurred and according to medical evidence, an entry wound caused by firearm was found on the right side of the abdomen, 2cm away from the umbilicus, and a corresponding exist wound was found on right side of the back.After the incident complainant was operated and remained hospitalized for a period of one and half month and, thereafter, his treatment was continued and during investigation sticks were recovered from three appellants for whom I.A.No.1116/2018 has been filed and there is sufficient evidence against these appellants for having common object as a member of unlawful assembly for 4 CRA.1312/2018 attempting murder of the complainant Vijaypal Singh and trail Court has not erred in convicting the appellants No.1, 3,4,5 and 6 for the offences punishable under Section 148, 307/149 of the IPC.The appellants are further directed to remain present before the Registry of this Court firstly on 27.08.2018 and, thereafter, on such subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry of this Court for the same purpose in future.Certified copy today.
|
['Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
24,138,149 |
The appellants in Crl.A.No.51 of 2011 are the accused Nos.1 and 2 and theappellants in Cr.A.(MD).No.26 of 2011 are the accused Nos.4 and 6 in S.C.No.34of 2008 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar District atSrivilliputhur.The deceased in this case was one Gopalraj.He was a resident ofPanthalkudi village.He belonged to Reddiyar community.P.W.1 is his cousin.All these accused (1 to 7) belong to Christian religion and they also belong tothe same village.On an earlier occasion, according to the prosecution, theseaccused had spoken ill of the community of the prosecution party.On an yetanother occasion, it is alleged that the accused party eve teased the woman folkbelonging to the prosecution party.Both the incidents were brought to thenotice of the deceased Gopalraj.This is stated to be the motive for theoccurrence.On 19.09.2007, at 11 p.m., P.Ws.1 to 3 and the deceased, werereturning from bazaar to their place of residence.When they were passingthrough Kaliamman Koil street, the accused Nos.4 to 6 were sitting near achurch.The deceased Gopalraj went towards them and questioned them about theabove two incidents.The deceased also attacked the accused Nos.4 and 6 withhands.Accused 4 and 6 raised alarm.Immediately, the other accused camerunning from the Church.The first accused had a suri kathi in his hand; thethird accused had a wooden log; the fifth accused had suri knife and wooden log;the seventh accused had thoratti kambu and suri knife.On seeing them, thedeceased started to go.P.Ws.1 to 3 also started moving with the deceased.Atthat time, suddenly, the first accused Sekar attacked the deceased with suriknife on the right side of his chest.The second accused attacked the deceasedon his head, on both sides, with aruval.The third accused attacked thedeceased on his back of chest with wooden log.The deceased fell down.Afterthat, the fourth accused snatched the thorattikambu from the 7th accused andattacked on the abdomen of the deceased.Due to the injuries on the abdomen,the intestine came out.The fifth accused attacked the deceased on his rightleg with wooden log.The sixth accused snatched suri kathi from A7 and attackedthe deceased on the left eye brow.The seventh accused attacked the deceasedwith hands on his face.This rendered the deceased to fall unconscious in apool of blood.The accused brandished the weapon against P.Ws.1 to 3 and floodaway from the scene of occurrence.The other accused alsoattacked these two accused A4 and A6 with wooden logs and caused injuries.Then, the first accused directed A4 and A6 also to go to the police station andto prefer a complaint falsely against the prosecution party.P.Ws.1 to 3 raisedalarm, which attracted the villagers.Thereafter, the deceased was taken in anAuto to Aruppukottai Government Hospital.P.Ws.1 to 3 also went there.At11.45 p.m., on 19.09.2007, P.W.9, Dr.On 19.09.2007, at 11.30 p.m., the accused 4 and 6 went to thePanthalkudi Police station.P.W.12, the then Head Constable attached toPanthalkudi Police Station, forwarded them to the Government Hospital atAruppukottai along with medical memos for treatment for the injuries found onthem.On the same day, at 12.15 p.m., P.W.12 received a message fromAruppukottai Police Station about the death of the deceased.Immediately, heproceeded to the Government Hospital at Aruppukottai, where he obtained acomplaint from P.W.1 under Ex.P17 is the First Information Report.Heforwarded the First Information Report and the complaint to the Court and thenhanded over the case diary to P.W.14 for investigation.He recovered bloodstained earth andsample earth from the place of occurrence (M.Os.5 and 6) under Ex.P3 Mahazar.Inthe presence of the same witnesses, he prepared a rough sketch showing the placeof occurrence under Ex.Then, examined P.Ws.Stomach-empty.Liver 1500 gms-pale - no injury.Spleen 150 gmspale.Kidney 160 gms pale.Intestines distended with gas-no-injury-bladder 100ml of urine present.Major vessels in the inguinal region were cut.Head,skull intact.Membranes intact.Brain pale 1100 gms.Spinal column intact.Finally, he gave an opinion that the deceased would appear to have died ofhemorrhage and shock due to injury to major vessels in the right inguinal region12-18 hours prior to autopsy.P14 is the postmortem certificate.Continuing the investigation, P.W.14, collected the cloth found onthe body of the deceased and forwarded the same to the Court.Then, he examinedfew more witnesses and recorded their statements.On 22.09.2007 at 5.00 a.m.,he arrested the accused Nos.4 and 6 at Panthalkudi Muthalamman Temple in thepresence of P.W.5 and another witness.On such arrest, the sixth accused MariaSabariraj, gave a voluntary confession.In the said confession, he haddisclosed that he had hidden a suri knife in the periya kanmai at Mettupatti.P6 is the said disclosure statement.As per the said disclosure statement,he took the police and witnesses to the said place and produced a suri knife(M.O.7) from the place of concealment.P.W.14 recovered the same under Ex.P.7mahazar.The accused No.4 Vethamuthu Anthony Raj also gave a voluntaryconfession.In the said confession, he had disclosed that he had hidden athoratti kambu at a place behind Mettupatti R.C.Church.In pursuance of thesaid disclosure statement, he took the police and the witnesses to the saidplace and produced M.O.2 thorattikambu.In the same, he haddisclosed that he had hidden a suri knife near a compound wall of R.C. Church atMettupatti.In pursuance of the same, he took thepolice and the witnesses to the said place and produced M.O.8 suri knife.P.W.14 recovered the same under Ex.P9 mahazar in the presence of the very samewitnesses.The second accused Sebastin also gave a voluntary confession.Inthe said confession, he had disclosed that he had hidden an aruval just behindthe compound wall of the church at Panthalkudi.The first charge is against all the seven accused under Section 148IPC.Totally, there were seven accused.The learned Sessions Judgeby judgment, dated 12.01.2011 acquitted the accused 3,5 and 7 of all charges.The fourth accused has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced toundergo imprisonment for life and under section 506(ii) IPC to undergo rigorousimprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- (no defaultsentence).The learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellants 1, 2 and 6 underSection 324 IPC and sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default, toundergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and for the offence under Section506(ii) IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fineof Rs.1,000/- each, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for threemonths.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellants have comeup with these criminal appeals.The prosecution witness No.3, Mr.V.Paulsamy, feeling aggrieved by theacquittal of the accused 3, 5 and 7, has come up with Cr.Sakthivel examined the deceased and foundthat he was already dead.After declaring him dead, he transmitted the body tothe mortuary.On his examination, he found the following injuries on the body ofthe deceased:"1.A penetrating injury of 3" x 2" size x 1 +" depth with small intestinesexpelled out along with mesentary with bleeding in the middle of lower abdomen.2.A laceration of 1 cm x + cm x bone depth on right lower chest.3.A lacerationof 2 + cm x + cm x bone depth on right lower chest.4.A laceration of 2 + cm x +cm x bone depth on left parietal scalp."On returning to the police station, at 2.00a.m., he registered a case in Crime No.121 of 2007 under Section 147, 148, 341and 302 IPC against these accused.1to 3 and few more witnessesand recorded their statements.He conducted inquest on the body of the deceasedand prepared Ex.P.20-inquest report.Then, he forwarded the body of thedeceased for postmortem.During autopsy, he found thefollowing injuries:External injuries: 1.Lacerated wound in the right parietal region 7x2x2 cmbone depth.2.A lacerated wound in the left parietal region 7x2x2 cm bone depth.3.Lacerated wound just lateral to the left eyebrow 1x1x1 cm4.A stab wound in the right side of chest + cm radius 5 cm depth justlateral to the xiphoid process in the 7th I.C.S.5.A lacerated wound in the right inguinal region 8x3x4 cm entering intothe pelvic cavity.Small bowel prolapsed through the wound.Abdomen-uniform, peritoneal cavity filled with fluidblood.Thorax:there was a hole in the 6th I.C.S. Just lateral to the sternumcorresponding to the external stab wound in the chest.Heart 300 gms chambersempty.Lungs - left 60 gms pale.Right 500 gms pale.No lung injury.Hyoidbone intact.P.W.14 recovered the same under Ex.On the same day, at 9 a.m., P.W.14 arrested the 7th accusedInnasimuthu at Panthalkudi Ramco Stone Quarry site in the presence of the samewitnesses.Then, he returned to the police station with the accused and theproperties seized.He forwarded the accused for judicial remand and sent thematerial objects to the Court.On05.04.2007, P.W.14 got them into his custody in pursuance of an order obtainedfrom the jurisdictional Magistrate.At the police station, when the firstaccused was examined, he gave a voluntary confession.In pursuance of the same, hetook the police and witnesses to the said place and produced M.O.1 aruval.P.W.14 recovered the same under Ex.P11 mahazar.P10 is the disclosurestatement.Thereafter, he forwarded the accused to judicial remand.Yet another accused Arockiasamy(A5) surrendered before the learned Judicial Magistrate at Manamadurai.On12.10.2007, P.W.14 got him into his custody in pursuance of the order of thejurisdictional Magistrate.During interrogation, he also gave a voluntaryconfession.Similarly, the 7th accused Innasimuthu was arrested on 22.09.2007and he also gave a voluntary confession.But no disclosure was made out of thesetwo accused.Then, he examined the Doctor, who conducted autopsy, collectedpostmortem certificate and recorded his statement.He collected the chemical analysis report and other records.Finally,he laid the charge sheet against all the seven accused on 24.12.2007, underSections 147, 148, 341, 302 read with Section 149 IPC.Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed as many as fourcharges.When the accused were questioned in respect of the charges, theypleaded innocence.Therefore, they were put on trial.During the trial, on theside of the prosecution, as many as 15 witnesses were examined and 20 documentswere exhibited besides 8 material objects.On the side of the defence, onedocument was marked as Ex.When the accused were questioned in respect ofthe above incriminating materials under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied thesame as false.Of the 15 witnesses examined, P.Ws.1 to 3 are the eye witnesses to theoccurrence.They have vividly spoken about the overt acts of each accused.P.W.1 further has spoken to about the complaint preferred by him.P.W.5 hasspoken to about the arrest of some of the accused and the consequentialdisclosure of material objects.P.Ws.9 and 10 are the doctors, who have spokento about the injuries and the cause of death.The others are officialwitnesses.Having considered the above materials, the trial Court found theaccused 3,5 and 7 not guilty and accordingly acquitted them.The trial Courtconvicted the accused 1,2,4 and 6 alone under various provisions of IPC andpunished them accordingly, as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgment.We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants, the learnedcounsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutorfor the State.We have also perused the records carefully.As we have already narrated, from the evidences of P.Ws.1 to 3, itcould be culled out that there were two groups in the village opposing eachother, belonging to different communities.The accused party belongs toChristian religion, whereas, the prosecution party belongs to Reddiyar communityof Hindu Religion.The motive between the two groups has not been seriouslydisputed by the accused.The deceased was the leader of the prosecution party.The said fact as spoken to by P.W.1 has not been disputed by the defence.Now, according to the evidence of P.W.1, on the day of occurrence, theaccused 4 to 6 were sitting near the Church.P.Ws.1 to 3 and the deceased wereproceeding on the Church road.Quite naturally, as has been spoken to by P.Ws1 to3, they raised alarm.Attracted by the said alarm, it is stated that the otheraccused came from the church with weapons and all of them attacked the deceasedparty, is the prosecution case.But, the case of the accused is that theprosecution party came armed with weapons and attacked A4 and A6 with deadlyweapons causing injuries.In the very same occurrence, according to them, thedeceased also sustained injury.P.W.12 has admitted that while he was on duty at the police station,the accused 4 and 6 came to the police station with injuries.It was 11.30 p.m.He has further admitted that he issued police memo and forwarded them to thehospital for treatment.Thus, it has been clearly admitted by the prosecutionthat A4 and A6 have sustained injuries in the very same occurrence.The learned counsel would submit that the prosecution has notcome forward with clean hands.He would further submit that there was noinvestigation done in respect of the injuries sustained by the accused.The learnedcounsel for the revision petitioner would also submit the same argument.But, in this case, P.W.12 has completely suppressed the complaint givenby A4 and A6, though he had chosen to forward these accused to the hospital fortreatment.P.W.14 on his part, has not collected the medical records pertainingto A4 and A6 and produced the same before the Court.But, this aspect has not been properlyinvestigated into by the police.Since the prosecution hasnot come forward with true version of the occurrence, we hold that theprosecution has not proved the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.In such view of the matter, we are inclined to acquit these appellants as well.In the result, the criminal appeals are allowed and the accused 1,2,4and 6 are acquitted of all charges.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
24,139,324 |
Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the respective parties.The said order is under challenge in this petition.It is submitted that the petitioner is convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 364, 364-A, 302 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years, seven years on two counts and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life for the respective offences.Since the date of conviction, the petitioner is in jail.Petitioner has ::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 29/11/2017 00:57:25 ::: 3 wp955.17.odt completed 13 years in jail.Petitioner is eligible for furlough leave.It is submitted that the impugned order is illegal and liable to be quashed and set aside.::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 29/11/2017 00:57:25 :::Heard Mr.A.Y.Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.N.R.Tripathi, learned A.P.P. for the Respondent Nos. 1 and2. Perused the impugned order.The application for furlough leave is rejected only on the ground that the petitioner is convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 364, 364-A of the Indian Penal Code and as per rule 4(13) of the Rules, he is not entitled for furlough leave.It is pertinent to note that the petitioner has undergone jail sentence for the offences punishable under Sections ::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 29/11/2017 00:57:25 ::: 4 wp955.17.odt 364 and 364-A of the Indian Penal Code.Hence, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside.Hence we pass the following order.::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 29/11/2017 00:57:25 :::// ORDER // The petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause(a) of thereof.He shall surrender before the Prison Authorities on the due date.Rule is made absolute in the above terms.No order as to costs.::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 29/11/2017 00:57:25 :::::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 29/11/2017 00:57:25 :::5 wp955.17.odt Fees of the learned Counsel appointed for the petitioner is quantified at Rs.1,500/-.::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 29/11/2017 00:57:25 :::::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 29/11/2017 00:57:25 :::
|
['Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
24,139,580 |
The alleged recovery of using spade (fawda) from an open place is false.It is next submitted that three other co-accused Bani Singh, Balram and Dinesh having identical role have already been released on bail by this Court vide orders dated 28.1.2020 and 20.2.2020 in Criminal Misc.Applicant has no criminal history and he is in jail since 17.09.2020, undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted.Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that specific role of using spade (fawda) has been assigned to the applicant, but could not dispute the the fact that applicant has no criminal history and further an scuffle took place between the parties and cross FIRs have been lodged on the very same day.
|
['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.
|
24,146,150 |
This bail application has been moved on behalf of accused-applicant for enlarging him on bail in Case Crime No.316 of 2017, under Sections 2/3 of U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1986"), Police Station-Pipri, District-Kaushambi.
|
['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
24,159,258 |
The complaint reads as follows:-I, undersigned, Andre Viozat, S/o.Etienne VIOZAT aged 65 hereby reporting the grave incident which happened on 28/1/08 at about 11 AM at my residence 'Turiya', Edayanchavady Village, Vanur Taluk, Villupuram District, in which my cameras worth about one lakh rupees were stolen, my car was damaged to the extent of Rs.65,000/- and I got hit by a huge group of goondas and manhandled while saving my house from destruction by bulldozer.Kannan is the benamidar and henchmen of Laxminarayanan in purchasing a portion of the land illegally.This Criminal Original Petition seeks to quash proceedings in S.C.No.136 of 2011 on the file of learned I Additional District Judge, Tindivanam, in so far as the petitioner herein is concerned.Upon a complaint preferred by the father of this petitioner, a case came to be registered, on 02.02.2008, in Crime No.17 of 2008 on the file of the Aroville Police Station, for offences under Sections 147, 148, 448, 427, 379 and 506 (i) IPC.They took my complaint but asked me to file a fresh complaint at Auroville Police Station also.On 28/1/2008, at 9.30 A.M. I had the visit of one CID officer Mr.Shanmugam, who enquired about my property.I took him through my entire estate and appraised him of the attempt by my wife Chandrika, to sell away the lands, and of the Court Injunction in my possession in regards of these lands.After parting with Mr.Shanmugam, while I was leaving my house by car at about 11 am, I found that a JCB Bulldozer Reg.PY 01 AE 5274 was positioned in front of my residence and approaching the compound wall made of granite stones about 6 meters high with obvious intention to demolish the wall.I interposed my car between the wall and the bulldozer and moved the car front and back swiftly to keep the bulldozer from reaching the wall as it moved.Suddenly, a crowd of about 150 rowdies led by my wife Chandrika, one Ramkumar also known as Laxminarayanan and one Kannan came towards me and hit my car with their hands and with sticks causing heavy damage to my car.I then tried to film the scene with my movie camera from inside the car but Chandrika ordered my camera to be stolen and a goonda with a white shirt (name not known to me but he could be photographed later) succeeded to force open my car by breaking the door and snatch both my cameras (a moving DVD camera Sony worth Rs.45,000/- and a high quality digital still camera make Sony model DJC-F828).The items were passed to another goonda and concealed in the car of Chandrika bearing Reg.The names of the two goondas are not known to me but a photo was taken of them while they wee concealing the stolen goods in the car.About 35 to 50 men were blocking my car by sitting on it, surrounding it and placing palm tree logs under the wheels.Another car of my company which had reached to bring help was immediately thrown in the ditch and my people were prevented to come and help me, threatened at knife point.At this point of time I was hit, tossed away and manhandled by one Mathi who is a henchman of Chandrika and he ordered the goondas to finish me.My car tyres were deflated, and a crowd of goondas were shouting at me to intimidate me so that finally I got overpowered and I could not prevent the bulldozer from taking position to demolish my compound wall.To save my life I had to run away.The bulldozer gave several hits to the wall, which are visible on the photo and a huge crack was made.At this point of time villagers came with their Ex-President, Mr.Elumali.It is only thanks to the courage of the villagers who protected me and also my property by interposing their own bodies between the bulldozer and the wall that my life and my residence could be saved.I told several times to the police personnel present on the scene, that I am in full possession and enjoyment of the place and I also have a court injunction order but they said injunction is for the land but not for the compound wall so the wall can be demolished.On hearing the news two reporters came on the scene but the police chased them away by shouting at them not to take any snap or give any news.They were told by Chandrika that it was only cinema shooting.The police not only refused to help me in my predicament but seemed to actually lead the operation.Instead of discharging their official duties, though in uniform, they seem to be acting in their personal capacity to execute this illegal destruction plan with the help of 150 goondas with the abatement of Chandrika, Ramkumar and Kannan.The news of this scandalous and criminal action reached Villupuram, Chennai and even New Delhi and orders came from the higher-ups.Then only the situation got diffused.I pleaded to the police to at least give back my movie camera which is a necessary tool for my day to day work in my company but I was replied harshly that they did not bother about that.My lawyers had sent a notice on 27/1/08 to all the above mentioned persons to inform them once more that the land in my estate is under a valid Court Injunction, Ramkumar is believed to be the same as Laxinarayanan, a gov't doctor, who is the husband of Revathy who purchased my land illegally in a benami transaction.This deal is in flagrant violation of the Injunction order and their action is clear contempt of court in addition to being a case of illegal benami transaction.I had published notice in the Newspapers in Tamil and English many times warning the public that this land is under litigation in 27/6/2007 in Dinamalar and Dinakaran, on 03/08/2007 in Dinamalar and Daily Thanthi, Hindu and Indian Express, on 1/9/2007 in Daily Thanthi, Dinamalar and Sunday Express given all details of the Injunction and again on 25/1/08 in Daily Thanthi, Malaimalar and Indian Express.My Lawyers have also informed Chandrika, Laxminarayan and the police of the injunction but they have all committed breach of the Order of the Hon'ble Court of the Principal District Judge at Villupuram and they are all guilty of gross contempt of this Hon'ble Court.The CID Officer Mr.Shanmugam has witnessed the aggression throughout.I demanded that my complaint be duly registered, FIR raised and that severe preventive, punitive and dissuasive action be taken against all the culprits.When I have been living peacefully in this country for the past 36 years, giving my dedicated work to the Society, I now have to live in fear and under the constant apprehension that goondas are going to attack me and raze my residence to the ground and even harm my 250 or so workmen employed in my companies.Hence, I request the police to arrest the culprits for riot, affray, breach of peace, aggression, damage to property, attempt to trespass, theft and attempt to murder.Thereafter, on a further representation made by the defacto complainant, the Government, in Lr.No.73509/Pol.He further submitted that, pursuant thereto, a charge sheet stands filed, informing commission of offences under Sections 149 read with 3 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Properties (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992, and 427 and 341 IPC.Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the aforesaid submissions.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that further investigation, in the case, reveals the involvement of this petitioner and as such, she would have to establish her innocence only at the trial.This Court has considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.This Court finds that while the statements of list witnesses would inform of the presence of the petitioner at the scene, one such statement would go further to inform that she had called for the presence of the offenders over cell phone.Many an offspring is caught in the crossfire between sparring spouses.Given the role attributed to the petitioner that there hardly is any possibility of her conviction, that her father, the de facto complainant, has not informed of any wrong doing on her part, that pendency of criminal proceedings against her in the circumstances would have very serious repercussions on her, this considers it appropriate to quash all further proceedings in S.C.No.136 of 2011, on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Tindivanam, in so far as this petitioner is concerned and accordingly, the same is quashed.This Criminal Original Petition stands allowed.Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.11.02.2014Index : Yes / NoWeb : Yes / Nosrk/gmTo1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch CID, Villupuram Range.2.The Additional District Judge, Tindivanam.3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.C.T. SELVAM, J.,srk/gmPre-delivery orderinCRL.O.P.No.32175 of 201311.02.2014
|
['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
24,164,210 |
Heard arguments.Perused case diary and material on record.This is the first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail as he apprehends his arrest in Criminal Case No.1522/2015, arising out of Crime No.338/2015 registered at Police Station Katangi of Jabalpur district against him for the offences punishable under Sections 294, 323, 506 and 34, pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Patan, district Jabalpur.On 11.12.2015 the police filed the charge-sheet against him.In the aforestated terms and conditions, this bail application is finally disposed of.
|
['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 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.
|
24,164,934 |
During the stage of hearing on charge, he allegedly questioned the validity of the sanction.But when the charge was ordered to be framed against him, he approached this Court by filing Crl.M.C. No.1853/2011 challenging the order dated 30.03.2010 directing framing of charge against him for committing the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Section 120-B IPC on the W.P.(Crl.) No.265/2013 & 1739/2013 Page 2 of 20 ground that sanction was not accorded by the authority competent to remove the Petitioner from office as required under Section 19(1)(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act. CBI submitted before this Court that validity of the sanction has to be challenged before the Trial Court at the appropriate stage.The Petitioner withdrew Crl.M.C. No.1853/2011 with liberty to raise all available grounds before learned Special Judge challenging the validity of the sanction accorded for prosecution of the Petitioner.W.P.(Crl.) No.265/2013 & 1739/2013 Page 2 of 20After withdrawal of Crl.M.C. No.1853/2011, the Petitioner filed an application before learned Special Judge when case was already at the stage of prosecution evidence.The application was disposed of by learned Special Judge vide order dated 27.09.2012 concluding as under :In view thereof, the application filed by the accused/applicant Y.S.Verma is allowed.47.Accused/applicant Y.S.Verma is accordingly released from the present proceedings at this stage.Thereafter the sanction order was obtained by CBI from the competent Authority.Chargesheet was filed alongwith sanction order pursuant to which cognizance was taken by learned Special Judge (CBI) and Petitioner was summoned as an accused.Thereafter when the charge was ordered to be framed against the Petitioner, he filed another writ petition bearing W.P.(Crl.) No.1739/2013 challenging the order on charge dated 18.09.2013 as well the formal charge framed on 21.09.2013 and this despite the fact that in the meantime, the Petitioner had already attained the age of superannuation.W.P.(Crl.) No.265/2013 & 1739/2013 Page 3 of 20By this common order, I intend to dispose of both the writ petitions i.e. W.P.(Crl.) No.265/2013 and W.P.(Crl.) No.1739/2013 as basically the grievance of the Petitioner is that second chargesheet could not have been filed by the CBI after obtaining sanction from the competent authority and that the proceedings consequent to filing of second chargesheet need to be quashed.In addition, the material on record was not sufficient to prima facie establish a case against him for framing the charge.The case of the Petitioner Yoginder Singh Verma is that he was working as Senior Intelligence Officer with DRI but at the time of filing of the petition, he had retired.The Petitioner was chargesheeted for committing the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code.During hearing on charge, he raised the issue of sanction being invalid as granted by a person not competent to remove him from the office.The order dated 30.03.2010 was challenged by the Petitioner by filing Crl.M.C. no.1853/2011, as referred to above.As stated above, the application was filed by the Petitioner before learned Special Judge challenging the validity of the sanction order which was disposed of vide order dated 27.09.2012, relevant paragraphs of which W.P.(Crl.) No.265/2013 & 1739/2013 Page 4 of 20 have already been extracted above.Since this procedure followed by learned Special Judge was contrary to the principles of natural justice, the summoning order on taking cognizance on the second chargesheet has been challenged by the Petitioner by filing W.P.(Crl.Further grievance of the Petitioner is that when he appeared before learned Special Judge on 18.02.2013, he was forced to write an application adopting all the proceedings which took place in the previous chargesheet and his subsequent application seeking withdrawal of that application was also dismissed.(ii) to pass an order issuing a writ of certiorari thereby quashing the order on charge dated 18.09.2013 and framing of charge order dated 21.09.2013 passed by the Court of Sh.Kanwaljeet Arora, learned ASJ, CBI, Dwarka Court, Delhi in RC No.4(A)/2005/CBI/ACU-VI New Delhi whereby the Ld.Special Judge wrongly framed charges against the Petitioner on the basis of second chargesheet.(iii) to pass an order setting aside order dated 21.09.2013 whereby the Ld.Special Judge suo moto adopted the earlier proceedings which took place in the first chargesheet from which the Petitioner got discharges and clubbed both the first and second chargesheet.I have heard Mr.The said order was challenged by the Appellant before Rajasthan High Court but the same was upheld.The first sanction to prosecute the Respondent was issued by an incompetent authority.But, the W.P.(Crl.
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
24,166,233 |
They are heard.Perused the Case Diary.This is first application under Section 438 of CrPC filed on behalf of applicant for grant of anticipatory bail.The applicant has been apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 214/2014, registered at police station Malanpur District Bhind, for the offences punishable under Sections 294, 323, 506(B), 147, 149, 324, 325 of IPC and 3 (1)As per the prosecution case, when on 24.10.2014 at about 12 noon complainant Suresh and his family members were chaffing in their agricultural field, at that time applicant and other co-accused armed with lathis came on the spot and threatening them, hurled abuses to the complainant party denoting their caste and assaulted them, due to which, injured Meera suffered fracture injury in Ulna bone and Rajkumari has received fracture injury in metacarpal bone.Initially, the offence was registered under Section 341, 294, 323, 506B, 147 and 149 of IPC.M. Cr. C. stands disposed of accordingly.Certified copy as per rules.(B.D.Rathi) V.Judge.
|
['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
24,166,671 |
Heard on I.A. No. 3750/2019, which is an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.The appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) of Cr.Appellant stands convicted for an offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years with fine of Rs. 2,000/- with default stipulation.He further submits that there is no direct or indirect allegation against the appellant because there is no independent witness in this case.He also submits that the learned Trial Court has acquitted the appellant-Learned PL for the respondent/State has opposed the application.Hence 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-Ashis @ Raghvendra s h a ll remain suspended during the pendency of this appeal and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Trial Court on 25.07.2019 and thereafter on all other such subsequent dates, as may be fixed by the Court in this regard during the pendency of the appeal.Office is directed to requisition the record of the Court below and thereafter, list the matter for admission after four weeks.Certified copy as per rules.(RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) JUDGE Pallavi Digitally signed by PALLAVI SINHA Date: 28/02/2019 12:11:59
|
['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
162,596,789 |
The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;The applicant will cooperate in the trial;Certified Copy on payment of usual charges.(AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) JUDGE MSP Digitally signed by MANVENDRA SINGH PARIHAR Date: 29/01/2020 23:40:53
|
['Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,626,016 |
The prosecution case is as follows.The accused, twodeceased persons and the material witnesses belong tovillages Khejuria and Dimirisena.There was a long-standingdispute between the two parties regarding possession of thelands belonging to the deity installed at villageDimirisena.The deity owns 150 acres of lands out of which100 acres were in possession of the tenants and theremaining 50 acres were being let out for bhag cultivationannually.The prosecution party claims that 40 familiesbelonging to their party were in possession of those 50acres of lands.Indra Kumar Patnaik, a trustee, entrustedthe management of the affairs of the deity and itsproperties to the villagers of Dimirisena to which theprosecution party mainly belongs.There were Section 145CrPC proceedings and a compromise and since then theprosecution party has been in possession of the land.Thepresent dispute relates to the lands of the deity which arelocally known as Panchamania lands, an area of 2.04 acres.In one of the plots, paddy was cut and just before thepresent occurrence, a proclamation under Section 144 CrPCwas issued and both parties were restrained from going tothe fields.The order under Section 144 was served on someof the accused and a notice under Section 107 CrPC also wasserved on the accused as to why they would not be calledupon to execute bonds for keeping peace.On November 28,1974, PW 5 ASI went to village Dimirisena for serving theorder under Section 144 and the notice under Section 107 onsome of the other accused persons.When PW 5 read out andexplained the contents of the order to the members of theprosecution party and wanted to serve the notice, but theyrefused to accept the same.The members of the accusedparty also refused.After refusing to receive the notice, agroup of about 20 to 30 members of the prosecution partywent to cut paddy from the Panchamania lands.Subsequentlya group of about 15 persons of the prosecution party wenttowards the said lands for carrying the paddy sheaves.When Kunja Samal (deceased2), came to the rescue of deceased 1, he was stabbed by A-16as a result of which he fell down on the ground.Some ofthe other accused persons also assaulted deceased4962 as a result of which he became unconscious andsubsequently died.In the course of the same incident, PWs2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9 also received several injuries.PW5, ASI of Police, who was present on the spot, sent a reportthrough a village servant on the basis of which a case wasregistered.All the injured persons were brought toBrahmagiri Hospital and the Medical Officer, PW 11 gavefirst aid and sent all of them to District HeadquartersHospital at Puri.He also examined theinjured witnesses.The Judgment of the Court was delivered byK. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, J.- There are 14 appellants.Theyalong with 25 others were tried for offences punishableunder Sections 302, 302/34, 302/149, 232, 324 and 324/149IPC.The trial court convicted 16 of them and acquitted therest.On appeal, the High Court acquitted two of themnamely A-2 and A-7 and convicted the rest.The 14 convictedaccused have preferred this appeal.While the second group had proceeded up to the Kalapatririburial ground, they found that a group of 25 persons of theaccused party going there with lathis, bhalis, tentas andother deadly weapons.The party was led by Mahant GobindaDas.At the same time another group of 50 persons of theaccused party came armed with various deadly weapons.Themembers of the accused party surrounded the members of theprosecution party.Mahant Gobinda Das fired a shot from thegun which hit Kulamani Behera (deceased 1), a member of theprosecution party and he fell down on the ground.Thereafterother persons assaulted him with deadly weapons as a resultof which he died on the spot.Later postmortem was conducted over thedead bodies of the two deceased.The accused were arrested.Daitari Behera, one of the accused persons, also gave areport on the basis of which a counter case was registeredagainst 63 persons belonging to the prosecution partyincluding the injured witnesses.In that case 40 personswere convicted under Sections 148, 324/149 and 323/149 IPC.Coming to the present case, the trial court relied on theevidence of the injured witnesses and discussed theirevidence in respect of each of the accused persons andultimately held that 16 of them were members of the unlawfulassembly and accordingly convicted the 16 accused asmentioned above and sentenced each of them to undergoimprisonment for life.In the trial court, the convictedaccused admitted their presence but asserted that they werein possession of the disputed lands and raised paddy thereonand coming to know that the prosecution party armed withdeadly weapons were coming to cut the paddy forcibly, theyalso went towards the paddy fields.Seeing them theprosecution party attacked them and inflicted injuries ontwo of the accused persons.Having examined this plea, thetrial court held that the plea of the accused persons cannotbe relied upon to determine as to how the occurrence tookplace.The trial court also noted that the ASI, namely, PW5, gave a different story but the same can be relied upon ashe was an independent witness.According to PW 5's versionand as accepted by the trial court, the prosecution partyhad already got engaged in cutting paddy and seeing theaccused party coming, the prosecution party ran towards themcarrying their deadly weapons and there was a fight betweenboth the parties.The learned trial Judge, however, foundthat the fight between the parties was not a sudden fightand that the parties went to the lands being armed withdeadly weapons and each party had an intention to fight withthe other.Then the trial court proceeded to considerwhether the accused party could get benefit of the right ofprivate defence of property and person.Ultimately, the trial court held that theaccused were members of the unlawful assembly and they wereresponsible for causing the death of the two deceasedpersons and for inflicting a number of injuries on thewitnesses which were more grave and serious in comparison tothe minor injuries received by the accused party.In thisview of the matter, the trial court held that the accusedintentionally caused the death of the deceased persons withcutting weapons and they had gone to the fields with a viewto fight and also assault the prosecution party and even tocause death and ultimately convicted the 16 accused whosepresence was established.The High Court also held that materials on record wouldshow that neither party was in peaceful possession of thelands and there was a scramble497for the possession.The High Court also having examinedthe evidence of ASI, PW 5 observed that both parties wereprepared for a fight and that members of the prosecutionparty went to the place of occurrence knowing that theywould meet opposition and likewise the accused party alsodid the same thing.Having so observed, the High Court heldthat assemblies on both sides were unlawful and it isimmaterial which party began the attack.Admittedly a large number of persons on each side went tothe fields.Likewise on deceased 2, PW 12, anotherDoctor found only seven injuries and that only498one injury on the stomach was sufficient in the ordinarycourse of nature to cause death.As a matter of fact,deceased 2 died on November 29, 1974 in the evening.
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,626,024 |
Suman (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') was the first wife of the accused.Since her relationship with the accused and her in-laws was strained she along with her 3 daughters Suvarana (PW-2), Vanita (PW-4) and Vaishali and a son Vijay stayed separately in village Sangli.In the said village in another house, accused along with his second wife Sushila, his parents and three brothers lived.On 17.9.1983, the accused came to deceased's house.J U D G M E N T ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.Appellant (also described as accused) calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court holding the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 404 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (in short 'the IPC') by reversing the judgment of acquittal rendered by the Trial Court.Sentence of imprisonment of life and two years respectively were imposed for the aforesaid two offences.Background facts which led to trial of the accused are as follows:At about 11.00 a.m. a quarrel between him and Suman took place.The same was seen by Vanita (PW-4).Thereafter at about 3.00 p.m. the same day, deceased went along with the accused who was having a sickle and a rope to bring fodder.In the evening, the accused returned alone to the house and told Vanita (PW-4) that deceased had gone to Nagaon Kavathe.The same evening at about 8.00 p.m. the accused went to the house of one Yeshwant Pandurang Jadhav (PW-6) and confessed to him that he had murdered his wife.Later around 1.00 to 1.30 a.m. he went to the house of the police Patil, Bhagwan Vithoba Patil (PW-5) and also confessed before him that he murdered his wife and had thrown the corpse into a well.Both Yeshwani Jadhav and Bhagwan Patil are said to have asked the accused to report the matter to the police.In the morning Bhagwan Patil along with village Kotwal and some others went to the well situated in the field of Bhimrao Kadam and found the corpse of Suman floating on the water inside it.He asked the village Kotwal to guard it and himself proceeded to police station Tasgaon with the accused.On 18.9.1983 at about 10.30 a.m. the accused went to Tasgaon Police Station and gave information that his wife Suman accidentally died and her corpse was floating in the well situated in the land of one Bhimrao Kadam.On the said report (Ex. 29) a case of accidental death was registered and investigation was undertaken.During investigation, several materials were collected and the charge sheet was filed.In order to further its accusations, during trial prosecution placed reliance on the evidence tendered by ten witnesses.The accused pleaded innocence.Since there was no eye witnesses to the occurrence, prosecution relied on following circumstances in support of its case.They are as follows:1. Motive.2. Conduct of the respondent immediately before and after the incident;The State of Maharashtra questioned correctness of the said judgment.By the impugned judgment the High Court held that there was no proper application of mind and that erroneous conclusions have been arrived at by the trial court.Accordingly the conviction was made and sentence imposed as afore-noted.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,626,051 |
(Order of the Court was made by P.K. MISRA,J.) Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties.The order of detention on the allegation that the detenu is aGoonda within the meaning of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activitiesof Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral TrafficOffenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers & Video Pirates Act (Tamil Nadu Act14/1982), is in question.The detenu was arrested on 17.5.2007 under Section 392 IPC., readwith 506(ii) IPC.In the absence of any proper explanation explaining such yawninggap, we are constrained to quash the order of detention notwithstanding theseriousness of allegations.The Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detentionin C.O.C.No.12 of 2007 dated 26.6.2007, passed by the second respondent isquashed.The detenu is directed to be released forthwith unless his presence isrequired in connection with any other case.1.The State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by its Secretary to Government, Chief Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St.2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Thiruvarur.3.The Superintendent, Trichy Central Prison.4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
|
['Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
162,607,867 |
This is the first bail application filed by the applicant under section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.224/2020 for offences punishable under sections 420, 467 and 468 R/w. Sec.34 of IPC registered at Police Station-Mohangarh, District-Tikamgarh.The applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in the aforesaid case.In the present case, the applicant is the Manager of an Agricultural Cooperative by the name of "Prathmik Krishi Sakh Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Mohangarh, Distt.Tikamgarh".Looking at the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that there may have been a preparation to commit the offence, but prima-facie, it did not reach the stage of attempt, as it was not yet offered for sale to the Samiti.Besides, the offence would be one under Section 199 and 200 of the I.P.C. and that too, registerable against the farmers who had given false information to the Samiti with regard to the land under their occupation/possession/ownership.
|
['Section 200 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
162,610 |
The prosecution case is that on information that large quantities of kerosene supplied to the first accused-society were being sold in black market to others, the Inspector of Police, Civil supplies, C.I.D., Madurai on 12-5-1988 at, about 1 p.m. inspected the first accused society and checked the stock register and other registers of the society.Accused 4 and 5 were present.The stock register showed that on 11-5-1988, 1,000 litres of kerosene had been taken delivery and received in the society and the bill book showed that the same had been distributed to 200 card holders on the same day.Investigation disclosed that on 11-5-1988 1,000 litres of kerosene, shown as having been distributed to card holders on that day, had not in fact been even taken delivery from the kerosene dealer viz. K. Srinivasa Iyengar, Madurai and that even without taking delivery, the bank draft representing the price for the kerosene had been handed over to the kerosene dealer and the 4th accused had received a sum in return and both the accused 4 and 5 had made false entries in the bill book and other registers making it appear as if the entire stock of 1,000 litres had been distributed to 200 card holders on that day itself.The offence had been committed by the first accused society and the accused 2 and 3 being the President and Secretary respectively and the second accused having overall control over the properties of the first accused society and the third accused, as Secretary, being requested to prepare indent for the requirement of the fair-price stock and check the every day sale of essential articles, had failed to exercise due diligence to prevent the commission of the offence, which could not have been committed without their knowledge and connivance.It would be unjust and against law to stifle the prosecution on these considerations.
|
['Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
162,611,890 |
He and his brother Jalaj were beaten by all the miscreants.In the assault, Jalaj received Sword, Dhariya and Katarna injuries on his stomach, head, hands and legs and was rendered unconscious.Rajju, Rippi, Kesharwani, Jaggu Sharma, Awdhesh Yadav and Raju Tiwari came forward to intervene.no.1-State in Cr.A. No.1062/11, as well as, for applicant-State in M.Cr.Heard on admission.Judgment, under challenge, being the same, this common order shall govern the disposal of aforementioned appeal and application for leave to appeal.Cr.A. No.1062/11 has been preferred under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the Code"), whereas M.Cr.C. No.9256/10 is an application, under Section 378(3) of the Code, against the judgment dated 14/7/2010 passed by V Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar, in Sessions Trial No.129/2008, whereby accused Munna, though convicted under Sections 307 and 302 of the IPC, has been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 294 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short), whereas other accused namely Dharmendra, Takhatram, Santosh, Devendra, Rajesh, Jitendra, Ashok, Surendra, Madan, Narendra, Dinesh, Mangal, Raju Jhatka and Laxman have been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 294, 148, 302 in alternative 302/149 and 307 in alternative 307 /149 of the IPC.Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 30/11/07 at about 9 a.m., accused persons namely Munna, Rajesh, Jitendra, Pappu, Ashok, Prem, Surendra, Vimla Bai and Dhruv, being armed with Pharsa, Katarna and Sword, constituted an unlawful assembly and in furtherance of its common object, assaulted complainant Ambuj Sharma (PW1), while he was returning home along with his brother Jalaj Sharma from the market.A bomb was also hurled at the complainant, who somehow saved himself.Munna, with an intention to kill, inflicted a sword blow on his head, as a result of which he fell on the spot.Report (Ex.P/1) was lodged by complainant Ambuj Sharma while leaving Jalaj on the spot.Jalaj was taken to Hospital at Sagar, where he was declared dead.After investigation, charge-sheet was filed.Learned counsel for the appellant, while making reference to the evidence on record, submitted that the learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and the impugned judgment deserves to be interfered with.Learned Government Advocate in support of arguments advanced by the counsel for the appellant also submitted that without proper appreciation of evidence, the impugned judgment was passed which deserves to be interfered with and prayed for grant of leave to file appeal.Having regard to the arguments advanced by the parties, we have gone through the impugned judgment and evidence on record.After considering the entire evidence and material available on record, trial Court found that in First Information Report (Ex.P/1), names of only 8 accused were mentioned, but in his police statement, complainant Ambuj Sharma(PW1) stated that 23 accused persons had committed the offence and in court statement, it was testified by him that respondents Narendra, Madan, Dinesh, Mangal, Laxman and Rajiv were not present on the spot.It was also found by the trial Court that there were material contradictions, omissions and exaggerations in the statements of witnesses and their evidence was not in conformity with each other.Existence of previous enmity between the parties was also established from the evidence on record.There was no incriminating evidence available on record against the respondents.In the aforesaid premises, the trial Court found that prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
162,619,627 |
he examined bhojali but did not get any print on the bhojali and as such he did not examine the finger prints supplied to him.P.W.16, is the investigating officer who after completion of investigation submitted charge sheet against the appellant.During cross-examination he admitted that at the place of occurrence defacto complainant gave the written complaint to the inspector-in-charge and that as per the inquest he found two injuries on the dead body.He 11 also admitted that he came to know during investigation that due to scuffling with deceased at the time of incident appellant received injury on his body and he arrested the appellant from Milan Samiti club.He denied the defence suggestion that FIR was written at the P.S.Thus going from the above, we find that P.W.3, the sole eye witness has vividly narrated the incident which led to the death of the victim.Her evidence appears to be convincing, trustworthy and believable and no significant contradiction or infirmity has been brought to our notice.Also there appears no reason why she should implicate the appellant and there is in fact, nothing on record to suggest that she had any reason to falsely implicate the appellant.The other post occurrence witnesses too found the appellant at the place of occurrence standing with blood stained bhojali and the victim lying dead and accordingly he was caught and detained at the club and police was informed and thereafter police came and apprehended the appellant with the weapon.However, in course of examination of above witnesses certain exaggeration and discrepancies cropped up.But with regard to the discrepancies, it is the settled proposition that the discrepancies found in the evidences of witnesses cannot affect their credibility unless such discrepancies are so vital.In the case in hand, though we found certain contradictions and embellishment in between the evidence of some of the witnesses but those are not so weighty and formidable touching the merit of the case.The section does not contemplate that the manner in which the incident took place or the names should be mentioned in the inquest report.So non disclosure of the name of P.W.3 in the F.I.R. or in the inquest report to be the eye witness can not be a ground to doubt her presence at the place of occurrence.Ext.9 also shows P.W.3 to be one of the witness to the inquest.Furthermore, presence of P.W.3 at the place of occurrence has been corroborated by P.W.6. P.W.3 has vividly narrated the incident how it occurred and the defence failed to impeach her credibility.Regarding the place of occurrence, we find from Exts.8 and 8/1, the rough sketch with index, that the place of occurrence is situated on the road in front of the house P.W.3 on one side of road and stall of 13 Sanjay Agarwal on the other side of the road.P.W.1 and P.W.6 have stated the place of occurrence in front of the house of P.W.3 which has duly been corroborated by P.W.3, the eye witness.Other witnesses have stated the place of occurrence in front of tea stall of Sanjay Agarwal.Both are right in their own way and there was no ambiguity or confusion with regard to the place of occurrence.In view of the above, we do not find any substance in the submission of the learned Advocate for the appellant that the place of occurrence was not established.P.W.16 specifically stated on oath that Inspector-in-charge received the complaint (Ext.1) from P.W.1 at the place of occurrence and endorsed the same to him for investigation.He even affirmed the same during cross-examination.This also found corroboration from Ext.1/3. P.W.2, the scribe, has specifically stated that he wrote the complaint (Ext.1) as per instruction of P.W.1 and denied the defence suggestion or the claim of P.W.1 that he wrote the complaint as per instruction of police.Even no suggestion was put by the defence to P.W.2 that he scribed the complaint at the P.S. and it was submitted at the P.S. 14 Therefore, our interference with the impugned judgment is not required on the above grounds.Regarding seizure of the weapon of offence and it's non production before the autopsy surgeon to obtain his opinion or during trial for identification by witnesses and absence of any FSL report, we find from the evidence on record that P.W.1, the FIR maker, P.W.3,the eye witness, P.W.5,the seizure witness, P.W.6, and P.W.8 have stated that on the relevant date and time victim was murdered and appellant was found standing with a 'Nepala' and he was apprehended by the members of the club Milan Samiti and was detained there and thereafter police came and took the appellant and 'Nepala' to the P.S. P.W.5, witness to the seizure, has specifically stated that on hearing the shouting he went to the place of occurrence and saw the appellant to move there with a 'Nepala' and accordingly they apprehended him and took him inside the club and informed to the P.S. over phone and thereafter police came and seized the 'Nepala' in their presence by a seizure list on which he signed.He identified his signature (Ext.2) on the seizure list.P.W.16, the investigating officer, has also specifically stated that on getting telephonic information about murder of the victim by the appellant and his detention by local people of the Milan Samiti Club, he went there along with the force and arrested the appellant from the Milan Samiti Club and seized the blood stained bhojali by a seizure (Ext.2/6).He also affirmed the same during cross- examination.Interestingly, he was not challenged by the defence that 15 no such blood stained bhojali was recovered nor the same was seized by him.During examination under section 313 Cr.P.C. appellant even affirmed his thumb impression on the seizure list.He also affirmed the prosecution claim that on the relevant date and time he was detained in the club by the local people but went on to claim that while he was on his way to home he found some people in front of Raju Shaw's wine shop and he was assaulted by the club boys though no reason was assigned by him for such behavior of the club members nor adduced any D.W. in support of his such claim.It is true that the weapon of offence (Mat.Ext. II) was not produced before the autopsy surgeon or before the witnesses during trial but that will not make the prosecution case doubtful in view of the ocular evidence.Even the autopsy surgeon during postmortem examination found sharp cut injuries on the person of the deceased.From the evidence of P.W.15 and Ext.6, it appears that the seized weapon was sent for examination of finger print but no workable prominent finger print was found on the same as such P.W.15 did not examine the finger prints supplied to him.We find from the evidence of P.W.16 that he also sent the blood stained wearing apparels, viscera, P.M. blood for FSL but there was nothing on record to show that he ever took any initiative to get those examined in the Forensic Serological Laboratory and collect the FSL report.Undoubtedly, there is some laches on the part of the investigating officer in not obtaining any report from the FSL relating to blood found on the axe, wearing apparels etc. but it is settled law that for certain defects in investigation or lapses on the part of the 16 investigating officer, the accused can not be acquitted.We do not find any substance in the submission made to the effect that the impugned conviction requires our interference on the ground of failure on the part of the investigation agency to collect the Forensic Serological Laboratory report.When the prosecution case is based on the evidence of eye witness then there is no scope of acquittal of the accused person on the above ground.Regarding claim of starting of investigation prior to starting of any specific case, we find from the evidence of PW 16 that prior to staring of a specific case one information was received at the P.S. about the incident and thereafter, P.W.16 along with the police officers and force went to the place of occurrence and there written complaint (Ext.1) was handed over to the Inspector-in-Charge who then endorsed the case to him(P.W.16) for investigation and sent the complaint to the P.S. after making endorsement (Ext.1/3) therein for starting a case.Ext.1/3 shows that the said complaint was received at the place of occurrence at 17.40 hours while Ext.1/2 shows that the same was received at the P.S. at 17.45 hrs.Ext.7 shows the distance between the P.S. and the place of occurrence only one and a half k.m.Inquest report (Ext.9), rough sketch map (Ext.8), seizure-list (Ext.2/6) etc. show that those were prepared in connection with the specific case started after lodging of the complaint.We do not find any merit in the claim made on behalf of the appellant that investigation started prior to starting of any specific case.Therefore, our interference with the impugned judgment is not required on the above grounds.Therefore, taking into account the evidence of the prosecution witnesses on record and the circumstances discussed herein above, there remains no scope to disbelieve the prosecution story that it was the appellant who inflicted injuries on the person of the victim during quarrel by a bhojali.In the case in our hand we find from the FIR (Ext1) and the evidence of P.W.3, the eye witness, that there was a quarrel between the appellant and the victim over old topic happened that day in the morning in between them over money matters and in course of quarrel appellant struck the victim by a bhojali.This also found corroboration 18 from inquest report (Ext.9) prepared by the investigating officer in presence of P.W.3, P.W.8, P.W.13 and other.There was no evidence on record to show that after inflicting such injuries on the victim appellant tried to flee away from the scene.In such circumstances, taking into consideration the evidences and other materials on record, there was no scope for the learned Court below to convict and sentence the appellant under Section 302 of IPC.The learned Court below failed to consider at the time of passing the judgment that no evidence was brought on record to prove that it was a preplanned cold blooded murder on the basis of 19 long time conspiracy.Therefore, the impugned judgment, order of conviction and sentence are liable to be interfered with.Accordingly, we allow this appeal to the extent that the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 is altered to one under Section 304, Part-I of 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.
