id
int64 17
1.89B
| cases
stringlengths 8
539k
| labels
stringlengths 38
1.25k
| instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|
173,362,653 |
Both of them have accounts in Bada Malehara Branch of State Bank of India.Some time before 13.07.2016, the petitioner Lakhanlal son of Gorelal, who is a Government Servant being Panchayat Secretary, was delivered an ATM card by the Poost-Man issued in the name of victim Lakhanlal son of Mohanlal.The petitioner Lakhanlal son of Gorelal went to the bank and obtained PIN for the ATM card and withdrew Rs.10,000/- on 13.07.2016 and Rs.15,000/-on 20.07.2016 from the account no.3562476499 of victim Lakhanlal son of Mohanlal.When the victim Lakhanlal son of Mohanlal learnt about the withdrawal of the amount form his bank account, he lodged a complaint with the bank.At that time, the bank realized that a mistake has been committed.Consequently, Bank Manager, Sandeep Bhattnagar called both the parties and realized that it had happened due to a mistake; therefore, he got Rs.25,000/- transferred from the account 11279390564 of the petitioner Lakhanlal son of Gorelal to the account of victim Lakhanlal son of Mohanlal.Thus, the matter was amicably settled and no one had any grudge against the other; however, the victim Lakhanlal son of Mohanlal lodged the first information report alleging that the petitioner Lakhanlal son of Gorelal was demanding Rs.25,000/- back and was threatening to kill him, if the amount was not returned.Since the police took no action, he filed an application under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. before the Court of JMFC, who directed registration of offence and commencement of investigation.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner withdrew the amount due to a mistake.When that mistake was pointed out, he honestly returned the amount.Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent State on the other hand has opposed the application for anticipatory bail but on facts has broadly stated that the contentions of the petitioner are supported by the averments made in the police report and the statement of the Bank Manager.-in the opinion of this Court, the petitioner Lakhanlal S/o Gorelal Lodhi deserves the benefit of anticipatory bail.Consequently, this first application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal procedure filed on behalf of the petitioner Lakhanlal S/o Gorelal Lodhi is allowed.It is directed that in the event of his arrest, the petitioner shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- with a local, solvent surety in the same amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer for his appearance before the trial Court on all dates and for complying with the conditions enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.(C V SIRPURKAR) JUDGE sh
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
173,372,944 |
CRM No. 7805 of 2018 Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 12th September, 2018 in connection with Kaliachak Police Station Case No. 490 of 2018 dated 12.7.2018 under Sections 448/325/308/506/ 354B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In Re:- Nistar Ali ... Petitioner Ms. Soma Chowdhury (Bandhu) ..for the Petitioner Mr. Pravas Bhattacharya Mr. Kaushik Majumder .. for the State The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in connection with Kaliachak Police Station Case No. 490 of 2018 dated 12.7.2018 under Sections 448/325/308/506/ 354B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.In addition, the petitioner will also report to the Investigating Officer at such time and place as may be specified by the concerned police officer A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioner subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J. ) 2
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
173,391,642 |
O.P.No.10941 of 2020 and Crl.M.P. No.4509 of 2020 22.07.2020http://www.judis.nic.in 7/7This petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.233 of 2018 registered by the first respondent police for offences under Sections 420 and 506 (1) of IPC, as against the petitioner.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.Without any base, the third respondent police registered a case in Crime No.233 of 2018 for the offences under Sections 420 and 506(1) of IPC, as against the petitioner.Hence, he prayed to quash the same.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the investigation is almost completed and the respondent police have only to file final report.Heard Mr. K.S.Karthik Raja, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.S.Karthikeyan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent.http://www.judis.nic.in 4/7 CRL.O.P.No. 10941 of 20209. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel and examined the material on record, we are of the considered view that the High Court ought not to have set aside the order passed by the Trial Court issuing summons to the Respondents.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.However, considering the crime is of the year 2018,http://www.judis.nic.in 5/7 CRL.O.P.No. 10941 of 2020 the first respondent is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.233 of 2018 and file a final report within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate, if not already filed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.22.07.2020 Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non Speaking order rpp ToThe Inspector of Police, Rasipuram Police Station, Namakkal.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.http://www.judis.nic.in 6/7 CRL.O.P.No.10941 of 2020 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.rpp Crl.