|
162,620,615 |
The informant Sagar Bagani, was running a hardware shop at village Telhara, District Akola.His residence was abutting his shop precisely on the rear side of his shop.He was residing with his family, including his minor daughter Vishaka @ Lado, ( deceased) aged 2½ years.The informant had employed five servants at his shop which included Accused no.1 - Pachange.The informant had specifically directed accused no.1 that the child shall not be taken anywhere except the shop and residence.On 27.02.2014, around 6 p.m., the informant was at his shop with the child.He asked the accused no.1 to leave the child at his residence with her mother.After half an hour, the informant returned to his residence after closing the shop, but, did not find his daughter Lado.Within short while, he had received a phone call from accused no.1, informing that the accused no.2 - Purohit, had assaulted him, snatched Lado and had taken her away.On enquiry, the accused no.1 gave evasive answers.The informant suspected foul play, hence, he took accused no.1 to the police::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 23:27:51 ::: Judgment apeal171.17 7 station.The Informant suspected that accused no.1 alongwith accused no.2, had hatched conspiracy and had kidnapped Lado.Accordingly, P.W.1 informant Sagar Bagani lodged the report regarding kidnapping of his daughter Lado by accused no.1 Pachange and accused no.2 Purohit.On the basis of said oral report regarding cognizable offence, initially crime came to be registered vide crime No.121/2014 for the offence punishable under Section 363 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and P.W.13 P.I. Nikam, commenced investigation.During the course of investigation, the informant had shown the place where he had entrusted Lado to accused no.1 of which police drew panchnama.While accused no.1 was in custody, he showed his willingness to show the place where he had handed over Lado to accused no.2, of which memorandum panchnama was drawn.Accused no.1 led police party towards the Ther Road and took them to a field of gram.The police seized two bicycles, one sandal of small child, one broken knife blade from said place under panchnama.His blood stained clothes were seized under panchnama.Accused no.2 expressed desire to show the place where dead body of minor Lado was::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 23:27:51 ::: Judgment apeal171.17 8 buried.Police recorded his memorandum statement.Accused no.2 led police to the field where maize crop was sown.He had shown the place where Lado was buried, which was in between two rows of maize crops.Accused no.2 had removed the soil under which naked body of Lado was found.There was white colored string around her neck.Police had collected mud from said place and had drawn panchnama.Again after few days, accused no.2 expressed that he is ready to show the place where he had concealed certain articles.Accused no.2 led police to a field where maize crop was sown, and there was some waste material near the Neem tree.Accused no.2 removed the waste material and took out one Sandal and clothes of child, so also he took out one broken grip of knife.Police had seized all these articles and panchnama was drawn.He has deposed that accused no.1 occasionally used to meet accused no.2 and both used to go out for a walk.P.W.8 - Madanmohan Oza, had stated that on 27.02.2014, he had seen both the accused near temple.Accused No.1 - Akshay Pachange and Accused No.2 - Akshay Purohit, were charged for offences punishable under Sections 363, 364A, 302, 201, 120B read with Section 34 of The Indian Penal Code, and Section 66A of The Information Technology Act.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 23:27:51 :::After holding full fledged trial, the learned Sessions Judge has convicted accused No.1 for offences punishable under Sections 363, 120B and 201 read with 34 of The Indian Penal Code, whilst acquitted him for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 364A of The Indian Penal Code and Section 66A of The Information Technology Act. Likewise, the learned Sessions Judge has convicted accused No.2 for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 363, 120B, 201 of The Indian Penal Code and acquitted him for the offence punishable under Section 364A of The Indian Penal Code and Section 66A of The Information Technology Act. Different quantum of sentences have been awarded for the proved offences, and directed to run them concurrently.2. Accused No.2 - Akshay Purohit has filed Criminal Appeal No. 171/2017, challenging the order of conviction for the offences stated above.Likewise, the original informant vide Criminal Appeal no. 410/2017, has challenged the acquittal of both the accused for respective offences, and also sought for enhancement of the punishment.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 23:27:51 :::During the trial, Accused No.2 refused to take legal assistance from the Legal Aid Panel.The learned Sessions Judge made every endeavor to convince him for seeking assistance of a competent Lawyer from the panel of Legal Aid, but, he refused.It emerges from the record that the learned Sessions Judge took every care to see that the accused were properly and ably represented and every opportunity was given to put up their defence.In the appeal, no grievance is made that there was no proper representation to accused no.2 before the trial Court.We are satisfied from the record that every opportunity was given to accused no.2 Purohit, and he was properly defended.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 23:27:51 :::::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 23:27:51 :::Judgment apeal171.17 6The prosecution case, as emerges from the record, can be stated as follows :::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 23:27:51 :::The seized articles were sent for chemical analysis.Statement of relevant witnesses were recoded.After completion of investigation, as there was sufficient material against both accused, police filed final report in the Court of concerned Magistrate.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 23:27:51 :::On trial, both the accused denied the guilt and put the prosecution to the task of establishing the charges levelled against them.The prosecution examined fifteen witnesses to establish the charges levelled against the accused including the informant, panch::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 23:27:51 ::: Judgment apeal171.17 9 witnesses, medical officer, witnesses who had last seen the victim alongwith the accused and investigating officers.The prosecution also banks upon certain documents of which contextual reference is made.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 23:27:51 :::The Trial Court recorded statement of the accused for obtaining their explanation on incriminating material.Accused no.1 took a specific defence.It is his stand that on 27.02.2014, he was proceeding with minor Lado towards the house of owner (informant), however, on the way he was accosted by three unknown persons, who assaulted and forcibly snatched Lado.After said incident, he had conveyed about the incident to the informant and had gone to police station.He had given report regarding the incident, however, police had not taken cognizance.He was sent for medical examination, since he had sustained injuries in the assault.In short, he stated that he himself was the victim of the incident, however, at the behest of the informant, he was falsely implicated in the crime.Defence of accused no.2 - Purohit, is of simplicitor denial and of false implication.He raised a faint plea of alibi.At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Judge convicted both the accused for the offence punishable under Section::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 23:27:51 ::: Judgment apeal171.17 10 363 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs.5000/- and in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months.The learned trial Judge also convicted both the accused for the offence punishable under Section 201 of the I.P.C., and sentenced them to suffer R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs. 3500/-, with stipulation of default.Both are also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 120B of the I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs. 2000/- with default clause.The learned trial Judge convicted accused no.2 Purohit for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default further R.I. for eight months.However, the trial Judge acquitted accused no.1 Pachange, for the offence punishable under section 302 of the I.P.C. The trial Court acquitted both the accused for the offence punishable under Section 364A of The I.P.C. and Section 66A of The Information Technology Act.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 23:27:51 :::10. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties, exhaustively.With the assistance of learned Advocates appearing for the parties, we have scrutinized the entire material on record.Several citations have been referred by the learned Advocates.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 23:27:51 :::::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 23:27:51 :::Judgment apeal171.17 11 However, we do not wish to reproduce or refer to all of them, which would unnecessarily flex the size of the judgment.Needless to mention that we will be referring the judgments, which we consider to be relevant.Learned Public Prosecutor for the State, submitted that in the present case the prosecution has proved all the incriminating circumstances beyond reasonable doubt.He further submitted that the prosecution has also established complete chain of events which has proved every hypothesis about the guilt of accused and the evidence on the circumstance of deceased last seen in the company is finally established.He submitted that the time gap between the deceased and accused seen together and the death of child occurring is so narrow that it cannot lead to any other conclusion except that the accused is guilty.He further submitted that the chemical analysis report and SMS for ransom are proved beyond doubt to establish the guilt of the accused.Learned Advocate for the informant argued on similar line and urged for capital punishment.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 23:27:51 :::::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 23:27:51 :::Judgment apeal171.17 12The learned Advocates for the accused No. 1 and accused No. 2 advanced their submissions separately regarding the respective accused, and generally on the prosecution case.It is submitted that the prosecution case is full of lacuna.The witness on last seen theory is planted and unreliable.Stock panch witness is examined for recovery.The learned Advocates further submitted that all the witnesses are acquainted with informant and they have falsely deposed at the behest of the informant.It is submitted that accused no.1 himself is victim of incident but is falsely implicated in the crime.It is further submitted that the alleged recoveries at the instance of accused are farcical and planted.The place from where dead body was recovered was already known to the police.In the totality of circumstances, it is submitted that prosecution case is fabricated; chain of circumstances is incomplete and therefore, both the accused deserve acquittal by allowing their respective appeals.After examining the matter, we find that this case is an example of heartless and perverse youth which recedes to the lowest level.This case demonstrates distracted mind of youth, which has left the informant and his family in sufferings.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 23:27:51 :::::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 23:27:51 :::no.2, which was the blood group of deceased Lado.In order to establish aforesaid circumstances, the prosecution has examined fifteen witnesses.The trial Court has analyzed in detail the evidence of all the witnesses.We have minutely gone through the evidence of relevant witnesses and all documents which are held to be proved in the case.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 23:27:51 :::::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 23:27:51 :::Since the circumstance of death of the child being homicidal, is not disputed, we are not discussing the medical evidence in detail.It is the case of prosecution that Lado met with a homicidal death.Defence has not challenged the homicidal death of Lado, however, to establish charge of murder, it is pre-requisite for the prosecution to independently establish that the deceased met with a homicidal death.Besides that, the prosecution relied on postmortem notes [Exh.99] and inquest panchnama [Exh.73].A bare look at the evidence of Dr. Tapadia, discloses that the cause of death is due to "Asphyxia due to strangulation." On external examination, following injuries were found on the person of the deceased :(a) Abrasion 2.5 x 4 cms reddish in colour, Lft side of nose above the lip.(b) Ligature mark in form of abrasion with contusion 22 cm by 3-6 mm reddish brown in colour encircling the neck upper part, prominent and broad anteriorly, hemorrhage under the subcutaneous tissue under mark.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 23:27:51 :::At the time of postmortem examination, a white ligature was found on the neck of the deceased.The defence has not projected any other possibility of cause of death.The cause of death by way of strangulation is not challenged.Since the death was by way of strangulation, much exercise is not required to be undertaken, to decide the nature of death.Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has ably proved that Lado died a homicidal death.This brings us to the evidence of informant - P.W.1 - Sagar Bagani, who is father of ill fated child.It is his evidence, that at the relevant time, he had entrusted Lado to his servant, accused no.1, for leaving the child at his house.Accused no.1 had taken the child somewhere else than leaving the child at the house.As the child was not found in the house, he called accused no.1 and learnt that accused no.2 had snatched the child and went away.Since accused no.1 gave evasive answers, informant suspected and took him to police station.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 23:27:51 :::::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 23:27:51 :::Judgment apeal171.17 21It is the specific stand of accused no.1 that while he was on the way along with the child, towards the informants house, three unknown persons had assaulted him and had snatched the child.Rather his defence is that he himself is victim of incident, but, has been falsely implicated.In support of said defence, the learned Advocate for the accused no.1, has taken us through several admissions and has referred to some documents to impress that accused no.1 sustained bleeding injuries in the assault.True, there is material to disclose that accused no.1 sustained injuries at relevant time.However, that by itself is not sufficient to accept his contention and it requires deeper scrutiny of all the circumstances to find worth of his contention.The learned Advocate for the accused no.1 submitted that the prosecution has not explained the injuries on the person of accused, therefore, the prosecution's case is doubtful.It was a case of assault in which the prosecution/victim::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 23:27:51 ::: Judgment apeal171.17 22 failed to explain the injuries on the person of accused.In such peculiar facts, it was held that the failure of prosecution to explain the injuries caused to the accused would weaken the prosecution's case.The case in hand has peculiar facts of its own.It is not a case of an assault on prosecution witness, on which one could expect that the witness should explain the injuries sustained by accused.There are no witnesses who have seen the incident.All the witnesses are on various circumstances.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 23:27:51 :::Rather it requires serious consideration because, apparently accused no.1 sustained certain injuries on his person at relevant time.However, the learned prosecutor vehemently pointed out that the accused no.1 is hiding the real state of affairs, and has given evasive and different statement on said point.The circumstances reveal that accused no.1 can only throw light on said aspect, therefore, we::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 23:27:51 ::: Judgment apeal171.17 23 have gone through the relevant portion of the evidence.We find that each time accused no.1 has changed colors.While answering question no.11 in the statement recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, he came out with a story that at the relevant time, it being Mahashivratri, he had gone to the temple with the child, where people assaulted him.He stated that two persons had assaulted and had snatched the child.At first blush itself, this explanation seems to be unacceptable.When it was festival of Mahashivratri, presumably there would be heavy rush in the temple, and at such a busy place, the incident of snatching child would not have gone unnoticed by the devotees.Pertinent to note that the incident took place at Telhara, which is a small village.Naturally most of the villagers are known to each other.If such incident of snatching of child took place in the evening at the temple, then the news would spread like a wind in the village.However, the said story does not get support from any corner, hence, it is unreliable.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 23:27:51 :::The accused no.1 also gave written explanation in his statement under Section 313 of the Code.This time he says that at relevant time, he was proceeding from shop towards house of the informant on bicycle with the child, but, three persons accosted him::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 23:27:51 ::: Judgment apeal171.17 24 and forcibly snatched the child.Notably, this time he has changed the alleged place of incident.Earlier he stated that the so called incident of snatching took place at a temple, whilst later, he stated that it occurred in between the shop and house of the informant.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 23:27:51 :::Contextually, we may note that the informant's house was just behind the shop, meaning thereby one is not required to pass long distance to reach the house.It has come in the evidence that his residence is just 20-25 feet behind the shop.The said aspect is not disputed by the defence.Therefore, even if it is presumed for a moment that while accused no.1 was carrying the child from shop to the house, and the incident occurred on the way, then certainly the nearby persons would have witnessed the incident.The alleged occurrence took place around 6 p.m. in the evening.In the circumstances, if the horrifying incident of snatching a child had taken place at a distance of 20 to 25 feet away from the informant's shop, then certainly there would have been commotion and informant would have known of the incident then and there only.In that case, naturally accused no.1 would have gone to the owner's shop to inform about the incidents, instead of going towards the petrol pump which is quite away.Therefore, apparently the accused no.1 was hiding the reality, and gave untrue and false explanation.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 23:27:51 :::::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 23:27:51 :::Judgment apeal171.17 25 Therefore, explanation given by the accused no.1 in this regard is totally unacceptable and works against him.There is another reason to discard his explanation.Within few minutes of the occurrence of the incident, the accused no.1 had stated to the informant that accused no.2 assaulted and snatched the child.The said statement has come in the evidence of P.W.1 Sagar Balani, as well as corroborated by FIR [Exh.41], which was recorded within 2/3 hours from the occurrence of the incidnet.However, accused no.1 had not disclosed that the accused no.2 was involved in the alleged incident, but, stated about unknown assailants.Thus, apparently he tried to screen the accused no.2, which again adds a cause to disbelieve his explanation.It is argued that as per the station diary entry no.152, the police also investigated about the third assailant, therefore, the explanation given by accused no.1 about unknown assailant is acceptable.It is the case of the prosecution that accused no.1 gave misleading information, therefore, such initial entry based on the information given by the accused no.1 would not affect the prosecution case.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 23:27:51 :::::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 23:27:51 :::Judgment apeal171.17 26It has come on record that accused no.1 and accused no.2 were friends and frequently met each other.It brings us to consider the prosecution's case about the conspiracy in between both accused to kidnap the child, raise demand for ransom and eliminate the child.Since the State as well as the Original informant have challenged the acquittal of both the accused from the charge of conspiracy on the point of demand of ransom, and charge of murder as far as accused no.1 is concerned, we are required to scan the evidence from said angle also.On the point of conspiracy, we must advert to the settled principles in the field.P.W.7 - Dirajkumar Padiya, has stated about the incident dated 25.02.2015, when he saw both the accused together at Dattawadi.P.W.9- Gajanan Gothe, has also stated that on 2/3 occasions, he had seen both the accused sitting together near the Neem tree in the field.The consistent evidence of these witnesses clearly conveys that these two conspirators had intimacy with each other.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 23:27:51 :::The evidence of these witnesses further discloses that two days prior to the occurrence they had gone to Dattawadi, along with the child.Moreover, on the date of occurrence, accused no.1 took the child in the evening in the field, where accused no.2 arrived.These circumstances indicate that there was well designed plan, since accused no.2 was well aware, about the place and went to the place as per design.Police recorded memorandum statement in presence of P.W. 3::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 23:27:51 ::: Judgment apeal171.17 33 Prashant Vikhe.The police visited the place and seized the bicycle of informant used by accused no.1 and another bicycle of Hero Jet Company.Contextually, we have gone through the evidence of P.W.6 - Vijay Chormale, where it has come on record that on 27.02.2014, in the evening at the request of accused no.2 he had given his bicycle to him.He has identified the bicycle owned by him.His evidence strengthened the presence of accused no.2 on the spot where the girl was handed over.These circumstances, clearly convey that both had engineered a plan and in pursuance thereof, accused no.2 was waiting at the specified place i.e. gram field, where accused no.1 went with the child, as designed.Therefore, it can be well inferred that at least there was a prior meeting of mind in between both the accused to kidnap the minor from lawful custody of her parents, and we hold accordingly.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 23:27:51 :::::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 23:27:51 :::In said case, one Abbas, who was second husband of the mother of child, filed complaint with the police about kidnapping.The mother of child was not examined to show that the child was taken from her custody without consent.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 23:27:51 :::::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 23:27:51 :::It has come in the evidence of the informant that he had specifically warned accused no.1, not to take the child anywhere else, except his shop and house.At this juncture, we may recall the evidence of P.W.7 - Padiya.It has come in his evidence that two days prior to the incident i.e. on 25.02.2014, he had seen accused no.1 with child near Dattawadi area, and he had informed about it to the informant.In this regard, it has come in the evidence of P.W.1 informant that on 25.02.2014, Padiya (PW 7), had come to his shop and had enquired as to how accused no.1 went to Dattawadi with child.Informant specifically deposed that after::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 23:27:51 ::: Judgment apeal171.17 37 getting knowledge about the incident he had scolded accused no.1 and had strictly warned that the child should not be taken anywhere except the house and the shop.This piece of evidence had gone unchallenged as well as, there is no reason to disbelieve the same.Moreover, informant deposed that, at the relevant time he had entrusted the custody of the child with the accused no.1 and had specifically asked him to hand over the child at his house to his wife.In the circumstances, though accused no.1 temporarily assumed the character of lawful guardian, but, as soon as he went to gram field, against the directions of his master, he came out of that character, and therefore, the argument advanced by the defence cannot be accepted.The attempt of defence to clothe accused no.1 with the character of lawful guardian cannot save him because he lost that character when he took the child deceitfully to gram field and handed over to his companion.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 23:27:51 :::This takes us to the crucial aspect of the case relating to the evidence on the point of last seen together, meaning thereby the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused.It is prosecution's case that on 27.02.2014, around 6 p.m., deceased Lado was last seen with both accused and then within 24 hours, her dead body was recovered.Undoubtedly, it is settled legal::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 23:27:51 ::: Judgment apeal171.17 38 proposition that the last seen theory comes into play only in a case where the time gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were seen alive and when the deceased was found dead,is so small that there may not be any possibility that any person other than the accused may be the author of the crime.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 23:27:51 :::The conviction on the basis of "last seen theory" and the circumstantial evidence is accepted in our jurisprudence.Of course, this will depend on the other evidence on::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 23:27:51 ::: Judgment apeal171.17 39 record also.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 23:27:51 :::In the present case, the victim was aged about 2 ½ years and the evidence on record shows that the accused no. 1 had been entrusted with the work of taking the child from the house of the informant to the shop of the informant and from the shop of the informant to the house of the informant.The accused no. 2 had taken away the child and then dead body of the child was recovered on the following day i.e. time gap was very short.The prosecution has examined P.W. 9 Gothe, who is a star witness on the point of last seen theory.It has come in his evidence that on 27.02.2014, around 6.30 p.m., while returning from the field, he had seen both accused along with the child.He specifically deposed that both were talking with each other and walking holding their bicycles.Evidence of this witness is largely criticized on the ground of delay in recording of his statement.The leaned Advocate for the appellant endeavored to draw home the point that the credibility of the testimony of the said witness is::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 23:27:51 ::: Judgment apeal171.17 40 impaired on account of delay in recording of his statement under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code.It is argued that though this witness was very much available on the day of incident, however, his statement was recorded after four days.In the context of factual scenario, according to the learned Advocate for the appellant, the delay is inordinate.It is trite, that mere delay in recording the statement of witness by itself could not be a ground to discard his testimony.Two factors assume significance, where credibility of testimony of witness is questioned on account of delayed interrogation (1) Whether there is plausible explanation for such delay and secondly, are their any concomitant factors or circumstances, coupled with delay, which renders it unsafe to place reliance on the testimony of such witness.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 23:27:51 :::::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 23:27:51 :::On the other hand, if the explanation is found to be implausible, certainly the Court can consider it to be one of the factors to affect credibility of the witnesses who were examined belatedly.It may not have any effect on the credibility of prosecution's evidence tendered by the::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 23:27:51 ::: Judgment apeal171.17 42 other witnesses".::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 23:27:51 :::If such explanation was sought and the investigating officer had offered explanation, then it would have been tested on the touchstone of credibility.Since he revealed the truth after some time, that cannot be a factor to discard his evidence in toto.There cannot be a prosecution case with cast iron perfection in all respects, and it is obligatory for the Courts to analyze, sift and::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 23:27:51 ::: Judgment apeal171.17 43 assess the evidence on record, with particular reference to its trustworthiness and truthfulness and natural conduct of the parties.The entire evidence with reference to broad and reasonable probabilities of the case is to be seen.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 23:27:51 :::Infact the said conclusion was based on the facts of that case.In said case two witnesses had seen the incident, then they were at police station for 1 ½ hours, still they had not disclosed the incident to police, and therefore, their delayed disclosure was disbelieved.The said case is distinguishable on facts, because, in said case the witnesses had allegedly seen the actual incident of assault, still they preferred to remain silent despite sitting in police station.In case at hand, on the day of incident, P.W.9 Gajanan, alongwith other villagers had gone to police station, but had not disclosed that he had seen the child with the accused.The marked distinction is that this witness had not seen any assault or gruesome act so as to immediately disclose about the incident to the police, as a natural reaction.What he had seen is just a routine affair that the::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 23:27:51 ::: Judgment apeal171.17 44 servant was proceeding with master's kid and nothing else.Since it was an usual affair for him, he had not paid attention nor thought it to be of importance to disclose.It is to be remembered that this witness is a rustic agriculturist.Therefore his non-disclosure of routine affair for few days cannot be treated as a weakness in prosecution's case, unless his evidence is found to be unworthy.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 23:27:51 :::In view of the attaining facts and legal position coupled with the circumstances in the case at hand, we are not persuaded to accede to the submission made on behalf of the appellant that the testimony of P.W.9 Gajanan is untrustworthy, solely on account of delay in recording his statement under Section 161 of The Code of Criminal Procedure.In the said case, on the basis of the facts, it was observed that last seen together by itself was not sufficient to connect the accused with the crime.True,::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 23:27:51 ::: Judgment apeal171.17 45 it is risky to convict the accused only on the basis of last seen together evidence, but, in case at hand, there are several other circumstances which unerringly points the complicity of the accused.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 23:27:51 :::It has come in the evidence that dead body of Lado was found at the instance of accused no.2, on the following day around 6.30 p.m. Apart from the recovery of dead body at the instance of accused no.2, it is an well established fact that within 24 hours of deceased seen in the company of accused, dead body was found.Of course we are coming to the evidence on the point of discovery of dead body at the instance of accused no.2 after short while.It is evidence of P.W.10 Dr. Tapadia, that the death might have occurred in between 12 to 24 hours prior to the postmortem, which was conducted on 28.02.2014 around 8.50 p.m. Though the defence tried to create doubt on the experts opinion on the point of death on theoretical proposition, the expert's evidence cannot be lightly brushed aside.As per his opinion, the death might have been during the night between 27.02.2014 and 28.02.2014, meaning thereby within few hours when the victim was "last seen", with the accused.In the circumstance, we found that the last seen theory is very much intact due to very short time gap between the two things.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 23:27:51 :::::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 23:27:51 :::Then the prosecution relied on various memorandum and consequential discovery at the instance of both accused.Rather this is an important link which prosecution tried to establish by tendering various memorandum, seizure panchnamas and examining the relevant witnesses in support thereof.For this purpose, the prosecution heavily relied on the evidence of P.W.3 - Prashant, who is Panch witness.The learned Advocate appearing for the defence would submit that this witness was panch for all disclosures and seizures, therefore, he cannot be relied upon, being stock witness.Merely because the police repeatedly called him at the time of execution of memorandum and seizure panchnamas, that by itself cannot be the ground to discard his evidence, if otherwise, found credit worthy.His evidence requires usual scrutiny.It is argued that P.W.15 - Dy.S.P. Rashni Nandekar, had admitted that accused no.1 was takenout from lockup for interrogation in between 2.25 a.m. to 4.35 a.m. on 28.02.2014, and::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 23:27:51 ::: Judgment apeal171.17 47 therefore, the disclosure and recovery shown in the morning is not reliable.It is submitted that the investigation was handed over to Dy.S.P. Nandekar, on 01.03.2014, therefore, the same also creates doubt.We are not ready to accept said submission because P.W.15 Dy.S.P. was a superior officer and had every right to monitor the investigation, though formally it was not handed over to her.Secondly, though she interrogated accused no.1 during the night intervening 28.02.2014, and it does not mean that in the morning again there was no interrogation and disclosure.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 23:27:51 :::Accordingly memorandum panchnama [Exh.48], was prepared.It is his evidence that thereafter, accused no.1 led all of them from police station towards Thar road and had asked to halt vehicle near a field of gram.The accused no.1 led all of them on foot to the Neem tree.On inspection, police had found one cycle bearing name on chain cover as K.S. Bagani (informant).Another cycle a sandal of small child and one broken knife blade were seized from said place and panchnama [Exh.49] was drawn.This witness is cross examined at length, but, nothing has come out because of which his::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 23:27:51 ::: Judgment apeal171.17 48 testimony can be discarded.This witness has shown the place where child was transposed in the custody of accused no.2, which is confirmed by the circumstance of finding of cycles of both the accused as well as sandal of small child.This is an important circumstance which lends support to the evidence of this witness and it also speaks about involvement of both the accused.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 23:27:51 :::On the point of recovery of dead body, evidence of P.W.3 is crucial.P.W.3 Vikhe, is a panch witness on the memorandum under Section 27 of The Indian Evidence Act. He has stated that on the same day i.e. 28.02.2014, around 6 p.m. he was called by police to act as Panch witness.In his presence accused no.2 had stated that he was ready to show the place where Lado's dead body was buried.Thereafter, accused no.2 had led them near the field of gram, and then to the field where maize was sown.Accused no.2 had pointed out a heap of soil between two rows of crop and had stated that he had buried Lado at said place.Accused no.2 had removed the soil and naked dead body of a small girl was found.There was a white coloured string on her neck.The police called the informant for::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 23:27:51 ::: Judgment apeal171.17 49 identification of the body, and accordingly panchnama [Exh.52] was drawn.Except for the objection of using same panch for different panchanma, nothing material is pointed from the side of defence to discredit his evidence.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 23:27:51 :::The defence, while criticizing the evidence on the point of finding dead body at the instance of accused no.2, argued that the policemen were already knowing the place where dead body was buried, and therefore, the memorandum and discovery is of no significance.This submission is primarily based on the informants admission that when the dead body was found, he was present on the spot.Infact this is a distorted submission, because it has come in the evidence that no sooner the dead body was unearthed, the police summoned the informant to identify the body.This was the reason for the informant's presence at relevant time, therefore, the said admission cannot be read out of context.Defence tried to make a point about summons/notice Exh.71, issued by police for calling this witness to act as panch.True, summons [Exh.71] issued to the panch witness states that accused no.1 and accused no.2 were to make disclosure statement, for which panch witness was called.It is argued that P.W. 3 Vikhe, received summons in the morning, which bears name of accused::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 23:27:51 ::: Judgment apeal171.17 50 no.2 also, who was infact arrested in the afternoon at 3.30 p.m. Therefore, according to the defence, the panchnamas are not genuine, but, fabricated one.Though P.I. Nikam, admits accordingly, however, P.W.3 Vikhe, clarified that Exh.71 is not the summons by which he was called in the morning.He explained that he had received the Summons Exh.71, in the evening and further added that he had received total 7 to 8 summons, therefore, inadvertent admission on the part of the investigating officer would not discredit the prosecution case as against the specific evidence of panch witness, P.W.3 Vikhe.Though P.W.3 Vikhe has faced searching cross examination, it remained abortive.Evidence on the point of memorandum and disclosure of dead body at the instance of accused no.2 is specific and credit worthy.This circumstance is duly proved by the evidence of P.W.3 Vikhe coupled with the evidence of P.W. 13 PI Nikam.Rather it is very important link to connect accused no.2, since the place where dead body was buried was within his exclusive knowledge.Though it is argued that the recovery from open place is inadmissible, however, the evidence indicates that the dead body was buried beneath the surface of land and therefore, it can be well::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 23:27:51 ::: Judgment apeal171.17 51 presumed that accused no.2 was in exclusive knowledge of the place where the body was buried.We must note that arrest panchnama [Exh.72], of accused no.2 shows that there are bite marks on his arm which reaffirms the complicity of accused no.2 in the crime.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 23:27:51 :::::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 23:27:51 :::The leaned Advocate for the accused no.2 argued that only on the basis of disclosure and recovery, the accused cannot be convicted.In said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down a general proposition that, it would be risky to convict a person solely on the basis of alleged disclosure, when recovery is also shrouded with element of doubt.This case is distinguishable on facts, since in case at hand the recovery of dead body as well as other articles have been proved through reliable evidence.Inasmuch as, the conclusion of guilt is drawn as a cumulative effect of several circumstances, and not only on the basis of disclosure and recovery.In substance, finding of dead body from exclusive knowledge of accused no.2 is a strong circumstance which heavily goes against him.On 04.03.2014, again accused no.2 expressed desire to disclose the place where certain incriminating articles were::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 23:27:51 ::: Judgment apeal171.17 52 concealed by him.This time, police called P.W.4 - Balaji Kendre as panch witness.It has come in his evidence that accused no.2 stated that he had concealed clothes of deceased, knife, and sandal of child which he was ready to show.Accordingly memorandum panchnama [Exh.80] was drawn.It is his evidence that thereafter, accused no.2 led them to the field where maize crop was sown.Particularly he took them near waste material kept at the side of the tree, and pointed that he had concealed the articles at said place.The accused no.2 removed the waste and took out a sandal and clothes of small child, namely reddish colour jacket with blood stains, hosiery half shirt and hosiery full pant.The evidence of this witness withstood to the scrutiny of cross examination.Moreover, the evidence of P.W.15 - Dy.S.P. Smt. Nandedkar, corroborates the memorandum and seizure panchnama.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 23:27:51 :::::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 23:27:51 :::::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 23:27:51 :::Judgment apeal171.17 53The learned Advocate for accused no.2 submitted that mere recovery is not admissible unless its link with the crime is established.On said point he sought to rely on a reported judgment in case of Digambar Vaishnav and another .vrs.State of Chattisgarh [2019 Supreme (SC) 249].No doubt, recovery is nothing but a link between the facts discovered with the crime.At the instance of accused no.1, the place where Lado was handed over to accused no.2 was disclosed.At said place, two bicycles, sandal and broken blade of knife was found, which very much linked to the crime.Not only these articles speaks about the occurrence, but, it also links accused no.2 as since his bicycle was found and particularly, presence of child was established at said place since one sandal was found.About recovery on 04.03.2014 at the instance of accused no.2, is concerned, it very much establishes a link between accused no.2 and the crime.Blood stained clothes of a child were recovered, which is highly incriminating circumstance in the background, that a naked dead body of child was found.Moreover, recovery of a sandal and broken knife, reaffirms the connection of accused no.2 with the incident.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 23:27:51 :::::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 23:27:51 :::Judgment apeal171.17 54One more circumstance which suggests complicity of the accused is the chemical analyser's report.The prosecution has relied upon the expert evidence.The chemical analyzer's report Exh.18, indicates that on the half T-shirt of accused no.2, blood of "B" group was found, which was of the deceased.Though human blood was found on jeans of accused no.2, however, the blood group was not detected.The defence argued that since there were no bleeding injuries on the person of the deceased, the evidence in this regard is of no significance.On perusal of the postmortem notes, it reveals that the deceased had three injuries on her person.Injury no.1 was Abrasion of reddish colour and injury no.3 was laceration of circular shape.One must note that the deceased was barely 2 ½ year old child, who had less mobility.Therefore, the accused no.2 might have lifted the child in arms and in such peculiar facts, the possibility of presecne of blood stains on the front portion of clothes, may be from abrasion or laceration, cannot be ruled out.Moreover, there is no explanation by accused no.2 in this regard.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 23:27:51 :::Now we propose to deal with the evidence on the point of kidnapping for ransom, punishable under Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code.The trial Court has held that the prosecution failed to establish the charge of kidnapping for ransom against both the accused.The State as well as the informant has challenged the acquittal on said count by filing separate appeals.State of Haryana [(2010) 15 SCC 407), wherein it is ruled that mere fact that a view other than one taken by the trial Court can be legitimately arrived at by the Appellate Court on reappraisal of evidence, cannot constitute a valid and sufficient ground to interfere with the order of acquittal, unless there is perversity.In the light of this settled position of law, we have examined the evidence on the point of demand for ransom.The term 'ransom' has not been defined in the Code.The term "ransom" means - sum of money demanded or paid for release of a captive.The learned Advocate appearing for the informant initially submitted that it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove from whom the ransom call was received.In this regard, he relied on the reported case of Balaso Maruti Kale and another .vrs.State of Maharashtra [2002 All MR (Cri) 2627].Similarly, the culprit may raise demand by any mode of communication for which there can be no set rules.However, the prosecution has to establish the demand, may be by any mode of communication to any connected person, which should appear to be trustworthy in the facts and circumstances of the case.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 23:27:52 :::On the date of occurrence, accused no.2 took his bicycle, which fact has been discussed earlier.Moreover, for some days accused no.2 was also sojourn at his house.In such a background, he stated that he had received a message in English language on his mobile, which was allegedly the demand for ransom.He was quick enough to clarify that he was not knowing English language.He deposed that, he had shown the mobile to the informant, and then to police on::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 23:27:52 ::: Judgment apeal171.17 58 which the police informed that the said mobile contained a message of demand of Rs. 1 Crore for release of child.This is precisely the evidence led by the prosecution to prove the demand of ransom.Admittedly there is no other evidence to prove the demand for ransom.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 23:27:52 :::In present time, electronic evidence assumes great significance, since it carries high value.Basheer [2014 (6) All MR (Cri) 951].It is observed that e-evidence is to be proved by producing original electronic media as primary evidence or its copy as secondary evidence with requisite certification.Neither SMS print out, nor CD of contents is produced.Investigating Officer has not taken pains to preserve and prove this sole piece of evidence.The trial Court has criticized said evidence from every possible angle.It is held that the message for ransom is not at all proved.Admittedly the electronic evidence about the text of the ransom message has not been brought on record and proved by the prosecution.Infact it was quite easy for the investigating agency to lead such evidence when police had allegedly seen the ransom::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 23:27:52 ::: Judgment apeal171.17 59 message and had seized the mobile.In absence of said evidence, it is very difficult to rely on the evidence regarding demand of ransom.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 23:27:52 :::The prosecution case is so nebulous, that even by any stretch of imagination it cannot be held that there was demand for ransom.P.W.6 Vijay, is merely an agriculturist and was tilling the field of P.W.1 informant.The prosecution has not explained as to what was the reason for the culprit to send the ransom message in English to an agricultural labour, who was not knowing English language.This witness is silent on the point as to who had sent the said message.We fail to understand that when P.W.6 Vijay was unable to understand English language, what occasioned him to show said particular message to the informant and police.It is a common phenomena that in present time, one receives number of marketing messages on and often.In such a scenario, it is difficult to understand how a person who was not knowing English language had perceived that it was incriminating message and had assiduously shown it to the informant.Therefore, at the threshold, the story as has been projected by the prosecution about the demand of ransom is fishy.It is pertinent to note that the evidence is totally silent on the point of text of so called ransom message.Had it been the::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 23:27:52 ::: Judgment apeal171.17 60 fact that there was ransom message, then at least the informant would have stated the same in his oral evidence, it being a vital issue.Moreover, there is no evidence of any of the police officer even to the extent that they had read the message of ransom or about its script.Looking the matter from another angle, the things are more worse.Police have seized the mobile handset of Duos Blue Berry Company from accused no.2, having sim No. 8421509583 of Uninor Company, under panchnama Exh.53.The prosecution has examined P.W.14 - Nodal Officer of Uninor Company.Further it has come in his evidence that the said mobile sim was re-activated on 19.11.2014, in the name of one Kailash Dattatraya Bhandavale.Thus, as per the record of the telecom company, the said sim was in the name of one Satyajit Male at the relevant time.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 23:27:52 :::In such background, unless nexus of accused no.2 with the said sim card or Satyajit Male is established, the evidence on the point of demand of ransom cannot be accepted.In absence of::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 23:27:52 ::: Judgment apeal171.17 61 link between the said sim number and accused no.2, it is difficult to rely on the said piece of evidence.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 23:27:52 :::To constitute the offence under Section 364A of The Indian Penal Code, it is necessary to prove that not only such kidnapping has taken place but, thereafter, accused threatened to cause death, if the demand is not fulfilled.Though the first part of kidnapping is proved, the later essential ingredient about demand and threat is totally missing.In the circumstances, the conclusion drawn by the trial court that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the demand of ransom, is irresistible and most probable, therefore, we affirm the same.The State as well as the Informant in their respective appeals have challenged acquittal of accused no.1 from the charge of murder.On the aforementioned parameters we have scrutinized the evidence to find out whether there exists any evidence to clothe accused no.1 with the charge of murder.Within half an hour, accused no.1 contacted the informant and then he was taken to police station and was in police custody.Therefore, apparently he was not physically present when the child was done to death.It has come in::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 23:27:52 ::: Judgment apeal171.17 62 the evidence of P.W.10 -Dr.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 23:27:52 :::The learned Advocate for accused no.2 pointed that rigor mortis had not fully developed, meaning thereby death occurred within 12 hours prior to postmortem examination.For this purpose he took us through the admission given by P.W.10 Dr. Tapadia, that he had not stated in postmortem notes that rigor mortis had fully developed.Rigor mortis thus varies with climate and circumstance in which the dead body was kept.Nothing has been brought about to disbelieve the medical officer i.e. the expert's opinion that death occurred within 12 to 24 hours before postmortem.The accused no.1::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 23:27:52 ::: Judgment apeal171.17 63 was in the company of informant from 7 to 7.30 p.m. of 27.02.2014 and then was in police custody.Therefore, his physical presence at the time of actual death of the child is next to impossible.The evidence discloses that there was prior meeting of mind to kidnap, but, most probably, due to differences, the accused no.1 might have withdrawn from the plan, and therefore, the matter was made known to the informant.In the circumstances, accused no.1 cannot be held liable for homicidal death of the child, since he was neither present at the time of death, nor there is evidence of hatching conspiracy to that effect.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 23:27:52 :::The learned Addl.State by Inspector of Police (AIR 2013 SC::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 23:27:52 :::"In case of kidnapping for ransom and murder once the deceased has been proved to be kidnapped by accused the onus shifts on the accused to establish how and when the kidnapped person was released from his custody.The very circumstance that accused no.1 was consistently in police custody right from one hour after last seen, excludes his culpability in murder.The view expressed by the trial court in this regard is quite probable and plausible one.Therefore, we repel the submission of State and informant in this regard and affirm the conclusions drawn by the trial Court regarding acquittal of accused no.1 from the charge of murder.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 23:27:52 :::::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 23:27:52 :::Judgment apeal171.17 65So far as the role of accused no.2 is concerned, it has come on record that the child was handed over to him on 27.02.2014, around 6.30 p.m. There is "last seen together" evidence on record on the point which is discussed in the earlier part of the judgment.The act of accused no.2 of strangulating the child with string demonstrates the clear intention to cause such bodily injury, with knowledge that it would cause death of the child.The requisite intention to cause death and knowledge are very much present and therefore, the act of accused would constitutes an offence of murder.Therefore, we fully affirm the finding of trial court that prosecution has duly proved that accused no.2 has committed murder of innocent child.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 23:27:52 :::::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 23:27:52 :::Judgment apeal171.17 66It is argued that there is inordinate delay in lodging of First Information Report, and therefore, there are chances of false implication.To support this contention, the defence relied on reported case of Thulia Kali .vrs.State of Maharashtra [(1972) 3 SCC 393].It is observed that the object of insisting upon prompt lodging of report eliminates the charges of concoction.Delay in lodging FIR often results in embellishment which is a creature of after thought.What constitutes delay in lodgment of First Information Report, is a matter of fact.In case at hand, the informant learnt around 7 p.m. that his daughter was kidnapped.Initially some misleading information was given by accused no.1 and therefore, he was thoroughly interrogated, and then FIR (Exh.41), was lodged at 9.30 p.m. In the situation, time gap of 2 to 2 ½ hours can hardly be termed as delay in lodging the First Information Report.Pertinent to note that name of accused no.2 was disclosed in First Information Report itself.One can understand the plight of a father whose beloved daughter was kidnapped.The misery was added by irrational responses given by accused no.1, therefore, in our opinion::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 23:27:52 ::: Judgment apeal171.17 67 the time gap of 2 to 2 ½ hours cannot be termed as inordinate delay in lodging FIR.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 23:27:52 :::The trial Court has convicted both the accused for commission of offence of causing disappearance of evidence, which is punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code.However, as regards accused no.1 is concerned, we find that without any material, the trial Court has convicted accused no.1 for said offence.While inspecting the place, the police found two bicycles and a sandal of child lying on the spot.It is not the case that accused no.1 had concealed these things so as to screen the offence.Therefore, in our opinion the trial Court erred in convicting the accused no.1 for the offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, which is required to be reversed.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 23:27:52 :::::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 23:27:52 :::Judgment apeal171.17 68In every criminal case, court should search for motive.Always motive is hidden in the mind of the culprit.Though there is no evidence on the point of demand of ransom, but, there could be hardly any other reason for the accused.The intention might be to raise demand but, out of fear, the plan was abandoned in half way.The mindset of culprit cannot be unrevealed.Therefore, definite motive has not come on record.1) Homicidal death.2) Acquaintance of accused with each other;4) Both the accused were last seen together with the child.6) Time gap between last sighting of the deceased in the company of the accused and the death of child, is very::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 23:27:52 ::: Judgment apeal171.17 69 short.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 23:27:52 :::We have tested the prosecution evidence in the background of legal principles and found that the prosecution has unerringly established the chain of circumstance to prove that accused no.2 has caused death of innocent child.Likewise, we hold that both the accused hatched conspiracy to kidnap the child.So also accused no.2 has concealed the evidence to screen the offence.Though there was charge of Section 66A of The Information and Technology Act, 2000 there is no iota of evidence to support said charge.Therefore, we affirm the findings of trial Court in all respect, except finding of guilt of accused no.1 relating to charge under::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 23:27:52 ::: Judgment apeal171.17 70 Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 23:27:52 :::Now, the last aspect remains about the imposition of appropriate sentence.The informant in his appeal prayed for awarding capital punishment.We have briefly recapitulated the entire episode.As regards the rest of the sentence is concerned, they appear to be in proportion to the act committed by the respective accused, and does not call for interference.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 23:27:52 :::In view of the above discussion, we hold that the appeals filed by accused no.2, State and informant are devoid of any merit.The appeal of accused no.1 deserves to be partially allowed only to the extent of setting aside his conviction and sentence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code.(2) Criminal Appeal No. 409/2017 filed by State of Maharashtra and Criminal Appeal No.410/2017 filed by informant-Sagar Bagani, also stand dismissed.(3) Criminal Appeal No. 220/2016 filed by accused No.1-Akshay Datta Pachange, is partly allowed to the extent of quashing of sentence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code.Rest of the sentences::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 23:27:52 ::: Judgment apeal171.17 75 passed by the Trial Court, are maintained as it is, and to operate accordingly.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 23:27:52 :::
|
['Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
162,621,324 |
2. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 16/11/09, at about 8.30 p.m., complainant Virendra Singh (since deceased) had gone to the house of Bhaiyalal Baghel (PW4) at Village Kheri Chachu to attend the thirteenth day ceremony of his mother where Sobran Singh (PW2), Rajendra Singh (PW1), Arvind (PW3), Raghuvir Singh (PW5), deceased's brother Rajendra Singh (PW8) and deceased's nephew Ranbir Singh (PW6) were also present.After having meals, an altercation ensued between Sobran Singh and the accused persons in front of the house of Sobran Singh.When Virendra Singh tried to intervene, appellant Tulsiram fired at him through his 12 bore gun, causing injury on left side of abdomen.When Arvind tried to save Virendra, appellant Narayan fired at him through his 12 bore country made pistol but the bullet missed the target and whizzed passed the head of Arvind.Co-accused Pappu, while abusing, exhorted and assaulted Arvind by Luhangi, causing injuries on his head, left leg and right knee.When Arvind's brother Rajendra Singh came forward to his rescue, he also received Luhangi injury on middle finger of right hand.Hearing commotion, the miscreants fled towards Village Senthri.Injured Virendra was taken to Police Station, where he lodged FIR (Ex.P/21).MLC of Virendra was conducted vide Ex.During investigation, spot map (Ex.P/23) was prepared.Plain and blood stained earth was seized vide Ex.Accused persons were arrested.Luhangi was seized from accused Pappu alias Mahendra vide seizure memo (Ex.Cr.A. No.488/2011 Cr.A. No.446/2011 (3) P/10).03/07/2018 Per Dharmadhikari, J.These appeals are inter-linked having arisen out of a common judgment dated 21/4/2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Senvdha, District Datia in S.T. No. 21/2010, whereby appellant Tulsiram has been convicted under section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default to suffer R.I. for 3 months and for the offence under section 30 of the Arms Act, he has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 6 months with fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer R.I. for 1 month, with the direction that his custodial sentences shall run concurrently.A 12 bore country made pistol, its empty and a bullet were seized from appellant Narayan vide seizure memo (Ex.P/11).A 12 bore double barrel gun, an empty and four live cartridges were seized at the instance of appellant Tulsiram vide seizure memo (Ex.P/12).Blood stained shirt was seized from Arvind vide seizure memo (Ex.P/17).Seized articles were sent to FSL, Sagar vide Ex.P/25 for chemical examination.During treatment Virendra Singh succumbed to the injuries at J.A. Hospital, Gwalior.The defence of the appellants in their statements recorded under section 313, Cr.P.C. was that of complete denial and false implication.However, no evidence was adduced by them in support of their defence.The learned trial Court after mashalling the evidence on record especially ocular and medical found the death of the deceased to be homicidal.So far as the charge under section 294, IPC is concerned, the same was not found proved in absence of cogent evidence and hence, the trial Court acquitted the accused persons of the offence under section 294, IPC.However, the appellants were found guilty and were convicted and sentenced as indicated above, being aggrieved whereof, the instant appeal has been preferred.Heard, learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence on record.The sole question for consideration in this case is as to whether the ingredients of offence of murder and that under the Arms Act, as alleged, are proved against the appellants by the testimony of eye-witnesses, medical evidence and recovery of weapon used in the crime including the motive behind the incident and/or whether the learned trial Judge has committed an illegality in placing reliance on the materials before recording the finding of guilt.On going through the evidence on record, it transpires that eye-witnesses Rajendra Singh (PW1), Sobran Singh Cr.A. No.488/2011 Cr.A. No.446/2011 (5) (PW2), Arvind (PW3) have turned hostile.However, eye- witnesses Ranveer Singh (PW6) and Rajendra Singh (PW8), who happen to be nephew and brother of deceased Virendra, have corroborated the prosecution version and categorically deposed that while they were returning after having meal at the thirteenth day ceremony, Sobran Singh and accused persons had an altercation.As Virendra Singh tried to intervene, appellant Tulsiram fired causing injury on left side of his abdomen.Thereafter, when Arvind Singh tried to save Virendra, appellant Narayan fired from his 12 bore country made pistol, but the fire missed the target and whizzed passed Arvind.Thereafter, accused Pappu exhorted and gave Luhangi blows on Arvind's head, left calf and leg.As Rajendra Singh came forward to intervene, he was also assaulted by Pappu by Luhangi causing injury on middle finger of right hand.Thus, the prosecution version has been corroborated by these two eye-witnesses and no material inconsistency could be elicited by the defence in their cross- examinations.It is also noteworthy that the FIR (Ex.P/21) has been lodged by deceased himself when he had been taken to the Police Station in an injured condition.Dr. J.M.Soni (PW12) conducted post mortem examination of the deceased.Vide post mortem report (Ex.P/18) and noticed the following injuries on the body of the deceased :-Ante mortem injuries present over the bodyGun shot entry wound present onleft side of back laterally 8 cm above the iliac crest, 4 x 4 cm vertical, wound extend downwards medially and slight anteriorily.Fracture of left hip bone present and whole of the area ecchymosed.Blood present in abdominal cavity with damage to loops of intestine & esentry.Three pieces of bullet recovered from the wound.Margins of wound everted.Injuries are extensive and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.In the opinion of the doctor, death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of abdominal injury.As such, the prosecution version with regard to homicidal death of deceased Virendra is substantially corroborated by medical, as well as, ocular evidence.Investigating Officer Sher Singh (PW15) has proved recovery of a 12 bore country made pistol from appellant Tulsrim vide seizure memo (Ex.P/12) and a 12 bore country made pistol, empty and a bullet from appellant Narayan vide seizue memo (Ex.P/11).Ranvir Singh (PW6) and Rajendra Cr.A. No.488/2011 Cr.A. No.446/2011 (7) Singh (PW8) also corroborated recovery of firearm from appellant Narayan.Hotam Singh (PW13), Arms Moharrir proved receipt of seized and sealed country made pistol and cartridge for examination and found the same to be in workable condition vide Ex.Let the lower Court's Record be sent back alongwith copy of this judgment for information.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
141,700,239 |
Item No. 57And In the matter of: Somali Paul @ Sumali Pal & Ors.- versus -The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Mr. Ranjan Saha For the Petitioners Mr. Prasun Kumar Dutta, ld.APP Mr. Santanu Deb Barman For the State The Petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Uluberia Police Station Case No. 576 of 2013 dated 06.07.2013 under Sections 498A/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, have applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioners and the learned Advocate for the State.The Petitioner No.1 is the husband of the victim.The Petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 are his relatives.We have seen the Case Diary and the Post Mortem Report.Therefore, his application for anticipatory bail is rejected.As regards the other Petitioners, we think that their custodial interrogation is not required in this case.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Kanchan Chakraborty, J) ALLOWED 2 to 4
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 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.
|
141,700,526 |
The gist of the case of prosecution is as follows:-P.W.4 Velusamy was residing in Madampatti, the deceased Sivakumar was his friend.On 30.09.2009 at 6 p.m, the deceased called P.W.4 Velusamy through mobile phone and told that he consumed poison.Immediately, P.W.4 asked the deceased that if any other person was present near to him, for which, the deceased replied that the appellant, Krishnan and Marimuthu, who are the accused facing trial in this case, were near to him.After hearing that from the deceased, P.W.4 immediately informed to P.W.1 Shanthi, who is the sister of the deceased Sivakumar.After receiving the compliant from P.W.1, a case has been registered in Crime No.307 of 2009 for the offence punishable under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. After registration of the case, on the same day, an inquest report was prepared by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Perur, further he recorded the statement from the witnesses and Panchayatar.After completing the inquest report, the dead body was sent to the Government Medical College and Hospital, Coimbatore, for post mortem.After getting requisition from the police officials, P.W.7 who is the doctor working in the Government Medical College and Hospital, Coimbatore, conducted an autopsy over the dead body.During the time of post mortem, he found out the following details:-The condition of the body then was rigor mortis present all over the body.This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the Judgment rendered by the Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC No.In the above said case, the appellant was arrayed as first accused.Appearances found at Post mortem :- Moderately nourished body of a male aged about 32 years, finger and toenails were bluish in colour.No evidence of any external or internal injuries noted on the body.Pleural & Peritoneal cavities empty.Heart right side chambers contain few cc of fluid blood.Left side chambers empty Coronary arteries patent.Hyoid bone intact.Stomach contains about 50 ml of white colour fluid with irritant pungent smell.Mucosa congested.Small intestine contains about 20 ml of white colour fluid with irritant pungent smell, Mucosa congested.Liver, Lungs, Spleen, Kidneys and Brain cut section congested.Urinary Bladder empty.Viscera preserved and sent for chemical analysis.After completion of the post mortem, the internal parts of the deceased were sent to chemical examination.During the time of chemical examination, it was found that the internal parts of the dead body were having poisonous substance.So, the doctor who conducted the autopsy gave final opinion that the death had occurred due to consumption of poison.The post mortem report and the final opinion given by the doctor are marked as Exs.After completion of the above formalities, on 11.10.2009, P.W.3 who is the mother of the deceased, lodged the second complaint before the same Inspector of Police, alleging that his son died due to the threat made by the appellant and other two accused.After receiving the said complaint under Ex.P2, the section of law was altered as 306 of IPC from 174 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, an investigation was taken up by the Inspector of Police, he obtained further statement from the witnesses and at the end of the investigation, he laid a charge sheet for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.In the Trial Court, 9 witnesses were examined on the side of the prosecution besides 11 exhibits are marked.After concluding the trial, learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC No.I) came to the conclusion that the appellant was found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC and acquitted other two accused from the charges framed against them.Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the appellant challenging the same before this Court by way of this appeal.Today, when the appeal is taken up for hearing, Mr.S.Ashok Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and Ms.T.P.Savitha, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent, are present and advanced their arguments.The first and foremost contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that in the initial complaint lodged by P.W.1, it is mentioned that the alleged death had happened by voluntarily consuming poison by the deceased.Thereafter, after 10 days, a story was cooked up by the relative of the deceased and lodged another complaint, in which, as a first time, P.W.3 made allegations against the appellant and other two accused.So, the second story submitted by P.W.3 is nothing but an after thought.Thereby, the evidence putforth by the prosecution cannot be having any trustworthy and therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant prayed for allowing the appeal.Now, on considering the arguments advanced by the learned senior counsel for the appellant that immediately after the occurrence, P.W.1 Shanthi who is the sister of the deceased, lodged a compliant to the Inspector of Police.Thereafter, the said compliant has been registered.In the said compliant, she narrated the happenings as the deceased is having continuous severe stomach pain, due to which, on the day of occurrence, he consumed poison and thereafter, he died in the hospital.Secondly, on going through the Ex.P2, which was a complaint given by P.W.3, it was alleged that on the fateful day, P.Ws.1 to 3 went to the house, where an Omni Van was parked.In the Van, the deceased and the other two accused were present.When the same was questioned, the deceased told to P.Ws.1 and 3 that the present appellant was only responsible for consuming poison.The said evidence was corroborated by P.Ws.1 and 2 and other witnesses examined in the case.So, in earlier, something was hided particularly, at the time of lodging the complaint before the Inspector of Police.Now, on going through the contents of Ex.P2, it seems that before five months from the date of occurrence, the appellant and other two accused (already acquitted by the Trial Court) went to the house of P.W.3 and demanded to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- which was received by the deceased as a loan.If the said allegation is a true one, the fact remains that the alleged offence in respect of this case had happened after five months from the date on which the appellant and other two accused made demand to the deceased.In the said circumstances, it is necessary to see the Judgement of our Hon'ble High Court of Madras, reported in 2014(2) MWN (Cr.) 410, in which, it was observed in Paragraph No.44 as follows:-Simple abuses are not sufficient to provoke the victim to commit suicide.It will not attract Section 306, I.P.C. Simply because the lender has demanded repayment of his money, if the debtor commits suicide, the creditor cannot be said to have abetted his committing suicide.So, considering the view already taken by this Court, in this case also this Court follows the same view and comes to a conclusion that the demand made by the appellant alone is not an offence constituting Section 306 I.P.C. Secondly, in this case, the inquest report prepared in the earlier stage, was marked as Ex.In the said document, on going through Column No.9, the Panchayatar and witnesses who know the occurrence stated that the deceased consumed poison for the reason that he is having continuous stomach pain.The said information given by the witnesses and panchayatars is in the form of confirming the earlier version (mentioned in Ex.P1).Therefore, there are two set of facts are put forth by the prosecution for proving their case.So, having two set of facts for proving the prosecution is nothing but fatal.Even assuming the alleged death had happened due to the threat made by the appellant and other two accused, it is not an offence for 306 I.P.C as already stated.In this occasion, in Criminal Appeal No.210 of 2002, dated 15.07.2008, this Court has observed in Paragraph No.11 as follows:-11...........The deceased also stated in the suicidal note about the conducting of the chit business wherein she was cheated by several persons and she was also pressurized by her co-workers in the office with regard to the chit and that she was not in a position to pay the interest.She had also stated that she along with her husband and father decided to commit suicide and also to take along with them the deceased Nagarajan, her elder son, who was mentally ill.She had made a further mention about the sum of Rs.25 lakhs due to her by way of conducting chit and since, the subscribers were not repaying the amount, she was in financial difficulties.After narrating the reasons for committing the suicide, at the end of the letter, she had made a note wherein she had mentioned that it was only the appellant/A-1 who made her to come to the quick decision.It is further stated in the note that the appellant/A-1 came along with his parents and brother, who are the other accused in this case and threatened her.She had concluded her letter by saying that she was pressurized for payment of interest and also by the activities of the appellant/accused Rajamani, all the subscribers were demanding money at one and the same time and as she was not able to face everyone she had taken the decision to commit suicide along with her family members.So, according to the view of this Court, even if the name of the accused is found in the suicide note, the mere allegation or otherwise the demand made for repaying the loan is not an offence.I am also having the same view and come to the conclusion that the Trial Court without seeing these aspects, convicted the appellant.So, the Conviction and sentence passed against the appellant is liable to be set aside.In the result, the criminal appeal is allowed.14.06.2018Speaking Order/Non-speaking order Index : Yes/NoInternet: Yes/Nogsk To2.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.R.PONGIAPPAN,J.A.No.780 of 2011
|
['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
14,170,535 |
The appellant is detained from his date of arrest and challan has been filed and the conclusion of trial will take sufficient time in future.The age of the appellant is shown to be 19 years and he is shown to be a student.as per rules.(Ashok Kumar Joshi) Judge vv Digitally signed by VALSALA VASUDEVAN Date: 2018.02.15 10:30:00 -08'00'A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
141,709,020 |
M.C. No.4268/2014 Page 1 of 7 complainant on account of certain matrimonial differences that had arisen between the parties, and the matter is still at the stage of investigation.However, at the initial stage itself, the parties are stated to have arrived at an amicable settlement, as a result of which, the complainant also gave statement to the Investigating Officer not to arrest the first petitioner, i.e., her husband.The complainant is also stated to have withdrawn the petition which was moved under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, on 14.08.2014 before the Dwarka Court, New Delhi.The complainant and the first petitioner also have a son, namely, Nishant.M.A. No.14740/2014 Exemption, as prayed for, is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.This application is disposed off.This petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of FIR No.377/2013 registered on 29.10.2013 at police station Palam Village under sections 406/498-A/34 IPC, on the ground that the matter has been settled between the parties.Issue notice.Mr P.K. Mishra, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, and Mr. Rajveer, Advocate for respondent No.2, enter appearance and accept notice.The second respondent and petitioners are also identified by the Investigating Officer, ASI Birender Singh.It is stated that the aforesaid FIR came to be lodged by the Crl.Counsel for the State submits that looking to the overall circumstances, and since the parties concerned have amicably resolved their disputes, and where the complainant and the first petitioner have decided to resume their married life and the complainant does not wish to pursue her complaint any further; no useful purpose will be served in continuing with these proceedings.If the parties ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law, in order to do complete justice in the matrimonial matters, the courts should be less hesitant in exercising their extraordinary jurisdiction.It is trite to state that the power under Section 482 should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection only when the Court is convinced, on the basis of material on record, that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of process of court or that the ends of justice require that the proceedings ought to be quashed...."M.C. No.4268/2014 Page 6 of 7I am of the opinion that this matter deserves to be given a quietus since the complainant and the first petitioner have decided to resume their married life and look after their infant son, and wish to maintain peace and cordiality between themselves and the family.Consequently, the petition is allowed, and FIR No.377/2013 registered at police station Palam Village under sections 406/498-A/34 IPC, and all proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed.The petition is disposed off.SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA Judge SEPTEMBER 19, 2014 dr Crl.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
141,709,297 |
(Passed on 04 /10/2019) This is applicant has preferred this petition under Section 397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') against order dated 12/04/2019 passed by Special Sessions Judge (POCSO Act), Jaora, District-Ratlam in Special S.T. No. 11/2018, whereby application filed by the respondent No.2-Gopal under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. for recalling the prosecutrix (PW 1) has been allowed.Briefly stated facts of the case are that on 14/07/2018, complainant-Verdichand lodged the FIR bearing Crime No. 156/2018 at Police-Station-Ringnod for commission of offence under Section 363 of the IPC regarding missing of his daughter.During investigation, police recovered the prosecutrix and recorded her statement, in which she deposed that respondent No.2-Gopal forcefully abducted her on the pretext of marriage and committed rape upon her.On the basis of aforesaid statement, offence under Sections 366 and 376(2)The respondent No.2/accused was arrested and after completion of investigation charge-sheet was 2 Cr.R. No. 2709/2019 Ku.Bhawna Vs.State of M.P. & Ors.filed before the competent Court.The prosecutrix was appeared before the trial Court on 05/09/2018 and on that day, she was examined and cross-examined at length by the defence counsel,.Till 26/03/2019, the prosecution has examined 10 witnesses and on the said date respondent No.2/accused moved an application before the trial Court under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. for recalling the prosecutrix (PW 1), Verichand (PW 2) and Anita Bai (PW 3) on the ground that previous counsel could not cross-examined the said witnesses on certain material points, therefore, one opportunity should be given to the respondent No.2 to further cross-examined these witnesses.On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer, however, the trial Court vide order dated 12/04/2019, partly allowed the application filed by the respondent No.2 and he was permitted to further cross-examination of the prosecutrix (PW 1), this order is a subject matter of challenge before this Court in the present petition.Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that trial Court has committed error in allowing the application filed by the respondent No.2 under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. by ignoring the provisions of Section 33(5) of Protection of 3 Cr.R. No. 2709/2019 Ku.State of M.P. & Ors.Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, which specially provides that the Special Court shall ensure that the child is not called repeatedly to testify in the court.It is also submitted that the prosecutrix has already been cross-examined by the counsel for the respondent No.2, therefore, there is no ground available on record to recalled the prosecutrix (PW 1) for further cross-examination.Under these circumstances, learned counsel for the applicant prays for setting aside of the impugned order.On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer by contending that certain important question cannot be put-forth by the previous counsel for the respondent No.2 before the trial Court, therefore, the trial Court has rightly allowed the application filed by the respondent No.2 under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. in part, hence, there is no reason for interference with the impugned order.Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.Power to summon material witness, or examine person present.- Any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, summon any person as a witness, or 4 Cr.R. No. 2709/2019 Ku.The Section is manifestly in two parts; whereas use "may" in first part and "shall" in second part and in compliance gave full discretionary powers to Criminal Court, to enable it to hold an enquiry during trial or proceedings in the Court to recall and cross-examined any person whose evidence has already been recorded.No doubt that the Court should be afforded opportunity to the accused for cross-examined the witness, however, it normally presumed that the counsel conducting a case is competent particularly when a counsel is appointed by choice of a litigant, whether he had done competent job or not ? This certainly is not within the scope and power of the Code 311 of the Cr.P.C. Section 311 CrPC does not permit a court to go into the aspect whether material portions of the evidence on record should have been put to the witness in cross-examination to elicit their contradictions or omissions.If the court is required to perform such an exercise every time an application is filed under Section 311 then not only would it be pre-judging what according to it are "material portions" of the evidence but it would end up reappraising the entire cross-examination 5 Cr.R. No. 2709/2019 Ku.In the present case, the defence counsel has fully cross-R. No. 2709/2019 Ku.Accordingly, present revision petition is allowed, order dated 12/04/2019 passed by Special Sessions Judge (POCSO) Act, 2012 is hereby set aside and application filed by the respondent No.2 under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. stands rejected.Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for information and necessary compliance.R. No. 2709/2019 Ku.
|
['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
141,712,409 |
2- Undisputedly, main accused Arvind is son of appellant Vishambhar Dayal and his wife Rajkumari.Deceased Rajkumar and complainant Dinesh Kumar (PW-4) and Vipin (PW-5) are real brothers, who are son 2 Cr.A. No.304/2000 of Pushpa Devi (PW-6), and Shambhu Dayal.Appellant Vishambhar Dayal and Shambhu Dayal were real brothers and on the date of incident i.e. 21.03.1998, both brothers were living separately in different portions of a house having a common wall between their portion with their family.At the time of trial of present appellant Vishambhar Dayal with his wife Rajkumari before the trial Court, their son Arvind was absconding.3- Prosecution case in brief is that complainant- Dinesh Kumar Shrivastava (PW-4) lodged FIR (Ex.P-9) on 21.03.1998 at 01:10AM at Police Station Ashoknagar to the effect that he was doing work of supply of bricks at Ruthiyai and complainant returned to his house situated at Ashoknagar on 20.03.1998 at 22:30hrs and in the intervening night between 20/21March, 1998 complainant Dinesh (PW-4) was talking with his younger brother Vipin (PW-5), elder brother Rajkumar and father Shambhudayal because his father wanted to sale the house of their portion, but after hearing the talking between complainant and his family members, his aunty Rajkumari and his son, who were residing in their adjacent portion, started hurling abuses to complainant and his family.After hearing abuses, complainant and his family members told to Rajkumari that they should not hurl abuses and invited them for coming out from the house, and talking.At about 12:45 complainant, his brother and parents 3 Cr.A. No.304/2000 came out from their portion to the platform of their house, then complainant's uncle Vishambhar Dayal having a stick in his hand and his wife Rajkumari hurling abuses came out from their portion of house.Complainant was standing ahead then appellant Vishambhar Dayal pushed Dinesh, hence, he fell down, then appellant's son Arvind with the intention to kill inflicted a ballam injury into the abdomen of complainant's elder brother Rajkumar and, thereafter, Arvind also inflicted ballam injuries to the complainant Dinesh and his younger brother Vipin.Dinesh received ballam injury on his hip and Arvind also gave ballam's blows to Vipin, which caused injury on his right thigh and both hands.Vishambhar Dayal with intention to kill Vipin, gave stick blow to him and at that time Rajkumari was hurling abuses and was saying that she would see that how they sale the house.After receiving ballam injury in the abdomen, Rajkumar fell down, which was taken by the complainant and his family members from a tractor and trolley driven by Rambabu towards Police Station Ashoknagar but on the way Rajkumar succumbed.After reaching to Police Station Ashoknagar in the midnight at 01:10AM complainant Dinesh lodged FIR (Ex.P-9) which was scribed by TI, A.K.S.Gaur (PW-7).4- T.I., A.K.S.Gaud (PW-7) on 21.03.1998 in the morning, issued suffina form (Ex.P-13) and in presence of panch-witness after inspecting dead body of 4 Cr.A. No.304/2000 Rajkumar Shrivastava prepared inquest memo (Ex.14) and sent the dead body for postmortem to Ashoknagar hospital.In same morning, after inspecting the spot, Investigation Officer, AKS Gaur prepared a spot map (Ex.P-1) and from scene of occurrence seized blood clotted soil and plain soil vide seizure memo (Ex.P-3) and, thereafter, seized a ballam, (on iron blade of which blood was clotted) lying at scene of occurrence and seized it vide seizure memo (Ex.P-2).On same day appellant, Vishambhar Dayal and his wife Rajkumari were arrested vide arrest memo (Ex.P-15).On the basis of disclosure (Memorandum P-4) by appellant Vishambhar Dayal, on production by Vishambhar Dayal a bamboo stick (Lathi) was seized vide seizure memo (Ex.P-5) and on same day blood stained pant of Vipin was seized vide seizure memo (Ex.P-16) and complainant Dinesh's pant, green coloured shirt and vest (baniyan) were also seized vide seizure memo (Ex.P-10).During investigation, statements of all relating prosecution witness were recorded by AKS Gaur and the seized material was sent to FSL Sagar with a letter (Ex.P-17) singed by Superintendent of Police, Guna.After completing investigation, charge- sheet was filed against the Vishambhar Dayal and his wife describing the third accused Arvind as absconder in the Court of JMFC Ashoknagar, who committed the case to Sessions Judge, Guna and the Sessions Judge transferred the session trial to above-mentioned trial Court.(Pronounced on the 22nd day of June, 2018) Per Ashok Kumar Joshi, J.-In this appeal filed by the appellant under Section 374 of the Cr.P.C., challenge is to the impugned judgment dated 08.04.2000 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Ashoknagar, District Guna in S.T.No.307/1998 whereby Vishambhar Dayal convicted under Section 302/34 of the IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment.Cr.A. No.304/2000 5- Trail Court framed charges for the offences punishable under Section 302/34 and Section 307/34 of IPC (on two counts) against the present appellant Vishambhar Dayal and his wife Rajkumari which were denied.Seven prosecution witnesses were examined before the trial Court.It was the defence of appellant Vishambhar Dayal and his wife before the trial Court that they have been falsely implicated as they were having dispute regarding partition of their house with complainant's family and in this regard a civil suit relating to partition of house was pending before the civil Court.No any defence witness was examined before the trial Court on behalf of present appellant and his wife.After hearing, trial Court recorded its finding that no offence was found proved against wife of the appellant Rajkumari hence, trial Court acquitted Rajkumari from all charges framed against her and trial Court found that the charged offence under Section 307/34 of IPC (on two counts) in relation to complainant Dinesh and Vipin was not proved against Vishambhar Dayal, but it was found proved that in furtherance of common intention of appellant Vishambhar Dayal and his absconding son Arvind, Rajkumar was killed by appellant's son Arvind hence, trial Court convicted and sentenced the present appellant for offence punishable under Section 302/34 of IPC as aforesaid.6- Appearing counsel for the appellant 6 Cr.A. No.304/2000 Vishambhar Dayal has vehemently contended that there were material contradictions and inconsistencies in the evidence of complainant Dinesh (PW-4), his younger brother Vipin (PW-5) and their mother Pushpa Devi (PW-6) regarding their respective police statement recorded during investigation in relation to role of the present appellant Vishambhar and his wife Rajkumari but the trial Court overlooked all material contradictions and inconsistencies appearing in their evidence.It is further argued that it was proved that the complainant's family in the midnight called the appellant and his family to come out from their house portion for talking and it was clear from the evidence of complainant's mother Pushpa Devi (PW-6) that appellant Vishambhar Dayal came on spot with empty hands, but he was falsely implicated in the crime due to dispute regarding partition of house and in relation to pending civil suit of this house.7- It is further argued that it is clear from the FIR (Ex.P-9) lodged by complainant that ballam injuries to all the three brothers Rajkumar, complainant Dinesh Kumar and Vipin were caused only by Arvind, but complainant and his family members made substantial improvement in their Court's evidence regarding role of Vishambhar Dayal and his wife Rajkumari and on same evidence, appellant's wife Rajkumari was totally acquitted by the trial Court and even the trial Court acquitted appellant in relation to charged offence of 7 Cr.A. No.304/2000 Section 307/34 of IPC (on two counts), but the trail Court erred in convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of IPC on same evidence.Therefore, it is prayed that appeal filed by present appellant Vishambhar Dayal be allowed and he be acquitted also from the charge of Section 302/34 of IPC.8- It has also been intimated by the learned counsel for the appellant Vishambhar Dayal that allegedly his absconding son Arvind Shrivastava was later on tried and vide judgment dated 18.03.2005 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Ashoknagar in S.T.No.141/2002, acquitted from the charge of Section 302 of IPC, but was convicted and sentenced only under Section 304 Part-1 of IPC and Section 324 of the IPC for causing injury to Vipin and sentenced under Section 304 (first part) of the IPC for period already undergone and under Section 324 of the IPC, Arvind was sentenced only with a fine of Rs.1,000/-.9- Per contra learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent/State supporting the impugned judgment contends that trial Court has properly and legally analyzed and appreciated the entire evidence available on record and did not err in convicting and sentencing the appellant Vishambhar Dayal for charged offence under Section 302/34 of IPC as the maxim "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" is not applicable in Indian Judicial system therefore, dismissal 8 Cr.A. No.304/2000 of the appeal is prayed.10- Dr.Natwar Singh (DW-3) deposed that on 21.03.1998 at Ashoknagar hospital, at 11:00am he started postmortem of dead body of deceased Rajkumar Shrivastava aged about 30 years and found that his worn shirt, pant, underwear were blood stained and rigor mortise was present and found an incised wound over left iliac fossa portion of the abdomen, size 4x1.5cm and deep up to abdominal cavity and from that wound a loop of omentum and lower part of large intestine about 11cm long was coming out from the body and blood was clotted at the margins of this incised wound and it was obliquely placed, which has pierced omentum and mesentery, which were also having wound of same size and blood clots were present in abdominal cavity.11- Dr. Narwar Singh (PW-3) opined that deceased had died due to shock, as a result of above- mentioned injury caused on body, he died within 6 to 24 hrs.from the starting of postmortem.Dr. Natwar Singh proved his signature on postmortem report (Ex.P-8).It is clear from the medical evidence and other evidence available on record that deceased Ramkumar met with a homicidal death and even this fact has not been challenged by the appellant's counsel.12- Complainant Dinesh Shrivastava (PW-4) and his brother Vipin (PW-5) and their mother Pushpa Devi (PW-6) gave their evidence as eye witnesses.Vipin 9 Cr.A. No.304/2000 (PW-5) deposed in his cross-examination that his father Shambhudayal expired on 07.08.1998, hence, Shambhudayal could not be examined before the trial Court as a witness.Complainant Dinesh Kumar (PW-4) deposed that deceased Rajkumar was his elder brother and in the intervening night of 20/21March, 1998, he returned from Ruthiyai to Ashoknagar in the night, as at that time, he was living at Ashoknagar with his family, though he was working at Ruthiyai and after returning to Ashoknagar, after taking meal, he was talking with his brother Rajkumar, Vipin and mother Pushpa Devi on the point that they are having half share in house and after selling their half share, they should construct a new house at Ruthiyai, but after hearing their conversation, his aunty Rajkumari hurling abuses from her side as there was only a common wall between these portions and at that time his father (Shambhudayal) was sleeping, but his father got awaken due to hurling abuses by Rajkumari and his father asked that why she is making noise and came out from house and negotiate on the mater.13- Complainant Dinesh also deposed that at midnight about 12:45am, firstly he came out from their portion, after opening their door and behind him Vipin, his mother came out and called the accused persons to come out, then Rajkumari, thereafter, her son Arvind and lastly uncle Vishambhar Dayal came out and as he proceeded towards uncle to explain him, appellant 10 Cr.A. No.304/2000 Vishambhar Dayal pushed him and he fell down, then Rajkumari inflicted a ballam Injury in his leg and when his younger brother Vipin tried to save him, then Arvind tried to cause ballam injury to Vipin, but Vipin caught hold the ballam by his hands, thereafter, Vishambhar Dayal took ballam from the hand of Rajkumari and caused ballam injury in the leg of Vipin and, thereafter, then appellant's son Arvind inflicted ballam injury in the abdomen of his elder brother Rajkumar who was standing behind them and after receiving ballam injury Rajkumar fell down, who was taken to police station by tractor and trolley, but later on, in the hospital, Rajkumar was declared died.Complainant proved his signature on FIR (Ex.P-9) and seizure memo (Ex.P-10), whereby his blood stained pant, underwear and high neck t-shirt were seized during investigation.14- It is clear from the complainant (PW-4)- Dinesh Kumar's examination-in-chief that appellant Vishambhar Dayal was not having any weapon in his hand, when appellant came out from his house for talking with the complainant's family, whereas in FIR (Ex.P-9), it was mentioned by complainant Dinesh Kumar that appellant came out from his house portion with a stick.It was clearly mentioned in FIR by Dinesh Kumar that appellant Vishambhar Dayal also gave lathi blows to Vipin for killing him, but Dinesh Kumar has not deposed this fact in his examination-in-chief.Hence, it is clear that there are material contradictions regarding 11 Cr.A. No.304/2000 the role of present appellant Vishambhar Dayal and his alleged weapon in complainant Dinesh Kumar's evidence and his FIR (Ex.P-9).15- Vipin (PW-5) clearly deposed in his examination-in-chief (para-1) that his father Shambhudayal called his uncle Vishambhar Dayal for talking, then Rajkumari and Arvind came out with ballam, but at that time uncle (Vishambhar Dayal) came with empty hands, though Vipin deposed that Vishambhar Dayal pushed Dinesh and Dinesh fell down, then Rajkumari inflicted ballam injury on hip of Dinesh.Their mother Pushpa Devi (PW-6) deposed in cross- examination that when in night Rajkumari was hurling abuses for a period of about 1hrs, then her husband Shambhudayal told that why she is giving abuses and they be called out for talking.Pushpa Devi (PW-6) deposed that his dever (present appellant), his wife and their son came out from their house portion and appellant Vishambhar Dayal after giving abuses, told that heads would be cut off and when dinesh asked that uncle what are you saying, then appellant pushed Dinesh, so he fell down.Pushpa Devi did not depose about any weapon of present appellant and similarly she has not deposed regarding inflicting of stick injuries by present appellant to any one.In her examination-in- chief (para-4) she has clearly deposed that her brother- in-law (dever) i.e. Vishambhar Dayal came out with empty hands.Cr.A. No.304/2000 16- Therefore, it is clear that complainant's real younger brother Vipin (PW-5) and his mother Pushpa Devi have clearly deposed that present appellant was not having any weapon at the time of incident, hence, the evidence of complainant Dinesh on the point of weapon of the appellant is contradicted and falsified by his above-mentioned brother.It is also clear that in FIR, it was mentioned by complainant Dinesh Kumar that appellant came out from his house with a stick, but both these close relatives of complainant, Vipin (PW-5) and Pushpa Devi (PW-6) did not depose about any weapon of the appellant, but the evidence of both these eye-witnesses was not challenged by the prosecution, hence, it is clear in the light of the case of Kishan Vs.State of M.P reported as 1995 JLJ 353, that the evidence of Vipin and Pushpa Devi regarding appellant's coming on the scene of occurrence with empty hands is binding on prosecution as it is unchallenged, hence, it is clear that complainant Dinesh Kumar had mentioned totally false facts regarding weapon (stick or lathi) of the appellant and beating by it in the FIR.17- It is clear from total evidence of these eye- witnesses that prior to the incident there was a dispute between family of the complainant and appellant regarding partition of joint family house and a civil suit was pending before civil Court regarding partition of that house.It would be significant to mention here that 13 Cr.A. No.304/2000 there were material contradictions and improvements in evidence of all these three witnesses regarding role and weapon of acquitted accused Rajkumari (wife of present appellant) and due to these contradictions and inconsistencies, trial Court rightly acquitted the wife of appellant from the charges framed against her.18- Regarding seizure of a stick (lathi) on the basis of disclosure statements of appellant, after his arrest, investigating officer AKS Gaur (PW-7) has deposed that on 21.03.1998, appellant was arrested vide arrest memo (Ex.P-15) and on the basis of disclosure statement (memorandum P-4) recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act) of appellant, he seized a bamboo stick (Lathi) on production of appellant from his house vide seizure memo (Ex.P-5), but on this point also, both panch-witnesses Hemraj (PW-1) and Bhaiyalal (PW-2) of these memorandum and seizure memo have not supported the evidence of above-mentioned investigating officer AKS Gaur and each of these panch-witnesses has clearly deposed that present appellant Vishambhar Dayal was not interrogated by police in their presence and nothing was seized from appellant in their presence, though they have admitted their signatures on above- mentioned memorandum and seizure memo.19- Surprisingly both of these panch-witnesses of relating disclosure and seizure memo were not declared hostile by the prosecution, hence, their evidence is also 14 Cr.A. No.304/2000 binding on the prosecution, which falsify the evidence of investigating officer on this point.Seized lathi was even not sent to FSL Sagar, which is clear from the letter (Ex.P-17) dated 13.05.2018 sent by Superintendent of Police Guna to Director, FSL Sagar.Hence, the evidence regarding seizure of a stick or lathi from appellant is immaterial and inconclusive also.Both of these above-mentioned panch-witnesses Hamraj (PW-1) and Bhaiyalal (PW-2) gave evidence in one voice that in their presence from scene of occurrence, a ballam and a lathi were seized which were lying on the spot and they have also proved their signatures on relating seizure memo (Ex.P-2) prepared by investigating officer AKS Gaur (PW-7), but AKS Gaur has deposed that vide seizure memo (Ex.P-2), he had seized only a ballam, lying on the scene of occurrence.Unchallenged evidence of both of these panch- witnesses makes the testimony of investigating officer doubtful and unbelievable regarding seizure of stick from appellant.20- It appears that investigating officer A.K.S. Gaur (PW-7) had created evidence about recovery of Lathi or stick on the basis of alleged disclosure statement of appellant.Hence, it is clear from unchallenged testimony of both of these panch witnesses that the investigation conducted by above- mentioned investigating officer AKS Gaur (PW-7) was not bonofide and genuine, but he create false evidence 15 Cr.A. No.304/2000 regarding recovery of stick on the basis of disclosure statement of appellant.Such defective and partial investigation adversely affects the veracity of prosecution's case in reference to present appellant.21- There are material contradictions and omissions in police statements of each of these three eye-witnesses in comparison to their evidence given before the trial Court.Such contradictions and omissions were established in cross-examination of these eye-witnesses and investigating officer.Complainant Dinesh Kumar (PW-4) deposed in cross- examination that he has disclosed this fact that after opening his house, he has called out wife of the appellant out side from her house and she has also disclosed this fact in his police statement that his aunty Rajkumari came with a ballam on spot.Both these facts are missing in his police statement (Ex.D-1).Similarly Dinesh Kumar deposed in para-8 that he has not mentioned B to B marked portion of his police statement to the effect that present appellant pushed him by stroke of his stick on his chest, but investigating officer AKS Gaur (PW-7) deposed that relating portion was disclosed by complainant at the time of recording of his police statement and this fact is missing even in his detailed FIR (Ex.P-9).Hence, it is clear that complainant Dinesh Kumar from the stage of recording of the FIR and, thereafter, gradually improved and exaggerated his version regarding role of present 16 Cr.A. No.304/2000 appellant in the incident, which clearly establishes his falsehood.22- Complainant deposed in para-9 that his uncle Vishambhar Dayal caused a ballam injury in thigh of his brother (Vipin) but this fact is not mentioned in his police statement (D-8).It is clear that complainant has exaggerated all these facts in his evidence regarding role of appellant only to falsely implicate him in the incident, whereas, it is clear from his FIR (Ex.P-9) that only Arvind has inflicted ballam injuries to deceased Rajkumar, Vipin (PW-5) and complainant Dinesh Kumar (PW-4).Hence, it is clear that the falsehood introduced by complainant regarding role of his uncle Vishambhar Dayal and his wife were unlimited and complainant was ready to depose anything against the appellant.23- Complainant Dinesh Kumar (PW-4) deposed in para-13 of his re-cross-examination that appellant Vishambhar Dayal came with a ballam on spot and the fact mentioned in his FIR (Ex.P-9) that Vishambhar Dayal came with a stick on spot, is wrong and false and this fact was not mentioned by him at the time of lodging of FIR.24- Complainant's mother Pushpa Devi (PW-6) also introduced the exaggeration that prior to inflicting of ballam injury, Vishambhar Dayal told that he would cut off heads of opposite side, but her evidence on this point is even not supported by her both sons Dinesh Kumar and Vipin.Pushpa Devi deposed in para-2 that 17 Cr.A. No.304/2000 when Vishambhar Dayal was busy in verbal altercation, then his son Arvind came there and told to his father (present appellant) that he should remove himself from spot and he (Arvind) would teach a lesson to complainant's family.25- It is clear from the evidence that appellant was called in night, to come out from his house for talking by his elder brother Shambhudayal (father of the complainant) and it is clear from the evidence of Vipin and Pushpa Devi that appellant was empty handed and it is clear from evidence of Pushpa Devi that when appellant was talking, then his son Arvind step down his father Vishambhar Dayal and started causing ballam injuries to complainant and his two other brothers.It is also clear from the evidence that on the scene of occurrence Rajkumar was standing behind complainant, near the outer door of their house, when he received ballam injury by Arvind.It is clear from the FIR that only Arvind gave ballam injury to these persons.In such situation, it could not be inferred that Vishambhar Dayal was having common intention with his son Arvind to cause murder of the Rajkumar and in causing ballam injuries to complainant Dinesh Kumar and his brother Vipin.It is clear that appellant has come out from his house with empty handed on the invitation of his elder brother for talking on disputed issue.26- We are of the considered opinion that the 18 Cr.A. No.304/2000 learned trial Court totally overlooked the substantial contradictions and inconsistencies prima facia appearing in evidence and police statements of these above-mentioned three prosecutions witnesses and similarly totally overlooked the substantial improvements and exaggeration made by these eye- witnesses regarding role of the present appellant Vishambhar Dayal.Appellant's present appeal appears to be worthy of acceptance.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
167,263,023 |
The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:The deceased viz., Gunawathi, is the wife of the appellant/accused.PWs.2 and 3 are the children born to the deceased through the appellant/accused.PW.5-Rajan is the close relative of the deceased.After marriage of deceased with the accused they were living together happily for some time, thereafter, the accused developed the illicit relationship with one Selvi @ Nondi Selvi which disturbed their quite married life of the deceased.Due to which, there was a frequent quarrel between the deceased and the accused, finally she left the matrimonial home on 27.04.2006 and lived with her mother (PW.1) along with her children, but, the accused was troubling and insisting the deceased to join with him and thereupon the deceased gave a complaint to the Police Station.The Police conducted enquiry in which the deceased refused to live with the accused.On 03.05.2006 at about 01.00 p.m., the accused went to PW.1's house and asked the deceased to come back to his house.Since she refused to return to the matrimonial home, he had scolded her in filthy language.Aggrieved by her husband's conduct and the abusive words uttered by him, the deceased was induced to commit suicide by self immolation.During the time of occurrence she poured Kerosene and set herself on fire.The accused and PW.1 took her to Royapettah Government Hospital, wherein, she was admitted as inpatient for the burn injury sustained by her.4. PW.10-Dr.PW.12-Jhon, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Merina Police Station on 03.05.2006, at about 01.40 p.m., received the information from the Royapettah Government Hospital about the occurrence and thereafter he went over to the Hospital, and recorded the statement from the deceased under Ex.Consequently, he registered a case in Crime No.218 of 2006 for offence punishable under Section 498(A)of IPC.P11 is the first information report.After registration of the case, he dispatched the original FIR to the Court and forwarded copy to the Inspector of Police, Merina Police Station, for initiating the investigation in this case.PW.13-Harikrishnan, the then Inspector of Police, Merina Police Station, on 03.05.2006 at about 16.45 hours received the copy of the FIR pertaining to this case.He sent a requisition to the Magistrate concerned for recording the dying declaration from the deceased.PW.11-Vijaykumar, XV Metropolitan Magistrate, on 03.05.2006 on receipt of the requisition letter given by the Inspector of Police, Merina Police Station, went over to Royapettah Government Hospital at about 04.40 p.m. In the Hospital, the Doctor working in the ward identified the deceased to the Magistrate and certified that she is conscious and she is having fit stage of mind for giving dying declaration.Thereafter, PW.1 recorded the dying declaration from the deceased under Ex.P9, Ex.P8 is the requisition letter given by the Inspector of Police.Further he draw a rough sketch under Ex.The sole accused in S.C.No.499 of 2006 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram, Chennai, is the appellant herein.The accused stood charged for the offences under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.By a judgment dated 18.11.2009, the trial Court convicted him under Section 498(A) of IPC and sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- i/d to undergo simple imprisonment for two months.He has also convicted under Section 306 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- i/d to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.Further, the trial Court ordered to run the sentences concurrently.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court with this appeal.Further, he examined the witnesses and recorded their statements.On 04.05.2006 at about 00.05 hours, he received the intimation from the Government Hospital about the death of the deceased Gunawathi.So, he altered the section of law as Section 306 of IPC under Ex.On the same day, at about 08.45 a.m., to 11.15 a.m., in the presence of the Panchayatars and witnesses, he prepared an inquest report under Ex.Thereafter, he entrusted the dead body to the Head Constable viz., Viswanathan along with requisition letter to the Doctor for conducting autopsy.Baskar, when he was working as a Doctor in Royapettah Government Hospital, on 04.05.2006 at about 12.10 p.m., received the requisition letter given by the Inspector, T5 Police Station and conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased Gunawathi and he found the following injuries:-Extensive mixed burns seen involving portions of scalp, face, front and back of neck, front and back of each upper limb, front and back of most part of each lower limb.Evidence of vital reartion, singering of hair and degloving of skin made out.According to him, the deceased would appear to have died of shock due to extensive mixed burns.After completion of investigation on 04.07.2006, PW.13, came to the positive conclusion that the accused committed the offence under Section 306 of IPC, thereby, he filed a final report under Section 306 of IPC., against the accused.Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed charges against the accused as stated in the first paragraph of this judgment and for which, the accused denied the same.In order to prove the case of the prosecution as many as 13 witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW13 and 14 documents were exhibited as P1 to P14, besides one material object.She has stated after the marriage both of them leading the peaceful life for the period of seven years and thereafter, the accused had developed illicit intimacy with another one lady, due to which, both of them frequently had quarrel with each other.Resultantly, in the year of 2006, the deceased lodged a complaint against the accused before Thousand Light Police Station.In the enquiry conducted by the police authorities, the deceased refused to live with the accused.She has further stated before the occurrence, the accused frequently came to her house and compelled the deceased for coming over to his house.In the meantime, on 03.05.2006 at about 01.00 p.m., the accused came and insisted the deceased for returning to the matrimonial home.But, the deceased refused to go with the accused and thereafter pouring the kerosene on her body.After admitting the deceased in the Hospital some of the authorities came and recorded the statements from the deceased, but she did not know about the details of the statement.(ii) PW.2, is the son of the deceased has stated before the occurrence, the accused frequently quarrelled with the deceased.(iii) PW.3 is the daughter of the deceased has stated at the time of occurrence, she was living with her mother.Further she has stated the accused had frequently quarrelled with the deceased.(iv) PW.4 is the relative of the deceased, she has stated after the marriage the deceased was leading happy life with the accused for a period of seven years.Thereafter, both of them frequently quarrelled with each other.She has further stated in the year 2005, one day when the deceased was in the tiffin centre run by PW.1, the accused came and scolded the deceased by using filthy language.Then only due to the untolerable pressure given by the accused, the deceased went up to the level of self immolation.(v) PW.5 is the witnesses to the observation mahazar, he has stated on 03.05.2006 at about 12.00 noon, PW.13 came to the house of PW.1 and prepared an observation mahazar.(vi) PW.6 is the witness to the recovery of MO.1, he has stated on 03.05.2006 at about 07.00 p.m., PW.13 came to the occurrence place and recovered MO.1-White colour plastic can.(vii) PW.7-Dr.Maniselvi has stated on 03.05.2006, when she was working as a Doctor in Royapettah Government Hospital at about 1.25p.m., the deceased was admitted as an inpatient for the burn injuries sustained by her.Further, she has stated when at the time of recording the dying declaration by XV Metropolitan Magistrate, the patient is conscious and she is having the fit stage of mind for giving the statement.She has stated that she has issued wound certificate in this regard.(viii) PW.8 is the Doctor attached with the same hospital has stated the process of postmortem.(ix) PW.9 is the uncle of the deceased has stated after the marriage of the deceased with the accused he developed illegal intimacy with one Selvi, due to which, the deceased raised an objection, resultantly, she frequently quarrelled with the accused.He has further stated one day the deceased lodged the complaint against the accused before the police station.On enquiry the police officers adviced the accused and the deceased for leading a peaceful life.But, the deceased returned to her PW1's house subsequently due to the intolerable pressure given by the accused, the deceased went up to the level of committing suicide.(x) PW.10-Dr.Subramaniam, is working in the same hospital, he has stated on the date of occurrence, he examined the deceased and admitted in the hospital as inpatient.(xi) PW.11, Vijayakumar, the then XV Metropolitan Magistrate has stated about the statement given by the deceased.(xii) PWs.12 and 13 are the Police Officers deposed about the registration of the case, details of investigation and about filing to final report.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, and for which, he denied the same as false.However, he did not choose to examine any witnesses on his side nor did he mark any documents on his side.Having considered all the above, the trial Court convicted the accused as stated in the first paragraph of this judgment.Challenging the same, the appellant is before this Court with this Criminal Appeal.Heard, Mr.S.Thiruvengadam, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.G.Ramar learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit in the trial Court, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused under Sections 498 A and 306 of IPC, for proving the offence under Section 498-A of IPC either harassment of the women with regard to demand of dowry or a wilful conduct of the accused, likely to lead the lady to commit suicide or to cause injury to her life is necessary.He would further contend the witness examined on the side of the prosecution did not say anything about the cruelty committed by the accused.But the trial Court, without considering the said aspect convicted the accused for the offence under Section 498 -A of IPC, which is not within the legal frame work.On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate would submit that the dying declaration given by the deceased clearly proved the wilful contact of the accused which driven the deceased to the level of committing suicide.Before considering the submissions made on either side, it is necessary to go through the definition of Section 498(A) of IPC, which reads as follows:"498-A. husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty-Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.There is absolutely no evidence either from PW.1 or from the dying declaration to show before the occurrence the accused harassed the deceased to meet any unlawful demand or for any property or valuable security.On the side of the prosecution in order to prove the harassment made by the accused all the witnesses i.e., PWs.1 to 3 had stated in their evidence before the occurrence the accused frequently quarreled with the deceased.Apart from the said evidence, nothing was about the unlawful demand made by the accused.The learned trial Judge before convicting the accused for the offence under Section 498 A of IPC, did not considered the said aspect.Accordingly, I am of the opinion, the conviction awarded to the accused under Section 498-A of IPC needs interference.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that in order to prove the offence under Section 306 of IPC the prosecution must show the instigation made towards the accused for committing suicide.He would further contend that there is no evidence from the prosecution witnesses about the instigation made by the accused.On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate would submit that the statement made by the deceased in the dying declaration would reveal the details of harassment made by the accused, the said harassment stated by the deceased leads for going up to the level of committing suicide, the said facts clearly proved by the prosecution through the particulars available in the dying declaration.Further he submits in the said situation, no other evidence is necessary from the side of the prosecution to prove the instigation.According to him, the conviction under Section 306 of IPC does not need any interference.On considering the submissions made on either side, it is true for proving the offence under Section 306 of IPC the prosecution must show the abatement committed by the accused towards the deceased.In this case before the death of the deceased, the dying declaration was recovered by PW.15-XV Metropolitan Magistrate.The process and procedure adopted by the Magistrate for recording the dying declaration is not disputed on the side of the accused.Even though, the evidence given by PW.1 to 3 and PW.9 did not show the instigation made by the accused.The deceased has specifically stated in the dying declaration as follows:So, the abusive words uttered by the accused is alone instigated the deceased for committing suicide.It is the settled position that the dying declaration is properly recorded within the legal frame work.The said evidence is conclusive proof.Does not need any interference.In the light of the above discussion, this Court came to the conclusion that the appellant/accused committed the offence under Section 306 of IPC.With regard to the punishment, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that as of now the children born to the deceased through the accused are under the care and custody of the accused.Accordingly, he prayed to modify the portion of conviction.Accordingly, considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, I am of opinion, three years rigorous imprisonment is sufficient to meet the ends of justice for the offence committed by the accused.Hence, the Appeal is partly allowed.The conviction and sentenced under Section 498-A of IPC is set aside.In respect of the conviction under Section 306 of IPC, the imprisonment of five years is reduced to three years.The trial Court is directed to secure the accused and send him to jail for serving the remaining period of sentence if any.The sentence already undergone, if any, by the accused shall be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.11.06.2018Speaking order/non-speaking orderIndex:Yes/NoInternet:Yes/NoubTo1.The Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram, Chennai.The Record Clerk, VR Section.R.PONGIAPPAN, J.ubCRL.A.No.740 of 200911.06.2018
|
['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
16,726,981 |
C.R.M. No. 7005 of 2016 p.d.In re:- Swapan Sarkar .... Petitioner.Re: An application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. affirmed on 30.8.2016 in connection with Chakdaha Police Station Case No.406/16 dated 7.7.2016 under Sections 447/326A of the Indian Penal Code.Ms. Sreyashee Biswas, Ms. Puja Goswami .... For the petitioner.Mr. Imran Siddiqui ... For the State.Mr. Navanil De ... For the de facto complainant.The petitioner is in custody for 61 days.Let the petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of Rs.5,000/- each, one of 2 whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kalyani, Nadia.The application for bail is, thus, disposed of.(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Malay Marut Banerjee, J.)
|
['Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
167,272,251 |
O.P. No.2272 of 2020 14.02.2020http://www.judis.nic.in 5/6 Crl.O.P.No.2272 of 2020 14.02.2020http://www.judis.nic.in 6/6This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records and to quash the FIR in Crime No.271 of 2012 for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 324, and 506(2) of IPC r/w 307 of IPC pending on the file of first respondent police as against the petitioners.The second respondent, who is the defacto complainant has lodged a complaint against the petitioners and based on the same, the first respondent has registered an FIR in Crime No.271 of 2012 under Sections 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 324, and 506(2) of IPC r/w 307 of IPC.http://www.judis.nic.in 2/6 Crl.O.P.No.2272 of 2020The case is still in the stage of investigation.By passage of time, the parties have decided to bury their hatchet and compromise the dispute amicably among themselves.A joint memo of Compromise, dated 14.02.2020, has been filed before this Court which has been signed by the petitioners and the 2nd respondent and also by their respective counsel.The petitioners and the 2nd respondent also present in person before this Court.This Court also enquired both the parties and satisfied that the parties have come to an amicable settlement between themselves.State of Gujrath), this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashes the Case in Crime No. 2 of 2019 on the file of the first respondent police.This Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a sequel, the proceedings in Crime No.271 of 2012 on the file of the first respondent, is hereby quashed and the terms of Memo of Compromise shall form parthttp://www.judis.nic.in 3/6 Crl.O.P.No.2272 of 2020 and parcel of this order.Today (14.02.2020), the Petitioner No.23 viz., Mannudevan, is not appeared before this court.Hence, this petition is dismissed against him.14.02.2020 (¾) Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No VvThe Inspector of Police, G-6, Cheyyur Police Station, Kancheepuram District.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.http://www.judis.nic.in 4/6 Crl.O.P.No.2272 of 2020 P. RAJAMANICKAM,J.Vv Crl.