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
173,401,834 |
Crl.A. No.886/2010 Page 1 of 24The case of the prosecution is as under:-On 9th August, 2010 at about 10.30 pm, Head Constable Puran Singh, PW-20 who was posted at P.S DBG Road was present near Ajmal Khan statue in the Ajmal Khan Park.He found blood lying in front of hutment there.He also found a dead body lying inside the hutment under a bench.He immediately informed the Duty Officer of the aforesaid police station who recorded DD No.20A Ex.On the basis of aforesaid DD, he along with SI R.D.Yadav PW-21, SI H.N. Giri PW-22 and Constable Samdev PW-28 rushed to Ajmal Khan Park in a government vehicle where they saw a dead body plying in pool of blood under a bench in the hut.On inspection, it was found that there were two injuries on the back and one injury on the left side of chest and on enquiry, the name of the dead person was revealed as Lal Bahadur.No eye witness was available at the spot.Inspector Rajender Bhatia, PW-29 put his endorsement on the DD report and got the FIR No.298/2005 Ex.PW 29/B registered.The Crime team was called at the spot which prepared rough site plan Ex.PW 29/C. The crime team inspected the spot.Inspector Rajender Bhatia, PW-29 lifted a broken bottle from the spot and seized the same vide memo Ex.PW 21/E after completing necessary formalities.Blood stained earth and earth control sample were also lifted by him from the spot.On 11th August, 2005, deceased's sister Maya, PW-4 and Rameshar, nephew of deceased came at the police station and from there they were Crl.A. No.886/2010 Page 2 of 24 taken to Lady Harding college where they identified the dead body.On the basis of secret information, appellant was apprehended on the pointing out of secret informer on 13th August, 2005 at 3.15 pm near Kapashera Bus stand.After interrogation, appellant was arrested vide memo Ex.PW 21/F. His personal search was conducted vide Ex.PW 21/G. The appellant made a disclosure statement Ex.PW 21/H. Pursuant to this statement, he led the police party to Sarai Kale Khan Railway Station Fatak and from the bushes near the rail lines he got recovered one blood stained knife and one check shirt.Necessary formalities about seizure of the knife and check shirt were done at the spot and the same were seized vide memo Ex.PW/K. Appellant also got recovered one piece of a blue coloured baniyan having blood stains on it, from the railway line boxes.The same was also seized vide Ex.PW21/L. The appellant had also given his half pant to the IO, which was also seized vide memo Ex.PW 21/M. Before seizing, necessary formalities were completed.Medical examination of appellant was got done from Lady Harding Medical College.He has stated that his clothes were stained with his own blood from his head injury caused to him by the deceased Lal Bahadur.He denied the other incriminating evidence against him and stated that he is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the present case.He has further stated and that he had received head injuries at the hands of deceased Lal Bahadur and thereafter Lal Bahadur went inside Ajmal Khan Park while he left the place for Village Palam to Crl.A. No.886/2010 Page 4 of 24 meet his wife and children.The said witness has deposed that he is a rickshaw puller and at the relevant time he used to reside at house no.16/830, Pyare Lal Road, Bapa Nagar, Karol Bagh, Delhi.On the day of occurrence, he was present on the pavement.The appellant and one Nepali boy were also present and they had an altercation.The appellant had broken a liquor bottle by hitting it on the rickshaw.A piece of bottle had also hit him.Thereafter, both of them had gone inside the park.As he had not fully supported the case of prosecution, he was cross-examined by learned APP.In cross examination he has stated that the Nepali boy was deceased Lal Bahadur.He has deposed having known Lal Bahadur as he used to reside in a hutment in Ajmal Khan Park.He has also stated that in his presence, the appellant had put his hand on the shoulder of deceased Lal Bahadur and had asked him as to whether he would not be provided liquor.The moment he had removed his hand from the injury, blood gushed out like a fountain and within no time that man breathed his last.He has identified the appellant in court and deposed that at that time appellant was having blood stains on his forehead and was running with a knife in his hand and was ahead of Dalla by 15-20 steps.However, he had fallen and died.He had also seen appellant Vijay there with a knife.However, he ran away.He has also deposed that deceased Lal Bahadur was assaulted by the appellant with a knife.In his further statement he has denied having seen the appellant inflicting injury on the deceased.He has deposed that he had seen deceased Lal Bahadur in an injured condition and was crying Bachao Bachao and the appellant who was also present with a knife, fled away.The above witness was treated as hostile by the APP and was cross-examined on behalf of State.In the cross-examination, he has deposed having stated to the police that appellant Vijay inflicted injuries with a knife with an intention to kill deceased Lal Bahadur.On being cross-examined by defence counsel, he has stated that he did not raise any alarm.He further deposed that he along with Ashok Rana PW- 6, Michael and Sanjay Singh Khandari PW-7 were made to sit in the police station by the police for two days and thereafter their statements were recorded.He has stated that whatever was recorded was read over to him.He denied having made any statement to the police under pressure.On further cross- examination he has deposed that appellant did not inflict any injury on deceased Lal Bahadur with a knife.He has deposed that on 9th August, 2005, he along with other friends was hearing commentary of a cricket match.They were present near the Crl.A. No.886/2010 Page 10 of 24 statue in the park which was at a distance of 4-5 steps.At 8.45 pm, the appellant had come there.He was bleeding from his forehead.The appellant was followed by the deceased Lal Bahadur who was crying "bachao bachao mar gaya mar gaya".The appellant had entered the jhuggi and had fallen.He had his hand on his chest and when his hand was removed, bleeding started like a fountain.Thereafter he died.The hut wherein they were residing was at a distance of 4-5 steps from that place.Their evidence also establishes that at that very time, they had seen the deceased in the park and appellant was also there with a knife in his hand.The evidence of Ashok Kumar Rana PW-6 and Sanjay Singh Khandari PW-7 also establishes that on the day of occurrence at 8.45 pm, appellant had come there in the park when they were hearing commentary.He was bleeding from his head.They had also seen the deceased entering the jhuggi and having fallen.The deceased was having his hand on his chest.Both have deposed that appellant ran away from there.The evidence of aforesaid witnesses clearly proves the presence of deceased and appellant in the park on the date of occurrence around the same time in the condition as is stated above.All the aforesaid PWs have also deposed that at that very time