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
167,278,349 |
ORAL JUDGMENT:1. Rule.By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith.By consent, heard finally.The case against the petitioners is in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C. r.w. 34 of I.P.C. as also the offences punishable under the Dowry Prohibition Act. The operative part of the order granting anticipatory bail reads, as under:" ORDER Application is allowed.Deopur Police station is directed to release the ::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:27:43 ::: crwp811.13 3 applicants in the event of their arrest in C.R. NO. 43/2013 on furnishing P.R. of Rs.15,000/- each with one surety in like sum.::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:27:43 :::Applicants are directed to attend I.O. of Deopur police station on 14/4/2013 between 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. and whenever they are called and co-operate in the investigation."On 30.4.2013, the Investigating Agency, through the Public Prosecutor, made an application for cancellation of bail granted to the petitioners, on the ground that they had committed breach of the terms and conditions, on which the anticipatory bail was granted.It was contended that the petitioners had failed to attend Deopur Police Station on 14.4.2013, as directed.It was also contended that, on 13.4.2013, the first informant had filed a report at Deopur Police Station that the petitioners had been giving threats to her and that the petitioners had pressurized her to withdraw the case.The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after hearing the parties, cancelled the bail order holding that the ::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:27:43 ::: crwp811.13 4 petitioners had committed breach of the condition imposed at the time of their release on bail; namely, of attending the police station on 14.4.2013 and the petitioners had also allegedly, given threats to the first informant, for withdrawing the F.I.R.::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:27:43 :::Being aggrieved by this order canceling anticipatory bail, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.I have heard Mr. Ghanekar, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Kadam, learned Addl.Public Prosecutor for the State.I have also heard Mr. C.R. Deshpande, learned Counsel, who was granted permission to make submissions on behalf of the first informant, opposing the writ petition.Mr. Deshpande, learned Counsel raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition.::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:27:43 :::crwp811.13 5 According to him, the proper remedy for the petitioners would be of seeking bail afresh.The petitioners cannot move an application for bail without ::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:27:43 ::: crwp811.13 6 surrendering themselves before the Court.Thus, the petitioners have no effective or efficacious remedy for challenging the order of cancellation of bail and as such, in my opinion, the writ petition is very much maintainable and in fact, should be entertained and decided on merits.::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:27:43 :::In my opinion, the petitioners have no effective and efficacious remedy.::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:27:43 :::According to the petitioners, they did attend the police station and that, actually, the Investigating Officer was not present there.The petitioners did produce a certificate from the Station House Officer showing that they had attended the police station.It is nobody's case that the said certificate is forged, or that it has not been issued by the Station House Officer, who was on duty, at the material time.The only contention is that the certificate has been subsequently obtained which, in my opinion, does not indicate that the facts stated therein must necessarily be untrue.Further, the Investigating Agency's case is not that the Investigating Officer was present at the police station when the petitioners were supposed to attend the same.In fact, the petitioners have claimed that they had given a telephone call from their cell-phone to the cell-phone of the Investigating Officer and that, if the tower location of the ::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:27:43 ::: crwp811.13 8 respective cell-phones, at the material time, would be ascertained, the fact that the petitioners were present at the police station; but, the Investigating Officer was not present, would easily be ascertained.The Investigating Agency has not made any attempt to refute this contention or to carry out investigation to show the untenability of the claim made by the petitioners.::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:27:43 :::Apart from this, absence of the petitioners on one date is not the crucial aspect of the matter.There is no law which says that on a single failure to attend the police station, bail granted to a person would automatically be cancelled.Nobody disputes this proposition and as aforesaid, it would be within the discretion of the Court to cancel the bail in the event of such accused failing to comply with the condition of remaining present for interrogation.In this case, the fact that, the petitioners had not complied with the condition, itself is not satisfactorily established.Moreover, whether for that reason, the bail was required to be cancelled, was also not considered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, who appears to have given up to the stiff resistance to grant of bail put forth by ::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:27:43 ::: crwp811.13 10 the Investigating Agency; obviously, at the instance of the first informant.::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:27:43 :::It is interesting to note that the order granting bail, required the petitioners to remain present whenever they would be called by the Investigating Officer.Admittedly, this was not done.On 30.4.2013, an application for cancellation of bail was made.During the intervening period also, no attempt was made to call the petitioners at the police station for interrogation.Apart from this, when the petition came up before this Court on 21st September, 2013 and was adjourned to 8.10.2013, this Court specifically made it clear that the petitioners would be required to attend the Police Station during the intervening period, as and when called by ::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:27:43 ::: crwp811.13 11 the Investigating Officer, on giving either a notice in writing, or by sending S.M.S. The petitioners were not called in spite of this observation and direction given by this Court.::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:27:43 :::Again, on 8th October, 2013, the similar direction was given to the petitioners by this Court; but, admittedly, the petitioners were not called at any time for interrogation even thereafter.When the matter appeared on Board of this Court on 11th October, 2013, again this direction was repeated; but, again, not even a S.M.S. was sent to the petitioners, requiring them to attend the Police Station.It is, therefore, clear that the presence of the petitioners, is not really felt necessary by the Investigating Agency; but, what is aimed is that they should be somehow kept in custody.The application for cancellation of bail does not ::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:27:43 ::: crwp811.13 12 appear to be bonafide.It appears to be basically due to a desire of punishing the petitioners for the alleged offences, without a trial.The order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, cancelling the bail order, is contrary to the well settled principles of Law.The same has been passed without trying to ascertain, even prima facie, the correctness of the facts alleged by the Investigating Agency.No efforts were made by the Investigating Agency to investigate into the complaint of the non-cognizable offence lodged by the first informant, by taking an appropriate order from the Magistrate.Thus, there was no attempt either on the part of the Investigating Agency, or on the part of the Court, to verify-at least, prima facie,-the truth of the allegations levelled against the petitioners.The impugned order, being patently illegal and perverse, needs to be interfered with, by exercising the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:27:43 :::The petition is allowed.The impugned order is set aside.::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:27:43 :::Needless to say that the petitioners shall attend the police station and make themselves available for interrogation and investigation, as and when required by the Investigating Officer and, shall comply with all other express and implied conditions of bail.(ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.) kadam/* ::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:27:43 :::::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:27:43 :::
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
16,728,083 |
This petition has been filed to call for the records of first information report in Crime No.16 of 2019 on the file of the respondent No.1 and quash the same as illegal.The petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.16 of 2019 registered for the offences under Sections 417, 376 and 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, based on the complaint given by the second respondent/defacto complainant.Now, to quash the above criminal proceedings, the present petition has been filed.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/defacto complainant submitted that the first petitioner and the defacto complainant loved each other while studying in the School.The first petitioner had physical relationship with the defacto complainant with a promise that he would marry her.Thereafter, the petitioners 2 and 3 have demanded Rs.1,00,000/- and 10 sovereign of gold jewels as dowry for allowing the first petitioner to marry the defacto complainant.In the above circumstances, the second respondent/defacto complainant has lodged a complaint against the petitioners.Based on that, a case has been registered in Crime No.16 of 2019 for the offence under Sections 417, 376http://www.judis.nic.in 3 and 506(i) I.P.C. Now, both the petitioners and the second respondent/defacto complainant have settled the dispute between themselves amicably before their elders and family members and the first accused also married the defacto complainant.On enquiry, the second respondent/defacto complainant has stated that the first accused and herself were in love, the first accused had sexual intercourse with herself with a false promise that he will marry her and thereafter, the first accused refused to marry her, as promised.In the above circumstances, she has given a complaint before the first respondent police.Now, the first accused himself has come forward to marry her and the marriage also took place between them on 23.06.2019 in the presence of their family members and elders at Arulmigu Shri Sandhana Mariyamman Kovil, Paravai, Madurai District and also registered the marriage on 05.07.2019 before the Sub Registrar, Madurai North.Now, both of them are living together happily.Hence, she is not willing to proceed with the complaint and both parties have also filed a joint compromise memo before this Court.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,672,840 |
JUDGMENT Raghubar Dayal, J.Chhotey Lal and his nephew, Ram Sarup, appeal against their conviction under Section 866, Penal Code.Chhotey Lal filed a complaint under Section 498, Penal Code and obtained a warrant for the arrest of Mt. Katori as a witness.He alleged that Mt. Katori was his wife.The Tahsildar Magistrate issued the warrant Ex. P-3 under Section 90, Criminal P.C. The warrant empowers the police officer to arrest Mt. Katori and produce her in Court.It further said that after arrest she be delivered to a person approved by Chhotey Lal.He obtained a surety bond from Ram Sarup in the sum of Rs. 500 for the due appearance of Mt. Katori in Court on the appointed day.No personal bond was executed by Mt. Katori.She was in fact not re-quired to execute it.She did not want to go with Ram Sarup.Ram Sarup and Chhotey Lal accused forcibly took her away and kept her at their house.It is this conduct of the accused which is the basis for the present complaint and the conviction of Chhotey Lal and Ram Sarup.On 20 1-1945, that is, two days after the incident, Girdhari Lal filed the present complaint under Sections 366 and 342, Penal Code, against the appellants.He alleged that Mt. Katori was his wife; that he had a daughter from her and that she was in the family way.He further mentioned that previous to this incident, Chhotey Lal had applied under Section 100, Criminal P.C., and that Mt. Katori had been arrested but the application was struck off on 28-11-1944, after the recording of her statement in Court.Chhotey Lal, accused, admits to have kept Mt. Katori in his house for three days after her arrest and states that he wanted her to live at his house.He, however, alleged that she had come quite willingly and that she was his wife.Ram Sarup accused stated that he caused her to be arrested, took her under his surety - ship and kept her in his house with the motive that she might live along with Chhotey Lal as his mistress.He also alleged that she was the wife of Chhotey Lal and that it was the Sub-Inspector who suggested to Chhotey Lal that she be kept under the custody of his nephew.The previous history of Chhotey Lal's attempt to get Mt. Katori strongly tends to the conclusion that Chhotey Lal obtained this warrant for the arrest of Mt. Katori not with the intention of honestly prosecuting his complaint honestly filed under Section 498, Penal Code, but with the intention of securing possession of Mt. Katori and then forcing her to submit to his will.Chhotey Lal knew that his application under Section 100, Criminal P.C., bad been rejected a few months before after Mt. Katori had denied her alleged marriage with Chhotey Lal.He knew that his previous complaint under Section 498, Penal Code, filed about three years before this incident had been dismissed.The appellants must surrender to their bail and undergo the un-expired portion of their sentences.
|
['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
167,286,623 |
In Crl.A.No.504 of 2014:-For Appellants :Mr.C.S.Dhanasekaran For Respondent :Mr.M.Maharaja, Additional Public Prosecutor In Crl.A.No.505 of 2014:-The deceased in this case was one Mrs.All these accused and the deceased were living together as a joint family.The deceased started demanding A.1 to set up a separate house for them.This was not agreeable for all the accused, as they wanted the deceased to continue the joint family status.Out of the same, there were frequent quarrels between them.It is alleged that on 05.12.2012, out of the said motive, A.2 & A.3 poured kerosene on the deceased and A.1, A.4 & A.5 set fire to her.The deceased while in flames, cried for help.At that time, the deceased was conscious and she told that her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law & sister-in-law poured kerosene and set fire to her.P.W.10 Dr.Mohanned Sirajudin found 100% burn injuries on the body of the deceased.He admitted the deceased as in patient and gave intimation to the Police.On the same day at 7.00 pm, on receiving intimation from the hospital, P.W.9, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Nagapattinam rushed to the hospital.P.W.10, after examining the deceased, certified that she was conscious.P.W.9 made certain queries to the deceased and from the answers elicited, he was satisfied that the deceased was in a fit state of mind to make dying declaration.Then P.W.9 recorded the dying declaration of the deceased.In the said dying declaration, the deceased told that her husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law, brother-in-law and co-sister poured kerosene on her and all of them set fire to her.4.P.W.17, the then Inspector of Police took up the case for investigation.He went to the place of occurrence.Prepared an observation mahazar and a rough sketch in the presence of witnesses.He also recovered the plastic can found at the place of occurrence and he also recovered certain partially burnt materials found at the place of occurrence.The deceased succumbed to the injuries on the same day.P.W.17, thereafter, went to the hospital conducted inquest on the body of the deceased and forwarded the same for post mortem.P.W.15 Dr.For Appellants :Mr.B.Kumar, Senior Counsel for Mr.P.Ezhilnilavan For Respondent :Mr.M.Maharaja, Additional Public Prosecutor COMMON JUDGMENT(Common Judgement of the Court was delivered by S.Nagamuthu.J) The appellant in Crl.A.No.504 of 2014 is A.5 and the appellants in Crl.A.No.505 of 2014 are A.1 to A.4 respectively in S.C.No.92 of 2012, on the file of the Mahila Fast Track Court, Nagapattinam.They stood charged for offences under Sections 498(A) & 302 I.P.C., in the alternative Section 302 r/w 34 I.P.C. By judgment dated 17.09.2014, the trial Court convicted all the five accused for offences under Sections 498(A) & 302 r/w 34 I.P.C., and sentenced A.1 to A.5 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 498(A) I.P.C., and to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- each in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 302 r/w 34 I.P.C. The trial Court has ordered the above sentences to run concurrently.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellants/accused 1 to 5 are before this Court with these Criminal Appeals.3.On getting intimation from the hospital, P.W.16, the then Sub Inspector of Police, Velankanni Police Station rushed to the hospital.At 7.30 pm on 05.02.2012, he recorded the statement of the deceased.At that time, the deceased was conscious.On returning to the Police Station, he registered a case in Crime No.44/2012 at 9.00 am for offences under Sections 147, 342, 307 I.P.C. Ex.P.14 is the F.I.R. Ex.P.4, is the dying declaration.Lungavaram conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 06.02.2012 at 12.30 pm.He found (i) burn injury found throughout the body and (ii)a lacerated injury measuring 1 x 0.5x5 cm on the right side of the head and he gave opinion that the death of the deceased was due to burn injuries.On completing investigation, he laid charge sheet against all the accused.5.Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed charges as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgment.In order to prove the case of the prosecution, as many as 17 witnesses were examined and 18 documents were exhibited besides 3 Material Objects.6.Out of the said witnesses, P.W.1 is the brother of the deceased; P.W.2 is the sister of the deceased; P.W.3 is the brother-in-law of P.W.1 and P.W.4 is the father of the deceased.They have stated that the deceased was insisted for setting up for separate family for her and her husband and the same was not agreeable for these accused.They have further stated that on account of the same, there were frequent quarrels between the accused and the deceased.They have also further stated that on 05.02.2012 at 5.45 pm, P.W.4 received information from P.W.8 Mr.Panneerselvam that the deceased had sustained burn injuries.They have further stated that when they enquired after reaching the house of the deceased, the deceased told them that A.2 to A.5 poured kerosene on her and A.1 set fire to her.P.Ws.5 & 6 have turned hostile and they have not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner.P.W.7 is the daughter of the deceased.She has stated that on the day of occurrence, there was a quarrel between all these accused and the deceased and when she went out for a while and then returned, she found the deceased in flames.She has further stated that on hearing the alarm raised by the deceased, P.Ws.1 & 2 came there and they found the deceased with flames.P.W.9 has spoken about the judicial dying declaration recorded by him at 7.00 pm on the day of occurrence.P.W.10 has stated that when he admitted the deceased in the hospital, she told that all these accused and her co-sister poured kerosene and set fire.P.W.11 has spoken about the chemical examination conducted by him on the material objects.P.W.12 has spoken about the arrest of the accused.P.W.13 has spoken that he took the F.I.R., and handed over the same to the learned Magistrate concerned.P.W.14 has spoken to the effect that he handed over the dead body of the deceased to the Doctor for post mortem.P.W.15 has spoken about the post mortem conducted and his final opinion regarding the cause of death.P.Ws.16 & 17 have spoken about the investigation done and the final report filed in this case.7.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the same as false.However, they did not chose to examine any witness nor did they mark any documents on their side.Their defence was a total denial.8.Having considered all the above, the trial Court convicted all the accused as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgment.Challenging the same, the appellants/accused 1 to 5 are before this Court with these Criminal Appeals.9.We have heard Mr.C.S.Dhanasekaran, learned counsel for the appellant in Crl.A.No.504/2014; Mr.B.Kumar, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants/A.1 to A.4 in Crl.A.No.505 of 2014; Mr.M.Maharaja, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and we have also perused the records carefully.P.Ws.1 to 4 have stated that when they reached the house of the deceased, the deceased told them that A.2 to A.4 poured kerosene and A.1 set fire to her.Thus, according to the earliest statement, these five accused alone are responsible for the injuries sustained by her.When the deceased was admitted at the hospital at 6.20 pm, she made a statement to P.W.10, the Doctor and at that time, she told that all these five accused and her co-sister poured kerosene and set fire to her.Thus, in the second dying declaration, the deceased had implicated not only these five accused but the co-sister of the deceased also.She further told that all these six persons poured kerosene and set fire to her.In that dying declaration, the deceased has stated that her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law and co-sister poured kerosene and set fire to her.In this judicial dying declaration, the deceased had not implicated her sister-in-law.She has stated that all these five people mentioned in the judicial dying declaration poured kerosene and set fire to her.The last dying declaration is the one recorded by P.W.16, the Inspector of Police (Ex.P.4), upon which, the case was registered.In that, the deceased told that these five poured kerosene and set fire to her.11.From the narration of these facts, it is crystal clear that there is no consistency among these multiple dying declarations made by the deceased.The sister-in-law of the deceased about whom there is allegation in the two dying declarations, there is no further reference in the subsequent dying declarations and also there is no further reference about the fact that who actually set fire to the deceased.The statement made in the multiple dying declarations is also not consistent.Further, the deceased had made an attempt to rope the entire family of A.1 in this matter.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
877,269 |
This Revision raises two points one of which has not been decided either by this High Court or by any other High Courts.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
87,739,489 |
CRL.M.A. 33246/2019 Allowed, subject to just exceptions.W.P.(CRL) 2220/2019 & CRL.M.A. 33245/2019 By the instant petition, the petitioner seeks to invoke the extra- ordinary jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to assail the orders dated 17.12.2018 passed by the ld.MM dismissing the complaint filed by the petitioner under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and the W.P.(CRL.) 2220/2019 Page 1 of 5 other order dated 09.04.2019, whereby, the revision preferred against order passed by the ld.MM was dismissed by the ld.Additional Sessions Judge.W.P.(CRL.) 2220/2019 Page 1 of 5Concisely, the relevant facts are that the petitioner had filed an application before the ld.MM under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. seeking registration of an FIR under Sections 376/354/506 IPC, besides, commission of the offence under Section 166A IPC.On filing such complaint, the ld.MM called for the action taken reports on the complaint made and the police submitted the report dated 25.10.2018, as follows:"It is submitted that a complaint filed by Ms. Simmi Diwedi d/o Sh.Vijay Kumar Diwedi r/o B-3713/16A, Gali No.110, Sant Nagar Burari, Delhi u/s 156.3 CrPC was received by undersigned on 24/10/18, after that undersigned contacted her on her mobile number given in the complaint twice and she replied that she is in her office and can not talk to me, whenever she gets time she will contact me.Any further order shall be abide by the undersigned."Thereafter, another action taken report dated 28.10.2018 came to be placed before the ld.MM to the following effect:"It is submitted that the complainant was tried to contact for the enquiry of the complaint and identification of the place of occurrence.But she did not join the enquiry till date.The complainant has neither got identified the place of occurrence and nor mentioned the clear location/ address of Wazirabad, Delhi.W.P.(CRL.) 2220/2019 Page 2 of 5Due to non-joining of enquiry by the complainant, the further enquiry could not be made.It is therefore requested that the complainant may be directed to join the enquiry and some more time may be given for concluding the complaint.The enquiry officer W/SI Neelam is on leave till 31-10-18."Vide order dated 17.12.2018, the ld.MM dismissed the complaint taking note of the ratio of the judgment of this Court in Subhkaran Luharuka vs. State ILR (2010) IV Delhi 495, which inter alia, lays that the Magistrate, before passing any order to proceed under Chapter XII, should not only satisfy himself about the pre-requisite as aforesaid, but, additionally, he should also be satisfied that it is necessary to direct Police investigation in the matter for collection of evidence which is neither in the possession of the complainant nor can be produced by the witnesses on being summoned by the Court at the instance of complainant and the matter is such which calls for investigation by a State agency.Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner preferred a revision and that came to be dismissed by the ld.Sessions Judge vide the impugned order dated 09.04.2019, taking note of the facts and the circumstances, as follows:It is a matter of record that the first instance of allegation of rape pertains to 12/13.12.2015 when complainant / revisionist had gone along with respondent no.1 to Manali.It has not been explained by the complainant / revisionist or her counsel that when she was having any apprehension of any untoward incident, then why she did not object or accompanied respondent no.1 to Manali, that too alone and more particularly when she found that only one room was booked in the hotel.This incident is alleged to have taken place after the incident of 28.02.2015 when complainant / revisionist W.P.(CRL.) 2220/2019 Page 3 of 5 has alleged that respondent no.1 had tried to attempt rape upon her.All these facts reflects that whatever could be the situation on 12/13.12.2015, complainant / revisionist stayed with the respondent no.1 with her consent.Allegations are that respondent no.1 promise to marry the complainant / revisionist.Impugned order dated 17.12.2018 is also perused.It has been categorically mentioned that complainant / revisionist is aware about all the facts and whereabouts of respondents.Allegations leveled in the complaint are oral and not supported with any document.Therefore, Ld. Trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion to dismiss the application under Section 156(3) CrPC vide impugned order.Hence, the present criminal revision is dismissed and disposed W.P.(CRL.) 2220/2019 Page 4 of 5 off accordingly.Copy of order be sent to the concerned Trial Court for necessary intimation.File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance."W.P.(CRL.) 2220/2019 Page 4 of 5No merits.Dismissed along with pending application.A.K. CHAWLA, J.AUGUST 09, 2019 nn W.P.(CRL.) 2220/2019 Page 5 of 5W.P.(CRL.) 2220/2019 Page 5 of 5
|
['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
877,408 |
On inspection of the records of the said suit the complainant to her utter dismay noticed and detected that her signatures were forged in the injunction petition dated 28th February, 2003 and in some other petitions filed subsequently on 21st March, 2003 and 23rd April, 2003 respectively.Those subsequent applications relate to her prayer for extension of interim injunction.It has been alleged that during the period when such applications containing the forged signatures were filed in the said Civil Court the accused had been looking after the said suit on behalf of the complainant in consultation with the said advocate who was engaged earlier on behalf of the complainant.She further detected that all the aforementioned applications so filed on her behalf in the said suit were all applications on affidavit, purportedly sworn by the complainant, but all signatures of the complainant appearing in those applications were forged and not signatures of the complainant at all, although her the then advocate Shri Partha Sarathi Chakraborty identified such forged signatures of the complainant in those applications.ORDER Ashit Kumar Bisi, J.By the instant revision application under Sections 397/401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the petitioner has sought quashing of the proceeding of Complaint Case No. 385/2004 under Sections 463/465/467/469/471 of the Indian Penal Code pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, South 24 Parganas.The factual matrix leading to filing of the instant revision application may briefly be narrated thus.The complainant presently O.P. No. 2 filed the petition of complaint in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, South 24-Parganas against the present petitioner alleging commission of offences punishable under sections 463/465/467/469/471 of the Indian Penal Code.As per the allegations made in the complaint in the month of April, 2001 the complainant under the compelling circumstances instituted Title Suit No. 80/2001 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 2nd Court, Alipore being a suit for specific performance of contract for sale and damages and for permanent injunction against Ramanjot Chowhan and another.Sometime in the month of February, 2003 necessity arose for the complainant to move a petition for injunction in the said title suit and since the complainant was/is mostly staying away she entrusted the present petitioner/accused to look after her said suit upon interaction with the advocate of the complainant Shri Partha Sarathi Chakraborty.Further allegations of the complainant are that on 31st January, 2004 the complainant withdrew her briefs of the said suit from the said advocate Shri Partha Sarathi Chakraborty after full and final settlement of his professional charges.After receiving the briefs of the said suit the complainant to her utter surprise noticed that the brief was incomplete and copies of various applications filed for and on her behalf before the said Civil Court were missing and as such she prayed-for permission from the learned Civil Court to inspect the records of the said suit.Since these applications containing all forged signatures of the complainant which were identified by Shri Partha Sarathi Chakraborty, advocate were filed in the said suit during the period when the accused was entrusted by the complainant to look after the interest of the complainant involved In the said suit upon deliberations and interactions with the said advocate, the complainant has strong reasons to believe that none else but the accused forged the signatures of the complainant or caused those to be forged in the said applications so filed in the aforesaid suit.The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore took cognizance of the offences on the complaint filed by the complainant, examined the complainant under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. and issued process under Sections 463/465/467/469/471 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused.
|
['Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
87,744,411 |
Post for 30.09.2015 (ALOK VERMA) JUDGE 2 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE BEFORE HON.MR.JUSTICE ALOK VERMA, JUDGE M.Cr.C. No.3222/2015 Neeraj Verma S/o Shri Basant Verma Vs.State of Madhya Pradesh Shri Rajeev Bhatjiwale, learned counsel for the petitioner.Ms. Mamta Shandilya, learned counsel for the respondent/State.____________________________________________________________________ ORDER ( Passed on this 30th day of September, 2015 ) This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashment of proceedings in Criminal Case No.10293/2010 pending before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore under Sections 287, 304-A of IPC.According to the averments in the application, the petitioner-Neeraj Verma is Manager of M/s Vindhya Paper Factory, Sanwer Road, Indore.On 11.11.2010, maintenance work in the pulp chamber of the factory was in progress.Some poisonous gas erupted from the gas chamber, which was inhaled by two workers- Lakhan and Manish.They suffered death after haling the poisonous gas and other two workers went 3 unconscious.The matter was informed to Police Station-Banganga, District-Indore where a merg under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. was registered.After merg inquiry, crime No.997/2010 was registered by the Police Station under Section 287 and 304-A of IPC.The Factory Inspector under Factories Act, 1948 also initiated inquiry under Section 92 read with section 105 of Factories Act, 1948 (hereinafter called the 'Act').The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore commenced the trial in both the cases separately.On this point, I have found two orders of Jharkhand High Court -one in the case of "Ashwini Kumar Singh and another Vs.In this case, workman Mukesh Singh was directed to handover the hammer to Supervisor.In pursuant to that order while he was moving towards the Supervisor, he slipped in the open metal chamber and as a result of which, he sustained serious burn injuries.He was immediately shifted to TATA Main Hospital, Jamshedpur where he succumbed his burn injuries.When he was in hospital, he gave a dying declaration to the police, on basis of which, a case was registered by the police under Section 304-A of IPC.The Factory Inspector also conducted an inquiry under the provisions of the Act and also filed a complaint before the Court.It was submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that two criminal cases based on the same set of facts 6 cannot proceed together and they are hit by the provisions of Section 300 of Cr.P.C. The Single Bench of Jharkhand High Court observed in para-7 to 9 as under :-I find from the record that on the statement of the victim recorded on 28.9.2005 Golmuri (Burma Mines) P.S. Case No. 187/05 was registered on 1.10.2005 and the FIR was received in the Court of CJM, Jamshedpur on 5.10.2005 and the police after investigation submitted charge-sheet on 2.2.2006 and accordingly cognizance of the offence was taken against the accused persons under Sections 287/288/338 and 304-A, IPC.At the same time, I find that on information given by the authority of the factory in respect of the accident which took place in the Tubes Division of Tata Steel Limited to the Factory Inspector, Jamshedpur 7 Circle No. 1, Jamshedpur on 26.9.2005 in Form No. 17-A, a preliminary enquiry was conducted and upon being satisfied and finding a prima facie case the Factory Inspector filed a complaint against the occupier and director of the Tubes Division of Tata Steel Limited as well as its Manager and the case was numbered as C/2 No. 5011/05 for the alleged offence under Section 92 of the Factories Act. 1948 for the alleged contravention of Sections 32(a) and 33(i) of the Factories Act.The law is settled in the various decisions that the special law shall prevail over the general law but both shall not run concurrently for the same cause of action.
|
['Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
877,523 |
Hon'ble Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.The petitioner, who had been Member of Legislative Councilbelonging to Bhartiya Janta Party, for two successive terms, namely, 1998-04 and 2004-10, has approached this Court saying that he has been illegallyrefused the issuance of passport, which is urgently required for his treatmentat Parkway Hospital, Singapore.The petitioner who is suffering fromserious ailments, namely, dilated cardiomyopathy (collapse of heart), severeLV dysfunction (heart's left ventricle failure) and chronic renal failure(kidney failure), has been advised by Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhifor his treatment at the aforesaid hospital in Singapore.The petitioner applied for issuance of passport on 29.1.2010 beforethe Passport Officer, Passport Office, Lucknow but the same has beenrefused on the ground that there is a police report which says that criminalcases are pending against the petitioner in the districts of Varanasi andChandauli.The aforesaid police report further says that the petitioner hadbeen a Member of Legislative Council of Bhartiya Janta Party and that hebeing a political person, his file is maintained in L.I.U. Office.Further, thereport says that he wants to go abroad for medical treatment.The aforesaid police report though does not mention about anyspecific criminal case being registered and pending against the petitionerbut the petitioner says that this was a case under Sections 302/120-B IPC.This was a criminal case bearing Session Trial No. 800 of 1997: State ofU.P. v. Mukhtar Kabadi and others.Submission of the counsel for the petitioner Sri Anupam Mehrotra isthat based on such an incorrect police report, which mentions a case whichno more survives and rather, in which the petitioner has been acquitted, thePassport Officer has rejected the request for issuance of passport.Sri Anupam Mehrotra, however, has very fairly stated and 2mentioned in the writ petition also that there are three more criminal cases,which are pending against the petitioner, namely, (i) Case Crime No.77/2000: State v. Udai Nath Singh u/s 25 of the Arms Act, which is pendingin the Court of VIII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Varanasi.This case was lodged on an F.I.R. dated 10.6.2000 and the chargesheetdated 20.7.2000 has been filed therein.This case was lodged on an F.I.R. dated 20.7.2000and the chargesheet dated 24.6.2001 has been filed therein, pursuant towhich the petitioner has not been served any summons till date; and (iii)Case Crime No. 123/1996: State v. Tej Bahadur Nath Singh and others u/s186/143/341/224/225/504/506 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act,P.S. Jansa, District Varanasi, which is pending in the court of Special ChiefJudicial Magistrate, Varanasi.This case was lodged on an F.I.R. dated16.8.96 and chargesheet dated 8.3.1999 has been filed therein.Thepetitioner was granted bail in this case vide order dated 3.9.96, which isoperative till date."(b).Are any criminal proceedings pending against you before a court in India? If so, give name of court, case number and relevant sections of Law."The petitioner in his application form though has marked 'yes'against column 17 sub-clause (b) but in column (c) he has written 'no'.
|
['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.
|
87,753,417 |
The prosecutrix was confined in a school for the whole night.When she went to her house in the morning, she was informed that her parents committed suicide by jumping before the train.Heard on admission.The prosecution's case, in short, is that, the prosecutrix has stated that the respondent No.2 was bent upon to marry with the prosecutrix, whereas, she knew that he was a married person.It is alleged that before 7-8 months of that alleged marriage, the prosecutrix was all alone in the house and her parents went to Bhopal then, the respondent No.2 came to her house and committed rape upon her.Thereafter, due to pressure of the respondent No.2, marriage of the prosecutrix was CRR No.2149/2012 performed with the respondent No.2 in Gayatri temple.The prosecutrix was left to the house of her parents and thereafter, the respondent No.2 was visiting the house of the prosecutrix.It is also stated by the prosecutrix that ultimately, her parents told to leave the place but, he did not accept the proposal.Ultimately, the respondent No.2 took the prosecutrix to a school and a threat was given to the parents of the prosecutrix that their children shall be kidnapped.Thereafter, the respondent No.2 threatened the prosecutrix that her brother and sister were in his possession and therefore, the story may not be informed to the media persons.On the basis of the statement of the prosecutrix and other circumstances, a charge-sheet was filed before the trial Court.After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, it is apparent that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has framed the charges of offence punishable under section 342 and 306 of IPC.He has not framed the charge of offence under sections 376 or 496 of IPC.So far as CRR No.2149/2012 the charge under section 376 of IPC is concerned, the prosecutrix did not lodge any FIR against the respondent No.2 of that alleged rape committed by the respondent No.2, which was done 7-8 months, prior to her alleged marriage.Some omnibus allegations were made by the prosecutrix about threat etc. but, she was above 18 years of age at the time of the incident.She did not make any allegation.She created a lot of problem to the parents.Similarly, it was in the knowledge of the prosecutrix that the respondent No.2 was married and therefore, her alleged marriage was of no use.Hence, it is hereby dismissed at motion stage.(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE Pushpendra
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
877,592 |
JUDGMENT S.P. Das Ghosh, J.This revisional application at the instance of the de facto complainant, Mustafa Sheikh, is directed against an order of conviction and sentence passed by Shri S. P. Sen Gupta learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Murshidabad, on 25-9-1981 under Section 324/34 IPC in Sessions Serial Case No. 142 of 1980 in which four persons viz., Lalchand Sheikh, Sukur Sheikh, Fazlu Sheikh and Sademan Sheikh, stood charged under Section 304/34 I.P.CThe learned Additional Sessions Judge found, on a consideration of the evidences of P. Ws. examined in the case, that the accused-opposite parties Nos. 1 to 4 conjointly attack Yakub Ali and assaulted him with chhani resulting in several injuries on his persons.One Dr. Baidyanath Biswas (P.W.7) had held post-mortem examination on the dead body of Yakub Ali.He found that the death of Yakub Ali on 19-4-1979 was due to the multiple injuries found by him on the dead body of Yakub Ali which, according to him, were ante-mortem and homicidal in nature, followed by secondary infection and toxaemia with pleural infection and peritonitis.The doctor (P.W.7) found pus both in the stomach and pleural cavity.The learned Judge was of the view that this existence of pus in the stomach and pleural cavity was due to incised wound which was 2l/2" X W deep into the chest cavity.He was further of the view that one of the causes of death of Yakub Ali was secondary infection and toxaemia with pleural infection and peritonitis.As such, the learned Judge was of the opinion that the accused-opposite parties Nos. 1 to 4 should be found guilty under Section 324/34 I.P.C. and not under Section 304/34 I.P.C., as per the charge framed against the accused-opposite parties, or under Section 326, I.P.C., as per the contention of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.The learned Judge was also of the view that having regard to the age, antecedent and financial position of the opposite parties Nos. 1 to 4, it would be better to release the opposite parties Nos. 1 to 4 under Section 360 Cr.P.C. on probation of good conduct.Accordingly, he directed release of the accused-opposite parties Nos. 1 to 4 on probation of good conduct under Section 360(1) Cr.P.C. on execution of separate personal bonds by each of the opposite parties for Rs. 2,000/- together with one surety for Rs. 1,000/- to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Berhampore, so as to maintain good behaviour and to keep peace for a period of two years, after finding these accused-opposite parties guilty under Section 324/34 I.P.C. and convicting them thereunder.Being aggrieved by this order of conviction and sentence, the present revisional application has been filed by the de facto complainant, who lodged the F.I.R.(Ext.1/2) leading to the present case.The contentions of the learned Advocate for the petitioner are twofold.It is first contended that the learned Judge ought to have found the opposite parties Nos. 1 to 4 guilty under Section 326/34, I.P.C. instead of under Section 324/34, I.P.C. The second contention is that the learned Judge ought to have sentenced the opposite parties Nos. 1 to 4 under Section 326/34, I.P.C. instead of directing release of these opposite parties on probation of good conduct under Section 360, Cr.P.C. and directing the release of the opposite parties Nos. 1 to 4 on probation of good conduct.4. Let us now first discuss as to whether the conviction of the opposite parties Nos. 1 to 4 under Section 324/34, I.P.C. can be changed to one under Section 326/34, I.P.C., apart from the question of competence of this Court to enter into this question, in view of the provisions of Section 401(3), Cr. P. C., as contended by the learned Advocate for the opposite parties.A perusal of the judgment shows that on the dead body of Yakub Ali, there were two injuries which could be called grievous.These injuries were as follows:(i) one partly healed stitched incised wound (penetrating) 2 1/2" x 1/2 deep into, the chest cavity, sixth inter-costal space - lateral and below the left nipple.(ii) one old incised wound 6" X 1/2" X bone deep stitched on the mid-line of the scalp in the volt, (vault?) bone is cut about 1 m.m. on dissection.According to the doctor (P.W.7), these injuries Nos. 3 and 4 were grievous in nature.A scrutiny of the provisions of Section 320, I.P.C., however, shows that to make these injuries grievous, in nature, there should have been fracture under the 7th clause to Section 320, I.P.C. There is no evidence by the doctor (P.W.7) that on dissection, injury No. 4 (the old incised wound on the mid-line of the scalp in the volt (vault?)) or the other partly healed incised wound caused any fracture.As such, these injuries Nos. 3 and 4 cannot be stated to be injuries which endangered life or caused Yakub Ali to suffer .during the space of twenty days severe bodily pain.Let the lower court records be sent down at once.B.C. Chakrabarti, J.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,867,528 |
On the basis of Ex.B3, the complaint, PW.4 laid trap against the accused A1 and A2, who are the officials of Income Tax Department.The case was taken on file by the Special Judge for CBI cases, Madras as C.C.No.41 of 1998 .On appearance of the accused on summons, copies under Section 207 of Cr.P.C were furnished to the accused and when the charges framed against the accused were explained to them, the accused pleaded not guilty.On the side of the Prosecution P.W.1 to P.W.7 were examined and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.16 were exhibited and M.O.1 to M.O.5 were marked.PW.1 Thiru.T.L. Mani, is the Commissioner of Income-Tax, Chennai.According to PW.1, A1 Ramachandran was working as Income Tax Officer, Special Ward, incharge of survey in New cases in (Circle 4) and Ex.P1 is the rules confirming the powers of appointing authority for Group B and Group C officers.A2, Abdul Hameed was working as Inspector of Income Tax and he was a Group C officer of the Income Tax Department, whereas A1 is the Group B officer.PW.1 would depose that after going through the documents mentioned in Ex.P2 sanction order and after getting himself satisfied with regard to the prima facie case has been made out he issued Ex.PW.2, Vijayan would depose that he is running a finance company by name Arasan Finance at Wannarapettai and there are eight shareholders to the said company and that on 22.8.1997 A2 came to Arasan finance and informed that there is a complaint received against Arasan finance in the Income Tax Department and when he enquired about the details of the complaint, A2 asked him to go to Kannammai building and to meet A1 Ramachandran, an Income Tax Officer at seventh floor.On 22.8.1997, he along with three other partners of Arasan finance went to Kannammai building and met A1 and A2 and he was also identified A1 in the court, who had informed him that a complaint has been received against the said Arasan Finance regarding evasion of payment of income tax and A1 had demanded Rs.12,000/- (Rupees twelve thousand) only as an illegal gratification to close the said file and out of Rs.12,000/- (Rupees twelve thousand) only A1 demanded Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only and A2 is to be given the balance of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) only.A1 threatened that if the demanded amount was not given, he will search the finance company and his house and also will seal the house and the company.So, A1 asked him to come on 1.9.1997 instead of 26.8.1997 .Since, they could not turn up on 1.9.1997, A2 came to his house on 2.9.1997 and asked him to go and meet A1 on 9.9.1997 at about 3.00 p.m with the amount.Since PW.2 is not willing to pay any illegal gratification, he went to Shastri Bhavan on 9.9.1997 and preferred Ex.P3, complaint to the Superintendent of Police, CBI, who was going through the complaint, sent PW.4 Premanand and directed him to take necessary action on the complaint, Ex.After a preliminary enquiry, PW.4 had asked him (PW.2) to come in the afternoon by 2.30 p.m and also instructed him to bring Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only.In the afternoon, he along with his other partners went to the office of Premanand (PW.4) where he saw PW.3, Veeraselvam.PW.3 Veeraselvam belongs to other department.PW.4 had read over the complaint to Veeraselvam and also brought a glass tumbler and prepared Sodium Carbonate solution.It was a colourless solution.When Muralidharan was asked to dip his fingers in the said solution, the said solution maintained its colourless nature and that he handed over Rs.5000/- to Premanand, who smeared phenolphthalein powder and asked Muralidharan to handle the said currency notes.After touching those notes, Muralidharan was asked to dip his hands inside the Sodium Carbonate Solution.When he did so, the solution became pink in colour.Afterwards, PW.4 Premanand placed the currency notes into his shirt pocket and informed him (Pw.2) to hand over the said currency notes to A1 and A2 on demand and till then he advised him not to touch the said currency notes which were put by him in his shirt pocket.PW.3, Veeraselvam was also asked to accompany him and to stay with him to watch the proceedings.PW.4 has preferred a Mahazar Ex.P4 for what had transpired in his office in which he has also signed and the said mahazar was prepared by 3.30 p.m and he along with other witnesses and other C.B.I officials, went to Kannammai building in two cars at about 4.00 p.m on the same day and that they reached the said building at about 4.30 p.m. PW.2 and PW.3 went to seventh floor of the building where the office of A1 is situate.When they entered the office room of A1 Ramachandran, Ramachandran (A1) enquired about PW.3 Veeraselvam.PW.2 introduced PW.3 as his Accountant.At that time, A2 also came there and A1 enquired whether PW.2 has brought the amount demanded by him for which PW.2 informed him that he had brought only Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only and assured to pay the balance within one or two days.After the arrival of Premanand (PW.4), A1 was arrested and A1 was asked to dip his fingers in the Sodium Carbonate Solution and when he dipped his right hand into the solution, the solution became pink in colour.Another glass of Sodium Carbonate Solution was prepared and Ramachandran was asked to dip his left hand into it.When he dipped his left hand into the solution, the colour of the solution turned pink.Both the bottles containing the Sodium Carbonate Solution were sealed and marked as 'A' and 'B' respectively.PW.4 asked Ramachandran, A1 to hand over the bribe amount to PW.3, and A1 acted accordingly.PW.3 compared the currency note numbers with that of the numbers noted in the Mahazar and informed that both the numbers tally with each other.M.O.1 series are the ten notes of Rs.500/- denomination each.When the shirt of Ramachandran was also dipped in the Sodium Carbonate Solution , the solution turned pink in colour.The said solution was also sealed and marked as 'C'.The shirt was also packed and sealed and marked with letter 'D' and a mahazar, Ex.P5 was also prepared for the recovery of the above said articles in which he has also signed as a witness.A copy of Ex.On the date of deposition, he was working as Senior Personal Assistant to the Deputy Director at Enforcement Directorate at Chennai.On 9.9.1997 at about 1.30 p.m, he was called by the Deputy Director of Enforcement Directorate and asked him to go to C.B.I office, Chennai and to meet Premanand, Inspector of C.B.I and accordingly, at about 2.15 p.m on the same day, he went to C.B.I office and met Inspector Premanand (PW.4).When, he went there a person by name Muralidharan belonging to C.P.W.D office was also present there along with D.S.P. Ravikumar, D.S.P. Ramasamy and Inspector Hari Om Prakash and two constables and that PW.4 had introduced him to other officials and read over the complaint given by Vijayan (PW.2).Premanand was explained to him that the C.B.I officials have formed a trap to catch the culprits red handed and for the trap he asked him to be a witness and he has also demonstrated the Sodium Carbonate Solution test to him and Muralidharan was asked to dip his hand in the Sodium Carbonate Solution.When he dipped there was no colour change in the solution.But he has asked PW.2 to hand over Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only brought by him and PW.2 also handed over ten notes of Rs.500/- denomination each amounting to Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only to him and on which PW.4 smeared the phenolphthalein powder and asked Muralidharan to handle the same and afterwards asked Muralidharan to dip his hands in the Sodium Carbonate Solution.While Muralidharan dipped his hand into the Sodium Carbonate solution, it turned pink in colour and asked Vijayan to keep the said amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only with an instruction that he shall not touch the same till he hand over the same to the accused on demand.PW.4 has further requested him (PW.3) to accompany Vijayan to A1's office and to watch the proceedings and further instructed that as soon as A1 received the bribe amount, he has asked to give signal by touching his head repeatedly.P4, Mahazar was prepared in which the currency note numbers were noted in his presence.Vijayan was having only Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only at that time and that he was having Rs.70/- in his pocket besides an identity card and a pen.After the demonstration was over, both Muralidharan and other officials have washed their hands and the test kit was taken in a suitcase by the C.B.I officials.The kit contained three glass tumblers, the Sodium Carbonate Powder and other stationeries like seal, wax etc. Phenolphthalein powder was kept in the office itself.The said demonstration was over by 3.30 p.m on the same day.PW.4 asked the partners of the PW.2's Finance company to go to income tax office at Kannammai building and the C.B.I officials and the witnesses went in two separate cars to Kannammai building and the car was stopped at Model School, near Kannammai building and he was asked to go along with Vijayan to seventh floor at Kannammai building wherein the Income Tax Office is housed.He and Vijayan went to the office of Ramachandran.The other shareholders stayed in the ground floor.When they met Ramachandran (A1), Ramachandran asked "Who he is ? " pointing out him (PW.2) Vijayan introduced PW.3 as his accountant.Immediately, A1 asked him to stand outside.On the personal examination of A1, it was found that in his pocket a black colour purse containing Rs.1,500/- (Rupees one thousand and five hundred) only.He also possessed an identity card and a telephone diary.The purse containing Rs.1,500/- (Rupees one thousand and five hundred) only, identity card and diary were returned to A1, Ramachandran.The shirt pocket of A2 was also searched and a sum of Rs.60/-, an identity card and some coins were found in his shirt pocket besides his spectacles.PW.3 has also signed in each and every page of the said file, which contained 17 pages.Ex.p7 is the said file, which contained the complaint against Arasan Finance.A recovery mahazar was prepared under Ex.p5, in which also he , Vijayan and other shareholders of the finance company of PW.2, and C.B.I officials have signed.Both A1 and A2 were released on bail in the income tax office itself.PW.4, the Inspector of police, C.B.I would depose that from 1993 November till 14th February 1999, he was working as Inspector of C.B.I at Chennai.On 9.9.1997 at about 10.30 a.m, Tmt.To catch the accused red handed, he formed a trap with the help of independent witnesses from Enforcement Office and also C.P.W.D. and made arrangements to get Veeraselvam from Enforcement Office and Muralidharan from C.P.W.D. Office at Shastri Bhavan.PW.2 also informed him that he is having only Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only and not Rs.12,000/- (Rupees twelve thousand) only as demanded by the accused and he asked PW.2 and other witnesses to be present on 9.9.1997 at about 2.30 p.m in his office.On 9.9.1997, the above said witnesses and other CBI officials and PW.2 and his partners of the Arasan finance company were present in his office and in their present, he read over the complaint in detail and also demonstrated the phenolphthalein test Sodium Carbonate test before them (as spoken to by PW.3 in his deposition) and after preparing a mahazar, Ex.P4 for what had transpired in his office after noting the currency note numbers in Ex.M.O.2 is the said bottle.He has prepared another Sodium Carbonate Solution in another tumbler and asked A1 to dip his left hand in it.M.O.6 is the specimen seal.Upto third week of June 1997, he was working as Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-7 and at that time, A1 Ramachandran and A2, Abdul Hameed were working as income tax officer and income tax inspector respectively and both of them were under his administrative control.The memorandum dated 23.03.1997 was forwarded by him to the income tax officer, Ward-4, regarding tax evasion petition in the cases of one Chelladurai Nadar and others.Along with Ex.P12, he has forwarded Ex.P8, an anonymous letter also.During the said time, A1 was income tax officer of City Circle IV (Survey).On receipt of anonymous complaint, the income tax office is supposed to look into the allegation and enquire the same.A2 is entitled to get back the entire fine imposed against him.The trial court is directed to secure A1 to undergo the unexpended portion of the sentence.The bail bond against A2 stands cancelled.mra To,The Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai.The Inspector of Police, CBI/ACB, Chennai.The Special Public Prosecutor, Chennai.Vijayan and Ramachandran alone were present in the room and he (PW.3) was standing in the corner of the room and the door was kept ajar and that PW.3 was able to see A1 and Vijayan from the place where he stood.As per the instruction of A1, PW.2 also brought the other partners of his finance company.By that time, A2 was also present there.A1 enquired the partners of the finance company, about the business and about the maintaining of the accounts.PW.2 Vijayan informed A1 that the accounts have been maintained properly in his finance company.Thereafter, A1 asked Vijayan and his partners, whether they have brought Rs.12,000/- (Rupees twelve thousand) only.Vijayan (PW.2) informed that he has brought only Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only and the balance of Rs.7,000/- (Rupees seven thousand) only will be given within one or two days.A1 asked Vijayan to hand over Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only to him.Immediately, Vijayan took Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only from his shirt pocket and handed over the same to A1 Ramachandran.After counting the currency notes, A1 placed the amount in his shirt pocket.Immediately, pW.3, who watched the same from outside the room of A1 gave signal by touching his head repeatedly.Immediately, C.B.I officials came to the seventh floor.The team consists of PW.4, Muralidharan and another witness (PW.3) and they all went to A1's room.On hearing this, A1 became nervous and spell bound.When he did so, the solution became pink in colour.The said solution was sealed and marked as 'A', which is M.O.2, in which he and Muralidharan have signed as a witness.In another glass tumbler, PW.4 prepared Sodium Carbonate Solution and asked A1, Ramachandran to dip his left hand into it.When A1 dipped his left hand in the said solution, it turned pink in colour.After affixing his seal, it was marked as 'B'by PW.4, in which he and Muralidharan have signed as witness.The said currency notes are M.O.1 series.Afterwards, PW.4 asked A1 to remove his shirt and the shirt pocket was dipped in another Sodium Carbonate Solution which also turned pink in colour.The said bottle of Sodium Carbonate Solution was also sealed and marked as 'C' in which also he and Muralidharan have signed as witnesses.Lakshmi Prasath, I.P.S, the Superintendent of Police, CBI called him and informed that from PW.2, a partner of Arasan Finance, the income tax officials by name Ramachandran, A1, and Abdul Hameed, A2 have demanded illegal gratification and on that score PW.2 has preferred a complaint to CBI and asked him to enquire into the same.P3 is the complaint handed over by the Superintendent of police.P9 is the First Information Report.P4, asked the witnesses and PW.2 to go to Kannammai building where the income tax office is housed and for the purpose of meeting A1, Ramachandran in his office.He and other witnesses and CBI officials went in another car and waited in third and fourth floor of Kannammai building respectively.PW.2 and another witness Veeraselvam were asked to go and meet A1 in his office and Veeraselvam was instructed to give signal by touching his head repeatedly soon after A1 received the bribe amount and that at about 5.10 p.m from the seventh floor Veeraselvam had signalled by combing his hair repeatedly.On seeing the signal, he and other CBI officials went to the seventh floor and entered into the room of A1 and after introducing himself to A1, he prepared Sodium Carbonate Solution in a tumbler and asked the accused A1 to dip his hand in the said solution and doing so, the colour of the solution turned pink and the same was marked as 'A'.While doing so, the colour of the solution became pink which has marked as 'B'.He asked A1 Ramachandran to take out the ill gotten money from PW.2 .Accordingly, A1 took out Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only from his shirt pocket and placed it on the table.Then, PW.4 asked Muralidharan to check the currency note numbers in the said Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only produced by A1 with that of the currency note numbers noted in Ex.P4 Mahazar.Accordingly, Muralidharan checked those numbers and informed that they tally with each other.PW.4 also recovered the shirt worn by Ramachandran, A1 at the time of occurance and dipped the shirt pocket in another Sodium Carbonate Solution and found the solution turning pink in colour.The shirt recovered from A1 was marked as 'D' and both Veeraselvam and Muralidharan have signed in the label affixed on the shirt marked as 'D'.M.O.5 is the said shirt.He has also recovered Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only produced by A1, which is M.O.1 series containing ten notes of Rs.500/- denomination each.All the recovered articles were sealed.The purse containing Rs.1,500/- (Rupees one thousand and five hundred) only and the visiting cards found in possession of A1 were returned to A1, Ramachandran.He has also recovered Ex.P8 is the complaint regarding Arasan Finance.The witnesses have signed each and every page of Ex.He has arrested A1 under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and released A1 on the same day.Ex.p10 is the search list.He has also conducted a search in the house of A2 at Door No.18, Zaffur Hussain II Street, Royapettah, Chennai-14, on 10.4.1997 at about 12.35 p.m. Nothing was recovered from A2's house in the said search.After the enquiry, he will initiate assessment proceedings against the person to bring home the tax net.The letter dated 29.05.1997 CBI/97-98/R was also sent to income tax officer, City Ward IV (Survey), which is Ex.PW.6 is the upper division clerk in the income tax department Circle No.Afterwards, he was transferred to the office of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-7, and at that time Thiru.Nigam, PW.5, was the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax.He would admit that the recitals in Ex.P13 were written by him and that PW.5 had sent Ex.P12 to the income tax department and at that time A1 was the income tax officer in City Circle-IV and that there was only one income tax officer (Survey) in Chennai at the relevant point of time.PW.7 is the Inspector of Police, CBI/ACB/Chennai and that Crime No.RC 56A/97 was transferred too him by PW.4 Premanand.As per the orders of the Superintendent of Police on 29.9.1997, he examined the witnesses Muralidharan who was working as Junior Engineer CPWD and recorded his statement.He has also examined PW.3 Veeraselvam on 13.9.1997 and recorded his statement.He has examined PW.4 Premanand, Vijayan (PW.2, the complainant) and other witnesses and recorded their statements.On 7.10.1997 he has examined DSP Raghukumar, CBI and recorded his statement.He has also examined other witnesses and recorded their statements.He has sent requisition letter to the court to sent the sample M.O.2 to M.O.4 for chemical analysis under Ex.P16 is Analysis report received from the Forensic Science Laboratory.When the incriminating circumstances were put to the accused, they denied their complexity with the crime.After going through the oral and documentary evidence let in before the trial Court, the trial Judge on the basis of the evidence, has come to the conclusion that all the three charges levelled against the accused A1 and A2 have been proved beyond any reasonable doubt and accordingly the learned trial Judge convicted the accused A1 and A2 and sentenced to undergo two years R.I. And a fine of Rs.1,000/- with default sentence for each charge and further ordered the sentence to run concurrently and set of was also given under section 428 Cr.P.C.Aggrieved by the findings of the learned trial Judge, the accused A1 and A2 have preferred this appeal.Now the point for determination in this appeal is whether the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court against A1 and A2 under section 120 B IPC r/w.7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under sections 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 are liable to be set aside for the reasons stated in the memorandum of appeal?But, A2's name was not referred to with his initial but he was referred only as Thiru.Abdul Hameed.Whereas in Ex.P9, FIR, which was registered by PW.4, the Inspector of Police, Thiru.Premanand, the accused name have been entered with initials i.e. B. Ramachandran(A1) and S.S.Abdul Hameed(A2).The learned senior counsel would contend that only on the basis of Ex.P3, complaint, FIR, Ex.P9 was registered by PW.4 and it is not explained by the prosecution and from where they got the initial for A2, which is not found in Ex.Yet another point which glares against the case of the prosecution as far as A2 is concerned is that during the trap, according to the evidence of PW.2 and PW.3 , when they went inside the office room of A1, A1 alone was there, demanding the bribe amount.A2 entered into the room of A1 only after the trap was over.It is pertinent to note that nothing was recovered from A2 in recovery mahazar.The only allegation under Ex.P3, complaint is that to close the anonymous complaint received under Ex.P8 against the evasion of tax by the Arasan Finance Company run by PW.2 Vijayan, A1 being the income tax officer, who is dealing with the file under Ex.Even, the evidence of PW.2 in this regard was not corroborated by any other independent witnesses like other partners of the finance company.Under such circumstance, without any evidence against A2, the trial court has also convicted A2, which is necessarily to be interfered with by this court.As far as A1 is concerned, he was arrested by trap.The evidence of PW.2, PW.3, and PW.4 will be cogent and convincing to bring home the guilt of the accused under the three charges indicated by me in the earlier paragraphs.PW.3, Veeraselvam is an independent witness belonging to Enforcement Directorate.He has no motive against A1 to depose falsehood against him.When incriminating circumstances were put to A1 under section 313 Cr.P.C, for question No.23 A1 would put up a new story.According to A1, on 9.9.1997 two persons entered into his room and enquired about the tax evasion petition and that they informed him that they belong to Arasan finance company and one of them told him that he is an Accountant in the said company and that the other person is Vijayan (PW.2) and he informed Vijayan that after the receipt of the notice from the department, he has to come.After both of them left his room, he went to the toilet which is 80 feet away from his office room and at that time one person was seen coming out of his room and without responding to his call, he moved towards the lift room and thereafter, he went into his room and saw currency notes on his table and after collecting those notes, he was moving towards third floor with a view to hand over the same to the Deputy Commissioner and at that time a person caught hold of his hand introducing that he is a CBI official and pushed him inside the room and at that time the currency notes fell on the ground.But the said officer threatened him to put those notes into his shirt pocket and by fear, he also placed those notes into his (A1) shirt pocket.So, the above said explanation given by A1 is an unbelievable story.The natural conduct of a person that too an officer of the income tax is if any suspected person enters into his room and without responding his request to stop, moving away from the place, he would have naturally raise alarm and asked his subordinates to catch hold of that person.Even after finding currency notes on his table without touching the same, A1 being an income tax officer, should have called for the assistance of the others and informed the same to his higher officials.But to our dismay A1 would say that he collected those currency notes from his table and he was about to hand over the same to the Deputy Commissioner and at that time a person introducing himself as a CBI official pushed him into his room.a public servant receiving illegal gratification for performing his official function.The learned trial judge has convicted the accused A1 both under section 7 and also under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 to undergo two years RI under each of the above said sections and also levied separate fine of Rs.1000/- under each of the above said sections of law, which is illegal in view of the above said dictum of the Honourable Apex Court.In the result, the appeal is allowed in part.The conviction and sentence against A2 in C.C.No.41 of 1998 on the file of the Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai, is set aside and he is acquitted from all the charges levelled against him.As far as A1 is concerned the conviction and sentence by the trial court under Section 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is confirmed and sentenced to under go one year R.I instead of two years and as far as fine against A1 is concerned it is to be sustained in respect of one count i.e under section 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(d).The conviction and sentence against A1 under Section 120 B r/w. 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is set aside.