deceased was having injury on his chest.The evidence of Sanjay PW-9 also establishes that there was a prior quarrel at about 8.30 pm between the deceased and the appellant when the deceased had hit the appellant with a broken bottle on his head.Crl.A. No.886/2010 Page 15 of 24The appellant, in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C, has admitted having met the deceased outside the park.As per him, he did not ask him to provide liquor to him.He had only asked the deceased as to why he was drinking liquor.He had also admitted having known appellant for the last many years.As per him, he had advised him not to consume liquor.Thereupon the deceased had hit him with a bottle on his head and he had sustained injuries.He has further stated that from there the deceased went inside the park and he left from there.No defence evidence is led by him to substantiate that he did not enter the park.They have categorically deposed that on 13 th August, 2005 appellant was arrested from Kapashera border on the identification of secret informer vide arrest memo Ex.PW 21/F. The IO PW-29 has deposed that after his arrest the appellant had made a disclosure statement Ex.Injury no.1 Enter the left chest cavity after piercing the skin and intercostal muscles at 5th left intercostals space (left) making a cut 5X.5cm.It then enters the left ventricular cavity of the heard after making a cut 4cm long in the pericardium.The wound enters the cavity near the apex over the front of the left ventricle to finish in the cavity.The direction of the wound was backward, downwards and inwards and the depth was about 10cm.The stomach was empty.The evidence on record shows that incident had occurred on a sudden quarrel.Firstly, the appellant had put his hand on the shoulder of deceased and asked him for liquor.Thereupon there was an altercation between them and then the deceased caused the injury with a broken bottle on the head of appellant.Thereafter they ran towards Ajmal Khan Park where the fatal incident had taken place.Advocates who appeared in this case:-For the Appellant : Ms Nandita Rao, Advocate For the Respondent : Ms Richa Kapoor, APP.HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MS JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL VEENA BIRBAL, JThe present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 25th March, 2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi arising out of FIR No.298/05 PS DBG Road whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable u/s 302 IPC.The appeal is also directed against the order of sentence dated 26th March, 2010 wherein appellant has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and a fine of ` 2000/- has been imposed upon him.After completion of necessary formalities, a report u/s 173 Cr.P.C was prepared and filed before the learned M.M Delhi.Thereafter the case was committed to the Session's court and a charge was framed against the appellant for having committed the offence punishable u/s 302 IPC.The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.Crl.A. No.886/2010 Page 2 of 24Crl.A. No.886/2010 Page 3 of 24Prosecution in all had examination 29 witnesses, out of whichYudhishtar Kumar Rana PW02, Krishan Khadga @ Sethi PW-5, Ashok Kumar Rana PW-6 and Sanjay Kumar Kandari PW-7 are stated to be eye witnesses to the occurrence.Maya, PW-4 had received the dead body of deceased.Sanjay PW-9 is another public witness in whose presence it is alleged that a quarrel had taken place between deceased and the appellant just prior to the occurrence and the deceased had allegedly caused an injury on the head of the appellant with a broken bottle.Remaining evidence relates to police officials and Doctors.Incriminating evidence was put to the appellant u/s 313 Cr.P.C wherein he has stated that he used to sleep occasionally in the hutment in Ajmal Khan Park where other persons namely Yudhishtar Kumar Rana PW- 2, Michael and Gunjan Lama and deceased Lal Bahadur used to sleep.He denied having made any disclosure statement or having recovered a knife or clothes vide memo Ex.PW-21/K. As per him, on 13th August, 2005, he was going to Palam, where he was living, and on the way, police officials came in an auto rickshaw and apprehended him.He did not know as to what had happened to Lal Bahadur when he went inside the park.No evidence was led in defence.Crl.A. No.886/2010 Page 4 of 24The learned Addl.Judge, Delhi held that the ocular witnesses i.e., Yudhishtar Kumar Rana PW-2, Krishan Khadga @ Sethi PW-5, Ashok Kumar Rana PW-6, Sanjay Singh Kandari PW-7 have denied having seen the incident.But reading the entire evidence of aforesaid material witnesses on record, it is clearly proved that the appellant was last seen with the deceased.It is further held that other circumstances established against the appellant including recoveries at his instance and medical evidence on record clearly established that appellant is guilty of the occurrence.Accordingly, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted him under section 302 IPC.Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that eye witnesses to the occurrence i.e., Yudhishtar Kumar Rana PW-2, Krishan Khadga @ Sethi PW-5, Ashok Kumar Rana PW-6, Sanjay Singh Kandari PW-7 have all turned hostile.They have denied having seen the appellant causing injuries on the deceased with a knife.It is contended that as they have not supported the case of the prosecution, their entire evidence cannot be taken into consideration.It is further contended that evidence of police witnesses i.e., Inspector Rajender Bhatia PW-29, SI R.D.Yadav PW-21 and HC Sam Dev PW-28 about alleged recovery of knife and clothes at the instance of the appellant does not inspire confidence as no public witness had joined in the Crl.A. No.886/2010 Page 5 of 24 alleged recoveries.It is contended that as case is based on eye-witnesses, the appellant cannot be convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence.It is contended that prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant, as such, the appellant deserved acquittal in the present case.Crl.A. No.886/2010 Page 5 of 24On the other hand, the learned APP has argued that eye witnesses i.e., Yudhishtar Kumar Rana PW-2, Krishan Khadga @ Sethi PW-5, Ashok Kumar Rana PW-6, Sanjay Singh Kandari PW-7 have not supported having seen the occurrence but their evidence cannot be rejected in totality.The evidence of police witnesses clearly establishes the recovery of knife and blood stained clothes at the instance of the appellant pursuant to disclosure statement.It is contended that evidence of police witnesses inspires full confidence and cannot be disbelieved simply because no public witness was joined.It is contended that medical evidence on record including opinion about cause of death of deceased and opinion about Crl.A. No.886/2010 Page 6 of 24 possibility of injuries on the deceased with knife Ex. P4 and the corresponding cut marks on the clothes of the deceased with the aforesaid knife and CFSL report Ex.PW 29/H, all support the case of prosecution.It is contended that considering the totality of circumstances proved against the appellant, the