|
['Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
18,675,397 |
This first bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.652/2019 registered at Police Station-Civil Line Rewa, District- Rewa (M.P.), for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 324, 326 and 506-B of the Indian Penal Code.He further submits that though the offence has been registered against the present applicant but there is no direct allegation against him for assaulting the complainant.It is directed that the applicant be released on bail upon his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.It is further directed that the applicant shall abide by the conditions enumerated in Section 437(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.If the doctor suspects otherwise, the applicant shall be referred to the appropriate hospital for further management as per the protocol laid down by the State.In the event the jail doctor is of the opinion that the applicant can be released, then he shall be released.Certified copy as per rules.The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned trial Court through E-mail.(SANJAY DWIVEDI) JUDGE Devashish DEVASHISH MISHRA 2020.06.08 15:44:35 +05'30'
|
['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
186,757,141 |
C.C. as per rules.(ATUL SREEDHARAN) JUDGE rk Digitally signed by RAVIKANT KEWAT Date: 2018.05.18 04:01:53 -07'00'C.Prasad Dwivedi, learned counsel for the Objector.This third appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed for grant of bail to the appellant, who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.1174/2017 for offences punishable under sections 354-A, 506 of IPC and section 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act registered at Police Station-Harda, District- Harda.This third appeal has been filed for grant of bail to the appellant, after the first one having been dismissed on merit vide order dated 05.02.2018 passed in Cr.Thereafter, the second appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty to file afresh after the statement of the prosecutrix is recorded before the learned trial Court vide order dated 17.04.2018 passed in Cr.She has been declared hostile and resiled from her statement recorded under section 161 and she has not made any allegations against the appellant herein.Learned counsel for the Objector has no objection, if bail being granted to the appellant herein.Under the circumstances, the appeal is allowed and it is directed that the appellant herein shall be enlarged on bail upon his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,867,689 |
(a) The deceased Dakshinamurthy was an auto-rickshaw driver.Theaccused Muralidharan and another accused Maheswaran were friends.P. W.1Mohan Kumar was also known to the accused Maheswaran.Some days prior to thedate of occurrence, the deceased Dakshinamurthy eveteased the sister ofMuralidharan, the accused.Over this, there was a quarrel between the accusedand the deceased.In order to take revenge upon the deceased, Maheswaran andMuralidharan, the accused hatched a conspiracy to commit murder of thedeceased.(b) In pursuance of this, on the midnight of 8/9.2.1994 at 12 O'clock, the accused Maheswaran and the appellant Muralidharan along with MohanKumar, P.W.1 came to the house of the deceased and requested him to take themin his auto-rickshaw and to drop Mohan Kumar in their house as Mohan Kumardrank excessively.Therefore, the deceased took all the three and went toSinganallur area.(c) While they were proceeding towards Singanallur, Maheswaran askedthe deceased to stop the auto-rickshaw stating that P.W.1 developed vomitingsensation.Accordingly, the auto was stopped.The accused-1 and 2 got downfrom the auto-rickshaw and took P.W.1 to roadside to enable him to vomit.Thedeceased also got down from the auto and was standing near the auto-rickshaw.Suddenly, Maheswaran and Muralidharan, the accused-1 and 2 came near thedeceased and began to attack him.Maheswaran with aruval gave a cut on thehead of the deceased with the weapon and the appellant Muralidharan with aknife stabbed the deceased repeatedly.On noticing this, P.W.1 got panickyand ran away from the scene.The deceased fell down with injuries.Theaccused-1 and 2 sped away from the scene.(d) The deceased then got up with bleeding injuries, drove hisauto-rickshaw and came near Maniam Theatre.He stopped near the autorickshawstand and inform P.W.2 Sivakumar who is the another autorickshaw driver, as towhat happened and requested him to take him to the Government Hospital.Accordingly, P.W.2 took the victim in his auto-rickshaw to the GovernmentHospital and admitted him.(e) P.W.15 doctor examined him and gave treatment and then sentintimation, Ex.P.20 to the Out-post police station.After examining thevictim, he gave accident register, Ex.In spite of treatment, thedeceased died at 4.00 a.m.on that day.Therefore, the doctor P.W.15 Dr.Ramachandran who was on duty gave death intimation, Ex.P.21 to the policestation.(f) In the meantime, P.W.2 went and informed the relatives of thedeceased about his admission in the hospital and went to the SinganallurPolice Station and gave the complaint, Ex.P.15 is the post-mortem certificate.At the outset, it shall be stated that the evidence of P.W.2Shivakumar, auto-driver, who took the deceased to the hospital when he was inserious condition and gave the complaint to the police is so natural andtrustworthy.According to P.W.2 when he was sleeping in the auto stand in themid-night, the deceased came in his auto with full of bleeding injuries allover the body and woke him up.When P.W.2 saw the deceased sitting in theauto, he was shocked to notice that the condition of the deceased was soserious.When P.W.2 asked about the reason for the injuries, the deceasedtold him that he was attacked by A.1 Maheswaran and A.2 Muralidharan in viewof the earlier incident in which he had eve-teased the sister of Muralidharan.Then P.W.2 took him to the Government Hospital where he was admitted.P.W.15,the doctor gave treatment and sent the intimation, Ex.P.20 to the Out-poststation.In Ex.P.20, it is clearly mentioned that the victim Dakshinamurthywas admitted in the hospital and he was brought by Shivakumar, P.W.2.Similarly, in Ex.The same was registered forthe offence under Section 307 I.P.C. After the death of the deceased, theSinganallur Police received the death intimation.(g) On receipt of the message, P.W.17, Inspector of Police took upinvestigation and went to the spot and prepared Observation Mahazar and RoughSketch and collected blood-stained earth and sample earth etc. Then, the casewhich was originally registered under Section 307 I.P.C. was altered into oneunder Section 302 I.P.C. P.W.17 He conducted inquest on the dead body of thedeceased in the hospital.Then, he sent a requisition to the doctor toconduct autopsy on the dead body.(h) P.W.10 doctor commenced post-mortem on 9.2.1994 at 2.15 p.m. andfound 15 injuries all over the body and gave opinion that the deceased wouldappear to have died of shock and hemorrhage as a result of multiple stabinjuries.(i) On 12.2.1994, P.W.17 arrested A.1 Maheswaran, A.2 Muralidharan andrecorded their confession.In pursuance of the confession, M.O.3 aruval wasrecovered from A.1 Maheswaran and M.O.2 knife was recovered from A.2Muralidharan.P.W.18, another Inspector of Police took up furtherinvestigation and examined the witnesses on 21.2.1994 at about 3.15 p.m.Mohan Kumar, P.W.1 surrendered before the police and handed over the wristwatch, M.O.1 said to have been given to him by the A.1, Maheswaran.P.W.1 wasarrested as A.3 and then he was sent for judicial remand.(j) On 26.2.1994, P.W.18, Inspector of Police requested the ChiefJudicial Magistrate to arrange for recording the confessional statement of thesaid Mohan Kumar under Section 164 Cr.P.C. P.W.12, the Judicial Magistraterecorded the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. from Mohan Kumar (A.3).Subsequently, on the request made by the Inspector of Police, P.W.14, ChiefJudicial Magistrate granted pardon on 27 .2.1994 to the accused No.3 andtreated him as an approver Then P. W.19 another Inspector of Police continuedthe investigation and examined the other witnesses.After completing theinvestigation, he filed the charge sheet against the accused-1 and 2 for theoffence under Section 302 read with 120-B I.P.C.Even before the commencement of trial, A.1 Maheswaran died.Therefore, the appellant Muralidharan alone was tried for the offence underSections 120-B and 302 I.P.C.During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 19 were examined, Exs.P.1 toP.13 were filed and M.Os.1 to 13 were marked.When the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., hesimply denied his complicity in the offence.Hence, this appeal.That apart, P.W.3 would not have seen the deceased going along withother accused, since P.W.1 did not refer to the presence of P.W.3 when thedeceased left from his house in his auto-rickshaw.The evidence of P.W.10,post-mortem doctor would clearly show that the deceased having sustained 15grievous injuries all over the body would not have driven the auto for about 2kilometres and as such, the evidence of P.W.2 giving the details of the oraldying declaration cannot be believed. "In reply to the above submissions, Mr. Raja, learned AdditionalPublic Prosecutor would contend that the evidence of P.W.2 is so natural,since he was the person who took the victim to the hospital which iscorroborated by Exs.P.20 and P.25, the intimation and the accident registerand he informed the relatives immediately and then went to the police stationand gave Ex.P.1 complaint mentioning about the oral dying declaration given bythe deceased and also the evidence of P.W.2 is well corroborated by theevidence of the doctor and as such, the evidence of both P.Ws.1 and 2 issupported by other materials like medical evidence etc., and the recovery ofthe weapons from A.1 and A.2 and consequently, it has to be held that thereasonings given by the trial Court for imposing the conviction are perfectlyjustified.We have given our anxious consideration to the rival contentionsurged by both the counsel and gone through the records.P.20 reached the police station immediately.At 2.00 a.m., P.W.2went to the police station and gave the complaint Ex.In Ex.P.1, he hadclearly stated what the deceased told him.On the basis of the complaintgiven by P.W.2 the case was originally registered against A.1 and A.2 alone.Then, on 12.2.1994, A.1 and A.2 were arrested and M.Os.2 and 3were recovered from them respectively.Only on interrogation, P.W.17Inspector of Police came to know about the involvement of Mohan Kumar (P.W.1).When P.W.1 searched for Mohan Kumar on the basis of the confession given byA.1 and A.2, he decided to surrender before the police.Accordingly, hesurrendered before the police on 21.2.1994 .On the basis of thepardon, he was taken as an approver and cited as one of the witnesses.A reading of the evidence of P.W.1 would clearly indicate thatimmediately after the occurrence he ran away from the scene of occurrence anddid not turn up to his house.On the other hand, he went and stayed with hisgrandfather's house.Only on coming to know through the newspapers that hewas also being searched for in the said murder case, he surrendered before thepolice.Thereupon, the confession statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. wasrecorded.A reading of Ex.P.18 , the 164 statement and the evidence of P.W.1would make it clear that the confession given by P.W.1 with reference to theoccurrence is quite consistent and reliable.Much was said about the doctor's evidence.P.W.10 the doctorstated that the deceased could not have driven the vehicle for about twokilometres.We have also noticed the nature of injuries.But, the factremains that P.W.15, the Doctor who examined the deceased, found that thedeceased was conscious and he was able to answer the questions.He furtherstated in his deposition that the details of the incident, time, date and allother particulars were given by the deceased himself.So, the evidence ofP.W.15 would clearly indicate that the deceased was conscious enough to givethe particulars of the incident and also answered the question put by thedoctor.In the above circumstances, we cannot give much importance to theopinion evidence given by P.W.10 that after sustaining these injuries, hecould not have driven the auto.It is also noticed from the deposition given by P.W.2 who refers to theoral dying declaration made by the deceased has not been challenged in thecross-examination.Though P.W.3 would state that a statement had beenobtained by the Head Constable from the deceased Dakshinamurthy in thehospital, P.W.17, the Inspector of Police emphatically denied having obtainedany such statement from the deceased.Under these circumstances, having regard to the reliability ofthe evidence adduced by P.W.2 and also the evidence of P.W.1 which findscorroboration through the other materials, we are of the considered view thatthere are sufficient materials to find the accused guilty for the offence ofmurder.Therefore, the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court onthe accused is perfectly valid and the same is liable to be confirmed andaccordingly confirmed.
|
['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.
|
186,775,331 |
i. Prosecutrix Lahanbai Dighe was resident of village Vihir, Taluka Akole, District Ahmednagar.She was residing with her husband and children.Parents of prosecutrix were also residing in the same village.She used to go from place to place in search of labour work.On 15th December, 2000 Complainant with other labourers had been to Dhamangaon Pat-Ghulewadi to work in the field of Machindra Ghule.She was required to stay there till completion of work.In the night she ::: Uploaded on - 11/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:15:48 ::: 3 926 CRI.APPEAL.346.01.odt and other lady labourers were sleeping in a room.::: Uploaded on - 11/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:15:48 :::According to prosecution at around 10:30 p.m. Accused and PW-5 Gorakh Sable went to the room in which prosecutrix was sleeping.They came on motorcycle.Accused told prosecutrix that her daughter Shaila was ill and her brother had asked him to bring her.Accused and prosecutrix were the pillion riders.When they reached to Deviche Ghat Accused under the pretext to go for urination asked Gorakh to stop motorcycle.Gorakh stopped the bike.Accused then asked Gorakh to proceed with bike and told him that they would come on foot.Gorakh left the place.It is alleged that Accused then took Complainant to the side of the road and under threats twice committed sexual assault on her.dated 20th August, 2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangamner in Sessions Case No.10 of 2001 convicting the Appellant of the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of ::: Uploaded on - 11/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:15:48 ::: 2 926 CRI.APPEAL.346.01.odt the Indian Penal Code as under:::: Uploaded on - 11/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:15:48 :::of Rs.2,000/- in default Rigorous Imprisonment for six months.506 Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.500/- in default Rigorous Imprisonment for three months.2 Briefly stated the facts of prosecution case are as under:Complainant was a labourer.Prosecutrix then accompanied Accused and Gorakh on motorcycle.Gorakh was riding the motorcycle.::: Uploaded on - 11/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:15:48 :::926 CRI.APPEAL.346.01.odt iv.Report of the incident was lodged.Crime was registered against the Accused.Janardhan Tivate conduced investigation and filed charge-sheet.3 Charge was framed against the Accused.He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.He raised the defence that it was a case of love affair.The husband of Complainant learnt about love affair and so he was falsely implicated.4 Prosecution examined in all 9 witnesses to substantiate the alleged guilt of Accused.Appellant had challenged the correctness of said judgment and order in this appeal.5 Heard the learned counsel for parties.Upon carefully going through the evidence of prosecution witnesses this Court finds that there is merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of ::: Uploaded on - 11/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:15:48 ::: 5 926 CRI.APPEAL.346.01.odt Appellant / Accused as the prosecution could not prove guilt of Appellant / Accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the reasons stated below.::: Uploaded on - 11/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:15:48 :::6 PW-1 Lahanbai Dighe is the star witness for prosecution.She stated that at the time of incident she had been to village Dhamangaon Pat-Ghulewadi for labour work.She was required to stay in the village till completion of work.She stated that other labourers were with her.During night lady labourers were sleeping in one room and male labourers were sleeping in another room.Evidence of prosecutrix shows that at around 10:00 to 10:30 p.m. Accused with Gorakh had been to the room and informed her that her daughter was ill so she was required to accompany them.Since she was knowing the Accused she accompanied him on the motorcycle on which Gorakh and Accused had come to her.Evidence of prosecutrix further indicates that Gorakh was driving the motorcycle.She and Accused were pillion riders.On the way to her village at around 11:00 p.m. when they reached Deviche Ghat Accused told Gorakh to stop vehicle and asked him to proceed.Gorakh left the place.She states that Accused then threatened to kill her and her husband.He took her to the distance of 40-50 feet from road, undressed her and ::: Uploaded on - 11/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:15:48 ::: 6 926 CRI.APPEAL.346.01.odt committed sexual intercourse with her forcibly.::: Uploaded on - 11/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:15:48 :::7 It is also stated by prosecutrix that after incident she wore her clothes.Accused also put on his clothes.When they were proceeding on foot again second time Accused committed sexual intercourse with her.She then came to her house.Informed the incident to her mother and brother.After arrival of her husband, he was also informed about the incident.8 In the cross-examination prosecutrix admitted that she was knowing Accused since before incident.She also admits that she did not ask Gorakh not to leave when Accused asked him to proceed.She admitted that she did not resist Accused when he undressed her.She did not try to run away when Accused was removing his clothes.She did not raise any alarm.She further admits in an unequivocal terms that both the time she did not resist the act of Accused.9 The evidence of prosecutrix clearly shows that after the first incident she on her own followed the Accused and accompanied him.There is no evidence to show that she attempted to resist the alleged act of Accused.Facts elicited in her piercing cross-examination would make it clear that she was a consenting party ::: Uploaded on - 11/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:15:48 ::: 7 926 CRI.APPEAL.346.01.odt throughout.Medical evidence does not indicate any injury on the person of prosecutrix.She was a married lady having children.::: Uploaded on - 11/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:15:48 :::Appeal therefore deserves to be allowed.Hence the following order -O R D E R I. Criminal Appeal No.346 of 2001 is allowed.The judgment and order dated 20th August, 2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangamner in Sessions Case No.10 of 2001, is set aside and Appellant Keshav Pandurang Dhadwad is acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 11/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:15:48 :::Fine amount if any paid shall be refunded to the Appellant.[ INDIRA K. JAIN, J. ] ndm ::: Uploaded on - 11/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:15:48 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:15:48 :::
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
186,778,138 |
Case diary perused.This is repeat (fifth) application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.379/2018, registered at Police Station-Sarangpur, District-Rajgarh concerning offence under Sections 186, 353, 332, 147, 148, 149 and 333 of the IPC.After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application .Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn.However, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and shall make all endeavor to conclude the same as early as possible.Learned counsel for the applicant is also directed to file the certified copy of this order before the trial Court within 15 days from today so that trial court can take note of the same.Certified copy as per rules.(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt Santosh Kumar Tiwari 2019.12.03 18:52:19 +05'30'
|
['Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
186,779,093 |
Heard on admission.This appeal has been preferred under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") being aggrieved with the judgment dated 30.3.2010 passed by Additional Judge to the Court of I Additional Sessions Judge, Tikamgarh in Session Trial Nos.281/2001 & 282/2001, whereby respondent no.3 has been acquitted of the offence under Section 302/34, whereas respondent nos. 1,2,4 and 5 have been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 in alternative 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short).Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 30/4/1998, respondent nos. 1 to 5 threw the dead body of Munnalal (since deceased) on the Railway Track at Tehraka, after killing him with an Axe.Alternatively, it was pleaded that Munnalal was subjected to cruelty and harassment to such an extent that he was left with no other option except to commit suicide by standing before a running train.Besides this, a private complaint was also filed by son of the deceased leading to registration of offence under Section 302 of the IPC against the respondents.Police Case and the Complaint Case were tagged and disposed of by the impugned common judgment.Learned Government Advocate, while making reference to the evidence on record, submitted that the learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and the impugned judgment deserves to be interfered with.Having regard to the arguments advanced by the learned Government Advocate, we have gone through the impugned judgment.Dr. B.B.Khare (PW1), who conducted the autopsy, was not able to opine as to the nature of injuries in view of the fact that the same were caused by a running train.Evidence of complainant Raju Prasad (PW3), Keshar Bai (PW4), Roop Singh (PW6), Omprakash (PW7), Ramdayal (PW11), Santosh (PW13) and Ghanendra Singh (PW14), was found to be full of contradictions, omissions and exaggerations.Corresponding Axe injuries, as alleged by the prosecution, were not found in the medical evidence.Prosecution also failed to lead any evidence to prove abetment to commit suicide.In the aforesaid premises, the trial Court found that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.We agree with the findings recorded by the trial Court.It is well settled that the judgment of acquittal should not be disturbed unless the conclusions drawn on the basis of evidence brought on record are found to be grossly unreasonable or manifestly perverse or palpably unsustainable.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
186,780,128 |
Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.The applicant has filed this 1st bail application u/S 439, Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.The applicant has been arrested by Police Station Aaron, District Guna in connection with Crime No.136/2015 registered in relation to the offences punishable u/Ss. 147, 148, 149, 294 and 302 of IPC.Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposed the application and prayed for its rejection by contending that on the basis of the allegations and the material available on record, no case for grant of bail is made out.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
186,866,703 |
Heard both sides.3. Perused the records.The offences complained of, other than the offence under the Special enactment, may not be serious in nature warranting initial detention in jail, even before considering the bail application.Therefore, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (P.C.R.), Special Judge for Prevention of SC/ST Atrocities Act, Villupuram, is directed to accept the surrender of the petitioner and consider his bail application on the very same day purely on the basis of merits and in accordance with law.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is ordered.The Additional Sessions Judge, (P.C.R.), Special Judge for Prevention of SC/ST Atrocities Act, Villupuram.The Inspector of Police, Kannai Police Station, Villupuram District.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.R.MALA, J.JrlCRL.O.P.No.5901 of 201618.03.2016
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
186,877,236 |
The appellant and the deceased were residing in the same village.They loved each other.They eloped and married at Ramanathapuram against the wish of their parents.After marriage, they resided at Ramanathapuram for a period of three months.But, they could not survive at Ramanathapuram and therefore, they returned to their native place and were living separately in a rented house.P.W.1, namely, Rajammal is the mother of the deceased.P.W.2, 2/17http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.A(MD)No.264 of 2010 namely, Sathya and P.W.3, Thavamani are sister and father of the deceased respectively.They were living away from the deceased's house.3.2.The appellant/first accused was working in a workshop.On 21.08.2002, at about 09.00.am, he returned from his work and at that time, a person ran away from his house.The appellant questioned his wife/deceased about that person and he suspected her fidelity and also assaulted her.Thereafter, he went in a bicycle, returned with his mother/accused No.2 and they have abused the deceased.After that, the deceased's mother [P.W.1] came to her house and insisted to come with her, but, she refused.In view of the incident, the victim girl poured kerosene and set fire on her own.She was taken to Rajaji Government Hospital and admitted in the hospital.On receipt of intimation from the husband (A1) , the Head Constable [P.W.10], Thirubhuvanam Police Station, went to the Hospital on 22.08.2002 at 10.30.am, and recorded the statement [Ex.P.1] from the victim.3.4.On intimation from the Hospital, Madurai on 22.08.2002 at 03.45.a.m, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Madurai, namely, Indirani [P.W.4] went to the Hospital and recorded the dying declaration of the 3/17http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.A(MD)No.264 of 2010 deceased in the presence of Dr.The Doctor has also attested that the patient was conscious and was in a fit state of mind to give dying declaration before the learned Judicial Magistrate.There is no whisper of any demand of dowry at that point of time.However, in Ex.The marriage between the deceased and the appellant was solemnized only six months prior to the occurrence.It was a love marriage and their parents were against the marriage and therefore, the appellant and the deceased eloped and married at Ramanathapuram.After marriage, they resided at Ramanathapuram for a period of three months.They could not survive at Ramanathapuram and therefore, they returned to their native village at Vanniyenthal and were also residing separately in a rented house.Their parents were also residing in the same village., in the presence of Dr.11/17http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.A(MD)No.264 of 2010 The victim girl has stated that on the date of occurrence, her husband/appellant suspected her fidelity and quarrelled with her and therefore, she poured kerosene and set fire on her own.In Ex.P.1 recorded by the Constable (P.W.10) on 22.08.2002 at about 10.30.a.m, it is mentioned that on 21.08.2002 at about 09.00.p.m, when her husband returned from the work shop, a person ran away from their house and the appellant/accused questioned about that person and on account of which, there was a problem arose between them.Thereafter, he went to his house and brought the second accused and the second accused insisted her to give the Mangalsuthra and to leave the house.Therefore, the deceased is said to have committed suicide by pouring kerosene.According to P.W.1, the victim girl set fire at around 10.30.p.m and she was taken to the hospital.But, they were not in a position to meet their needs at 13/17http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.A(MD)No.264 of 2010 Ramanathapuram and they could not survive at Ramanathapuram.Therefore, they returned to their native place and were residing separately, in a rented house.1/17http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.A(MD)No.264 of 20102.The appellant along with his parents was tried for the offence under Sections 498 (A) and 304 (b) IPC and the trial Court found the appellant/A1 guilty convicted and sentenced him as follows:However, the trial Court acquitted the parents/A2 & A3 from the charges.Aggrieved over the conviction and sentence, the appellant/A1 preferred this Criminal Appeal.The deceased gave a dying declaration that since her husband questioned her fidelity, she poured kerosene and set fire and at that time, there was nobody near her.The statement recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate was marked as Ex.P.W.10, the Head Constable, Thirubhuvanam Police Station, returned to the police station at about 12.30.pm, and handed over the statement of the deceased [Ex.P.1] to the Sub Inspector of Police [P.W.11].On receipt of the same, a case was registered in Crime No.298 of 2002, as against the appellant and his parents for the offence under Sections 498(A) and 304(b) IPC on 22.08.2002 at 12.30.pm.On receipt of information about the case in Crime No.298 of 2002, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Manamadurai Circle [P.W.12] went to the place of occurrence and prepared an observation mahazar [Ex.P.3] and a rough sketch [Ex.P.8] in the presence of witnesses [P.W.5 and P.W.6].He also recovered a five liter kerosene Can [M.O.1] and the burned jacket, 4/17http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.A(MD)No.264 of 2010 inner wear and saree of the deceased [M.Os.2 to 4, respectively], from the place of occurrence.Thereafter, he proceeded to the Hospital and recorded the statement from the victim and her mother [P.W.1].Thereafter, he went to the occurrence place and recorded the statement from the deceased's sister, namely, Sathya [P.W.2], Thavamani, father of deceased [P.W.3], Munisamy [P.W.7] and one Malaisamy and Karuppaiah.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, namely, Muthusamy [P.W.12] arrested the accused on 24.08.2002 and remanded him to judicial custody.During the trial 12 witnesses were examined and 8 documents were marked and 4 material objects were also produced.The available evidences from the prosecution side are as follows: 5/17http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.A(MD)No.264 of 2010(i) P.W.1 is the mother of the deceased and she speaks about the love marriage performed by the first accused and the deceased and the incident that has taken place on the occurrence day.(ii) P.W.2, Sathya is the sister of the deceased and P.W.3 is the father of the deceased.(iv) P.W.5 and P.W.6 were examined as mahazar witnesses and they were treated as hostile witnesses.(v) P.W.7, another villager, turned hostile.(vi) P.W.8, Dr. Alaudin, conducted the postmortem and according to the Doctor, he conducted the postmortem on 27.08.2002 at 02.10.a.m., on the deceased.The deceased died due to extensive superficial burnt of 70% and the complications there on.The postmortem certificate is marked as Ex.(viii) P.W.10, Sekaran, is the Head Constable, who received the intimation from the Government Rajaji Hospital and recorded the statement [Ex.P.1] from the deceased.6/17http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.A(MD)No.264 of 2010(x) P.W.12, is the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who conducted the investigation in this case and filed the final report.6.After the prosecution evidence was closed, the incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C and the accused denied the same.Though they have stated that there are witnesses in their favour, they did not examine any witnesses during the trial.In conclusion of the trial, the trial Court acquitted the accused Nos.2 and 3 and found the appellant/A1 guilty for the offence under Sections 498(A) and 304(b) IPC, convicted and sentenced him as stated above.8.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant raised the following points for consideration:the marriage between the deceased and the appellant was solemnized only six months prior to the occurrence and it was a love marriage and that their marriage was solemnized against the wish of their parents.Therefore, P.W.1 to P.W.3 were having grudge against the love marriage solemnized between the appellant and the deceased and have exerted a false evidence before the trial Court.The victim was admitted in the Hospital on 21.08.2002 and immediately, intimation was sent to the Judicial Magistrate.The learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Madurai (P.W.4) has also recorded the dying declaration from the victim on 22.08.2002 at about 03.45.a.m, in the presence of the Dr.M.Radhakrishnan, who has also attested the state of mind of the victim girl before recording the dying declaration.But, the said Doctor was not examined as a witness in this case.According to the prosecution, the victim was conscious at the time of recording the dying declaration and she has stated that her husband has suspected her fidelity and quarrelled with her on the date of occurrence and therefore, she poured kerosene, set fire on her own and at that point of time, 8/17http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.A(MD)No.264 of 2010 there was nobody present in her house.There was no averment as to any demand of dowry by the accused.8.4.The learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Madurai (P.W.4), who recorded the dying declaration has also ascertained the consciousness of the victim at the time of recording the dying declaration.P.1, which was recorded at about 10.30.am., an averment was introduced as if the appellant demanded Rs.50,000/- to start a business.He has also stated that P.Ws.1 to 3, were already having grudge against the appellant, because the appellant got married her daughter, against their wish.The appellant questioned his wife/deceased about the person, who ran away from his house.But, they have foisted this false case as if, there was a demand of dowry and on account of which, she committed suicide.The learned counsel for the appellant has also pointed out that the evidence of P.W.3, the father of the deceased would show that the appellant and the victim were struggling to earn and to meet their needs.P.W.6, who is 9/17http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.A(MD)No.264 of 2010 the resident of the village has suggested P.W.3 to help the appellant by giving a sum of Rs.50,000/-, so that, the accused can establish a cycle shop and can manage their life.Even assuming that there was a request for arranging a business, it cannot be treated as a demand of dowry, which was the cause for committing the suicide.The trial Court, when extended the benefit of doubt as against the other accused, ought to have extended the benefit of doubt in favour of the appellant also.Therefore, he prays for allowing this appeal.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State would submit that the occurrence has taken place within six months from the date of marriage and the accused has not only demanded money from the deceased, but, has also suspected her fidelity.On account of the same, the victim girl has committed suicide.There was a dowry demand in this case and the demand of dowry was also established by the prosecution witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.3 and the deceased also died in a suspicious circumstances.According to the deceased, she set fire on her own on 21.08.2002 in her house.The victim girl was admitted in the Government Rajaji Hospital on 21.08.2002 at 08.00.p.m.There was no evidence available on the side of the prosecution as to who brought the deceased to the hospital.However, on intimation made to the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Madurai from the Hospital on 22.08.2002, P.W.4 has recorded the dying declaration from the deceased on 22.08.2002 at 03.55.am.But, nowhere it is stated, who admitted the deceased in the hospital.The Doctor, who attended the deceased on 21.08.2002, who gave the intimation to the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Madurai (P.W4), as well as the Police Station, was also not examined.Similarly, the Accident Register copy was also not marked in this case.12/17http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.A(MD)No.264 of 2010The victim, in her dying declaration has stated that the occurrence has taken place at 08.00.p.m on 21.08.2002, whereas, as per Ex.P.1, her husband returned from the workshop around 09.00 p.m and according to P.W. 1, it was at 10.30.p.m, the victim girl poured kerosene and attempted to commit suicide.16.P.W.2, sister of the deceased in her evidence, has stated that on the date of occurrence, a person was found in the deceased's house and as soon as the appellant arrived at the house, he ran away from that house, but she was not aware of that person.The appellant/accused questioned about that person and also suspected her fidelity.According to P.W.3, P.W.6 is also the resident of Vanniyenthal village and he approached him and suggested to help the accused by giving a sum of Rs.50,000/-, so that the appellant can arrange for a shop.17.The available evidence would disclose that the appellant and the deceased loved each other and the marriage was solemnized against the wish of their parents.The appellant was working in a mechanical shop.When he returned from his work shop on 21.08.2002, a person ran away from the house on account of which, the appellant has questioned the victim girl and also suspected her fidelity.Therefore, the victim girl poured kerosene and committed suicide.18.The prosecution case is that the victim girl was subjected to harassment by demanding dowry of Rs.50,000/-, as per Ex.But, P.W.3/ father of the deceased has categorically stated that this demand of Rs.50,000/- was made only through P.W.6, who is a resident of the same village and also by way of a suggestion for survival has suggested P.W.3 to help the accused to arrange a vulcanizing shop by providing a sum of Rs.50,000/-.This evidence of P.W.3 would show that it was neither a demand and nor a dowry.If any amount has been sought, even either by the appellant or on behalf of the appellant as a financial help, it cannot be treated as a dowry to attract the offence under Section 304 (b) IPC.14/17http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.A(MD)No.264 of 201019.However, in this case, the victim was subjected to harassment by suspecting her fidelity and on account of which, she committed suicide by pouring kerosene.Admittedly, as per Ex.P.1 as well as the evidence of P.W.2, an unknown person was found in the house of the appellant and he ran away from the house on seeing the appellant.The appellant is said to have questioned his wife about that person.But, his wife was not aware of that person, for which, the appellant insulted her.Therefore, she committed suicide, on emotion.However, it can also be treated as a harassment soon before her death and the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant/accused for the offence under Section 498(A) IPC.In view of the foregoing discussions and reasonings, this Court, while confirming the conviction under Section 498(A) IPC, is inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Sivakasi in S.C.No.133 of 2005, dated 12.07.2010 insofar as the conviction under Section 304(b) IPC is concerned.In the result,(i) the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court for the offence under Section 304(b) IPC are set aside and the appellant/accused is acquitted from this charge.15/17http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.A(MD)No.264 of 2010(ii) the conviction imposed by the trial Court for the offence under Section 498(A) IPC is confirmed.During the course of arguments, it was represented that the appellant has already undergone 323 days of imprisonment and the said fact has also been confirmed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.Therefore, the sentence of imprisonment is modified to that of the period already undergone by the appellant/accused.The fine amount as well as default clause remain unaltered.(iii) bail bonds, if any, executed by the appellant/accused shall stand terminated.With the above modifications, this Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.20.11.2019 das To1.The Assistant Sessions Judge, Sivagangai.2.The Inspector of Police, Thirubhuvanam Police Station, Sivagangai District.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.16/17http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.A(MD)No.264 of 2010 B.PUGALENDHI,J.das CRL.A(MD)No.264 of 2010 20.11.2019
|
['Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
186,878,380 |
Case diary perused.This is first application under Section 438, Cr.P.C. applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 924/2018 registered at Police-Station-Lasudia, District-Indore, for the offence punishable under Sections 353, 332 and 333/34 of the IPC.After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. with liberty to surrender before the trial Court and moved an appropriate application for regular bail.Accordingly, present application is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.Certified copy as per rules.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
186,878,476 |
The petition arises out of an externment proceedingunder section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act. By theorder dated 30th October 2018 passed by the DeputyCommissioner of police, Solapur City, Solapur, the Petitioner wasexterned for the period of two years from Solapur City andSolapur District.This order was challenged by filing an appealbefore the appellate authority, namely, the DivisionalCommissioner under section 60 of the said Act. The appeal wasdisposed of by the appellate authority on 7 th December 2018;::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2019 02:37:56 :::thereby Petitioner's appeal was partly allowed and the period ofexternment was reduced to one year and the said externmentorder was restricted to Solapur City only.The Petitioner was externed on the basis of following4 crimes registered against him :In addition to the above crimes, the externingauthority also relied upon the in-camera statements of twowitnesses.The appellate authority has taken a note that so faras 2 crimes are concerned, they are alleged to have beencommitted in the year 2005 and 2009 and therefore are stale andcould not have been taken into consideration by the externingauthority.::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2019 02:37:56 :::Thus there isonly 1 crime pending against the Petitioner, namely, CR.So far as the in-camera statementsof two witnesses are concerned, the first witness has stated thaton 10th August 2017 at about 1.10 p.m., when he had gone toSolapur Municipal Corporation office, the Petitioner and his twoassociates threatened and assaulted him and extorted an amountof Rs.3000/-.In this regard,the learned counsel for the Petitioner has relied upon certifiedcopy of roznama of the said Sessions Case, which is annexed atExhibit-F to the petition.We have perused the same and findsome merit in the contention of Petitioner.::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2019 02:37:56 :::(b).::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2019 02:37:56 :::
|
['Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
186,889,131 |
Allowed pk C.R.M. 7460 of 2016 In the matter of : An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 14.09.2016 in connection with Ekbalpore Police Station Case No. 172 of 2016 dated 07.04.2016 under Sections 467/468/471/420/406 of the Indian Penal Code.