guilt of the appellant stands established.Crl.A. No.886/2010 Page 6 of 24Thereupon Lal Bahadur had caused injury with the broken bottle on the head of appellant.Crl.A. No.886/2010 Page 7 of 24On being cross-examined by Amicus Curiae for appellant, nothing relevant has come out in his cross-examination by which it can be said that there was no quarrel between the deceased and the appellant on 9th August, 2005 at about 8.30 pm near his rickshaw on the pavement of Ajmal Khan Park.There is no cross-examination on his material deposition to the effect that the appellant had asked for liquor and, thereafter, the deceased had caused injury on the head of the appellant with a broken bottle.Yudhistar Kumar Rana, PW-2 has deposed that on 9th August, 2005 at about 8.30 pm he along with his friends Ashok PW-6, Kishan PW-5, Sanjay Singh Khandari PW-7 and one Gunjan were present in Ajmal Khan Park in front of statue of Ajmal Khan and were hearing commentary of a cricket match between India and Sri Lanka.They were sitting on the road which was inside the park.At that time, a person by the name Dalla came from behind them and he had placed a hand on his chest.He was crying "Bachao Bachao" Kishan PW-5 made him lie on a stone slab.As the aforesaid Crl.A. No.886/2010 Page 8 of 24 witness did not fully support the case of the prosecution, he was cross- examined by the learned APP wherein he has stated that deceased used to be called Dalla.He has denied having seen the occurrence i.e., appellant having overtaken the deceased in the park and had brought a knife from hutment and gave repeated blows to deceased.He has further stated that Sanjay PW- 7, Ashok, PW-6, Michael and deceased Lal Bahadur used to sleep in one hutment and appellant also used to come there to sleep.He further deposed that the hut is inside the park and is meant for taking shelter in case it rains.Crl.A. No.886/2010 Page 8 of 24On being cross-examined on behalf of the appellant, he has denied that he did not see the appellant running in the park with a knife and having had blood stains on his forehead.He has denied that in order to oblige the police officials, he has deposed that he had seen the appellant running with a knife in the park.As per the prosecution, Kishan Khadga @ Sethi, PW-5 is another eye witness to the occurrence.He has deposed that in 2005, he used to reside in Ajmal Khan Park area, Karol Bagh, New Delhi.He along with his friends Michael, Sanjay PW-7, Rana PW-6 and deceased Lal Bandur used to reside in one jhuggi in Ajmal Khan Park.Some other persons also used to sleep there.It was a big jhuggi.On the date of occurrence at about 8.45 pm, he was present with his friends Sanjay PW-7, Rana PW-2, Michael and Ashok PW-6 and were hearing commentary of a cricket match.In the meantime, the deceased Lal Bahadur had come inside the jhuggi and said `Bachao Bachao'.He was bleeding from his wound in his chest.He was made to lie down.Crl.A. No.886/2010 Page 9 of 24The appellant had run away from the place.He denied having seen the appellant causing injury to the deceased with a knife on the day of occurrence at 8.30 pm.As he was resiling from his statement to the police, he was cross-examined by the learned APP and was confronted with statement Marked portion C to C wherein it was alleged that he had stated to the police that appellant had taken out a knife from the jhuggi and with that knife the appellant had inflicted two blows on the back and one on the chest of the deceased.He did not own up having made said statement to police.Crl.A. No.886/2010 Page 10 of 24There is no cross-examination on his material deposition as regards having seen appellant and deceased in the park i.e., appellant having injury on his forehead and being followed by the deceased who was crying "bachao bachao".Sanjay Singh Kandari, PW-7 is another alleged eye witness to the occurrence.As per his evidence he was present near the jhuggi and was hearing commentary on road at about 8.45 pm.He had seen the deceased bleeding profusely.He had come near the statue.Deceased was followed by appellant.The appellant was bleeding from his head.The appellant had Crl.A. No.886/2010 Page 11 of 24 scaled over the wall and had fled away.As he was resiling from his statement made to the police, he was also cross-examined by the learned APP and was confronted with his previous statement Mark C made to the police.He has also admitted having stated to the police that deceased Lal Bahadur had come from Ajmal Khan Road side and was being followed by the appellant.However, he denied having stated to the police that appellant had overtaken the deceased and had taken out a knife from the jhuggi and caused injuries to deceased.He has denied that in order to save appellant, he was twisting the facts.Crl.A. No.886/2010 Page 11 of 24The above witness was not cross-examined by the Amicus Curiae appearing for appellant.As noted above, the alleged eye witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution have denied having seen the appellant causing injuries to the deceased Lal Bahadur with a knife.They have all turned hostile as regards the material occurrence.However, all the aforesaid eye witnesses have deposed that appellant was known to them.They have all also deposed that the appellant used to sleep with them in the hutment in the park.Their evidence establishes that the appellant is their friend.The appellant in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. has stated that he used to sleep in the hutment occasionally.Under these circumstances, chances of their saving appellant by not fully supporting the prosecution, cannot be ruled out.It is settled legal proposition that the evidence of prosecution witnesses cannot be rejected in toto merely because prosecution chose to treat them as hostile and cross-Crl.A. No.886/2010 Page 12 of 24examined them.The evidence of such witnesses cannot be effaced or washed off the record altogether but the same can be accepted to the extent that their version is acceptable on a careful scrutiny thereof.Crl.A. No.886/2010 Page 13 of 24In Rameshbhai Mohanbai Koli and Ors v. State of Gujarat : (2011) 3 SCC (CH) 102, where the eye witnesses turned hostile and the accused was convicted u/s 302 IPC by the trial court and the High Court on the basis of circumstantial evidence, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction holding as under:-In the instant case, all the eye-witnesses examined on the prosecution side have en bloc turned hostile due to influence and pressure of the accused persons which included a sitting MLA of the ruling party.PW- 21/H and had led them to Sarai Kale Khan near Nizamuddin Railway Station Phatak from where the appellant got one knife and one check shirt having blood stains on it recovered.The same were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW21/K after completing necessary formalities.The aforesaid P.Ws have also deposed in the same manner as is deposed by IO PW-29 and have proved their signatures on the sketch of knife Ex.PW 21/J as well as memo Ex.PW 21/K by which knife and check shirt were seized.IO Inspector Rajender Bhatia, PW-29, SI R.D. Yadav PW-21 and HC Sam