|
['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
186,895,992 |
In default of the payment of fine, appellants have been directed to undergo a further Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three months.2. Appellants in Appeal bearing No.333/2001 are the mother-in-law, husband and father-in-law of the deceased, who have been convicted for the offence under section 304-B, IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of ten (10) years.The appellants have also been convicted under section 498-A, IPC and sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three years and a fine of Rs.1000/-.In default of the payment of fine, appellants are to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one month.It may be noticed that as per the report received from the Registry, trial court record has been misplaced.A. No. 333/2001 Page 2 of 45She succumbed to her injuries on 19.7.1991 at 7:45 a.m. Ram Singh, S.I. was handed over a copy of D.D. No.61-B which was recorded at 12:45 a.m. in respect of the burning of a girl at A-18, Hanuman Mandir Park, Moller Band Extension.As Rajbala had been declared unfit to make a statement, her statement could not be recorded by the SDM who had also reached the hospital.After Rajbala succumbed to her injuries, statements of her parents were recorded by the SDM and accordingly a case was registered.The prosecution examined 14 witnesses.Statement of the appellants was recorded under section 313, Cr.P.C., however, no evidence was led in defence.It would be useful to refer to the evidence of some of the material witnesses in this case.On 18.7.1991, her daughter telephoned her and asked PW-1, her husband and their son to come to the house of the in-laws as the appellants were threatening her.A. No. 333/2001 Page 3 of 45 and Bicholia, Ram Swaroop and her son, Harbans went to the house of her daughter.When they reached there, all the appellants as well as her daughters were present there.PW-1 further deposed that the appellants at that time demanded five rings, five chains, five ear- rings, five saries and a cash of Rs.20,000/-. PW-1, deposed that she told them that whatever would be possible would be given.Thereafter they came back and at 4:00 p.m. appellant, Jai Prakash came to their house and threatened them by saying that what they had told to their daughter and that she had died of burning.A. No. 333/2001 Page 3 of 45In her cross-examination by counsel for the appellants, PW-1 deposed that she went to the hospital along with her husband and two sons, namely, Harbans and Raj Kumar.At that time her daughter was admitted in the emergency ward.PW-1 was further confronted that except the demand for Rs.20,000/- in cash, no other demand regarding any other articles was mentioned.PW-1 was also confronted that it was not mentioned in her statement Ex.PW-1/D2 that Jai Prakash had come to their house at 4:00 pm.PW-1 deposed in her cross-examination that except on 18.7.1991, she had never gone to the house of the appellant and it was correct that appellant, Phool Singh and Kanta were living separately from the other appellants.As per PW-1 her daughter had CRL.A. No. 333/2001 Page 4 of 45 come to their house to meet them for about 8 or 10 times after her marriage or before her death.Further her sons used to go to the matrimonial home of the deceased to meet her once in a month or two, but the appellants never allowed them to meet the deceased.Her daughter Raj Bala never stayed with them and she used to go back on the same day.A. No. 333/2001 Page 4 of 457. PW-1, in her cross-examination further deposed that Ram Swaroop was the mediator in the marriage of her daughter and appellant, Jai Prakash and it was correct to suggest that he was on visiting terms with them.It was Ram Swaroop who had proposed the marriage.PW-1, further deposed that her daughter had come to the parental house on the eve of Raksha Bandhan and Bhaiya Dooj.On these occasions, the deceased did not stay with them and on the same day went back to her matrimonial house.PW-1 voluntarily deposed that on both these occasions, appellant, Jai Prakash did not allow her to even take food at the parental house.PW- 1, deposed that neither her daughter nor appellant, Jai Prakash came to the parental house after the discharge of her daughter from the hospital and further that the appellants set her on fire after three days of her discharge from the hospital.However, it was correct that she was not set on fire in her presence.After the death of her daughter, PW-1 had never gone to the house of the appellants, to meet her grand-son.Appellant, Jai Prakash came to the parental house at 3:00 am.PW-1 further deposed that a telephone was installed in the house of appellant and her daughter used to talk to her on the telephone installed at the residence of her neighbour.Again said that her daughter used to talk to her on telephone with her sons and husband.However, Rajbala never wrote any letter to them till her death.A. No. 333/2001 Page 5 of 45On 18/19th July, 1991 police came to their house at about 3:00 a.m and informed their father that Raj Bala had been burnt by appellant, Jai Prakash.6-7 photographs and a list of dowry articles were handed over to the police which were taken into possession by the police vide memo Ex.PW-2 identified his signatures.9. PW-2 was cross-examined by counsel for the appellants wherein he stated that his statement was recorded by the I.O. on 20.10.1991 and in that statement he had stated that on 18th/19th July, 1991 police came to their house at 3:00 am and informed his father that Raj Bala had been burnt by appellant Jai Prakash.He was confronted with statement Ex. PW-2/DA wherein it was not so recorded.As per PW-2 Ram Swaroop was the mediator in the marriage.PW-2 was on visiting terms with the in-laws of the deceased Raj Bala.Till her death, PW-2 visited the matrimonial home of Raj Bala on three or four occasions and his father went to the matrimonial home on three-four occasions.Apart from this, he had also CRL.A. No. 333/2001 Page 6 of 45 gone to her matrimonial home on the occasion of Diwali, Bhaidooj, Raksha Bhandhan and Holy.Till her death, Raj Bala came to the parental house on 20/22 occasions.10. PW-3, Sh.Harbans Singh deposed in his examination-in-chief that on 18.07.1991, at 2.00 p.m. he received a telephone message from his sister, Raj Bala, that she was being harassed by her in-laws and they should immediately come to her matrimonial home.Therefore, PW-3 along with his father, mother and mediator Ram Swaroop and two/three other family members reached the house of appellants at Badarpur, New Delhi.There Jai Prakash, father of Jai Prakash, Phool Singh, Dropadi and Kanta were present.As per PW-3, they asked them that they had not given sufficient dowry in the marriage of Raj Bala and now a son had been born to the couple about 20 days back, therefore, they should give Rs.20,000/-, in cash, 15/20 fine sarees, 5/6 gold chains, 5 gold rings, one gold earring and other articles on this occasion.They told the appellants that they would make the decision after going back to their house and asked the appellants to send Raj Bala with them, but they refused.PW-3, further deposed that as soon as they reached back to their house, Jai Prakash also came there and informed that Raj Bala had set herself on fire and was admitted to JPN Hospital.They went to the hospital and saw that Raj Bala had been badly burnt and was breathing her last.She died after some time.PW-3 identified the dead body in the mortuary at the hospital.PW-3 was cross-examined by counsel for the appellants, wherein he deposed that Raj Kumar was his real brother and was present in the house when he (PW-3) received the telephone message from Raj Bala.However, Raj Kumar did not go with them to the house of the appellants.A. No. 333/2001 Page 7 of 45 The House of mediator, Ram Swaroop, was at a distance of 15/20 steps from their house and they were in continuous touch with him.PW-3 deposed that Jai Prakash was running a readymade garment's shop.He volunteered to say that whenever appellant, Jai Prakash, did not have goods in his shop, he used to come to them to demand money.PW-3 voluntarily deposed that SI Ram Singh had made enquiries from him at the time of handing over the dead body of Raj Bala and that PW-3 had informed him that he had received telephone message from Raj Bala at about 2.00 p.m. and thereafter they had gone to her in-laws house.He had also informed him that the appellants had demanded Rs.20,000/-, in cash, and jewellery, but did not give the details of the jewellery.Subsequently, SI Ram Singh, informed that he had reduced the substance of PW-3's statement in writing, however, the same was not read over to him by SI Ram Singh.PW-3 further deposed that till the death of Raj Bala they had not given any shagun on the occasion of the birth of his son to the couple.When he received a telephone message from his sister that she was being tortured by her in-laws, PW-3 did not report the matter to the police as he wanted to settle the matter amicably.A. No. 333/2001 Page 8 of 45 called Sh.Kedar Nath to his house and who had a chat with his daughter on the telephone.As per PW-4, he did not ask anything from Sh.A. No. 333/2001 Page 8 of 4513. PW-5, Sh.Ram Swaroop, has deposed that he performed the role of mediator in the marriage of Raj Bala with Jai Prakash.After the marriage, Sh.Kedar Nath never contacted him and also did not tell anything to him.At this stage, learned APP for the State requested to cross-examine the witness, as he was resiling from his statement recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C.In the cross-examination by learned APP, PW-5 deposed that it was wrong to suggest that his statement was recorded by the police or that in the statement he had stated that on 18.07.1991, Sh.Kedar Nath had come to his house and informed that a telephonic message had been received from Raj Bala that her life was in danger and that on hearing this news he along with Kedar Nath and other relatives went to the house of the in-laws of Raj Bala.PW-5 denied having made any statement to the police.In the cross-examination by counsel for the appellants, PW-5 deposed that Raj Bala was happy with her in-laws and he had never received any complaint from her parents against the appellants.PW-7, Ram Gopal, deposed in his cross-examination in chief that Kedar Nath, father of Raj Bala, was his neighbour.About 6-7 years ago, it was in winter season and he along with Kedar Nath had gone to the Police Station Badarpur.Kedar Nath showed some photographs of the marriage of Raj Bala to the police.A. No. 333/2001 Page 9 of 45On 18.07.1991, at about 10-10.15a.m.PW-8 was informed by his daughter that her husband and parents-in-law were beating her and therefore they should immediately come to her matrimonial house.The deceased also informed that there was a danger to her life from her husband and parents-in-law and perhaps she might be killed on that very day.At about 2.30 p.m., PW-8 along with his son, Harbans Singh, his wife and mediator Ram Swaroop proceeded towards the house of the appellants and reached there at about 5.30 p.m. due to traffic jam.All the five appellants were sitting there.As per PW-8, the appellants asked them that since a son had been born to Raj Bala what would be given on this occasion.The appellants further asked to give sarees, chains, rings and Rs.20,000, in cash, in chuchak ceremony.PW-8 and others informed the appellants that they would think about it at their house.At about 3 a.m., appellant Jai Prakash came to their house and asked as to what they had told to Raj Bala.Jai Prakash also informed that he and his family members had sprinkled kerosene oil on Raj Bala and set her on fire.In the meanwhile police also came the house of PW-8, alongwith appellant Sohan Lal.PW-8 further deposed that they went to JPN Hospital along with the Police and saw that Raj Bala was unable to speak as she was in a critical state and after sometime she died.The SDM recorded the statement of PW-8 vide Memo Ex.PW-8/1. PW-8 identified the dead body of his daughter in the hospital and handed over some photographs Ex.PW-8, in his cross-examination by counsel for the appellants, deposed that Ram Swaroop acted as a mediator in the marriage.PW-8 deposed that Ram Swaroop was his neighbour and knew him since a long time.Ram Swaroop had brought the proposal for the marriage of appellant Jai Prakash with Raj Bala.PW-8 further deposed that he did not make any enquiry about the character or antecedents of the appellants from their neighbours.He admitted as correct that his daughter Raj Bala stayed at the house of the appellants after her marriage, for about 13 months.During this period she came to the parental house twice or thrice.PW-8 further deposed that it was correct that before or at the time of marriage, appellants did not make any demand for dowry.Thereafter he stated that at the time of marriage, appellant Phool Singh demanded a two-wheeler scooter and a cash of Rs.12,000/- or Rs.13,000/-.As per PW-8 he had given all these things to Phool Singh.However, he did not give the purchase receipt of the scooter to the police.He voluntarily deposed that it was given by PW-8 to appellant Phool Singh.As per PW-8 in his statement recorded by the police, he had informed them that a two-wheeler scooter had been given by him to Phool Singh at the time of marriage.PW-8 was confronted with statement Ex-PW-8/D-1 where it was not so recorded.PW-8 deposed that he went to the house of appellants once or twice and that his wife never went to the house of the appellants, till her death.In the cross-examination by counsel for the appellants, PW-8 deposed that he did not have a telephone connection at his house and a telephone was installed at the house of his neighbour, Hardwari Lal.There were four houses between his house and the house of Hardwari Lal.When the message regarding burning of his daughter was received on telephone at about 3:30 AM, PW-8 was present in his house.PW-8 thereafter stated that he came to know about the burning of his daughter from police officials for the first time who had come to his house in a jeep at about 3:30 AM.On 18.07.1991, Raj Bala had contacted him on telephone of Hardwari Lal, at about 10:00 AM in the morning.Except this call, PW-8 deposed to have never received any telephone call from his daughter nor his daughter ever wrote any letter to him.PW-8 deposed that it was correct that a male child was born to his daughter Raj Bala one month prior to the incident.As per the custom prevailing in their society, the in- laws of his daughter had to come to the parental house of Raj Bala to inform about the birth of male child and also to inform about their demand on this occasion.However, none of the family members or the appellants came to the parental house to inform about the birth of a child.At the time of delivery of child, PW-8 and his wife were present in the hospital.A. No. 333/2001 Page 12 of 45 in danger from her husband and parents-in-law and perhaps she might be killed on that very day.PW-8 was confronted with the statement Ex-PW- 8/D-1 and PW-8/1 where it was recorded that the deceased had informed the witness that her life was in danger.As per PW-8 he had also stated before the SDM and the police that Harbans Singh & Ram Swaroop had also gone to the house of the appellants along with him and his wife and that they had reached at about 5:30 PM due to traffic jam.PW-8 was yet again confronted with his statements Ex-PW-8/D-1 and PW-8/1 where it was only recorded that PW-8 had gone along with his wife to the house of the appellants.PW-8 was also confronted that in his statement it was not recorded about any demand of sarees, chains, rings or the demand of Rs.20,000/- in cash in chuchak ceremony.PW-8 lastly denied the suggestions that his daughter had died when she was cooking meals or that his daughter had accidentally caught fire while she was lighting the stove.PW-13, SI Ram Singh, deposed that on 18-19.7.1991 he was posted as ASI at police station Badarpur.At about 12.15 a.m. he received a copy of DD No.61-B thereafter he along with Constable Ved Prakash went to house no.A-18, Gali No.8, Molarband Extn.He came to know that Smt.Rajbala had been burnt and taken by her parents-in-law and husband to an unknown hospital in a three wheeler scooter.He went to Safdarjung hospital where he came to know that there was no bed in the hospital and the injured had been sent to RML Hospital.At RML hospital Rajbala was found admitted in the burns ward.He collected her MLC as per which she CRL.Counsel also contends that the material witnesses i.e. PW-1 (mother of deceased), PW-8 (father of deceased) and PW-3 (brother of deceased) have made various material improvements during their examination in court, which would destroy and falsify the case of the prosecution.It is also contended that there are material contradictions in the evidence of PW-1, PW-3 and PW-8 and different versions have been given by them with regard to receiving of phone call from the deceased prior to her death.According to PW-1 (mother of deceased) the phone call was received by her.In fact PW-5, Ram Swaroop, who was instrumental in arranging the marriage between the deceased and her husband has categorically stated in his evidence that no complaint was made by the father of the deceased to him and the deceased and her husband were residing together happily.It is also contended that a male child was born on 18.6.1991 which was a cause for celebrations and Rajbala died within one month thereafter.During the period of one month Rajbala remained in hospital for 20 days and there is no allegation against in-laws that they did not look after her or did not pay for her medical expenses which fact would show that the deceased was not being mal-treated by her in-laws.Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the father of the deceased has stated in his cross-examination that his wife had never visited the house of her daughter after marriage till the date of her death whereas mother of the deceased, PW-1, has stated that she visited the house on 18.07.1991 when a demand was made.As CRL.In my considered opinion, admittedly, Rs. 20,000/- was to be given in terms of the customary giving at the time of birth of a child and not in connection with the marriage of the parties.Infact, PW-8 (father of the deceased) has further deposed in his cross- examination that it was correct that a male child was born to his daughter, Raj Bala one month prior to the incident and that as per the custom prevailing in their society, the in-laws of his daughter had to come to the parental house of Raj Bala to inform about the birth of male child and also to inform about their demand on this occasion.However, none of the family members or the appellants came to the parental house.Hardwari Lal has deposed that about 6/7 years ago, at about 9:45/10:00 a.m., Raj Bala had telephoned at his house and requested him to call her father (PW-8, Sh.Kedar Nath) and PW-8 has deposed that Rajbala had informed that her life was in danger.In my considered opinion, the evidence led by PW-4 only established that a telephone call had been made by Rajbala, but does not establish the factum of any harassment meted out to the deceased (Rajbala) by the appellants.This is more so when not even a single incident with regard to any cruelty or harassment meted out for or in connection with dowry', or even otherwise, to the deceased by the appellants, has been mentioned in the statement/ evidence of any of the witnesses.Rajbala had visited her parental house many times before her death, however neither are there any allegations that Rajbala had ever complained of any harassment or ill-treatment at the hands of the appellant, nor do the surrounding circumstances show that any harassment was ever inflicted upon the deceased.The fact that Rajbala visited her parental house number of times would establish that she had no restrictions on visiting her parents and in case she was being harassed, she would have in all probability mentioned the same to her parents, brother or at least her mother.A. No. 333/2001 Page 34 of 45 his statement recorded before the SDM wherein it was not recorded that Rajbala had been subjected to any beatings.Even otherwise, in the cross-examination dated 24.10.1997, PW-8 deposed to not remember whether in his statement recorded by the Court on 26.08.1997, it was stated by him that his daughter Rajbala had informed him over the telephone that her husband and her parents-in-law were beating her.PW-8 deposed that he did not state this fact to the police or to the SDM because his daughter never did tell any such fact to him on telephone.PW-8 deposed that in his statement recorded by the police and the SDM, he had stated that his daughter had informed him that her life was in danger from her husband and parents-in-law and perhaps she might be killed on that very day.PW-8 was however confronted with the statement Ex-PW-8/D-1 and PW-8/1 where it was only recorded that the deceased had informed the witness that her life was in danger.A. No. 333/2001 Page 35 of 45 meet her once in a month or two, the appellants never allowed them to meet the deceased.However, I find the same to have been unreliable as during cross-examination by counsel for the appellants, PW-2 (Raj Kumar, brother of the deceased) has himself deposed that he was on visiting terms with the in-laws of Raj Bala and till her death he had visited her matrimonial home twice or thrice and that his father (PW-8) had gone to the matrimonial home of Raj Bala on three or four occasions.Apart from this, he had also gone to her matrimonial home on the occasion of Diwali, Bhaiyadooj, Rakshabandhan and Holi.As per PW-2, till her death, Raj Bala had come to her parental house on 20-22 occasions.In my considered opinion, had Rajbala been ill-treated by the appellants, she would have surely mentioned about the same to her parents, brother or any other family member during the several times she visited her parental house or in case Rajbala was being ill-treated she would have noticed the same during her visits to her matrimonial home.However, there is not even a stray allegation that the appellants teased or harassed the deceased.There is no past history in the form of any complaint/police report.In fact, PW-8 (father of the deceased) has further deposed in his cross-examination that it was correct that a male child was born to his daughter, Rajbala one month prior to the incident and as per PW-8, at the time of delivery of child, PW-8 and his wife were present in the hospital.The deposition of PW-8 not only shows that they were in constant touch with their daughter (Rajbala), but also that her husband and in laws had not imposed any such restriction on Rajbala meeting her family at any time after her marriage.There are no allegations that the in-laws of Rajbala did not take proper care of the deceased while she was admitted in the hospital.PW-1/D2, wherein it was not recorded that Bicholia, Ram Swaroop had also gone with them.Further I find that both PW-3 as well as PW-8 have disputed the presence of PW-1 at the matrimonial house of Rajbala inasmuch as, PW-3 deposed in his cross- CRL.A. No. 333/2001 Page 37 of 45 examination that it was wrong to suggest that 2/3 days prior to the incident, his mother had also gone to the house of the appellants.In the same vein, PW-8 has deposed in his cross-examination that he went to the house of appellants once or twice and that his wife (i.e. PW-1) never went to the house of the appellants, till the death of Rajbala.In view of the same, the fact that PW-1 visited the matrimonial house of Rajbala on 18.07.1991 cannot be said to have been established beyond reasonable doubt and thus her statement with regard to the demand of dowry also cannot be said to be reliable.Further, contrary to his statement in the examination-in-chief, that Ram Swaroop had also accompanied him to the matrimonial house of Rajbala, PW-8 deposed in his cross- examination that although Ram Swaroop had acted as a mediator in the marriage and that Ram Swaroop was his neighbour, however, PW-8 did not have any talk with Ram Swaroop till the death of Raj Bala and Ram Swaroop never went to the house of appellants with him.Even otherwise also, Ram Swaroop (PW-5) has denied visiting the matrimonial home of the deceased.However, in her cross-examination PW-1 was confronted with her statement, Ex.PW-1/D2 wherein it was not mentioned that Jai Prakash had come to their house at 4:00 p.m. Further, in her cross-examination on 21.5.1997, PW-1 deposed that appellant, Jai Prakash came to the parental house at 3:00 am.in the night and asked, AAP LOG RAT KO GAYE THE.Accused Phool Singh is admittedly the Mausa of accused Jaiparkash.Accused Kanta is Mausi of accused Jaiparkash.They also used to reside at A-18, Molarband.However, they were not near the deceased as explained by them.They could not have taken the extreme step.Two appeals have been filed under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment dated 7.4.2001 and order on sentence dated 18.4.2001, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi.Appeal bearing No.280/2001 has been filed by the uncle and aunt (MAUSA AND MAUSI) of the husband of the deceased.They have been convicted and sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years with a fine of Rs.5,000/-, for the offence under section 498-A, IPC.Both the appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment.As jointly agreed by counsel for parties, counsel for appellants handed over a compilation comprising of the judgment and copies of the evidence to the Court as well as to counsel for the State.Since the CRL.A. No. 280/2001 and CRL.A. No. 333/2001 Page 2 of 45 matter was ripe for hearing as agreed by counsel for parties, matter has been heard on the basis of compilation handed over to Court.A. No. 280/2001 and CRL.On receipt of the said telephone call, PW-1 along with her husband CRL.A. No. 280/2001 and CRL.A. No. 280/2001 and CRL.PW-1 voluntarily deposed that when they reached the hospital, their daughter had already died.Police did not record her statement in the hospital and that her statement was recorded by the SDM.PW-1 was confronted with her statement, Ex.PW- 1/D2, wherein it was not so recorded.A. No. 280/2001 and CRL.Except on 18.7.1991, her daughter never telephoned them.PW-1 deposed that it was wrong to suggest that none of the appellants had ever raised any demand and that it was wrong to suggest that the appellants never harassed or tortured her daughter for or in connection with dowry.A. No. 280/2001 and CRL.in the night and asked AAP LOG RAT KO GAYE THE.RAJ BALA SE MILKAR AAYE THEY.USSE KYA KAH KER AAYE HO.VEH JAL KAR MAR GAI HAI.PW-1 deposed that CRL.A. No. 280/2001 and CRL.A. No. 333/2001 Page 5 of 45 it was correct that she had gone to the house of the appellants with her eldest son, husband and mediator, Ram Swaroop.PW-1 also deposed that she had not stated in her statement recorded by the court that when they returned, at about 4:00 p.m. Jai Prakash had come to their house and threatened them by saying as to what they had told to their daughter and that she had died of burning.A. No. 280/2001 and CRL.A. No. 280/2001 and CRL.He denied the suggestion that the articles taken into police possession vide memo Ex.PW2/3 belonged to the appellants.A. No. 280/2001 and CRL.A. No. 333/2001 Page 6 of 45A. No. 280/2001 and CRL.He denied the suggestion that 2/3 days prior to the incident, his mother had gone to the house of the appellants and he further denied the suggestion that his mother had been instigating his sister to arrange for a separate house.He also denied that appellants never demanded Rs.20,000/-, in cash, and also jewellery artices.A. No. 280/2001 and CRL.A. No. 333/2001 Page 7 of 45Hardwari Lal, deposed that telephone no.XXX was installed in his house.About 6/7 years ago, at about 9.45/10.00 a.m., Raj Bala telephone him and requested him to call her father Sh.Kedar Nath.PW-4 CRL.A. No. 280/2001 and CRL.Kedar Nath and on the next day, he came to know that Raj Bala had died and she had been burnt.A. No. 280/2001 and CRL.Police recovered the dowry articles from the house at Molarband.PW-7 denied the suggestion in his cross- examination that nothing was recovered from the house of the appellants in his presence.A. No. 280/2001 and CRL.A. No. 333/2001 Page 9 of 45A. No. 280/2001 and CRL.He also stated that police recovered some dowry articles from the house of appellant, Jai Prakash and his parents.A. No. 280/2001 and CRL.A. No. 333/2001 Page 10 of 45A. No. 280/2001 and CRL.A. No. 333/2001 Page 10 of 45His younger son visited the house of the appellants on the occasion of festivals so as to give customary items to the appellants.The other two sons never went to their house till the death of Raj Bala.A. No. 280/2001 and CRL.A. No. 333/2001 Page 11 of 45A. No. 280/2001 and CRL.Further PW-8 stated to not remember whether in his statement recorded by the Court on 26.08.1997, it was stated by him that his daughter Raj Bala had informed him that her husband and her parents-in-law were beating her.PW-8 deposed that he did not state this fact to the police or to the SDM because his daughter never told any such fact to him on telephone.In his statement recorded by the police and the SDM, PW-8 deposed that his daughter had informed him that her life was CRL.A. No. 280/2001 and CRL.PW-8 was also confronted that it was not mentioned in his statements that about 3:00 AM appellant Jai Parkash had come to their house and that he had stated as to what had been said to Raj Bala and that he and his family members had sprinkled kerosene oil over Raj Bala and set her on fire.A. No. 280/2001 and CRL.A. No. 280/2001 and CRL.A. No. 333/2001 Page 13 of 45 had sustained 80% burns.He moved an application for permission to record her statement Ex.PW-13/1, however, the Doctor on duty declared her unfit for statement.A. No. 280/2001 and CRL.A. No. 333/2001 Page 13 of 45PW-8 (father of deceased) has stated that the phone call was received by him while PW-3 has stated that the phone call was received by him.Counsel for appellants submits that the deceased had never complained of any demand of dowry, cruelty or harassment at the hands of the appellants at any point of time prior to her death and stated that she was living happily in her matrimonial home.Even as per own showing of the parents of the deceased a demand of Rs.20,000/- was made soon after the birth of CRL.A. No. 280/2001 and CRL.A. No. 333/2001 Page 14 of 45 a male child and for the CHUK CHUK ceremony.Counsel for the appellants contends that mere asking of Rs.20,000/- for CHUK CHUK ceremony does not come within the ambit of dowry demand as defined under section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, and thus there cannot be any conviction under section 498-A and 304-B IPC.In support of this submission counsel for appellants has relied upon Satvir Singh Vs.A. No. 280/2001 and CRL.A. No. 333/2001 Page 14 of 45Counsel for appellants contends that the unfortunate incident was an accidental burn, and even as per the MLC recorded by the Doctor immediately after admission of the deceased in the hospital, wherein the deceased has categorically stated that Sari caught fire while she was lighting stove, cries caught other family members attention, who all were according to patient sleeping on the terrace".In support of this submission counsel for appellants has relied upon Gopal Vs.Counsel for appellants also contends that the death summary prepared by the doctor, categorically shows that no other injury was present on her body, thereby ruling out any possibility of involvement of her in-laws in the incident.He further contends that the absence of any injury on her body would show that in CRL.A. No. 280/2001 and CRL.A. No. 333/2001 Page 15 of 45 case there was any involvement of the in-laws there would have been some resistance on the part of the deceased which would have resulted in injuries on the body of the deceased as well as some marks on the person of the in-laws, which are completely absent.A. No. 280/2001 and CRL.A. No. 333/2001 Page 15 of 45Counsel for appellants next contends that the MLC has been proved by the investigating officer, who has categorically stated in his statement that he received MLC of the deceased from Dr. Pawan Ratwal.The deceased had given her version in the MLC as per the doctor.The MAUSA and MAUSI were not residing in the same premises which fact stands duly established during cross- examination of PW-1 (mother of the deceased) wherein she has stated that they were residing separately.It does not show as to which of the five persons made a demand.Counsel contends that there is a tendency of persons to implicate as many family members as possible and the present case is yet another such example where the parents of the deceased have falsely implicated the appellants.Counsel further contends that MAUSA and MAUSI in any case would not have benefited from any demand which was alleged to have been made by the other appellants.In support of CRL.A. No. 280/2001 and CRL.A. No. 333/2001 Page 16 of 45 this submission counsel for appellants has relied upon Kans Raj Vs.State of Punjab reported at (2000) 5 SCC 207 and reliance is also placed on Narayanamurthy Vs.A. No. 280/2001 and CRL.A. No. 333/2001 Page 16 of 45Counsel further submits that in any case any demand, if at CRL.A. No. 280/2001 and CRL.A. No. 333/2001 Page 17 of 45 all made, would not be for the benefit of these appellants and they have been falsely roped into the matter.Counsel next submits that in the entire judgment of the trial court only reference to the present appellants is in Para 46, which reads as under:A. No. 280/2001 and CRL.A. No. 333/2001 Page 17 of 4546. PW 1 and PW 8 have stated that at the time of demand of Rs.20,000/- accused Kanta and Phool Singh were also there.They had also demanded the amount.Accused Phool Singh is admittedly the Mausa of accused Jaiparkash.Accused Kanta is Mausi of accused Jaiparkash.They also used to reside at A-18, Molarband.However, they were not near the deceased as explained by them.They could not have taken the extreme step.There is no allegation that earlier also accused Kanta and Phool Singh had demanded dowry."Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the judgment rendered by the trial court is completely silent with respect to the role ascribed to the appellants herein or any demand made by them.Reading of para 46 of the judgment would show that the trial court has come to the conclusion that PW-1 and PW-8 had stated that at the time of demand of Rs.20,000/-, Kanta and Phool Singh (appellants) were also present and they also demanded the amount.Learned Additional Sessions Judge further goes to observe that earlier there were no allegations that they had made any demand of dowry.Despite these observations, appellants herein although acquitted under the charge of 304-B IPC have been convicted under Section 498-A of the IPC.Learned APP for the State submits that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond any shadow of doubt.It is also CRL.A. No. 280/2001 and CRL.It is contended that the mother, father and brother of the deceased (PW-1, PW-3 and PW-8) have fully supported the case of the prosecution and all the accused persons have been named as those who demanded the dowry.He also submits that on 18.7.1991 a telephone call was received from Rajbala (deceased), whereby she requested her father, mother and brother to come to her matrimonial home as the accused persons were threatening her.He submits that the factum of telephone call stands duly proved by the evidence of PW- 4 and minor discrepancy with regard as to who attended the telephone call would not materially affect the case of the prosecution as it is only pursuant to the telephone call that the mother, father and brother of the deceased visited her matrimonial home which fact stands duly established and has not been denied.A. No. 280/2001 and CRL.A. No. 333/2001 Page 18 of 45As per the prosecution the parents and brother of the deceased reached the matrimonial home of their daughter and they informed her in-laws that they would do for them whatever possible they could do.Learned APP for State also contends that on the same night Rajbala died due to burn injuries CRL.A. No. 280/2001 and CRL.A. No. 280/2001 and CRL.A. No. 333/2001 Page 19 of 45I have heard counsel for the parties and carefully scrutinized the evidence on record.Even the judgment passed by the trial court is silent with respect to the role played by Mausa And Mausi.A. No. 280/2001 and CRL.A. No. 280/2001 and CRL.A. No. 333/2001 Page 23 of 45However, barely after one month of giving birth to a son, Rajbala was admitted in LNJP hospital at 2:20 a.m. on 19.7.1991, with more than 80% burn injuries.Subsequently, she succumbed to her injuries on 19.7.1991 at 7:45 a.m. These facts clearly show that the death of Rajbala took place within seven (7) years of her marriage and under unnatural circumstances.The next question which arises for consideration is whether soon before her death, the deceased Rajbala was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or CRL.A. No. 280/2001 and CRL.A. No. 280/2001 and CRL.Prabhu Nath Jha reported at (2003) 12 SCC 606:A. No. 280/2001 and CRL.A. No. 333/2001 Page 25 of 45A. No. 280/2001 and CRL.As such they fall within a category of interested witnesses.The principle laid down by the Apex Court are to be applied to the facts of this case as the prosecution has heavily relied upon the evidence of close family relations of the deceased.In the present case, PW-1 (Smt. Shish Kaur, mother of the deceased); PW-3 (Sh.Harbans Singh, brother of the deceased) and PW-8 (Kedar Nath, father of the deceased) are the star prosecution witnesses.With regard to the demand of dowry and harassment suffered by the deceased at the hands of the appellants, PW-1 (Smt. Shish Kaur, mother of the deceased) has deposed in her examination-in-chief that Raj Bala was her daughter and was CRL.A. No. 280/2001 and CRL.On 18.7.1991, her daughter had telephoned her and asked her to come to the matrimonial home with her father and brother, as the accused persons i.e. appellants were threatening her.As per PW-1, on receipt of the said telephone call, PW-1 along with her husband (PW-8); son Harbans (PW-3); and Bicholia Ram Swaroop (PW-5) went to the house of her daughter, where all the appellants as well as her daughter was present.PW-1 deposed that the appellants at that time demanded five rings, five chains, five ear- rings, five sarees and a cash of Rs.20,000/. According to PW-1, at the house of appellants, PW-1 and others had informed the appellants that whatever would be possible would be given and thereafter they returned to the parental house.At the same time, I find that with regard to the demand of dowry, PW-3 (Sh.Harbans Singh, brother of the deceased) has deposed that the appellants had demanded Rs.20,000/- in cash as well as 15/20 fine sarees, 5/6 gold chains, 5 gold rings, one gold earring and other articles on the ground that sufficient dowry was not given at the time of marriage and now on the occasion of the birth of a male child, the said articles should be given.As per PW-8 (Kedar Nath, father of the deceased), the appellants had demanded sarees, chains, rings and Rs.20,000/- in cash in chuchak' ceremony.In my considered opinion, discrepancies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses with regard to the number of sarees/rings/chains demanded do not go the root of the matter.However, a careful analysis of the evidence of prosecution witnesses would reveal that PW-1 (mother CRL.A. No. 280/2001 and CRL.A. No. 333/2001 Page 27 of 45 of the deceased) was confronted (in the cross-examination) with her statement, Ex.PW-1/D2 wherein except for the demand of Rs.20,000/- in cash, no other demand regarding any other articles was mentioned.Even PW-8 (Kedarnath, father of the deceased) was confronted with his statement, Ex. PW-8/1 where no such demand for sarees/rings/chains had been mentioned.A. No. 280/2001 and CRL.A. No. 280/2001 and CRL.A. No. 280/2001 and CRL.It is proved on record that deceased B.V.D. Mani, father of deceased Jagadeshwari, gifted a silver Panchapatre and silver plate to A-1 at the time of performing customary thread changing ceremony in CRL.A. No. 280/2001 and CRL.A. No. 280/2001 and CRL.They asked us that as a son had been born to my daughter, what would us give to them on this occasion.They asked us to give ...... in chuchak ceremony." The learned trial Court has also explained this ceremony in the judgment passed by him and observed that, "Here I would like to clarify that in Hindus, the parents of the girl give gifts etc. to the daughter and her-in-laws, in case the daughter is blessed with a son.This giving of the gifts at that time is described as chhuchak in the Northern India".A. No. 280/2001 and CRL.The deposition of PW-8 is specific that although there was a custom, no person from the in-laws of Rajbala came to make any demand.Thus, it is not established beyond reasonable doubt that any dowry in terms of Rs. 20,000/- was demanded in connection with marriage.There is no merit in the contention of learned counsel for the State that the said demand of Rs. 20,000/- was a demand of dowry under section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code read with section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.A. No. 280/2001 and CRL.A. No. 333/2001 Page 31 of 45A. No. 280/2001 and CRL.A. No. 333/2001 Page 32 of 45A. No. 280/2001 and CRL.A. No. 333/2001 Page 32 of 45Contrary to this, learned counsel for the State has submitted that on 18.7.1991, Rajbala (deceased) had made a telephone call wherein she had requested her parents and brother to visit her matrimonial home and had further categorically stated that the appellants were threatening her.Counsel for the State has contended that since it was only pursuant to the telephone call that the mother, father and brother of the deceased visited her matrimonial home, the same goes to show that the deceased was being subjected to harassment by the appellants.I have carefully scrutinised the material on record on this aspect also.It is settled position of law that section 498-A, IPC creates a distinct and separate offence as against section 304-B, IPC.In section 498-A, IPC cruelty' has been defined in the Explanation to the said section, through two limbs.The first limb of section 498-A defines cruelty' in clause (a) of the Explanation as any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical).The second limb i.e. clause (b) of the Explanation to section 498-A, provides that cruelty' shall also include harassment with regard to demand of dowry.(Gopal Vs.State of Rajasthan, 2009 (2) SCALE 704).Applying the settled position of law to the facts of this case, I find that there is no evidence on record to suggest that the conduct of the appellants was of such a nature which may have driven Rajbala to commit suicide or to cause CRL.A. No. 280/2001 and CRL.A. No. 333/2001 Page 33 of 45 grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health.Initially PW-8 deposed that the appellants were not only beating Rajbala but that Rajbala had also informed him that there was a danger to her life and that she might be killed on that very day.However, during cross-examination PW-8 was confronted with CRL.A. No. 280/2001 and CRL.Furthermore, all the three star prosecution witnesses- PW-1; PW-3; and PW-8 claim to have received the said telephone call on 18.07.1991 (i.e. one day before the death) from the deceased herself, thus creating a doubt in the mind of the Court as regards their truthfulness and reliability.Be that as it may, conviction of the appellants cannot certainly be based on a telephone call, when the surrounding circumstances point in the opposite direction.As per PW-1 (mother of the deceased), Raj Bala (deceased) had come to the parental house to meet them for about 8 or 10 times after her marriage or before her death.However, it is not the case of the prosecution that Rajbala had ever complained of any ill-treatment meted out to her by the appellants or that she was ever subjected to any harassment or any demand for dowry had been made.Although PW-1 had subsequently deposed that when her sons used to go to the matrimonial home of the deceased to CRL.A. No. 280/2001 and CRL.Further PW-5 (Bicholia, Ram Swaroop) has also not supported the case of the prosecution and CRL.A. No. 280/2001 and CRL.A. No. 333/2001 Page 36 of 45 has in his cross-examination by counsel for the appellants stated that Raj Bala was happy with her in-laws and he had never received any complaint from her parents against the appellants.In my opinion, in the absence of any evidence on record against the appellants that cruelty or harassment was meted out to the deceased by the appellants for or in connection with dowry', or even otherwise, the case of the prosecution cannot stand.A. No. 280/2001 and CRL.A. No. 333/2001 Page 33 of 45A. No. 280/2001 and CRL.A. No. 333/2001 Page 34 of 45A. No. 280/2001 and CRL.A. No. 333/2001 Page 35 of 45A. No. 280/2001 and CRL.A. No. 333/2001 Page 36 of 45Merely because kerosene oil was found on the scalp of Rajbala, the same by itself cannot be the sole ground to arrive at a finding that the appellants had poured kerosene on her.The fact of presence of kerosene oil is to be read not in isolation but along with surrounding circumstances inasmuch as, in the absence of any injury on her body would show that had the appellants poured kerosene on the deceased, there would have been some resistance on the part of the deceased which would have resulted in injuries on the body of the deceased which otherwise are completely absent in the present case.While PW-1 (mother of the deceased) as well as PW-8 (father of the deceased) have deposed in their examination-in-chief that on receipt of the said telephone call, PW-1 alongwith PW-8 (Kedarnath, father of the deceased); PW-5 (Ram Swaroop, Bicholia); and PW-3 (Harbans, brother of the deceased) went to the matrimonial house of her daughter.However I find that PW-1 was confronted with her statement, Ex.A. No. 280/2001 and CRL.PW-8 was also confronted with his statements Ex-PW-8/D-1 and PW-8/1 where it was only recorded that PW-8 had gone along with his wife to the house of the appellants.Thus there is serious anomaly with regard as to who went to the house of the appellants and before whom demand if any was made by the appellants.A. No. 280/2001 and CRL.A. No. 333/2001 Page 37 of 45There are further contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses inasmuch as, according to PW-1, at the house of the appellants, they had informed the appellants that whatever would be possible would be given and thereafter they returned to the parental house.However, as per PW-1, at about 4:00 p.m., appellant, Jai Prakash (husband of the deceased) came to their house and threatened PW-1 and others as to what they had said to their daughter and that she had CRL.A. No. 280/2001 and CRL.A. No. 333/2001 Page 38 of 45 died of burning.Subsequently, PW-1 deposed that she had not stated in her earlier statement recorded by the court that after they returned to the parental house, at about 4:00 p.m., appellant, Jai Prakash had come and threatened by saying as to what they had said to the daughter and that she had died of burning".Apparently, PW-1 did not stand by her own statement before the court.At the same time, I find that PW-3 (Harbans Singh, brother of the deceased) deposed in his examination-in-chief that after they returned to their house, appellant, Jai Prakash also came there and informed that Raj Bala had set herself on fire and was admitted to JPN Hospital.Thereafter, as per PW-3, they all went to the hospital only to find that Raj Bala was breathing her last.Thus I find that while as per PW-1 appellant, Jai Prakash had informed that Raj Bala had already died of burning; as per PW-3 appellant, Jai Prakash had informed that Raj Bala had set herself on fire and was admitted to JPN Hospital.Contrary, to the deposition of PW-1 and PW-3, I find that PW-8 has deposed in his examination-in-chief that PW-8 along with other family members reached the matrimonial home of Raj Bala at 5:00 p.m. on 18.7.1991 as there was a huge traffic jam.Thus when as per PW-8, they had not even reached the matrimonial house of Raj Bala by 5:00 p.m., PW-1 and PW-3 have deposed that by that time they had even returned back to the matrimonial home.Thus the version of prosecution CRL.A. No. 280/2001 and CRL.A. No. 333/2001 Page 39 of 45 witnesses contains inconsistencies and contradictions at every stage of the evidence.A. No. 280/2001 and CRL.A. No. 333/2001 Page 38 of 45A. No. 280/2001 and CRL.A. No. 333/2001 Page 39 of 45Careful reading of the statements of all the close family relations would show that even when they visited their daughter there was no argument between her in-laws and her parents.None of the witness has deposed that the atmosphere was tense or charged up or that they were threatened.In my considered opinion, there is no evidence on record as to enable me to arrive at a conclusive finding that the appellants have committed an act which would be brought under clause (a) or (b) to the Explanation to section 498-A, IPC or section 304-B, IPC.Apart from the single solitary incident of the demand of Rs.20,000/-, (which as already stated above was not a demand for dowry), no other evidence has been led against the appellants that any demand was made either before the marriage; at the time of marriage; or even after the marriage of Rajbala.Accordingly, no case is made out against the appellants (Smt. Dropadi; Sh.Sohan Lal; and Sh.Jai Prakash) in Crl.Appeal No. 333/2001 under section 304-B, IPC as well as under section 498-A, IPC as well as Phool Singh and Kanta Devi in Appeal [Crl.Appeal No.280/2001].In the case of appellants, Phool Singh and Kanta Devi (appellants in Crl.A. No. 280/2001), I find merit in the contention of learned counsel for the appellants that these two appellants were not even residing in the same house where the deceased and appellant, Jai Prakash were residing and as such they had no role to play in the married life of the couple.In fact PW-1 has categorically stated in her cross- examination that it was correct that appellant, Phool Singh and Kanta were living separately from the other appellants.In a case bearing similar facts and circumstances namely Prem Singh Vs.State of CRL.A. No. 280/2001 and CRL.A. No. 333/2001 Page 40 of 45 Haryana reported at (1998) 8 SCC 70, the Apex Court gave benefit of doubt to an accused and observed that, when A-2 was residing separately from her son and when there was no positive evidence on the record to show that either A-2 was instigating A-1 to demand additional amount of dowry/money or for that purpose telling him to cause ill-treatment or harassment to Sumitra, it would be unsafe to hold A-2 responsible for an offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC.Moreover, such an additional payment of money was to benefit A-1 alone and not A-2 because there was no evidence on record to suggest that A-1 was helping A-2 either by giving some money and/or other benefits.If this be so, in our opinion, the High Court was not justified in convicting Shanti (A-2) for the offence under Section 304-B IPC.It is for this precise reason, we give benefit of doubt to A-2 and acquit her of the charge under Section 304-B IPC."A. No. 280/2001 and CRL.A. No. 333/2001 Page 40 of 45A tendency has, however, developed for roping in all relations of the in-laws of the deceased wives in the matters of dowry deaths which, if not discouraged, is likely to affect the case of the prosecution even against the real culprits.In their over enthusiasm and anxiety to seek conviction for maximum people, the parents of the deceased have been found to be making efforts for involving other relations which ultimately weaken the case of the prosecution even against the real accused as appears to have happened in the instant case.It would be apt to mention that in the entire judgment passed by the trial court, the only reference to appellants Phool Singh and Kanta Devi is in Para 46, and the judgment is completely silent with respect to the role played by the appellants in the entire case.Paragraph 46 reads as under:A. No. 280/2001 and CRL.A. No. 333/2001 Page 41 of 45A. No. 280/2001 and CRL.A. No. 333/2001 Page 41 of 4546. PW 1 and PW 8 have stated that at the time of demand of Rs.20,000/- accused Kanta and Phool Singh were also there.They had also demanded the amount.They have not even been related to any incident of harassment which is an essential to bring a case within the ambit of section 498-A, IPC, leave alone allege any specific incident with regard to them.A. No. 280/2001 and CRL.Bail bonds be cancelled.58.Appeals are allowed accordingly.A. No. 280/2001 and CRL.A. No. 333/2001 Page 44 of 45A. No. 280/2001 and CRL.A. No. 333/2001 Page 44 of 45G.S.SISTANI ( JUDGE ) March 22, 2010 Msr/ssn CRL.A. No. 280/2001 and CRL.A. No. 333/2001 Page 45 of 45A. No. 280/2001 and CRL.
|
['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
186,907,610 |
The statement is Ex.(22.05.2017) Per : Hemant Gupta, Chief Justice:The present appeal is directed against the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khurai, District Sagar on 08.02.2000 in Sessions Trial No.197/1999 convicting the appellant for offence under Section 302 of---2---Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.5000/-.In default of payment of fine, the appellant was ordered to undergo 1 year Rigorous Imprisonment.The prosecution was set on motion on the statement of deceased Rajbai W/o.On the basis of such statement, FIR Ex.P/16 was recorded.After her death, the postmortem was conducted.The report of postmortem is Ex.P/21A. Upon completion of the investigation, the accused was made to face trial.It may be stated that accused is none-else but elder brother of the husband of the deceased.The accused claimed trial and in trial, the prosecution examined number of witnesses including PW6 J.P.---3---Jatav, Tehsildar, who recorded the dying declaration Ex.P/9; PW11 - B.M. Dubey, Sub Inspector who recorded her first statement, on the basis of which FIR was recoded.PW-14 Dr. Shailendra Shukla, who has conducted the postmortem examination, proved his report Ex.The accused in defence, examined DW1 Anant Prakash, the Notary, who attested an affidavit Ex D3 purported to be executed by deceased on 06.05.1999 that the deceased died in an accidental fire exonerating her brother-in-law.The learned Trial Court relying upon the dying declaration made to the PW11- Sub Inspector B.M. Dubey and the dying declaration made before the PW6 J.P. Jatav, convicted the appellant for an offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him as mentioned above.Before this Court, learned counsel for the appellant has raised two fold arguments.Firstly, the statement made to PW11 B.M. Dubey is thumb marked by her whereas, PW10 Dr. R.K. Patel has deposed that on the dying declaration Ex.P/9, he has not obtained the thumb impression as her hands were badly burnt.Therefore, the reliance of the prosecution on the statement, which led to lodging of an FIR cannot be relied---4---upon as the dying declaration Ex.P/9 and the FIR was recorded on the same day at a gap of about an hour.It is also argued that in view of the affidavit (Ex.D/3) executed by the deceased before the DW1- Notary public, she has not leveled any allegation against him.We have heard learned counsel for the parties and we find no merit in the present appeal.In the statement made to PW 11 B.M.Pandey, which led to lodging an FIR Ex.P/16, the deceased has categorically deposed that the appellant poured kerosene from a glass bottle on her person and lit the match-stick.Such statement is thumb marked by her.On the same day at about 1.15 p.m., the dying declaration has been recorded by PW6 J.P. Jatav.In the said dying declaration, deceased has categorically deposed that the appellant is the one, who has poured kerosene on her and lit the match stick and it is her husband who had taken her to hospital.PW10 Dr. R.K. Patel is the doctor who declared the deceased was fit to make statement at about 1.10 p.m. on 19.04.1999 and thereafter, her statement was recorded.However, said doctor---5---has deposed that there was no smell of kerosene coming from her person and it was a dry burn.PW10 Dr.R.K. Patel in the cross-examination deposed that may be, the thumbs of Rajbai may not have been burnt as it was upper part of the hand which was burnt.He deposed that Naib Tehsildar has not asked him as to whether the thumb impression of the deceased can be taken by him or not.No question was put to PW11 Sub Inspector B.M. Pandey, who has recorded the first statement given by the deceased to the police at about 12.00 noon, that her hands were brunt and could not thumb mark her statement.He has deposed that he has taken thumb impression of the deceased.No suggestion was put to the witness in respect of the thumbs of the deceased being badly burnt and thus not capable of giving thump impression.Thus in the absence of any question to PW11 B.M. Dubey in respect of capacity of the deceased to thumb-up her statement, the argument that the deceased could not have thumb marked her statement is not made out.It was PW6 J.P. Jatav, who has deposed in the cross- examination that he has not taken the thumb impression on the statement Ex.P/9 because that was burnt.But, the fact remains that the dying declaration (Ex.P/9) was recorded by PW6 after---6---getting a certificate from doctor PW10 Dr. R.K. Patel that deceased was in a fit condition to make statement.Therefore, we do not find that merely because PW6 J.P. Jatav has not obtained thumb impression on the dying declaration Ex.P/9, the statement made to PW11 Sub Inspector B.M. Dubey becomes doubtful.In fact, the accused himself has produced an affidavit Ex.D/3 dated 06.05.1999 in which, the deceased has purportedly exonerated the appellant.Such affidavit is thumb marked.The affidavit is said to be proved by examining DW1 Anand Prakash.Still further, there is no medical evidence that on 06.05.1999, the deceased was in a fit mental condition to swear that affidavit.Therefore, the affidavit Ex.D/3 has been rightly not taken into consideration by the---7---Trial Court.Still further, the affidavit Ex.D/3 is prompted by the husband of deceased as it was his brother who was the prime accused.In view of the evidence on record, we do not find any error in the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court, which may warrant interference in the present appeal.Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
173,285,826 |
And In the matter of: Dr.Sanchita Ghosh & Ors.- versus -The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Mr. Avijit Basu Mr. Ranjit Chowdhury For the Petitioners Mr. Sujan Chatterjee For the State Mr. Tapas Kumar Ghosh Ms. Somsubhra Ganguly For the Complainant The Petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Chandannagar Police Station Case No. 174 of 2013 dated 08.07.2013 under sections 420/406/120B of the Indian Penal Code, have applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocates for the parties.We have seen the case diary and the seizure list.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Indrajit Chatterjee, J) 2
|
['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
173,289,504 |
Heard on admission.Learned Panel Lawyer accepts notice on behalf of the State, as such, no further notice is required.Heard on IA.No.4713/2017 under section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to appellant Shakil @ Sher Khan.A perusal of record reveals that appellant has been convicted under section 354(A)(1)(i) and 506(Part II) of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to effective rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years and a fine in the sum of Rs.4000/- with default stipulation.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was on bail during trial and his sentence of imprisonment has been suspended by the learned trial Court under section 389 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure till 28-03-2017; therefore, it has been prayed that the substantive jail sentence of the appellant be suspended.Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State on the other hand, has opposed the bail application.Keeping in view the quantum of jail sentence imposed upon the appellant coupled with the fact that disposal of appeal is likely to take time, IA.No.4713/2017 is allowed.It is directed that on depositing the fine amount, if not already deposited, and furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one solvent surety in the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 08-11-2017 and all other subsequent dates fixed by the Registry in this regard, the remaining part of the substantive jail sentence imposed upon the appellant shall stand suspended and he shall be released on bail.Certified copy as per rules.(C V SIRPURKAR) JUDGE b
|
['Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
173,299,431 |
Shri Ranjeet Khanvilkar, counsel for the complainant.This is first application under Section 438 of CrPC for grant of anticipatory bail.The applicant apprehends his arrest in Crime No.473/2019 registered by Police Station Janakganj, District Gwalior for offence punishable under Sections 294, 323, 452, 354 & 34 of IPC.It is alleged by the counsel for the applicant that the applicant is maternal uncle.A false case has been registered against the present applicant.The complainant has given a written application to the police authorities alleging therein that Rinku Bhatia along with others by using force has tried to remove her clothes and has tried to outrage the modesty of the complainant.It is further submitted that certain allegations have been levelled in the complaint/FIR.She has submitted that with respect to the incident a report has been made by them to the police authorities but that was not taken into consideration at the relevant time and when the complainants came to know about reporting to police against them they immediately approached the police 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.30983/2019 (Rinku @ Madan Bhatiya Vs.State of M.P.) authorities and got registered the FIR.It was alleged that under Section 452 of IPC there is a punishment for house trespass after preparation for hurt.THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.30983/2019 (Rinku @ Madan Bhatiya Vs.State of M.P.) "Counsel for the complainant has further pointed out that an FIR has been lodged by the accused persons at Faridabad, which is registered at crime No.124 of 2019 for offences registered under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 354-A and 34 of IPC.Thus, the second FIR clearly appears to be afterthought.