Dev PW-28 Crl.A. No.886/2010 Page 16 of 24 have deposed that appellant had also got recovered one piece of blue coloured baniyan having blood stains from the railway line box which was taken into possession by the IO, PW-29 vide seizure memo Ex.PW-21/L. The aforesaid witnesses have proved their signatures on the said memo.Their evidence about recovery of these articles was not demolished in cross- examination.The evidence of aforesaid PWs is in consonance with each other as regards recovery of the knife Ex.P4 and check shirt Ex.P7 having blood stains and one piece of blue coloured baniyan Ex.They have identified these articles in court.No contradictions of material nature are pointed out by the amicus curiae in the evidence which could make the recovery unbelievable.Their evidence inspires full confidence.No evidence is led by appellant to substantiate his defence that nothing was recoverable at his instance.The appellant, in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C, has stated that he was apprehended by the police when he was going to Palam to meet his wife.However, no evidence is led in defence to substantiate the same.Crl.A. No.886/2010 Page 16 of 24The postmortem report Ex.PW-3/A of deceased is proved on record by Dr.Anil Kumar, Professor, Forensic- Medicine, Maulana Azad Medical College PW-3 and Dr.The relevant portion of the postmortem report Ex.PW-3/A reads as under:-"EXTERNAL INJURIES Crl.A. No.886/2010 Page 17 of 24Crl.A. No.886/2010 Page 17 of 24Incised stab wound 5X2cmsXcavity deep present over the left side front of the chest 3cm outer to the left nipple.The wound was almost transverse with both margins clean cut, the inner angle is blunt while the outer is acute.Incised wound 7X2cmsX4cm deep present over the left side back of abdomen 33cms below the lower angle of left scapula.The wound is showing tailing.The direction of the wound was forward, downwards and outwards to finish in the muscles of the gluteal region.Incised wound5X1cmX3.5 cm deep present over back of right side of abdomen.The wound was 18cm below the lower angle of right scapula.The direction of the wound is forward, downwards and outwards in the muscles of the back.All the visceral organs were pale.All the injuries were ante mortem, recent in duration could be caused by a single edged sharp weapon.Injury No.1 is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature."Crl.A. No.886/2010 Page 18 of 24Opinion on the cut marks on the clothes of the deceased was taken from Dr.Anil Kumar, PW-3 who had conducted the postmortem.The relevant portion of the opinion is as under:-"OPINION Clothings (Parcel no.1) Cuts corresponding to injuries no.1, 2 & 3 on the body of the deceased were present on 1/A & 1/B. (1A is the shirt of deceased and 1B is pant of deceased).WEAPON (Parcel No.2) The injuries no.1, 2 & 3 on the body of the deceased and cuts in the clothings could be caused by the said weapon examined.Parcels no.1 & 2 with seals 5 & 7 together with sample seal were handed over to Police Officer SI R.D.Yadav, Police Station D.B.G.Road."The above opinion shows that injuries on the body of deceased and corresponding cut marks on the clothes of deceased could be caused by knife Ex.P4 which was recovered at the instance of appellant.The same also supports the case of prosecution.The appellant was also medically examined vide MLC Ex.PW 29/E which shows following injuries:-"small CLW-1 cm on forehead in healing process Crl.A. No.886/2010 Page 19 of 24 CLW-scalp-3 cm The duration of injuries is 4 to 5 days"Crl.A. No.886/2010 Page 19 of 24The same also supports the case of prosecution.The CFSL report Ex.PW-29/H shows the presence of blood on the knife Ex P4, shirt Ex.P7 and baniyan Ex.P3 of appellant which were recovered pursuant to his disclosure statement Ex.PW 21/H.In view of the above discussion, the evidence led by prosecution clearly establishes that on 9th August, 2005, at about 8.30 pm, there was a quarrel between the appellant and the deceased near the rickshaw of Sanjay PW-9 on the pavement of Ajmal Khan Park as the appellant had demanded liquor from deceased and thereupon deceased had hit him with a broken bottle and they ran inside the park.There is evidence of Yudhishtar Kumar Rana PW-2, Ashok Kumar Rana PW-6 having seen both appellant and deceased in the park at that very time and appellant being armed with a knife and having fled from the park.The recovery of knife Ex.PW-21/K as discussed above at the instance of appellant pursuant to disclosure statement Ex.PW-21/H also stands proved.The opinion of Dr.Anil Kumar, PW-3 also establishes that cut marks on the clothes of deceased and injuries 1, 2 and 3 on the deceased could be caused by knife Ex.P4 which were recovered at the instance of the appellant.The CFSL report Ex.Crl.A. No.886/2010 Page 20 of 24The defence of the appellant was that after the quarrel, he did not enter the park and had gone to palam to see his wife and children.However, no evidence in defence was led to substantiate the same whereas, as per the prosecution witnesses, they had seen them inside the park where they were hearing commentary.They also saw that appellant had injuries on his forehead and also had a knife in his hand and that the deceased had a wound on his chest.As per the postmortem report Ex.PW-3/A, the time since death was about one and half days which corresponds with the time of incident.As per said report, death is also unnatural.The MLC dated 13 th August, 2005 (Ex.PW 29E) of the appellant shows injuries on his forehead/scalp in the healing process.The duration of injuries is 4 to 5 days.The circumstances discussed above, clearly points towards the involvement of the appellant.The evidence on record also shows that the incident had occurred on a sudden quarrel.Firstly, the deceased hit the appellant and thereafter both ran inside the park and the occurrence took place.There was no pre meditation for committing the offence and the act was committed in the heat of passion.The postmortem report Ex.PW-3/A shows three stab wounds on the deceased and injury no.1 was sufficient to cause death.The other injuries were neither on vital part of the body nor the same were fatal.There is nothing on record to show that appellant had acted in a cruel or unusual manner.In Surender Kumar v. Union Territory of Chandigarh: AIR 1989 SC 1094, which was a case of three stab wounds, the benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC was given.Crl.A. No.886/2010 Page 22 of 24In Sangharaj Bhogappa Kamble v. State of Maharashtra: (2011) 2 SCC (Crl) 370, the incident had taken place all of a sudden when accused and deceased were consuming liquor.The father of the accused therein had told him to leave the place and to stop drinking.Thereupon exchange of hot words had taken place following which accused therein had slapped his father.The deceased had intervened at that stage and asked why he was abusing his father.Thereupon, accused told him that he was nobody to interfere.Thereupon, accused had taken out a knife from his pocket and had stabbed the deceased causing serious injury leading to his death.In the said case, the Supreme Court held that conditions necessary for the applicability of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC were established and the accused was acquitted of the offence punishable u/s 302 IPC and was convicted for the offence punishable under section 304 Part I of the IPC and sentenced the accused to undergo RI for five years.Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that on the basis of evidence on record, it is proved that appellant had committed the offence of culpable homicide without premeditation, in a sudden fight, in the heat of passion and did not act in a cruel or unusual manner and the case is covered under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC which is punishable under section 304 Part I of the IPC.In view of the above discussion, we feel that the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC is not made out.He is, accordingly, acquitted of that offence.We, however, convict him Crl.A. No.886/2010 Page 23 of 24 for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part I of the IPC and sentence him to undergo rigorous imprisonment already undergone by him i.e ., six years four months.The appellant be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.Crl.A. No.886/2010 Page 23 of 24The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.VEENA BIRBAL, J BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J DECEMBER 16th , 2011 ssb Crl.A. No.886/2010 Page 24 of 24
|
['Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
173,403,153 |
of the case in short are that on 03.06.2009 at about 9.00 PM the victim Ramlal (PW-2) was present in his village Belai, Police Station - Piprai, District Ahoknagar.He was surrounded by the accused Kalyansingh, Arvind, Suresh, Harisingh, Shishupal and Pahalwan, who assaulted him with Ballam, Lathi, Farsa and other weapons.Some of them have assaulted by kicks and fists.He was threatened that he would be killed in future.Also the respondents No.2 to 4 abused him with the word relating to his caste.Ramlal went to police station Piprai and lodged the FIR at about 1.00 AM 2 Ramlal Vs.State of M.P. & Others.He was sent medico legal examination and after due investigation, charge-sheet has been filed before the JMFC, Chanderi who committed the case to the Special Court.The trial Court after considering evidence adduced by the prosecution acquitted the respondents No.2 to 4 from all the charges.It is apparent that the appellant did not file any appeal against the accused Harisingh, Shishupal and Pahalwan Singh with the reason that a compromise took place of the appellant with those accused persons.After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it was found that Ramlal (PW-2) has alleged against the respondent Kalyan and Arvind that they assaulted with Farsa and Ballam respectively.His statement was not similar to the factual position mentioned in the FIR (Ex.P-10).Other eye witnesses like Hameer Singh (PW-4) and Prem Bai (PW-3) wife of the appellant did not support the story told by the appellant Ramlal.According to Prem Bai there was no source of light available and 15 - 20 persons have surrounded the victim Ramlal.They assaulted him.Dr. Yogendra Singh (PW-8) did not find any injury to the victim Ramlal caused by Farsa or Ballam.Ramlal could not give any explanation as how he identified six persons out of 15 -20 persons and as to why 3 Ramlal Vs.State of M.P. & Others.No.1105/2015 he did not mention in the FIR that Kalyan assaulted him by Farsa and Arvind assaulted him with Ballam.Looking to the injuries caused to the victim Ramlal, possibility can not be ruled out that he was beaten by Harisingh, Shishupal and Pahalwan Singh and after getting compromise with those persons Ramlal concentrated upon the remaining accused persons.Due to non-support of eye witnesses including Prem Bai wife of the appellant, the trial Court has rightly disbelieved the testimony of Ramlal and due to darkness, Ramlal could not identify actual culprit.Hence, it can not be said against the respondents No.2 to 4 that either they assaulted the victim Ramlal or they insulted him on the basis of caste or they threatened him.Under these circumstances, the trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondents No.2 to 4 from all the charges.On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, there is no substance in the appeal filed by the appellant.
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
18,273,348 |
This is an application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. filedby the aforesaid Applicant apprehending his arrest in C.R. No.66 of2018 registered with Nashik Road Police Station, District-Nashik, foroffences punishable under Sections 307, 323 and 504 r/w. 34 of theIndian Penal Code, 1860 and under Section 135 of the Bombay PoliceAct.2. Heard Mr. Piyush Toshniwal, the learned counsel for theApplicant and Ms Pallavi N. Dabholkar, the learned APP for theRespondent-State.I have perused the records and considered thesubmissions advanced by the learned counsels for the respectiveMegha 1/4 ::: Uploaded on - 11/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/10/2018 00:31:28 ::: Megha 44_aba_673_2018.docparties.::: Uploaded on - 11/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/10/2018 00:31:28 :::The aforesaid crime was registered pursuant to the FIRlodged by one Nawaz Shaikh.The FIR prima facie reveals that on14.2.2018 at about 10.30 p.m. there was some quarrel between thefirst informant and the co-accused-Datta Bhangre.It appears that bothparties had gone to the police station and that the police had settledthe matter.The first informant has stated that after he left the policestation at about 11.30 p.m. and when he reached the flyover, saidDatta Bhangre came there alongwith the Applicant and others andassaulted him with a Koyta.The FIR does not indicate that the Applicant was armedwith any weapon.The specific allegation against the present Applicantis that he had slapped the first informant.The material on record doesnot prima facie indicate that the Applicant herein had caused anyinjury to the first informant.However, the questionwhether the Applicant shared the 'common intention' and whether hehad acted in furtherance of common intention is a matter, which willhave to be decided on the merits of the matter.::: Uploaded on - 11/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/10/2018 00:31:28 :::The nature of the allegations levelled against the Applicantdo not justify custodial interrogation.It is submitted that the Applicantis a permanent resident of District-Nashik., hence, there is nopossibility of his absconding or thwarting the course of justice.Thelearned APP submits that the Applicant has criminal antecedents andthat he is involved in several other crimes.In my considered viewconsidering the nature of the allegations levelled against the Applicantin the present crime, criminal antecedents by itself would not be aground for rejection of the application for pre-arrest bail, moreparticularly when the learned counsel for the Applicant has made astatement that the Applicant will not interfere with the complainantand the witnesses and that he will not commit any such illegal act.The statement is accepted.Under the circumstances, the applicant is entitled for pre-arrest bail.Hence, the following order:-(i) In the event of arrest of the Applicant in C.R. No.66 of 2018 registered with Nashik Road Police Station, District-Nashik, the Applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.25,000/- with one or two solvent sureties in the like amount.::: Uploaded on - 11/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/10/2018 00:31:28 :::(iii) The Applicant shall furnish his permanent as well as temporary address, if any, and his contact details to the concerned Investigation Officer.(iv) The Applicant shall not change his residential address without prior intimation to the concerned Investigation Officer.(v) The Applicant shall not interfere with the complainant and other witnesses and shall not commit any such similar crimes /illegal activities.::: Uploaded on - 11/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/10/2018 00:31:28 :::