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,733,070 |
ORDER M.S.A. Siddiqui, J.The petitioners have filed two separate petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal proceedings arising out of the FIR No.267/92 registered under Sections 498-A/406 IPC, at Police Station Vinay Nagar, New Delhi and pending on the file of Ms. Sunita Gupta, Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi as well as the criminal proceedings arising out of the FIR No.248/92 registered under Sections 341/506 IPC at Police Station defense Colony, New Delhi and pending on the file of Ms. Neena Bansal Krishna, Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi.I propose to dispose of both the petitions by this common order.The preamble of the prosecution reveals that on 18.1.1991 the respondent No.2, Smt. Sangeeta Dhawan was married to the petitioner, Kamal Dhawan.The married life respondent No.2 became gloomy and she was subjected to physical and mental cruelty in connection with the demand of dowry.Consequently, respondent No.2 lodged two separate FIR's against the petitioners.FIR No.267/92 was lodged under Section 406/498-A IPC at the Police Station Vinay Nagar, New Delhi and the FIR No. 248/92 under Sections 341/506 IPC was lodged at the Police Station defense Colony, New Delhi.Investigation pursuant to the said reports culminated into submission of two separate charge-sheets against the petitioners.Thereafter, the petitioner Kamal Dhawan and the respondent No.2 entered into an agreement, whereby they settled their disputes.In terms of the compromise, the petitioner, Kamal Dhawan and the respondent No.2 obtained a decree of divorce under Section 13-B(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act and the petitioner Kamal Dhawan paid a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- to the respondent No. 2, the balance amount of Rs. 1,25,000/- was agreed to be paid to the respondent No.2 at the time of quashment of the criminal proceedings arising out of the first information reports mentioned above.It is alleged that the parties have already settled all their disputes amicably and the petitioner Kamal Dhawan has already paid a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- to the respondent No.2 in terms of the compromise and further the respondent No.2 had agreed to get the criminal proceedings quashed on payment of Rs.1,25,000/- the criminal proceedings arising out of the FIR Nos. 267/92 and 248/92 and pending on the files of the concerned Court are liable to be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.Both these petitions have been opposed by the respondents.The respondent No.2 resisted the petitioners contending that she was coerced to enter into a compromise as alleged by the petitioner Kamal Dhawan.In that case after initiation of criminal proceedings under Section 498A/406/34 IPC, parties entered into a written agreement whereby they settled their disputes on the terms and conditions incorporated therein.Pursuant to the said agreement, the husband and the wife filed a joint petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act for divorce.On 25.9.1996, a sum of Rs.5 lacs was paid to the wife and the balance amount was to be paid to the wife at the time of recording her statement before matrimonial court.However, both the parties made consenting statements and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was again paid by the husband to the wife in terms of the compromise.After receipt of the said amount, the wife did not agree for the Second Motion as a result whereof the divorce could not be secured.Thereupon the husband filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the Criminal proceedings arising out of the FIR lodged by the wife.My learned brother Goel, J quashed criminal proceedings on the grounds mentioned in the following passage of the judgment:
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
173,310,636 |
Bohare (PW-1), Kusmanbai Suresh Bohare (PW-2) and Pushpabai Ramesh Bohare (PW-3) were working in their fields situated at village Shivantola.At that time, Atmaram Bohare and Suresh Bohare (deceased persons) were also present there.Gowardhan (A-1) was also standing on the road side.Suresh Bohare and Atmaram Bohare after putting paddy at the threshing machine were coming back to their home.When they reached near the D.P. of electricity situated in the land of Kamalabai, Gowardhan (A-1) passed a comment on them and a quarrel between the parties took place.Immediately after starting of quarrel, A-2 to A-13 rushed there with weapons and started assaulting Suresh Bohare and Atmaram Bohare.b) Gowardhan (A-1) was having Farsha and he gave a blow of it on the leg of Suresh Bohare.Mahadeo( A-2) who possessed sword gave a blow of it on the leg of Suresh Bohare.Abhiman (A-3), who was having an axe in his hand gave a blow on the back of Suresh Bohare.Kalpanabai (A-11), gave a blow of spade on the head of Suresh Bohare.Pramilabai (A-10) who was having stick also beat Suresh with it.At the same time, Manoj (A-5) and Waman (A-4) who were having axe in their hands, gave blows on the head of Atmaram.During this, Jaipal (A-6) and Kantabai (A-8) gave an axe blow and stick blow respectively to Atmaram.Shantabai (A-7) and Parvatabai (A-9) gave scissors blow on the mouth of Atmaram.Due to this sudden attack by the accused persons, Suresh Bohare and Atmaram Bohare sustained serious injuries and they fell down on the ground.On hearing the commotion, PWs 1-3 and one Sakhubai Rakhade (PW-4) rushed towards the place of incident.The accused persons fled away.Suresh and Atmaram were brought to home and were taken to Amagaon Hospital from where they were immediately shifted to KTS Hospital at Gondiya.The doctor on duty declared Suresh brought dead and after sometime Atmaram also died in the hospital.On the oral complaint of Kamlabai (PW-1), a case with FIR No. 183/2000 was registered on 29.10.2000 against 13 accused persons under Sections 147, 148, 302 r/w 149, 323 r/w 149 and 447 r/w 149 of IPC.c) During the course of investigation, the accused persons were arrested and various weapons were recovered at their instance.According to her, at about 9.00 a.m., she along with Kusumanbai, PW-2 and Pushpabai, PW-3 had gone to her field.At about 12.00 noon Atmaram and Suresh kept the `Dhan' on threshing machine and they were coming back to their house for meal.Kantabai beat Atmaram by stick.Shantabai and Parvatabai gave blow of scissors on the mouth of Atmaram.She deposed that this incident took place in her field near D.P. of M.S.E.B. The place of occurrence was shown by her to the police.P. Sathasivam, J.1) This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated 15.03.2007 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Criminal Appeal No. 521 of 2002 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal of the appellants herein and confirmed the order dated 22.08.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gondiya convicting the accused persons under various Sections of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "IPC").After completion of investigation, they were charge sheeted.d) After examining the witnesses, the Additional Sessions Judge, Gondiya vide his order dated 22.08.2002, acquitted A-7, A-9, A-10 and A-11 of the offences punishable under Sections 302, 447 and 323 r/w 149 of the IPC and Sections 147 and 148 of IPC and convicted A-1 to A-6 and A-12 for the offences punishable under Section 302 r/w 149 IPC and awarded life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month.Each of them were also convicted for the offences punishable under Section 447 r/w 149 of IPC and were directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- each in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 days. A-1 to A-6 and A-12 were also convicted under Sections 147 and 148 of IPC but acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 323 r/w 149 of IPC.A-13 being a juvenile 4 offender, her trial was forwarded to the juvenile court. A-8 died after framing of charge and trial against her got abated.e) Aggrieved by the order dated 22.08.2002 of the trial Court, A-1 to A-6 and A-12 preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay.The Division Bench, by impugned judgment and order dated 15.03.2007, dismissed the appeal of the appellants and affirmed the order dated 22.08.2002 passed the Additional Sessions Judge, Gondiya.f) Aggrieved by the said decision, A-4 to A-6 and A-12 only filed this appeal by way of special leave petition before this Court.3) Heard Mr. J.P. Dhanda, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Dushyant Parashar, learned counsel for the State.4) Submissions by the counsel:(a) After taking us through the entire prosecution case, defence of the accused and the materials placed, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that inasmuch as all the prosecution witnesses, particularly, eye-witnesses PWs.1-4, 5 who are female members of the family of the complainant and close relatives, the evidence of these related witnesses cannot be relied upon.He also submitted that the courts below committed an error in convicting the appellants mainly on the ground that the weapons of offence were recovered on their disclosure statements.He further pointed out that with the same allegations and similar circumstances, the women accused persons were acquitted by the trial Court and it is not justified in convicting the male accused based on the very same evidence.He also pointed out that in view of contradictions among the eye-witnesses, namely, PWs.1-4, conviction based on their evidence cannot be sustained.Finally he submitted that insofar as Dilip (A-12) is concerned, in the absence of recovery of any weapon from him which is also the finding of the trial Court convicting him for the offence under Section 302 along with other accused cannot be sustained.(b) On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that there is no bar in accepting the evidence of related witnesses.He pointed out that because of their 6 relationship, courts have analysed their evidence carefully and meticulously and ultimately accepted their version.According to him, there is no contradiction in the evidence of PWs.1-4, as alleged even otherwise, minor contradictions in their statement would not affect the ultimate conviction arrived at by the trial Court and affirmed by the High Court.He further pointed out that recovery of weapons and the medical evidence show that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.Lastly, he submitted that inasmuch as two persons were murdered in the incident and after analyzing the entire materials the trial Court ultimately convicted the accused persons which was affirmed by the High Court, interference by this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 136 is not warranted and it is not a fit case to interfere by this Court.5) We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused all the relevant materials.The complainant and others were working in the field.At that time, Atmaram 7 Bohare and Suresh Bohare (the deceased persons) were also in the field at the place of incident.At about 12:30 p.m., Govardhan (A-1) was standing on the road side and the deceased persons were going home.They had a long standing land and water dispute.On hearing something from A-1 all the other accused rushed there and started abusing and beating the two victims.According to the prosecution, all the accused persons were armed with various weapons and they gave blows on the victims.Due to this incident, both Atmaram Bohare and Suresh Bohare sustained serious injuries and they fell down on the ground.PW-1 is wife of Atmaram Bohare (since deceased), PW-2 is wife of Suresh Bohare (since deceased), PW-3 is daughter-in-law of Atmaram Bohare, PW-4 though claimed as an independent witness, is sister-in-law of Pushpabai Bohare (PW-3).It is the case of the prosecution that all the above mentioned 4 persons (PWs 1-4) witnessed the occurrence of the incident.It is true that all 4 are related 8 to the family of the deceased.Now, let us consider their evidence and acceptability which was relied on by the trial Court and affirmed by the High Court.At that time, Goverdhan A1 was standing on the road side and he told `Dhavare' `Aalera'.Goverdhan was holding Farsha and he gave its blow on the leg of Suresh.Mahadeo was holding sword, he gave its blow on 1 the leg of Suresh.Abhiman gave an axe blow on the back of Suresh.Kalpana gave stick blow on the back of Suresh.Manoj gave axe blow on the head of Atmaram.Waman also gave axe blow on the head of Atmaram.Dilip gave blow of iron pipe to Atmaram.Jaipal gave axe blow to Atmaram.Even in the cross-examination, she reiterated the same.Though certain discrepancies were pointed out in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and her deposition before the Court, on going through the same, we are satisfied that she witnessed the occurrence and telling the truth.14) Kusmanbai (PW-2), wife of Suresh Bohare and daughter-in-law of PW-1 reiterated what PW-1 deposed before the Court.She stated in her deposition that she noticed that Goverdhan beat Suresh with Farsha.Mahadeo gave a blow of sword to Suresh.Abhiman gave a blow of axe on the leg of Suresh.Kalpana gave a blow of the spade on the back of Suresh.Pramila and Mangala gave stick blows to Suresh.Waman also gave a blow of axe to Atmaram.Manoj gave an axe blow on the head of Atmaram.Dilip also gave a blow of pipe on the head of Atmaram.Jaipal gave an axe blow on the leg of Atmaram.Parvatabai gave a blow of scissors on the mouth of Atmaram.She asserted that she saw this incident from 30-40 feet and at that time she was cutting the crop in the field in which her house was situated.She also stated that Atmaram and Suresh were conscious till they were brought to their house.Here again, certain omissions in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were pointed out.As stated to the evidence of PW-1, there is no material difference in the evidence of PW-2 merely because there is some omission in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and her evidence before the Court, there is no need to reject her testimony as claimed by the appellants.She also specified various 1 weapons used in the commission of offence and implicated all the appellants including A12 who used iron pipe (Art.47).She asserted that she did inform the police that Dilip (A-12) gave a blow of iron pipe to Atmaram.16) Sakhubai (PW-4), is sister-in-law of Pushpabai (PW-3).She also narrated that the incident had occurred around 12 noon.At that time, she was going towards her field.She heard a shout from the side of Goverment well as `Dhawa Dhawa'.She noticed that fighting was going on in the field of Atmaram.She saw accused Nos. 1 to 6 and 12 were beating Suresh.Farsha and axes were used for the attack.Manoj (A-5) gave an axe blow to Atmaram.She also reiterated that all these persons beat Atmaram.She also affirmed that PW-1, wife of Atmaram and PWs 2 & 3, daughters-in-law of PW-1 were also present at the scene of occurrence.She asserted that she did inform the police that Manoj(A-5) beat Atmaram by axe.She also informed the police that Pramilabai was possessing spade and Manoj was possessing sword.Merely because these statements were not noted by the police, her deposition can not be rejected.17) It is true that there is some variance in the testimony while describing particular weapon held by the persons and injuries on the body of the deceased.However, as rightly analyzed by the trial Court and accepted by the High Court, the testimony of these witnesses is convincing and trustworthy about the incident and there is no reason to disbelieve their statements as claimed by the learned counsel for the appellants.18) Medical Evidence It is important to note that the evidence of all these witnesses i.e. PWs-1 to 4 is corroborated by medical evidence.We have already noted that in the said incident, both Atmaram Bohare and Suresh Bohare died.Dr. Satish Humane, PW-7, Medical Officer, KTS Hospital, Gondiya conducted autopsy on the body of Suresh Bohare.He noted the following injuries on the body of Suresh Bohare in Ext.67 "i) Deep incised wound - U/3rd (L) lateral side of thigh 4 =" X 1" X MS.Deep (1/2")ii) Deep incised wound M/3rd (L) Leg.Dr. Satish Humane (PW-7) has opined that he died due to haemorrhage and shock as a result of multiple injuries.Insofar as injuries of Atmaram, PW-7 has deposed that there was fracture of right frontal and left frontal region of the head.There were blood clots under right and left frontal region and left parietal region of head.There was a fracture of right and left frontal region and left pareito temporal region of skull, intra cranial haemorrhage present in brain, heart was empty, both lungs and other organs were intact and pale.There was no food material in the stomach.Injury Nos. 1 to 8 may be caused by hard and sharp object and 9 & 10 may be caused by hard and blunt object.In his opinion, the said injuries were caused within 18-30 hours before Post Mortem examination and according to him, Atmaram Bohare died due to haemorrhage and shock as a result of head injury.He also explained to the Court 1 that injury on the head of Atmaram Bohare was fatal and sufficient to cause instantaneous death.He further explained that injury Nos. 1, 2 and 3 coupled with fracture on leg on the person of Suresh Bohare were sufficient to cause instantaneous death.Though an argument was advanced from the side of the appellants that the deceased Suresh Bohare had sustained injuries only on thighs and legs which are not fatal parts of the body, Dr. Satish Humane (PW-7) has explained before the Court during his cross-examination that there was cutting of major vessels and those injuries were life fatalling.He further deposed that after cutting of major blood vessels, the person may die within 15 to 30 minutes.He also reiterated and asserted that injury Nos. 1, 2 and 3 on person of Suresh Bohare are collectively sufficient to cause death.21) The analysis of the statements of PWs 1 to 4 and the assertion of Dr. Satish Humane, PW-7 who conducted the autopsy on the body of deceased Atmaram Bohare and Suresh Bohare as well as his explanation as to the nature of injuries with reference to the weapons used by the accused, we hold that the prosecution has established its charge that both the 1 deceased died due to the injuries sustained in the incident.We accept the prosecution case and agree with the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court as affirmed by the High Court.Contradictions in the evidence of PWsHe also pointed out that after the statements were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. before the police, they improved their version before the court.On these grounds, the counsel for the appellants submitted that no reliance need be given to those witnesses and courts below have committed an error in considering this aspect.We have already adverted to the statements of PWs., particularly, eye-witnesses PWs.In fact, the very same objection was raised before the trial Court and the High Court and while considering the said objection both the courts analysed their evidence in detail.In the case on hand, as observed earlier, merely on the basis of minor contradictions about the use and nature of weapons, injuries, their statements cannot be ignored in toto.Special reference to Dilip, A-1228) Learned counsel for the appellants finally submitted that in the absence of recovery of any weapon from Dilip A-12 and evidence relating to him is similar to female accused who were all acquitted, in fairness the courts could have acquitted A-12 also.On going through the materials placed, we are unable to accept the said contention.It is true that no weapon was recovered from A-12 but prosecution witnesses implicated him for causing fatal injuries along with the other accused persons.Considering the evidence of PWs.It must be within the knowledge of the other members as one likely to be committed in prosecution of common object.The trial Judge on thorough analysis held that the prosecution has made out a case against the accused-appellants not only under Section 302 read with Section 149, the prosecution has very well established offences punishable under Section 147, 148 and the accused A-1 to A-6 including A-12 used force and violence being members of unlawful assembly in prosecution of common object of causing death of Suresh Bohare and Atmaram Bohare.The deadly weapons in their hands were axes, farshas, sticks, iron pipe etc. Though there is no recovery of weapon from Dilip A-12 but weapons have been recovered from other accused and prosecution witnesses have asserted that Dilip A-12 gave blow of iron pipe on Atmaram.
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
173,314,942 |
On this, he was served with show-cause as to why his candidature be not cancelled.The respondent herein applied for the post of Constable (Executive) in Delhi Police pursuant to advertisement issued for recruitment to the said post in the year 2006 by the petitioner herein.In the application submitted by the respondent against the column as to whether he was involved in any criminal case at any point of time, he had given the answer: "NIL".It is clear from the above that when the petitioner had applied for the said post in the year 2006, he had already been acquitted from the said case.After this information was given by the respondent, the petitioner served upon the respondent show-cause notice dated 15.06.2007 alleging that the respondent had not disclosed the aforesaid facts while filling the application form and it amounted to concealment of material facts and furnishing false information.Later-on, you have disclosed your involvement in the above said Crl.Case in the relevant columns of the Attestation Form filled up by you on 07.12.2006 that a criminal case FIR No. 40/2003 U/S 308/341/323 IPC was registered and you are acquitted on 10.03.2004 in the above said case by the Hon'ble Court.Further, you have submitted an application dated nil in this office on 27.11.2006 stating therein that when you are studying in a college a quarrel had taken place and the above said criminal case was registered against you.The entire allegation predicates on the concealment.
|
['Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
173,315,343 |
Case diary perused.As per prosecution case, 10/05/2018, complainant lodged the report alleging that on Tuseday at about 12:00 p.m., when his wife was working in the field situated behind his house at that time co-accused Sanjay alongwith applicant, Dinesh and Santosh reached there., applicant caught hold of her hand and when she cried then he shut her mouth with his hand, thereafter, co-accused Ramdas also came there and they have committed rape upon her.Learned counsel for the applicant submits the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present offence.Laxmi Bai-the mother of the applicant lodged the FIR against Rajendra S/o budhiya, the husband of the prosecutrix for the offence under Secions 325, 294, 323 and 506/34 of the IPC, which was registered at Crime No. 317/2017 at Police-Station-Dhamnod, District-Dhar and one another case is also registered against the Rajendra S/o Budhiya at Crime No. 16/2017 at Police-Station-Dhamnod for the offence under Sections 450 and 376 of the IPC by 2 Ranu W/o Bharat Makwana, who happened to be sister-in- law (Bhabhi) of the applicant.Investigation is over and charge-sheet has been filed.Conclusion of trial will take sufficient long time.Under these circumstances, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant.Certified copy as per rules.
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 450 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,733,210 |
The appeal arises out of an occurrence which took place at 7a.m. on March 29, 1965 in Nawagarh near village ShahpurNawada at a distance, of five miles from police stationChandauli in Varanasi district.As a result of thatoccurrence, Pancham (45) received fatal injuries and laterdied at 11 a.m. Injuries were also received by Nand Lal (PW1), Munshi (PW 2), Jhuri (PW 3), Potan (PW 5) and Bhaggan onthe side of the complainant.Ram Naresh,Paras Nath and Nar Singh accused are the maternal uncle'ssons of Mahabir accused.Mahabir accused, who is a collateral ofNand Lal PW. owns the adjoining plot.Mahabir had put up ahut on his own plot.There is a mend (dividing ridge)between the plots of Nand Lal and Mahabir, On the morning ofMarch 29, 1965, it is stated, Pancham deceased and Nand LalPW saw that Budhdhu and Mahabir were digging earth and thusextending the frontage of Mahabir's hut.Ram Naresh armedwith a gandasa, Lalji and Munni Lal armed with spears andNar Singh and Paras Nath armed with lathis were standingclose to Mahabir with a view to help him.Pancham raised aDrotest against the act of the accused party whereuponMahabir and Budhhu picked up lathis and those two accusedalong with the other accused started beating Pancham andNand Lal with their respective weapons.Jhuri and Munshithen came there, but they too were attacked.Potan andBhaggan also tried to intervene, but injuries were caused tothem also by the accused party.During the course of this occurrence, Lalji thrust his spearin the abdomen of Pancham who fell down on the ground.Post mortem examination of Pan-cham revealed that he had six injuries, out of which one wasa stab, wound, one was an incised wound, three werecontusions and one was an abrasion.The fatal injury wasthe stab wound in the abdominal cavity measuring 2" x 1Omentum and about 12" long portion of small intestines wasprotruding out of this wound.Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order datedthe 12-9-69 of the Allahabad High Court, in Criminal AppealNos.Nuruddin Ahmed and U. P. Singh, for the appellants.O. P.O. P. Rana, for the respondent.The Judgment of the Court was delivered byKHANNA, J. This is an appeal by special leave by Lalji (23),Mahabir (45), Nar Singh (30), Paras Nath (27) and Ram Naresh(30) against the judgment of the Allahabad High Courtaffirming on appeal the conviction and sentence of theappellants.Lalji has been convicted under section 304 PartI and section 148 Indian Penal Code368and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment fora period of ten years on the first count and rigorousimprisonment for a period of two years on the, second count.Lalji has, in addition to that, been convicted for offencesunder section 324 read with section 149, section 325 readwith section 149 and section 323 read with section 149 andhas been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for aperiod of two years, 21 years and one year respectively.Budhdhu (50) and MunniLal (20) were tried along with the appellants.Munni Lalwas acquitted by the trial court, while Budhhu was acquittedby the High Court.On the side of the accused,Lalji, Mahabir, Paras Nath and Ram Naresh received injuries.Both parties rushed be the police station andlodged reports.On the side of the complainant, report waslodged by Nand Lal PW at 8.30 a.m., while on the side of theaccused, report was lodged by Mahabir at 8.35 a.m. On thebasis of those reports, two cases were registered and bothparties were sent up for trial.The trial court convictedthe accused appellants and Budhdhu in the present case, andNand Lal.Munshi, Jhuri, Bbaggan and one Sheo in the crosscase.NanaLal, Jhuri, and others on the side of the complainant usedtheir lathies, and in the process the accused were injured.Bhaggan on medical examination was found to have two'injuries caused by blunt weapon.One of those injuries wasgrievous as it had resulted in the fracture of humerus boneof the left forearm.Jhuri, Munshi and Nand Lal PWs hadnine, seven and nine simple injuries respectively caused byblunt weapon.Potan PW had four simple injuries, out ofwhich three had been caused by blunt weapon and one withsharp-edged pointed weapon.Death of Pancham was due toshock and haemorrhage resulting from cutting of smallintestines, mesentery and blood vessels by some sharp edgedpointed weapon.The accused were examined by Dr. K. P. Rai and subsequentlyby Dr. K. A. Khan in jail.The trail court and the HighCourt have relied upon the medical examination of theaccused by Dr. Rai.According to Dr. Rai, he found nineinjuries on Mahabir Nar Singh, Paras Nath and Ram Nareshaccused had four injuries each on their persons while Laljihad one injury.The injuries on the persons of the accusedwere simple and had been caused by blunt weapon.The defence version was that there was sugar can crop in theplots of Mahabir, Ram Naresh and Nar Singh accused.Thosefields used to be irrigated from the well of the accusedwhich was close to the hut of Mahabir.A water channel ranover the intervening ridge between the plots of Mahabir andMand Lal.On the day of occurrence, it is stated, Mahabirand Ram Naresh accused had started repairing the waterchannel by digging earth from a portion of Mahabir's plot.Part of the water channel had been repaired with that earthwhen Pancham, Nand Lal, Munshi, Jhuri, Bhaggan, Sheo andSotan appeared on the scene.Pancham and others were allarmed at that time.Bhaggan then demolished the waterchannel which had been repaired by Mahabir and Ram Naresh.When Mahabir protested, the party of the complainantattacked them.Mahabir and Ram Naresh then picked upagricultural implements and wielded the same in self-defence.The other appellants too arrived at the spot andthey too wielded lathis in exercise of the right of privatedefence Ram Naresh accused came into, the witness box andgave evidence in support of the defence version.The trail court on scrutiny of the evidence came to theconclusion that the witnesses on both sides had stated onlythe half truth and resorted to exaggeration, twisting andembellishment of the true account of the occurrence.It wasfurther held by the trail court that the well near the hutof Mahabir was being used for irrigation pur-poses, that the channel through which the water from thiswell used to be taken was along the disputed ridge and thaton the day of occurrence the party of the accused wasdigging and putting earth on the ridge in order to repairand reconstruct the water channel.The trial court in thiscontext referred to the evidence of the investigatingofficer, according to whom earth had been taken by the partyof the accused from a pit in Mahabir's plot.The trailcourt did not accept the evidence of the prosecutionwitnesses that Pancham and Nand Lal first went to the spotand thereafter Jhuri and Munshi arrived there and after thatBhaggan, Potan and Sheo appeared there.In the view of thetrail court, all the members of the complainant's partyreached the place of occurrence almost simultaneously.Theprosecution allegation that the other accused Were standingnearby when Mahabir and Budhdhu were digging the earth andrepairing the water channel was not accepted.In theopinion of the trial court, these persons were present atthe hut which was only 15 or 20 paces from the ridge inquestion.As regards the actual assault, the trial courtcame to the conclusion that no attack was made immediatelyby either party on the arrival of the complainant's party.At first there was remonstrance and counter remonstrance.Afight thereafter ensued when the complainant's partyinsisted that they would not allow the earth to be put onthe disputed ridge and the party of the accused claimed thatthey must put the earth and reconstruct the water channel.The intransigence of the parties, in the opinion of thetrial court, led to a free fight and none of them couldtherefore plead the right of private defence.The accused,other than Lalji, in the opinion of the trial court, werearmed with lathis only.The High Court in appeal held that the conclusions reachedby the trial court were substantially correct and were basedupon reasonable appreciation of evidence.The trial court hasfound that Mahabir accused had been using water from thewell near his hut for irrigation purposes and that he alongwith Ram Naresh was repairing the old water channel on theridge when the party of the complainant came there andstopped Mahabir and Ram Naresh from further repairing thewater channel.The other accused who were present in thehut nearly.at a distance of 15 or 20 paces from the ridge.then came there.There was remonstrance and counter remon-strance which resulted in a fight.The trial court has alsofound that there was no premeditation on the part of Laljior any other accused to cause Pancham's death and that thefight was a sudden affair and was the result of heatedpassion.
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
173,322,726 |
It is not alleged that he used any instrument of fire so that cylinder was burst due to source of fire.He had no knowledge that pressure of the gas was increased in the cylinder.Heard the learned counsel for the parties.The applicant is in custody since 8.11.2014 relating to Crime No.307/2014 registered at Police Station Kanhiwada, District Seoni for the offence punishable under Sections 304 and 308 of the IPC.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a reputed citizen of the locality, who has no criminal past alleged against him.The applicant has a profession to sale gas balloons amongst children with the help of gas cylinder.He purchased the gas cylinder from the concerned agent.On the date of incident, gas cylinder of the applicant was burst and therefore, three women expired and some persons have sustained serious injuries.He did not commit any mistake so that pressure of gas could be increased in the cylinder.Under these circumstances, the incident took place due to an accident and therefore at the most, the offence under Section 304-A of the IPC may constitute.No offence under Sections 304 or 308 of the IPC is made out against the applicant.Consequently, the applicant prays for bail.Learned Panel Lawyer opposes the application.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE pnkj
|
['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
173,324,658 |
( .01.2020) Petitioners/accused have filed this Misc.It is alleged by the respondent No.2/complainant that at the time of marriage, her father gave sufficient dowry to the petitioners/accused.Thereafter, petitioners/accused taunted, humiliated and tortured her due to non-fulfillment of sufficient dowry.Petitioners/accused used to tell her that if marriage of petitioners/accused No.1 is solemnized in any other place, then they would get sufficient dowry as car, Rs.11 lacs, etc. Thereafter, her father gave extra gold worth Rs.50,000/- on demand of petitioners/accused No. 2 & 3, but, the behaviour of petitioners/accused did not convert and they humiliated her.Her mother-in-law kept her ornaments, but she did not return that ornaments.Petitioners/accused humiliated and tortured her various times.On 10.3.2019, petitioners/accused No.1 to 4 beat her and thrown out from the matrimonial house.Petitioners/accused told her to break up her relation with her parents.She did not want to abolish her life, so she did not make any complaint to the Responsible Officer.Petitioners/accused questioned about her maternity.Petitioners/accused did not want to keep her at matrimonial house.They thrown her out from matrimonial house, so she is living with her parents at Harda.Thereafter, respondent No.2 lodge a complaint before Police Station Harda.3: Learned counsel for petitioners/accused submits that the allegation made in the First Information Report against the petitioners/accused are false and fabricated.Petitioner/ accused No.1 has submitted application before Family Consultation Centre, Vidisha and proceedings were 3 initiated.During the pendency of proceeding, respondent No.2 and petitioner/accused No.1 started living together at Raipur, but after some time, respondent No.2 started quarreling with petitioner/accused No.1, therefore, he sent the respondent No.2 to Vidisha, where she tried to run from matrimonial house.When petitioners/accused No.2 and 3 tried to stop her, then she tried to commit suicide, therefore, petitioners/accused have made a written complaint to the Police Station DDU Nagar Raipur.On 22.12.2018, the proceedings of Family Consultation Centre was closed with the direction to the parties to settle the dispute from the Court.Since the settlement taken place between the petitioner/accused No.1 and respondent No.2, therefore, the respondent No.2 is living with her in-laws and on 10.3.2019, respondent No.2 again tried to commit suicide.Thereafter, petitioner/accused No.1 made a complaint to Police Station Dehat Vidisha and Family Consultation Centre, Vidisha.Thereafter, petitioner/ accused No.1 filed a suit for dissolution of marriage between petitioner/accused No.1 and respondent No.2, on the ground of cruelty in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court,Vidisha.Notice was issued to the respondent No.2 for appearance in that case.After receiving that notice, the respondent No.2 lodge the false complaint only to harass and involve the petitioners/accused in this false case.4: Learned counsel for petitioners/accused submits that according to FIR, the incident took place in matrimonial house at Vidisha, therefore, Police Station Harda has no jurisdiction to register the case and investigate the matter, so registration of FIR without proper investigation is misuse of power, hence, FIR is liable to be quashed.There is no 4 direct or indirect material available on record on which petitioners/accused can be involved in this case.She threatened the petitioners/accused to implicate the whole family members in false case and in furtherence thereto she lodged the false report at Harda Police Station.No complaint or FIR has been lodged before the date of incident, but when she received the notice of proceedings under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, respondent No.2 developed the concocted story to rope all the petitioners/accused and threatened and pressurised to petitioners/accused to withdraw the Divorce Petition.The allegation of demand of dowry are baseless.There are omni bus allegation against all the petitioners/accused and no specific allegation has been alleged in the FIR, so this proceeding is abuse of process of law.Petitioner/accused No.2 is a Government servant.Petitioner/accused No.3 is house wife and they are old aged persons, they have good reputation in the society, but due to false allegation reputation of their family will be ruined.Petitioner/accused No.4 is married sister of petitioner/accused No.1, who lives in her matrimonial house at Sagar.Petitioner/accused No.5 is a younger brother of petitioner/accused No.1, lives at Delhi and doing coaching, so these petitioners/accused have been falsely implicated in this case being family members of petitioner/ accused No.1, therefore, learned counsel for petitioners 5 prays that FIR be quashed.5: Learned counsel for the petitioners/accused in support of his submissions, relied upon the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Neelu Chopra and another Vs.Bharti (Criminal Appeal No.949 of 2003, decided on 7,10.2009), Rashmi Chopra Vs.The State of M.P. (Criminal Appeal No.594 of 2019, decided on 30.4.2019), Tarun and others Vs.State of M.P. and another (M.Cr.C.No.8104/2017, decided on 16.5.2018).6: Learned counsel for the respondent submits that there is specific allegation about cruel treatment and harassment about demand of dowry against the petitioners/accused, so he prays for dismissal of the petition.7: Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.8: Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that according to FIR, all the incident had taken place at Vidisha, so Police Steation Harda has no jurisdiction to investigate the matter."We, therefore, hold that the Courts at the place where the wife takes shelter after leaving or driven away from the matrimonial home on account of acts of cruelty committed by the husband of his relatives, would, dependent on the factual situation, also have jurisdiction to 6 entertain a complaint alleging commission of offences under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code."So, it is evident that respondent No.2 was residing after the incident at Harda, so Police Station Harda has jurisdiction to investigate the matter.He lodged in these complaints that respondent No.2 tried to commit suicide and she threatened to implicate all the family members in a false case.So, the respondent No.2 tortured the petitioners/ accused and his family members.Thereafter, learned Judge issued notice to the respondent No.2 to appear in the case.After receiving the notice, respondent No.2 lodged a complaint, but these facts may be investigated during trial.Petitioners No. 1 to 3/accused are free to raise all the defence and objections before the trial Court and the trial Court shall decide the matter on merits.
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 155 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
17,332,772 |
The deceased Suresh that timetold that, that was not fair and on that count there was dispute between twopolitical groups in the village.On 22/08/1995 at about 5.00 P.M. complainant RajaramGaikwad and father of deceased and Jaibai mother of deceased had come inthe village for taking the stone grinder.The deceased and his parents wereresiding at farm house.They also owned one house in the village.Aftertaking the stone grinder, the complainant returned to his farm house.Atabout 7.00 P.M. one Sadashiv Gaikwad came shouting at the farm house ofthe complainant and told him that, Tukaram, Ganesh and Ganpat areassaulted by the children of Popat Ganpat Gaikwad and therefore he askedthe complainant to go to the Kamshet Police chowky and lodge theinformation.The complainant proceeded to Kamshet police chowky, wherehe came to know that, the police have already proceeded to village Kambre.ORAL JUDGMENT [PER N.B. SURYAWANSHI, J.]::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2020 02:34:21 :::Deceased Suresh Rajaram Gaikwad and all the accused areresident of village Kambre.Before the incident elections of Gram Panchayathad taken place and there was dispute in respect of election of Sarpanch ofthe village.Four days before the election of Sarpanch one Gabalu Gaikwadhad taken away a member Ranjan Lokhande.The complainant waited there.After some time, Nathu Gaikwad came inKamshet police chowky and informed that, Suresh is assaulted by deceasedBhagyawant ::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2020 02:34:21 ::: 3/9 APEAL-611-1999 (J).docaccused Shivaji and Tanaji, Namdeo and Vitthal.He also informed that,Chandrabhagabai gave water to Suresh and at that time accused Shivajiassaulted Chandrabhagabai.Suresh was admitted in Parmar Hospital.Thecomplainant proceeded to Parmar Hospital and saw that Suresh hadsustained injuries at his head and treatment was being given to Suresh.It isthe case of the prosecution that, Suresh was assaulted by the accused byiron bars in open premises near the house of one Maruti Gaikwad.WhileSuresh was being assaulted Chandrabhagabai rushed to the spot afterhearing cries of Suresh and she intervened in the assault.She was alsoassaulted by iron rods.At that time, one Nathu was passing on the road andChandrabhagabai called Nathu and asked him to bring water.Though,Nathu brought water, Suresh was not in a position to drink the water.Nathulifted Suresh and took him towards S.T. stand and Suresh was taken inbullock cart brought by one Chandrakant to the hospital of Dr. Parmar.::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2020 02:34:21 :::Suresh had sustained injury on both right and, left sideof head.Dr. Parmar provided first medical aid and sutured the wounds.Thecondition of Suresh became serious on 23/08/1995 and since he becameunconscious, he was shifted to Sassoon Hospital for further treatment.On24/08/1995 Suresh succumbed to the injuries.After conducting inquest andpost mortem the dead body of Suresh was handed over to the fatherBhagyawant ::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2020 02:34:21 ::: 4/9 APEAL-611-1999 (J).docRajaram (PW 1).On 24/08/1995 at about 10.10 P.M. complainant Rajaramlodged complaint before P.S.I. Vadgaon-Mawal.On the basis of saidcomplaint C.R. No. 90 of 1995 for offences punishable under Section 302,504 read with 34 of IPC was registered.On completion of investigationcharge sheet came to be filed and since the matter was triable by the Courtof Sessions, it was committed to the Court of Sessions.::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2020 02:34:21 :::Learned Sessions Court framed charge under Section 302, 504read with 34 of IPC against the accused.The prosecution examined 10witnesses in support of the charge.The defence of the accused is of denialand the accused claimed that there was scuffle in the village on account ofpolitical dispute in which Suresh had suffered injuries and expired.The learned Trial Court after assessing theevidence came to the conclusion that, the prosecution has failed to prove thecharge and hence was pleased to acquit the accused.Hence, the presentappeal.We have heard the learned APP appearing on behalf ofAppellant-State, who has taken us through the record, evidence led by theprosecution and the documents including various panchnamas, post mortemetc.brought on record during the course of trial.None appears for theaccused.::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2020 02:34:21 :::On going through the evidence of eye witness ChandrabhagabaiGaikwad (PW 2), it is clear that, though she claims to have sustained injuryon shoulder during the assault while she intervened to save Suresh, there isnothing on record to show that, she really had sustained injury on hershoulder.She states in her evidence that, Suresh was not talking.She admitsin her cross examination that, she does not know as to how many blows bywhich of the accused were inflicted on Suresh.She has stated that, she fellon the person of Suresh in order to save him.However, absence of anyinjury suffered by her renders her evidence doubtful.She in her policestatement has not stated that, alleged incident had taken place at the backside of her house.The said omission is brought on record during her crossexamination, thus she has substantially improved her version before TrialCourt.She being wife of the complainant is highly interested witness whoseversion does not inspire confidence.Nathu Gaikwad (PW 3) is nephew of PW 1, he claims to be aneye witness having witnessed the incident of assault to deceased Suresh.This witness also does not say that, Chandrabhagabai (PW 2) receivedinjury on her shoulder during the assault.Chandrabhagabai (PW 2) in herevidence states that, Suresh was shouting 'melo melo'.However, nothing inthis behalf is stated by Nathu Gaikwad (PW 3).The evidence ofChandrabhagabai (PW 2) and Nathu Gaikwad (PW 3) shows that, beforeBhagyawant ::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2020 02:34:21 ::: 6/9 APEAL-611-1999 (J).docthe occurrence of the incident of assault there was scuffle between twogroups in the village and in the said scuffle several persons had sustainedinjuries.Nathu Gaikwad (PW 3)has also admitted in his evidence that, he is closely related withChandrabhagabai (PW 2).Thus, Nathu Gaikwad (PW 3) also is aninterested witness who has tried to support the case of the prosecutionalong with Chandrabhagabai (PW 2).::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2020 02:34:21 :::So far as complainant Rajaram Gaikwad (PW 1) is concerned,he received information from one Sadashiv Gaikwad that, there was bigscuffle in the village in which Ganesh Tukaram Gaikwad, Ganpat SitaramGaikwad and Tukaram Rambhau Gaikwad were severely assaulted byaccused Shivaji, Tanaji, Vitthal and Namdeo and all the injured were lyingon the ground and therefore he was asked to go to police station.One failsto understand as to why instead of visiting the spot, he went to the policestation.As per his version he was present in the police station when NathuGaikwad (PW 3) came in the police station and informed him that Suresh isassaulted and he is admitted in Dr. Parmar Hospital.Accordingly, heproceeded along with Nathu Gaikwad (PW 3) to Dr. Parmar Hospital and onthe way Nathu Gaikwad (PW 3) told him that accused Tanaji, Vitthal andBhagyawant ::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2020 02:34:21 ::: 7/9 APEAL-611-1999 (J).docNamdeo had assaulted Suresh with iron rod.It is pertinent to note here that,in his evidence Nathu Gaikwad (PW 3) has no where stated that, on the wayto hospital of Dr. Parmar he told Rajaram Gaikwad (PW 1) that accused hadassaulted deceased Suresh.It is surprising that, in spite of the fact that,Rajaram Gaikwad (PW 1) was informed about assault on Suresh, he did notinform the same to the police.Till the death of Suresh, the incident ofassault on Suresh was not disclosed to the police and the complaint waslodged belatedly on 24/08/1995 only after the death of Suresh.Belatedlodging of complaint also renders the prosecution case doubtful.Apart fromthis he has improved his version in trial.::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2020 02:34:21 :::The prosecution version is unacceptable and doubtful also onthe count that, the assault on Suresh took place on 22/08/1995 at about7.00 P.M and he was immediately taken to Dr. Parmar Hospital.Dr. Parmarhas admitted in his cross examination that, deceased Suresh was consciousand well oriented.Thus, on 22/08/1995 as well as on 23/08/1995 dyingdeclaration of Suresh could have been recorded by the investigating agency.The same is not done for the reasons best known to the prosecution whichalso creates doubt about the prosecution version, in view of the fact that,admittedly there are two political groups in the village and accused belongsto one group and deceased Suresh belongs to other and big scuffle hadtaken place in the village in which several persons had sustained injuries.::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2020 02:34:21 :::Though available, no independent witness is examined by the prosecution.Admittedly, the incident had taken place in the midst of village whereinthere are residential houses of villagers but not a single independent witnessis examined.Thus, for non examination of independent witnesses thoughavailable, adverse inference needs to be drawn against the prosecution.We have considered the direct evidence of eye witnesses whichappears to be unreliable and untrustworthy.There is no evidence on recordto corroborate the prosecution version.At the cost of repetition it may bestated that, there is gross delay in lodging the FIR, when the incident hadtaken place on 22/08/1995 at about 7.00 P.M., the FIR is lodged at about10.10 P.M. on 24/08/1995 and there is no explanation about the same.Thenon disclosure of names of assailants and manner of assault by complainantand other eye witnesses at the first possible opportunity, even at the time ofadmission of deceased at Dr. Parmar Hospital or at the Sassoon Hospitalrenders entire prosecution case suspicious and unbelievable.Having considered the reasons assigned by the learned TrialCourt, we do not find any error in the judgment given by the learned TrialCourt thereby acquitting the accused persons.The only view possible in thepresent case is adopted by the learned Trial Court and there is no reason tointerfere in the impugned judgment and order of acquittal.The appeal sansBhagyawant ::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2020 02:34:21 ::: 9/9 APEAL-611-1999 (J).docmerit the same is liable to be dismissed.Hence, the following order:-.::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2020 02:34:21 :::::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2020 02:34:21 :::
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
173,338,029 |