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,827,371 |
Brief fact leading to this applications are as follows:On 24th April, 1985 Ramaprasad Chatterjee filed a complaint alleging that he is the registered owner of the Bus in dispute and he intended to sell the same.At the intervention of accused No. 3 Wahid Kureshi the accused Zakir Kureshi and Sahid Kureshi agreed to purchase the same at a price of Rs. 78,000/-to which the complainant agreed.The said agreement stipulated that Rs. 40,000/- would be paid in cash and the balance of Rs. 38,000/- would be paid to the complainant in six equal instalments of Rs. 6,333/- each.A sum of Rs. 40,000/- was paid to the complainant and the Bus along with relevant document was handed over to the accused persons.Agreement stipulated that if there is any one failure to pay the instalment Bus would be returned to the petitioner.The accused persons paid the first instalment by a cash of Rs, 1,633/- and a cheque for Rs. 4,700/- drawn on the Bank of India.Petitioner believing that the said cheque would be encashed granted a receipt for the entire amount of Rs. 6,333/- but the said cheque was dishonoured.The complainant informed the accused persons who wanted time for payment of the sale price but they did not pay any amount.The petitioner requested them to return the Bus but he was driven out.The accused persons were trying to sell the parts of the said Bus.On this complaint the learned C. J. M. issued process against the accused persons under Sections 420 and 406, I.P.C. and also issued a search warrant for recovery of the said Bus.The Police recovered the said bus from the custody of the accused persons.The complainant filed a petition before the learned Magistrate for returning the bus to him.Clauses 9 and 10 of the deed of agreement provided that if the purchasers failed to pay even one instalment the seller would take back the bus with the help of law and the purchaser will be bound to return back the said Bus to the owner.The learned C. J. M. directed the return of the said bus to the complainant on his executing a bond of Rs. 80,000/- without prejudice, to the rights of the parties.Petitioner on execution of the said bond took custody of the said bus.Against this order of the learned Magistrate the O.Ps.in Criminal Revision No. 1388/85 moved a revision application before the learned Sessions Judge.By the impugned order the learned Sessions Judge set aside the order of the learned C. J. M. and sent the case back for further consideration.In the mean-time the police took possession of the said bus from the petitioner.In Criminal Revision No. 1388/85 the petitioner has challenged this order of the learned Sessions Judge and in the other revisional application accused Nos. 1 and 2 have moved this Court for quashing the said proceeding pending before them.
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
182,738,046 |
Heard finally.The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.Certified copy as per rules.(Subhash Kakade) Judge Jk.
|
['Section 450 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
182,738,270 |
They stated that there is an attempt of tampering theevidence and to pressurize the informant to take back the earliercomplaint under section 354 IPC and the SC & ST (Prevention ofAtrocities) Act. There are two eye witnesses.Apeal587-19.odtRohini, wife of the informant had lodged the FIR againstone Subhash Kolte, wherein she alleged that she belongs to MaharCommunity and she was having college going children.The accusedwas belonging to Maratha caste and was her neighbour.While shewas proceeding for washing clothes the accused recorded her voiceand threatened that he would show the recording to her husband andshe should have sexual relation with him, if she does not want todisclose the recording to her her husband.Then she snatched away his mobile and gavering to her husband and threw the mobile in water.Mr. V.D. Sapkal h/for Mr. Sandp R. Sapkal, Advocate for the appellants,Mr.S.J. Salgare, APP for the respondent State.The appellant assails the order of Additional Sessions Judge,Newasa, dated 04.06.2019 passed in Cri.The prayer of the appellants for anticipatory bail wasrejected on the ground that bar of Section 18 was attracted and thatcustodial interrogation was necessary.The appeal is heard finally atthe admission stage.Mr. Sapkal, the learned Advocate for the appellants submitsthat the facts in the F.I.R. do not indicate commission of offence under452 and 294 IPC .The appellants had gone to the house of theinformant, they were offered tea and after having tea, they made 1/6 ::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/07/2019 03:25:15 ::: Apeal587-19.odtoffer to settle the earlier complaint and thereafter, incident of scufflinghappened.At the most the incident is an offence under section 323IPC.He submitted that even if the offence under section 451 of IPC isthere, it is bailable.He argued that in view of section 15- A, lodgingof FIR showing offence under the SC & ST (Prevention ofAtrocities) Act, is economically beneficial, as the informant getsmonetary benefits from the Government and therefore there is rise inlodging FIR udner the Act. He submitted that co accused standingoutside the house has been protected.::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/07/2019 03:25:15 :::Per contra,, the learned Advocate Mr. S.G. Deshmukh for theinformant and learned AGP for the State supported the impugnedorder.Even subsequently thereare complaints lodged.The investigating officer was managed and hecompelled the the informant to strike out the sentence that he belongsto Hindu Mahar community.2/6 ::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/07/2019 03:25:15 :::::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/07/2019 03:25:15 :::The accusedSubhash Kolte took out the mobile and fled away.On the basis of suchFIR, Crime was registered under Section 354 and and under section3(1) (r) (s) of the the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities)The incident reported in the FIR which is related to thepresent applicant was occurred on 13th May, 2019 the informantChandrakant reported that when in