He is a coconut merchant.He has one son Manikandan and one daughter Selvi, who is married.His son Manikandan, who is unmarried, was working under Appu @ Karuppusamy.He knows the accused.On 05.09.2010 P.W.1 was returning home after his work.At that time, Thangaraj P.W.4 and Singaram P.W.3, came by 33 C bus and informed P.W.1 that his son Manikandan is lying with head injuries near Palanisamy Gounder's garden at the "S" bend between Kondampatty and Kodhavaddy.P.W.1, along with 5 to 6 persons, including Selvakumar P.W.5, his daughter Selvi P.W.8 and P.W.3, rushed to that place.There they saw Manikandan lying with severe head injuries.His neck was cut and bones have come out.His right chest was severely injured.There were small injuries in the hands and his ears were bleeding.He was lying dead with both the eyes open.5. P.W.2 is also a resident of Harijan Colony at Kothavadi.He is in the business of cutting cocunut.P.W.1 is his father-in-law.He knows the accused.The deceased Manikandan is his brother-in-law.On 05.09.2010, at about 10'o clock in the night, when he and his family were in their house, P.W.1 informed him that Singaram and other had told him that Manikandan is lying dead near Palanisamy Gounder's garden at the "S" bend.P.W. 3 Singaram would depose that he is a resident of Kothavadi and is doing coconut business.On 05.09.2010 he was returning from Pollachi in Bus No: 33C. It was around 10.00 p.m. Near the "S" Bend, the bus was stopped as the driver and conductor got down from the bus to see something.This witness and Thangaraj also got down from the bus to see what was there.They saw Manikandan lying with injuries to his head, right hand and body.His throat was also slit.They went and informed P.W.1 about this.They returned to the scene of occurence with P.W.1, his daughter and P.W.2 .She would depose that she is a resident of Kothavadi.At the time of occurrence, she was employed with M/s.Shenoys and Alloys.P.W.1 is her father and the deceased is her younger brother.She knows the accused.His evidence is to the effect he is a resident of Kothavady village and is a coolie by work.On the date of occurrence, around 7. 00 p.m. he was travelling in Bus No: 46 along with Selvaraj.In the same bus, the deceased Manikandan, A.1 and A.2 were also there.P.W.9 got down at Kinathukadavu bus stop and went to the wine shop and then left to his house.At home, he was informed about Manikandan's death.P.W.10 Selvaraj would also depose that he is a resident of Kothavady Village and is a coolie by work.On date of occurrence, after returning to home after work, he travelled in Bus No: 46 to buy 'Brandy. P.W.9 Ramasamy Gounder was also in the bus.In the bus, before P.W.10's seat, the deceased Manikandan, A.1 and A.2 were sitting.P.W.10 returned home around 8.15 p.m. in the same bus.Around 10.00 to 10.30 p.m. he came to know about Manikandan's death.He went saw Manikandan's dead both with injuries.Around 10.15 p.m. P.W.13 saw Manikandan lying dead at the S Bend at Kothavadi.P.W.14 is a resident of Arasampalayam and is working in Integra Company.P.W.15 Jayasimhan is a resident of Singarampalayam Village and is a paper boy by job.He knows all the accused.On 05.09.2010, on his personal job he went to Coimbatore and was returning in a car.Near City Bakery, a known person asked him to stop the car.All the five accused were present there.They asked P.W.15, if he could drop them at their village as the bus had left.On way back home, P.W.15 remembered about their talk to attack Manikandan and stopped the vehicle near Kumarala Poultry and waited for some one to come to accompany him.Though, he waited for a long time, none came and P.W.15 decided to go on his own and went accordingly.There he saw, A.1, A.2 and A.3 beating up Manikandan with logs.He asked them as to what they are doing ?.A.1 told him that, it is none of his business and he will also receive the same fate.He also saw P.W.15 there and left the place in fear.Manikandan fell down and was shouting.A.1 told Manikandan that they had chosen a bridegroom for his sister and would not he listen to him if he says by words ?.When P.W.15 went nearer, Manikandan was throbbing.A.1 asked him as to why he came there, as they have paid him money for Petrol ?.He also told P.W.15 that since they know him they are leaving him and if he dares to open his mouth to any one, he will also receive the same treatment.P.W.15 reversed the car and went back to home via Kondampatty.The next day, through neighbours, when he came to know about Manikandan's death, he was struck with fever and was lying in bed for three days.On 9th, he read in newspaper about the arrest of the accused and then dared to inform the Investigating Officer about what he knows.P.W.15 identified M.O. 6, the wooden log.P.W.16 is the Village Administrative Officer working at Kinnathukadavu at the relevant point of time.He knows about Manikandan's death on 05.09.2010 through Newspaper.On 09.09.2010, when he was at his office, A.2 and A.3 appeared before him and told him that they were involved in the murder that took place at Kothavady.They gave a voluntary confession statement to the effect that five of them murdered Manikandan; A.1 is their aunt's son; Manikandan was in love with A.1's sister which was not liked by the accused and therefore, they planned to murder Manikandan; At the garden belonging to Palanisamy Gounder, near the S bend they attacked Manikandan and killed him.The said confession statement was reduced into writing by P.W.16 in a form of report, in the presence of a witness, and then, A.2 and A.3 were produced before the Investigating Officer.On enquiry, A.2 and A.3 stated that the other three accused are available at Singarampalayam at Kinnathukadavu.The Investigating Officer, with other police personnel, took both the accued and P.W.16 to that place.P.W.19 by name Rajan would depose that he is a resident of Harijan Colony.He is working in Holo Blocks.A.1 took out a knife from his waist and cut Manikandan's neck.On seeing this, P.W. 19 ran to a distance out of fear.An omni van came there.With fear, the witness reached home and went to bed.Around 10.30 p.m., he heard the people in the village talking about Manikandan's death.P.W.19 also went and saw the scene of occurrence.He saw Manikandan lying dead with bleeding injuries.Because of fear emerged by witnessing a murder, P.W.19 went to his uncle's house at Udumalai and stayed there.On 09.09.2010, on coming to know about the arrest of the accused, he returned home and attended the police enquiry.He also identified M.Os.6 and 7 in the Court.P.W.20 is the Doctor who conducted post mortem on the dead body of Manikandan.As Ex.P.19, is in English, we are not reiterating the same in our judgment to save time.The Post Mortem Doctor had opined that the deceased would appear to have died of CUT INJURY NECK and associated with HEAD INJURY.P.W.21 is the Chemical Analysts, through whom Exs.P. 20 to 22 are marked.He received the complaint Ex.P.23 given by P.W.1, registered the same in Crime No: 834 of 2010 and sent the copies of the documents to higher officials and the Court.P.W.23, is the Investigating Officer, who received information about registration of F.I.R. in this case around 2.30 a.m. on 06.09.2010 and commenced investigation.On receipt of information about registration of a crime around 2.30 a.m. on 06.09.2010, he reached the place of occurrence at 3.00 a.m. Around 4.30 a.m., he caused the photographs to be taken and sent the dead body to CMC Hospital, Vellore, though the Head Constable.Around 6.00 a.m. He prepared the Observation Mahazar, Ex.P.2 and rough sketch Ex.P.24 in the presence of witnesses.He recovered blood stained earth and sample earth from the scene of occurrence in the presence of witnesses, under a cover of mahazar.Then he went to the CMC Hospital, Vellore, where, from 7.00 a.m. to 9.30 a.m., he conducted inquest over the dead body in the presence of Panchayatdars.During inquest, he recorded the statements of witnesses.The inquest report is Ex.He sent the requisition for conduct of post mortem on the dead body, through the Head Constable.After obtaining the Doctor's opinion that the death of Manikandan would have been caused by a sharp edged weapon, P.W.23 altered the Section of offence from that of a suspecious to one under Section 302 I.P.C. and sent the report, Ex.P.27, to Court.(Judgment of the Court wasdelivered by V. Dhanpalan, J.) The appellants, arrayed as A.1 and A.2, along with A.3 to A.5, were tried by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No: III, Coimbatore, in S.C. No: 138 of 2011 for offences under Sections 148 and 302 read with 34 and 149 I.P.C. By a judgment dated 23.12.2011 while the trial Judge, acquitted A.3 to A.5 of all the charges, found both the appellants A.1 and A.2, guilty of offence under Section 302 read with Sec. 34 I.P.C. and sentenced both of them to undergo life imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo six months simple imprisonment.He loved Shanmuga Priya, who is the sister of the 1st accused.Shanmuga Priya also accepted his love and was moving with Manikandan.Later, on coming to know about the drinking habit of Manikandan, she started staying away from him.So Manikandan was continuously harassing her.A.1 along with the other accused called Manikandan to a remote place and was waiting to warn him.Accordingly, on 05.09.2010, they brought Manikandan to Palanisamy Gounder's garden at Kothavady and told him that A.1 is looking for bridegroom for Shanmuga Priya and therefore Manikandan has to stop his harassment towards Shanmuga Priya.Manikandan had told them that he would not allow Shanmuga Priya to get married to somebody else.Therefore, all the accused, in an unlawful assembly, attacked Manikandan and killed him on the spot.Thus, all the accused had committed offences punishable under Sections 147, 148 and 302 r/w 149 I.P.C. is the prosecution's version.In support of its case, Prosecution had examined P.Ws. 1 to 23 and marked exhibits P.1 to P.29 and produced M.Os.4. P.W.1, Krishnasamy, who is the father of the deceased, is a resident of Harijan Colony at Kothavadi Village.On seeing this, Selvi fainted.They brought Selvi home and gave her first aid.Deceased Manikandan knows Shanmuga Priya, who is his neighbour.Manikandan used to drink.Though, he wanted to marry Shanmuga Priya, since his son had the habit of drinking, P.W.1 told him to be patient so that he can ask them for marriage.At this time, on 05.09.2010, arrangements were made to look for a bridegroom for Shanmuga Priya.Therefore, on suspicion that Sathyaprakash, who is the brother of Shanmuga Priya, would have been the cause for his son's death, P.W.1 lodged the complaint, Ex.They immediately went there.One month prior to the date of occurrence, Manikandan asked P.W.2 to arrange for his marriage with Shanmuga Priya as he likes her. P.W.2, assuring him that he will speak to P.W.1, told him to be patient.From the place of occurrence, they went and gave a complaint at the police station.On seeing Manikandan lying with injuries, P.W.1's daughter fainted.She was brought back to the house for first aid.Then, P.W.1, with the written complaint, went to the police station to lodge a complaint.He knows the accused.This witness does not know what is the problem between Sathya Prakash and Manikandan.He knows that Shanmuga Priya is the sister of Sathya Prakash.Police enquired him.The evidence of P.W.4 Thangaraj is on the same lines as that of P.W.3 and hence, we are not reiterating the same here again.P.W.5 one Selvakumar would depose that he is a resident of Kothavadi village; he works for a firm and that he knows the accused.On 05.09.2010 when he was at home after returning from work, P.W.1 elder brother of his father informed him that Manikandan is lying dead with injuries.P.W.5 along with other witnesses went to the scene of occurrence.As Manikandan and Shanmugapriya were moving with each other, suspecting that, that would have been the motive for the death of Manikandan, a complaint came to be lodged with the police.P.W.6 is the photographer, who took the photographs of the dead body and through him, M.O.5 series, photographs and negatives were marked.P.W.7 is the mahazar witness who had attested the rough sketch, Ex.P.2 and the seizure of sample earth and blood stained earth from the scene of occurrence.7. P.W.8 Selvi is the elder sister of Manikandan.At that time, the deceased was working as a tractor driver in the garden belonging to Appu Gounder.Some days prior to the alleged occurrence, the deceased had told her that she loves Shanmuga Priya and requested her to finalise their marriage.When she informed her father P.W.1 about this, he told her that both belong to different section in the religion and hence, advised them to wait for some time.But, as Manikandan was adament that he would marry only Shanmuga Priya, P.W.1 told him to be patient for some time.However, on 2 or 3 occasions, the 1st accused had warned Manikandan that he must not move with his sister.Manikandan had informed his sister about the threat from the accused.On 05.09.2010, family members of Shanmuga Priya, except the 1st accused, went out to see a bridegroom for her.On that day night, P.W.1, her father, came and told her that Singaram and Thangaraj P.Ws.3 and 4 had stated that Manikandan is lying dead with injuries near the "S" Bend.Immediately, she along with her huband, rushed there.On their way, they saw Sathya Prakash coming from the opposite direction, They did not notice Sathya Prakash, as they were going in a hurry.Along with Sathya Prakash, Kalimuthu was also there.When they saw, Manikandan was lying dead with head injury; his neck was cut and blood was ousing from his chest.P.W.8 fainted on seeing this.P.W.1 also swooned.So both of them came back home.P.W.11 Appu @ Appusamy is the person under whom the deceased Manikandan was working.His evidence is that, Manikandan is employed under him for about a year; he went to Coimbatore on some other job on the date of occurrence and around 10.00 to 10.30 p.m., P.W.1 called him up over phone and informed him about Manikandan's death.P.W.12 is the witness for whom the deceased Manikandan worked on the date of occurrence.P.W. 13 is the conductor of the bus in which Manikandan travelled on the fateful day.He would depose that on 05.09.2010, the bus was plying its second trip from Pollachi to Kinnathukadavu via.Around 6.45 p.m. Manikandan boarded the bus and asked for Kinnathukadavu bus stop.P.W.13 told him that this bus is plying through a longer route and that there are other buses which would reach Kinnathukadavu quickly.But Manikandan preferred to travel in the same bus and hence, P.W.13 gave a ticket for Rs.5/-.He did not get down at Kothavadi.At Kothavadi, 4 to 5 persons got into the bus.Around 7.40 p.m. the bus reached Kinnathukadavu.After its return, the bus started its trip to Pollachi again around 9.30 p.m. on the same night.He knows the accused.On 05.09.2010 he left for his job via.Kothavady where a S bend is there.It was around 8.45 p.m. P.W.14 saw A.1 beating Manikandan.All the other accused were present there.They were also beating Manikandan with logs.P.W.14 asked A.1 as to why they are beating Manikandan.A.1 told him to leave that place, otherwise, he would also face the same situation.On that threat, P.W.14 left that place.Manikandan also travelled with them.A.2 went and bought fish to eat.After eating the fish, A.1 Sathiya Prakash asked Manikandan deceased and Nagaraj A.2, to travel by bus.While travelling, A.1 told others that they had seen a bridegroom for his sister and asked them as to what could be done and they were discussing among themselves.On reaching Kondampatty, they paid P.W.15 Rs. 200/- and asked him to leave.Police arrested them.It was around 1.30 p.m. A.1 gave a voluntary confession statement and M.Os.9 and 10 were recovered from them.All the accused identified the exact place of occurrence.Then, under a bridge, they produced M.Os.6 to 8, which were recovered under cover of mahazars by the Investigating Officer, in the presence of witnesses.P.W.17 Shanmuga Priya, who is the sister of A.1, turned hostile.P.W.18 is the Judicial Magistrate, Pollachi, at the relevant point of time who speaks about the recording of the statement of witness under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on the request of the Investigating Officer.He knows the accused.On 05.09.2010 Sunday being a holiday, he went to buy Grocery at Kinnathukaduvu around 7.00 p.m. and was returning around 9.30 p.m. At that time, near the S Bend, at Palani Gounder garden, the accused, with wooden logs in hand, were threatening Manikandan.P.W.19 asked them as to why they are threatening Manikandan? The accused told him that it was none of his business and he is no way connected with this.At that time, A.1 beat Manikandan on his head with the log.A.3 beat him from behind.A.2 beat him in his chest.Manikandan fell down shouting.All the four accused, pressed him down.On 07.09.2010, the Investigating Officer continued with his investigation and examined P.Ws. 9, 10, 11, 12. 17 and 16 and recorded their statements.On 08.09.2010 also P.W.23 recorded the evidence of witnesses.On 09.09.2010, P.W.16, the V.A.O. produced A.2 and A.3 before the Investigating Officer along with his special report.He caused their arrest and recorded the voluntary confession statement given by both of them in the presence of witnesses.P.W.23, took both A.2 and A.3, along with P.W.16 and others, to Singarampalayam where under a bridge, he arrested A.1, A.4 and A.5 identified by the other accused in the presence of witnesses.Upon their respective voluntary confession statements, the Investigating Officer recovered M.Os.6, 7, 8 and 10 in the presence of witnesses.He returned to the police station and sent the recovered articles for chemical examination.He also subjected the arrested accused to judicial custody.On 10.09.2010, P.W.23 examined, P.Ws. 14 and 15 and recorded their statements.He received the serologists report Ex.On 17.02.2011, after completing the investigation, he filed the final report in Court against the accused.When the accused were questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. on the incriminating materials made available against them by the prosecution, they denied each and every circumstance as false and contrary to facts.Though no oral evidence was produced on the side of the accused, they marked Ex.D.1 as a documentary evidence.He would also submit that there are contradictions in the evidence of P.Ws. 14 and 15 and as such the evidence of the said witnesses had been disbelieved by the trial Court.P.C. to Court and in the absence of proper explanation for the delay of six months, the trial Court could not have accepted the same to arrive at the conclusion to convict the appellants.By way of elaborating his submissions, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that there are no chain of circumstances to link the accused with the crime; the tyre marks found on the dead body creates a doubt as to whether the death could be an accident; no motive is projected and proved by the prosecution; the delay of six months in sending the documents to Court from 07.09.2010 to 16.03.2011, would definitely cast a doubt in the veracity of such statements especially, when the alleged eye witnesses are disbelieved by the trial Court and when the trial Court has acquitted A.3 to A.5 on the same set of evidence, it was not correct in convicting the appellants viz. A.1 and A.2 alone.We have heard Mr. M. Maharaja, learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the aforesaid submissions.He also adds that the appellants had not raised this plea before the Trial Court and therefore, they cannot have it tested before this Court for the first time.Regarding the plea that tyre marks were found on the dead body of the deceased, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the medical evidence brought on record does not support the said plea of the appellants and hence, based on the given set of evidence, the trial Court had correctly arrived at the conclusion to convict the appellants as stated above and no interference is called for from this Court.We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials made available on record with due care and caution.The prosecution had not come forward to explain such an enormous delay.When we point out this fact, we are fully aware of the settled legal position that the delay in sending the documents alone cannot be a ground to doubt the prosecution case.In other words, if all the other materials made available on record unerringly points out the guilt of the accused, the delay in sending the materials documents to Court looses its importance.But, unfortunately, in the case on hand, we have other materials available on record.As the learned trial Judge himself has disbelieved the evidence of P.Ws. 14 and 15, we are left with the evidence of P.W.19 alone.We went through the evidence of P.W.19 with care and caution.P.W.19 is also a resident of the same place.He knows the accused and the deceased as well.In his examination in Chief, he alleges to have witnessed the occurrence; the accused threatened him and therefore, on fear, he went to his house.After some time, about hearing the death of Manikandan, he comes back to the scene of occurrence, sees Manikandan lying in a pool of blood and goes back home.According to us, the act of P.W.19 by itself is unnatural.After allegedly witnessing an occurrence, P.W.19 had not spoken about it to anybody for five days.He says that he lives in a joint family and after seeing the accused beating up Manikandan, with fear, he came home.However, on hearing Manikandan's death he was dare enough to go to the scene of occurrence and there he saw Manikandan lying in a pool of blood.Again he came back home and slept over the night.Next day, he left for Udumalapet.He told them what he saw.P.W.19 being a person residing in the same area and who knows both the deceased and Manikandan, cannot be believed to hear that he kept quiet for five days, without informing even his family members about what he saw on the fateful night.With this doubt in mind, when we go through the evidence of the Investigating Officer, about the evidence of P.W.19, we could see that each one completely contradicts the other.In his Examination in Cross, P.W.23 would state as under : rhl;rp uh$d; vd; tprhuizapd;nghJ kzpfz;lid joia itj;J vjphpfs; k[pul;of;bfhz;oUe;jjhf brhy;ypapUf;fpwhuh vd;why; mt;thW Fwpg;ghf brhy;ytpy;iy/ mnjnghy; me;j neuj;jpy; joahy; kzpfz;lid 1tJ vjphp jiyapy; moj;jjhf Fwpg;ghf brhy;ytpy;iy/ ,njnghy; kzpfz;ld; fPnH tpKe;j gpwF 4 vjphpfs; mtiu mKf;fp gpoj;Jf; bfhz;ljhft[k; fj;jpia itj;J kpul;oajhf Fwpg;ghf brhy;ytpy;iy/ Thus the statement of P.W.19 that he had seen the occurrence and that he had informed the investigating officer about it, is contradicted by none else than the Investigating Officer himself.Now the question left before us is, if not these accused, then who is responsible for Manikandan's death ? We have the answer in the form of Ex.P.1, the complaint.In the complaint and F.I.R., Exs.The place where the Manikandan was found dead was the main road which runs from Kothavady to Kondampatty.P.1, the tyre marks were found on the dead body of the deceased.We could see that the Investigating Officer had not made any attempt to explain these tyre marks admittedly found on the dead body of the deceased.In fact, the Investigating Officer, himself has mentioned in the Inquest Report Ex.P.26 that there is a doubt whether Manikandan could have died in a road accident.The relevant portion of the inquest report reads as under : ,we;J nghd kz[pfz;ld; vd;gtUf;Fk;.gf;fj;jpy; FoapUf;Fk; kapy;rhkpapd; kfs; rz;Kf gphpaht[f;Fk; ePz;l ehl;fshf fhjy; gHf;fk; ,Ue;J tUfpwJ/ rz;Kf gphpaht[f;F jpUkz Vw;ghLfs; bgw;nwhh;fs; bra;J tUfpwhh;fs;/ mij gpof;fhj kz[pfz;ld; gpur;rid bra;tjhf brhy;yp tUfpwhd;/ jpUkzk; VjhtJ jilg;gl;L tpLnkh vd;W rz;Kf gphpah FLk;gj;jpdh; gae;J tUfpwhh;fs;/ mjdhy; kzpfz;ld; kPJ nfhgk; bfhz;L btWg;g[ Vw;gl;L rz;Kf gphpah FLk;gj;jpdh; bfhiy bra;J ,Uf;fyhk;/ my;yJ rk;gtj;jpd; nghJ Vnjh xU thfdk; nkhjpajpy; ,wg;g[ Vw;gl;L ,Uf;fyhk; vd;W re;njfkhf cs;sJ/Therefore, the real possibility that Manikandan, who is known to be a drunkard, would have been either hit by a vehicle and had fallen down or he would have been lying in the main road and a vehicle tyre would have rolled over him accidentally, has surfaced as early as on 06.09.2010 at 7.00 a.m. when the Investigating Officer conducted inquest over the dead body of Manikandan.Much to our surprise, in the Post Mortem Report Ex.P.18, issued by P.W. 20, the Post Mortem Doctor there is no mention about the tyre marks found on the dead body as stated by P.W.1 in his complaint.In these circumstances, we cannot accept the case of the prosecution that Manikandan was only done to death and it was not an accident.As to the motive theory projected by the prosecution that the deceased Manikandan had a love affair with Shanmuga Priya, sister of the accused and therefore, the accused had a axe to grind against the deceased also cannot be believed in toto, because, even according to the prosecution though the accused family had gone to see a bridegroom for Shanmugapriya on 05.09.2010, Manikandan had not reported to have picked up any quarrel over that issue on that particular day.To prove this fact, we have the evidence of P.W.10 who has last seen the deceased and the accused together in the bus.He is an independent witness.He had categorically stated in his chief examination that when he got into the bus, the deceased Manikandan, A.1 Sathya Prakash and A.2 Nagaraj, were sitting in the front seat to that of his seat.This Court has been consistently holding that the statement of important witnesses recorded during investigation should be sent to the Court at the earliest point of time.If there is any delay, then, the evidentiary value of the evidence of such witnesses is open to a serious doubt.In the light of our discussions as referred to above, we have no doubt at all in our mind that the circumstances projected before the Court by the prosecution are far from convincing and in any event, they do not unerringly point out to the guilt of the accused and the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused.Under these circumstances, we have no doubt in our mind that the judgement under challenge is liable to be set aside and accordingly, it is set aside.The appeal is allowed.
|
['Section 302 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.
|
173,339,273 |
By the present appeal, the appellant has put to challenge judgment and order dated 21.08.2014 in Sessions Trial No. 60/2012 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Khamgaon thereby convicting him for an offence punishable under Sections 376 (1) and 506 of the IPC and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for 7 years and also pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo R.I.for 3 months.This appeal was admitted on 11.09.2011 and record ::: Downloaded on - 01/08/2015 23:57:52 ::: 2 apeal464.14.odt and proceedings were called in order to find out whether the applicant was entitled to bail.::: Downloaded on - 01/08/2015 23:57:52 :::In support of the appeal, Mr. Kalwaghe, learned counsel for the appellant, vehemently argued that the finding of conviction recorded by the trial court for an offence punishable under Sections 376 (1) and 506 of the IPC is clearly illegal and, therefore, accused is entitled to acquittal.He then ::: Downloaded on - 01/08/2015 23:57:52 ::: 3 apeal464.14.odt invited my attention to the evidence of mother of the appellant so also of PW1-Ku.S and submitted that there are special reasons reasons by way of evidence brought before the Court for reduction of sentence.He then submitted that the appellant is ready to provide an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- within a period of 8 weeks from his release from jail for being invested into the Fixed Deposit in the name of PW1-Ku.S by way of compensation in that behalf.::: Downloaded on - 01/08/2015 23:57:52 :::He submitted that the appellant has two daughters, one of 7 years and other of five years, wife and mother aged about 65 years to be maintained.Per contra, learned A.P.P. for the respondent-State vehemently supported the impugned order of conviction.The Learned A.P.P. vehemently opposed the proposal given by the learned counsel for the appellant for reduction of sentence and submitted that such a proposal cannot be accepted since the offence is of serious nature and no such offer can be accepted by this Court.Mr. Kalwaghe referred to the decision of the Supreme court in the case of Ram Kumar ..vs.. State of Haryana (2006) 5 SCC 347 ::: Downloaded on - 01/08/2015 23:57:52 ::: 4 apeal464.14.odt CONSIDERATION:::: Downloaded on - 01/08/2015 23:57:52 :::Heard learned counsel for the parties.I have seen the entire record and the evidence.Insofar as the finding of conviction for the offence of rape is concerned, I have checked up the evidence of PW1 Ku.S. and other evidence on record.I find that the evidence produced by the prosecution clearly proves that the appellant committed offence of rape of his niece who was minor i.e. of the age of 15 years.The evidence of prosecution witnesses on the material point about rape has gone unchallenged and, therefore, I confirm the finding of conviction recorded by the learned trial Judge for an offence punishable under Section 376 (1) of IPC so also section 506 of IPC.The next important question raised before me is based on the applicability of amendment brought by the Parliament w.e.f 18.05.2013 by deleting proviso to Section 376 (1) of the IPC since the proviso permitted the Court to bring down the sentence below 7 years for adequate and special reasons.Counsel for the parties were heard with reference to the evidence that was tendered before the trial Court at length on this issue.I have consciously considered the submissions made particularly in the light of ::: Downloaded on - 01/08/2015 23:57:52 ::: 5 apeal464.14.odt proviso to Section 376 (1).I quote Section 376 (1) in entirety as under:::: Downloaded on - 01/08/2015 23:57:52 :::Punishment for rape.--(1) Whoever, except in the cases provided for by sub- section (2), commits rape shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may be for life or for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine unless the women raped is his own wife and is not under twelve years of age, in which cases, he shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both:Provided that the court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than seven years.However, in the present case, I find that the incident is said to have taken place well before 18.05.2013 i.e. before coming ::: Downloaded on - 01/08/2015 23:57:52 ::: 6 apeal464.14.odt into force of the the amendment aforesaid and, therefore, power of this Court to inflict sentence lesser than 7 years can be exercised upon recording adequate and special reasons.In the case of Ram Kuamr (supra) following are the observations "3. .....However, at the time of hearing it is brought to our notice that the girl has now got married and living with her husband.The said statement is also ratified by the evidence of the father of the girl.Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the sentence imposed by the Sessions Court and as affirmed by the High Court under Sections 366 and 376 of the Penal Code is on the highside.In our opinion, ends of justice would be amply met if we reduce the sentence to three years.We do so accordingly."::: Downloaded on - 01/08/2015 23:57:52 :::Similar are the facts in the present case.PW1-Ku.S in her evidence stated that her marriage took place at about 1 ½ years back.Due to rape on her by her uncle i.e. the appellant, she had delivered a male child and the said male child is kept in ::: Downloaded on - 01/08/2015 23:57:52 ::: 7 apeal464.14.odt Orphanage at Buldana.Thereafter she was married to Mr. P. This Court had asked a specific question to the counsel for the appellant to find out whether the husband of PW1-Ku.S and his family members know about the incident of rape and birth of child therefrom.Learned counsel for the appellant informed this Court that the marriage took place only after all these facts were disclosed to Mr. P. and his family members and still he married with PW1-Ku.S. This Court finds epitomization of the culture and a broad heart and broad perspective, which we are losing slowly and slowly, that PW1-Ku. S. was accepted as the wife.::: Downloaded on - 01/08/2015 23:57:52 :::It is, in this background, I proceed further to find out whether there are any adequate and special reasons.It is seen that the girl was thus married and is staying away in a remote village in the District of Aurangabad in her matrimonial house.The child born due to rape is put in Orphanage.Then there is evidence of mother of accused PW1-Panchafula Kolhe, aged 60 years, that the appellant Umesh has a wife and a daughter and that he also supports her.The daughter is aged about 7 years, as informed by the learned counsel for the appellant. PW1-Panchafulabai stated that Umesh is helpful and supports the ::: Downloaded on - 01/08/2015 23:57:52 ::: 8 apeal464.14.odt family.It is also not in dispute that appellant does not have any criminal record.::: Downloaded on - 01/08/2015 23:57:52 :::In the wake of above facts and particularly when PW1-He submitted that the appellant is in jail since after his arrest and has completed sentence of 3 years 1 month and 15 days.In the Supreme Court judgment cited supra, the Supreme Court had found that 3 years sentence was sufficient and thus reduced the same, obviously with reference to the proviso to Section 376 (1) of the IPC.I think, this is a fit case since there is evidence on record showing the above adequate and special reasons to reduce the sentence.::: Downloaded on - 01/08/2015 23:57:52 :::For the above reasons, following order is passed.(i) Criminal Appeal No. 464/2014 is partly allowed.(iii) The appellant shall deposit an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with the Court of Sessions at Buldana within a period of 10 weeks from the date of his actual release from jail.(iv) Upon deposit of the amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, the learned Sessions Judge shall put the same in the name of PW1-Ku.S in her bank account at the place of her choice in Fixed Deposit ::: Downloaded on - 01/08/2015 23:57:52 ::: 10 apeal464.14.odt by making an arrangement for her for receiving interest thereon.::: Downloaded on - 01/08/2015 23:57:52 :::JUDGE kahale ::: Downloaded on - 01/08/2015 23:57:52 :::::: Downloaded on - 01/08/2015 23:57:52 :::
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
173,341,239 |
Prosecution story, briefly stated, is that on 14.12.1994 around 5 p.m., Vestibai, aged about 9 years (deceased), was grazing her ox near the agricultural field of Jhapadi Bai situated in village Kheved, Police Station - Alirajpur, the then District- Jhabua.Somehow the ox of Vestibai (deceased) - daughter of Hajri Bai (P.W.2) entered into the field of Jhapadi Bai, wherein Gram crop was standing.On some damage caused by the ox to the crops, appellant Jhapadi Bai got infuriated and assaulted Vestibai Cr.A. No.1092/1998 2 by kicks and fists.She was also pushed down by her on the ground.On alarm being raised by Vestibai and one Guman (P.W.3), who was also grazing the cattle near the field of Jhapadi Bai, Hajri Bai (P.W.2) and Surbhan (P.W.4 reached the place of occurrence which was hardly 100 meters away from their residence.They saw Jhapadi Bai assaulting Vestibai by kicks and fists, however, in the meantime, Jhapadi Bai fled away from the spot.Vestibai was brought to home by Hajari Bai (P.W.2) and Surbhan (P.W.4) in injured state, however, within an hour, she succumbed to the injuries and died.Due to lack of conveyance, Hajri Bai could not same day report the matter to police, however, on the next day morning at around 11 a.m., she lodged First Information Report (Ex.P/3) in this regard at Police Station - Alirajpur; on the basis of which a case under Section 302 of IPC was registered.An inquest was carried out by B.L. Narwale (P.W.5) - the then Town Inspector, Police Station - Alirajpur.Swelling on the right temporal and occipital region measuring 3" X 2" and 4" X 3".Simple linear abrasion over neck on the right side below right year measuring .1" X .2".On internal examination clotted blood was found in the temporal and in the occipital region.Apart this, sub-dural hematoma was also found on the right temporal region.As per Dr. Cr.A. No.1092/1998 3 DR Mandal (P.W.1), Vestibai died because of ante-mortem injuries and consequent respiratory arrest and that injury No.1 was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.He further opined that the death of Vestibai was homicidal in nature and that she died within 24-36 hours of the examination.(Delivered on 25th July, 2017) This appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 04.09.1998 rendered by Additional Sessions Judge, Alirajpur (the then District Jhabua) in S.T. No.166/95, whereby appellant Jhapadi Bai has been convicted under Section 304 (Part-II) of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo RI for 5 years.Vide inquest report (Ex.P/5), he found that Vesti Bai has died because of internal injury.Same day, Dr. DR Mandal (P.W.1) conducted autopsy on the dead body at Civil Hospital, Alirajpur.During the course of investigation, B.L. Narwale (P.W.5) visited the place of occurrence and prepared spot map.The witnesses were interrogated.After usual investigation, the charge-sheet was laid before the Court of a Competent Magistrate, who in turn, committed the case to the Court of Sessions from where it was made over for trial to Additional Sessions Judge, Alirajpur.Cr.A. No.1092/1998 3The learned trial Judge framed a charge under Section 302 of IPC against the appellant, who abjured the guilt and claimed to be tried.The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt examined as many as 5 witnesses including Hajri Bai (P.W.2), Guman (P.W.3) and Surbhan (P.W.4), who are said to be the eyewitnesses.Dr. D.R. Mandal (P.W.1) is the autopsy surgeon, while B.L. Narwale (P.W.5) has carried out investigation.Apart this, documents Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/6 were also marked in evidence.The incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence against the appellant were brought to her notice during her examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. The appellant did not dispute that she resides in village Kherwad and is acquainted with Hajri Bai (P.W.2), however, she denied all the incriminating circumstances and submitted that she purchased Cr.A. No.1092/1998 4 agricultural land from Hajri Bai (P.W.2) after making full payment thereof, however, Hajri Bai (P.W.2) had taken back that land and because of this enmity has falsely implicated her in this case.Appellant chose not to adduce any evidence in defence, however, Ex.D/1, D/2 & D/3 respectively, police statement of Hajri Bai (P.W.2), Guman (P.W.3) and Surbhan (P.W.4) were marked in evidence during their cross-examination.The learned trial Court on the basis of evidence adduced before it, vide the impugned judgment came to the conclusion that though a charge under Section 302 of IPC is not proved against the appellant.Accordingly, she was convicted and sentenced to undergo 5 years R.I.Cr.A. No.1092/1998 4It is contended that the learned trial Court has erred in not considering the defence of the appellant that she was falsely implicated due to enmity because Hajri Bai (P.W.2) had snatched her agricultural field despite full payment having been made by appellant Jhapadi bai to her.Cr.A. No.1092/1998 5Cr.A. No.1092/1998 7
|
['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
173,345,504 |
Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.Accordingly, without expressing opinion on merits of the case, I deem it appropriate to allow this application u/S 438 Cr.P.C in the following terms.The applicants will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bonds executed by them;The applicants will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;The applicants will not indulge themselves in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;The applicants will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; andThe applicants will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.Till conclusion of investigation, the applicants will mark their attendance at the concerned Police Station once every week.A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.as per rules.(Sheel Nagu) Judge Arun
|
['Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
173,347,116 |
The petitioner preferred application under Section 482 Cr.P.C to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court and sought relief to quash the F.I.R dated 21.08.2015 registered at Crime No. 266/2015, at Police Station Vijayraghavgarh, Katni for offence under Sections 279, 337, 304 of I.P.C. 2 Briefly stated the prosecution story is that Jumman Khan, a resident of village Teekar, lodged a report that at about 4 am in the morning, a Hyva Truck having registration No. MP 21 H 1031 driven very rashly and negligently dashed into his house.The family members were sleeping inside the house.Because of the excess speed, the truck rammed into the house and caused the death of his wife Surajmuni.The petitioner- Ravi Prakash Garg was the driver who fled from the spot after the accident.On this report crime was registered against the petitioner.After due investigation, charge sheet has been filed.He intimated the owner of the truck about the accident.Owner of the truck came to the place of accident.4 Police has wrongly lodged report against Ravi Garg -the owner of the vehicle.Counsel for the petitioner claimed that the petitioner is, therefore, innocent and crime registered against him is liable to be quashed.5 Per contra, learned P.L for the respondent/State opposed the contentions and submitted that in the Dehati Nalisi, the name of the petitioner has been clearly mentioned as the person who was driving the questioned vehicle.The other witnesses came to the scene of incident are Jumman Khan, Vahid Khan, Md. Ayub Khan, Mustaq Khan in their statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C have mentioned the name of petitioner as the person driving the vehicle, at the time of incident.6 Besides, notice dated 04.09.2015 was issued to the petitioner to produce the documents of the vehicle in writing.Replying the same he wrote that documents are kept in his home.He will produce the same but he has no driving licence.
|
['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
173,348,001 |
Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard through video conferencing.The grievance of the petitioner/complainant is that despite having informed of commission of cognizable offence of house trespass and theft in dwelling house against 12 named accused in the written complaint dated 19.06.2020, FIR that was lodged vide Annexure P-1 at Police Station Pawai, District Bhind (M.P.) bearing Crime No.0015/2020 2 Mcrc.36607.2020 on 16.03.2020 alleging offences punishable u/Ss.457, 380 IPC was merely against one unknown person.After the State counsel sought instructions, he has produced the copy of the written complaint filed by the petitioner dated 14.03.2020 where the first information about the said offence was provided but no- one was named as an accused and the allegation was against unknown person and therefore it is submitted by the State Counsel that the FIR lodged vide Annexure P-1 was against unknown person.Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, disputes this position and states that despite having informed the names along with other details of the accused involved in the said cognizable offence, the police registered FIR against unknown person.There is a dispute about the accused being named or not between the rival parties.In the instant case, assuming what the police states is true that the petitioner had not disclosed the names and details of the accused in his first information but even if the complainant provides the names and details of the accused subsequent to the registration of the offence, the police is duty bound to take cognizance of these names and details and treat this as material evidence during investigation to come to a conclusion that there is prima facie evidence/material against such named persons of having committed cognizable offence in question.If this conclusion is reached by the police during investigation, the police should immediately make the said described persons as accused and thereafter proceed to conclude the investigation.The obligation cast on the police to register an FIR against persons named in the first information is mandatorily provided as per Section 154 Cr.P.C.. However, the investigation which is triggered after the registration of FIR is to collect evidence/material to find out the veracity and genuineness of the first information.During this investigation, the police has to keep all the avenues open for receipt of evidence and material connected to the offence alleged.These avenues can be in shape of information provided by the complainant or even information 4 Mcrc.36607.2020 provided by the accused or for that matter even any other person unconnected with the offence.If the information comes from the complainant or the accused, the police ought not to adopt a pedantic and hyper-technical approach of not accepting this additional evidence/material supplied by the complainant/accused.The Police should remember that process of investigation is an arduous one which involves moving from the known to unknown, backwards in point of time, in search of truth.The ultimate object of investigation is to reach the truth for which the Police should not leave any stone unturned.The evidence and material collected by the police in shape of prosecution story during investigation is required to be as close and proximate to the actual event/incident which took place giving rise to the offence in question.The police should remember that the diligence and honesty in conduction of investigation lays the foundation of the prosecution case before the Trial Court.If the investigation is conducted diligently, honestly and without any element of prejudice or malice against anyone and with the ultimate object of pursuit of truth then the instances of real culprits being acquitted by taking advantage of shoddy investigation would be reduced to the minimum thereby reposing trust of the people at large in the criminal dispensation system.5 Mcrc.36607.2020 In the instant case, it seems that the names which have been disclosed in the information subsequently given to the police after the registration of offence has not been given heed to.Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to file copies of all such complaints filed subsequent to the registration of FIR in question before the Station House Officer of the concerned Police Station who shall take appropriate steps in accordance with law.The Superintendent of Police, District Bhind (M.P.) is directed to ensure by way of his supervisory powers that the investigating officer follows the rule of law and conducts and concludes the investigation in question without any element of arbitrariness, malice and prejudice against anyone.A copy of this order be sent to the Superintendent of Police, Bhind (M.P.) for compliance.With the above, present petition stands disposed of.(Sheel Nagu) Judge pd PAWAN Digitally signed by PAWAN DHARKAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH DHARK GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, postalCode=474011, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=345b3604d572ed9dd1492 AR fe82dc3b1eef67eff2cb59f3ac97e92 0ac264de7828, cn=PAWAN DHARKAR Date: 2020.10.25 13:17:11 +05'30'
|
['Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
173,349,034 |
The applicant No.1 will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; andCase diary is perused.Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.Applicant apprehends arrest in connection with offences punishable u/Ss. 323, 294, 341, 324, 147, 148/149 added Section 307 of IPC registered as Crime No.41/2015 at Police Station Behat District Gwalior.Accordingly, this bail petition u/S.438 of Cr.PC.as regards the applicant No.2 Chanchal Dubey stands rejected.Allegation against him is of catching hold of the injured Rambhajan with no overt act of assaulting him, this Court is though inclined to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicant No.1 Kallu Dubey but with certain stringent condition in view of the nature of offence.Accordingly, bail application u/S. 438 Cr.P.C is allowed in the following terms.as per rules.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,733,506 |
ORDER Desai, J.This is an application under Section 115, C. P. C., for revision of an order passed by a compensation officer under the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (No. I of 1951).The applicant is the intermediary, who is entitled to compensation for the loss of her proprietary rights.The compensation payable to her is being assessed by the compensation officer, who prepared a draft compensation assessment roll.The applicant filed an objection against it on two grounds one of which was that the rental value had been under-estimated.One of her tenants is the opposite-party No. 2, the Upper Ganges Sugar Mills Limited.The dispute before the compensation officer was at what rent the land let out to the opposite-party should be assessed.It has obtained a Sanad for bhumidhari rights.The applicant informed the compensation officer that she had applied to Government for cancellation of its Sanad and her application was pending.Thereupon the compensation officer suo motu impleaded it as a party in the compensation proceedings.A notice was issued to the opposite-party which appeared and objected to its being impleaded contending that it had no concern with the amount of compensation payable to the applicant and that it was unnecessarily impleaded.V as the High Courts.Under Order 1, Rule 10 (2), C. P. C., he could bring on the record any person who ought to have been joined or whose presence before him was necessary in order to enable him effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the applicant's objection.If the final order passed by the Compensation Officer is prejudicial to her and would not have been passed if the opposite-party had not been impleaded, I suppose she will have the right to seek adequate remedy against it, at least under Article 226 if under no other provision.I, therefore, refuse to treat this application as one under Article 227 of the Constitution.
|
['Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,733,535 |
Sd/- Ram Manohar Lohia.10th August-1.40."He alleged that the arrest was malafide and malicious; that it was made to prevent him fromparticipating in the House of the People which was to gointo Session from August 16 and particularly to keep himaway from the debate on the Kutch issue.He further allegedthat he had only addressed a very large gathering in Patnaand had disclosed certain things about the Bihar Governmentwhich incensed that Government and caused them to retaliatein this manner and that detention was made to preventfurther disclosures by him.In answer to Dr. Lohia's affidavit two affidavits were filedon behalf of the respondents.One affidavit, filed by theDistrict Magistrate, Patna, denied that there was any maliceor mala fides in the arrest of Dr. Lohia.He stated further that as the disturbance was on a verylarge scale it was thought expedient to keep ready typedcopies of detention orders and to make necessary alterationsin them to suit individual cases, at the time of the actualissuance of the orders, and that it was because of this thatthe words "Central Jail Hazaribagh" were substituted for"Bankipur Jail".He denied that he had not considered thenecessity of detention in each individual case.Herepudiated the charge that the arrest was made at theinstance of Government and affirmed that the action wastaken on his own responsibility and in the discharge of hisduty as District Magistrate and not in consultation with theCentral or the State Governments.He denied that the arrestand detention were the result of anger on the part of any ora desire to prevent Dr. Lohia from circulating any damaginginformation about Government.A fresh notification(No.ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 79 of 1965.Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India forenforcement of Fundamental Rights.The petitioner appeared in person.Lohia's application at all.To appreciate this contention,certain facts have to be stated and I proceed to do so atonce.Dr. Lohia was lodged in the Hazaribagh Central Jail at 3-30p.m.He sent a letter in Hindi togetherwith an affidavit sworn in the jail to the Chief Justice,which was received on August 13, 1965, in the Registry ofthis Court.The District Magistrateproduced an order which, he said, was recorded before theorder of detention.Perused the report of the Senior S.P., Patna, for detention of Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia, M.P., under rule 30 (1) (b) of the Defence of India Rules, on the ground that his being at large is prejudicial to the public safety and maintenance of public order.Send four copies of the warrant of arrest to the Sr. S.P., Patna, for immediate compliance.He should return two copies of it after service on the detenu.Sd/- J. N. Sahu, District Magistrate, Patna".The second affidavit was sworn by Rajpati Singh, PoliceInspector attached to the Kotwali Police Station, Patna.Hestated in his affidavit that the order was served on Dr.Lohia at 1-40 A.M. on August 1O, 1965 and not at midnight.He denied that Dr. Lohia was arrested earlier or that at thetime of his arrest, he was informed7 26that the arrest was for an offence or offences of arson.Headmitted, however, that he, had told him that cases of arsonand toot had taken place.He affirmed that there was nocharge of arson against Dr. Lohia.Dr. Lohia filed a rejoinder affidavit and in that affidavithe stated that the internal evidence furnished by the ordertaken with the counter affidavits disclosed that his arrestand detention were patently illegal.He pointed out thatwhile Rule 30(1)(b) provided that detention could be madefor the maintenance of public order, the order stated thatDr.Lohia was arrested for maintenance of law and order.Hecharacterised the counter affidavits as full of lies andnarrated other facts intending to show that there was aconspiracy to seal his mouth so that disclosures against theBihar Government might not be made.The DistrictMagistrate and the Inspector of Police deny theseallegations.The District Magistrate has given thebackground of events in which he made the order on hisresponsibility.In the circumstances I agree with my brethrenSarkar and Hidayatullah that the order of detention cannotbe sustained.I have not referred to any decisions becausethey have already been dealt with fully in the judgments ofmy learned brethren.In the result, therefore, I allowthe petition and direct that Dr. Lohia be get at liberty.ORDERIn view of the majority opinion, we allow the Petition andorder that the petitioner be set at liberty.
|
['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
173,354,700 |
This Revision Petition has been preferred challenging the judgment dated 13.08.2010 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge,http://www.judis.nic.in Fast Track Court No.2.It is the case of the prosecution that the marriage of Fathima (PW1) and Syed Javeed Ahmad (A1), the petitioner herein, was solemnized on 25.06.2000 and at the time of marriage, Fathima's father, Mohammed Basha (PW2) gave 20 sovereigns of gold jewels, Rs.20,000/- cash and household articles worth Rs.2,00,000/- to the bridegroom; after marriage, she lived with her husband in joint household; her husband and her father-in-law, Syed Niyaz Ahmad, demanded more dowry from her and two weeks later, they sent her back to her natal home; her parents mediated with her husband's family and sent her back; again, in her matrimonial home, she was subjected to cruelty by her husband and father-in-law; on coming to know, her father fell sick and therefore, she came home to see him, after which, her husband and in-laws did not permit her into the matrimonial home.3.On the complaint (Ex.P1) dated 11.06.2001 lodged by her, the Police registered a case in Crime No.21 of 2001 on 21.06.2001 under Section 498-A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for brevity "the DP Act") and prepared the printed FIR (Ex.P2); investigation of the case was taken over by Mangayarkarasi (PW6), Inspector of Police, who examined the witnesses and filed final report in C.C.No.3604 of 2001 before the III Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, against the petitioner and his father, Syed Niyaz Ahmad (A2).4.On the appearance of the petitioner and Syed Niyaz Ahmad (A2), 3 they were furnished with the copies of the relied upon documents under Section 207 Cr.P.C. The trial Court framed charges under Section 498-A IPC and Section 4 of the DP Act against them and when questioned, they pleaded 'not guilty'.5.To prove the case, the prosecution examined six witnesses and marked two exhibits.During trial, Syed Niyaz Ahmad (A2) died.When the trial Court questioned the petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C., on the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, he denied the same.The petitioner examined himself as DW1 and marked five exhibits.6.After considering the evidence on record and hearing either side, the trial Court, by judgment dated 29.01.2007 in C.C.No.3604 of 2001, convicted the petitioner and sentenced him as under :Under Section 4 of the 1 year rigorous imprisonment and fine DP Act of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment Challenging the conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred Crl.A.No.49 of 2007, which has been dismissed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.I), Chennai on 13.08.2010, aggrieved by which, he hashttp://www.judis.nic.in preferred the present revision petition.7.This revision petition was filed through an Advocate Mr.Therefore, this Court passed the following order on 08.06.2018 :The petitioner in this revision is an accused.Post this matter on 22.06.2018."8.Thereafter, on 05.12.2018, this Court passed the following order :"Challenging the conviction and the sentence, the accused has filed the present Revision Petition through Mr.No.3132/2013, Advocate to represent the accused as legal aid counsel and he has been furnished with the typed set of papers.Post “for orders” on 12.12.2018."(d) Fathima (PW1) has unequivocally admitted that all the stridhana articles had been returned by the petitioner;(e) the petitioner has got into the witness box and given evidence as DW1 and marked Exs.Side) refuted the contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner.But even so, the High Court reviewed the evidence presumably for the purpose of satisfying itself that there was evidence in support of the finding of fact reached by the two subordinate courts and that the finding of fact was not unreasonable or perverse.”13.The factum of marriage between the petitioner and Fathima (PW1) has been admitted and what is in dispute is, whether the evidence onhttp://www.judis.nic.in record discloses the ingredients of the offences under Section 498-A IPC and Section 4 of the DP Act. Fathima (PW1), in her evidence, has stated that she 8 got married to the petitioner on 25.06.2000 and at the time of marriage, her parents gave her 20 sovereigns of gold jewels and Rs.20,000/- in cash and household articles worth Rs.2,00,000/-; after marriage, she lived with her husband in No.16, Ramamoorthy Colony, Thiru Vi Ka Nagar, in joint household; the petitioner demanded a television set and a two-wheeler from her; the family members of the petitioner prevented her from speaking to her parents; two weeks later, they called her aunt and sent her to her natal home; her parents approached some mediators and with their help, she was sent back to her matrimonial home; there, once again, the petitioner started ill-treating her saying that he ought not to have married her; on coming to know that she was not happy, her father fell sick, she went to her natal home to see her father and thereafter, she was not permitted to join her husband; efforts taken by her father to settle the issue amicably failed; when the petitioner insisted that he wanted divorce, she fell at his feet and begged him, not to divorce her, on seeing which, her father-in-law exhorted the petitioner, not to take her back and threatened to physically assault her; then, she was informed that she has been divorced by pronouncing of talaq; hence, she had no other option, but to lodge police complaint.14.In the cross-examination, she was confronted with the telegram that was sent by her father-in-law alleging that, she had gone on her own to her natal home and that, she is refusing to join her husband.She admitted in the cross-examination that the petitioner returned all the stridhana articleshttp://www.judis.nic.in including the cash of Rs.20,000/-, during investigation; she denied the 9 suggestion that a case has been foisted on the petitioner as a counterblast for pronouncement of talaq.The evidence of Mohammed Basha (PW2/father of PW1) and Parvesh Ahmed, (PW3/brother of PW1) corroborate the testimony of Fathima (PW1).15.Coming to the evidence of the petitioner as DW1, he has not spoken anything about the allegations made against him, but, has merely marked Exs.D1, copy of the telegram dated 05.08.2000, sent by the deceased (Syed Niyaz Ahmad/A2) to Mohammed Basha (PW2/father of PW1), is self-serving.In the telegram, it is stated that, on 02.08.2000 at 07.00 p.m., he (Syed Niyaz Ahmad/A2) visited the house of Mohammed Basha (PW2) and asked him to send Fathima (PW1), but, he refused.It is further stated in the telegram that, Fathima (PW1) has taken away all the jewels from the house, whereas, Syed Usman (PW4), in his evidence, has stated that the petitioner informed him that they are going to vacate the house and asked the parents of Fathima (PW1) to come and take all her articles, pursuant to which, they went to the house of the petitioner and collected the articles.Thus, it is obvious that the articles including the jewels were returned only after the telegram (Ex.D1) and the telegram (Ex.D1) was only a smoke screen to hide the misdeeds of the petitioner.16.The petitioner (DW1) has further stated that, he went to the Kazi and pronounced talaq on 16.04.2001 and sent the communication byhttp://www.judis.nic.in registered post to Fathima (PW1) and the communication was marked as 10 Ex.The trial Court has given a finding that, the petitioner had manipulated the records to make it look, as if he had given talaq and had communicated it to Fathima (PW1), so as to wriggle out of the prosecution, little realising that Islamic personal law cannot act as a shield against a prosecution under the IPC.Adithya Varadarajan, for fastening criminal liability under Section 4 of the DP Act, there should have been a demand for dowry in connection with the marriage.However, in this case, evidence falls short of establishing the ingredients of offence under Section 4 of the DP Act.http://www.judis.nic.in 11 In the result, this Revision Petition is partly allowed.The conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court and the first appellate Court on the petitioner for the offence under Section 4 of the DP Act are set aside.However, the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner for the offence under Section 498-A IPC stand confirmed.The trial Court is directed to issue warrant immediately for securing the revision petitioner/A1 to undergo the remaining period of sentence, if any.Before parting with the matter, this Court places on record its appreciation to Mr.Adithya Varadarajan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.P.Kritika Kamal, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the manner in which, they presented their case.12.12.2018 gyahttp://www.judis.nic.in 12 P.N.PRAKASH, J.1.The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Chennai.3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.CRL.R.C.No.486 of 2011 12.12.2018http://www.judis.nic.in
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,733,568 |
ORDER Sen, J.The petitioners are being proceeded against for having committed offences punishable under Sections 409/120B & 477A, Penal Code that is to say, they are being tried for criminal breach of trust, conspiracy & falsification of accounts.Some of the petitioners were the managing agents of the Behala Sree Bank & some were the employees of the managing agents.The proceedings were started on the complaint of one Nani Gopal Haldar, a depositor, who had a current account with this Bank.His case briefly is that the managing agents of the Bank used the money which he deposited in his current account for the purpose of other businesses & thereby they committed the offences charged against them.On this petition of complaint, being filed the learned Magistrate ordered the police to investigate the matter treating the petition of complaint as the First Information Report.The police investigated the matter & submitted a charge-sheet & thereupon the learned Mag.
|
['Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 190 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 200 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.