the FIR lodged by his wife hiswife , the accused Subhash was released on bail, the present twoappellants visited his house.The informant offerred them tea.Subhash was standing outside the house.The present appellants,after taking tea, asked him to ask his wife to withdraw the case filedby her against Subhash Kolte and offered Rs.5 lakh and that time, the 3/6 ::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/07/2019 03:25:15 ::: Apeal587-19.odtinformant declined to take back the case and thereafter there wasscuffle and there was an abusing in the name of mother and sister ofthe informant and when he was objected, he was threatened that hischildren were studying at Wadala and their legs and hands would bebroken.He a also threatened that he would be implicated in a case of354 IPC.::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/07/2019 03:25:15 :::Mr. Deshmukh, learned Advocate for the informant submitsthat initial FIR filed by the informant disclose that he belongs toHindu Mahar community.An offence under section SC & ST( Prevention of Atrocities )Act was committed but the InvestigatingOfficer was managed and he was compelled to strike out the sentencethat he belongs to Hindu Mahar Community and he reported thematter to the superior police officer on 31st May, 2019 and thereafterthe offence under the SC & ST ( Prevention of Atrocities )Act wasregistered.Even statement in FIR does not 4/6 ::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/07/2019 03:25:15 ::: Apeal587-19.odtdisclose that there was specific abuse in the name of caste .However, notice was issued as there was attempt to tamper the theprosecution evidence.::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/07/2019 03:25:15 :::The two eye witnessessubmitted that the appellants had specifically gone to the house ofthe appellant to ask him to compromise the earlier matter onpayment of Rs.5 lakhs and when the informant has refused, therewas scuffle and therefore it is not acceptable that it is a not an offenceof house trespass but as no preparation was made it will not be offenceunder section 452 IPC and it will be under section 451 .In the present case there are serious allegations of attempt todefile a women of SC whose children are studying in college byasking her to have sexual relation with one Subhash Kolte and inrespect of the same the FIR was lodged for the offence under section3(1)(v)(w) of SC & ST ( Prevention of Atrocities )Act was registered.The said offence is not bailable and not compoundable, and still there 5/6 ::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/07/2019 03:25:15 ::: Apeal587-19.odtwas an attempt to pressurize the informant to withdraw thecomplaint.As per section 3(2)(v) of SC ST (Prevention of AtrocitiesAct) offence under section 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code asshown in the Schedule is offence under section 3(2)(v) of SC ST(Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Offence to suppress evidence and screenthe offender under section 3(2)(v) is also disclosed.::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/07/2019 03:25:15 :::At this stage,protection cannot be given to him.Hence, I find no reason tointerfere with the judgment of the additional Sessions Judge.Hence the appeal is rejected.(ARUN M. DHAVALE, J)JPC 6/6 ::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/07/2019 03:25:15 :::::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/07/2019 03:25:15 :::
|
['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,827,447 |
The facts appearing from the records are shortly as follows: The petitioner, Leo Roy Frey, purchased a car No. C.D. 75 TT 6587 from an officer of the American Embassy in Paris.Both the petitioners thereafter booked their passages through the, 824 American Express Company from Geneva to Bombay by s.s. ASIA.The car was also shipped by the same vessel.The two petitioners disembarked at Karachi Ion June 11, 1957, and after a brief halt at Karachi, they left together by plane for Bombay and reached Bombay on the same day.On the last mentioned date both of them left Bombay by plane and reached Delhi the same evening.The Customs officers there required the petitioners to declare in Baggage Declaration Forms supplied to them the articles which they had in their possession, including any goods which were subject to Export Trade Control and/or Foreign Exchange restrictions and/or were dutiable.Each of the petitioners completed his Baggage Declaration Form and handed it over to the Customs authorities duly signed by him.On that very day the persons of each of the petitioners were also searched and certain currency and movable property which had not been included in the baggage declaration were recovered.(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for enforcement of Fundamental Rights).N. C. Chatterjee and Nanak Chand, for the petitioners.Amongst other things, a pocket radio and a time-piece were recovered from the petitioner Dana and a pistol of 22 bore with 48 live cartridges of the same bore was recovered from the person of the petitioner Frey.On June 30,1957, the petitioners were interrogated and the car was thoroughly searched.As a result of such intensive search and minute inspection, a secret chamber above the petrol tank was discovered.On opening the secret chamber, Indian currency to the tune of Rs. 8,50,000 and U.S. dollars amounting to 10,000 were discovered in the concealed recess and 825 seized by the police.On July 7, 1957, notice was issued to the petitioner Dana under s. 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act to show cause before the Collector why under that section penalty should not be imposed on, him and why the seized articles should not be confiscated.The petitioners made representations in writing and were also heard in person.The petitioners, Frey and Dana, were directed to be released on bail in the sum of rupees five lakhs and ten lakhs respectively, which were finally reduced by the High Court to rupees two lakhs and five lakhs respectively.That article protects a person from being ,prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once".The question has to be answered as to whether the petitioners had previously been prosecuted and punished for the same offence for which they are now being prosecuted before the Additional District Magistrate.
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,827,461 |
The case of the prosecution in brief relevant for the purpose of deciding this Appeal are as follows:The accused on 19.11.1999 between 3.00 p.m. and 10.00 p.m. had committed murder of her son aged 4 1/2 years and a daughter aged 2 1/2 years by administering Bacon poison (a pesticide) and thereafter, attempted to commit suicide.P.W.4 is the husband of the accused, who after returning from his duty at about 10.45 p.m. on the same day, came to the house found the door locked inside and inspite of his repeated knocking at the door, the door was not opened hence he broke open the door with the help of P.W.7 and went inside the house and saw both his minor children lying dead on the bed and his wife, the accused herein, lying on the bed unconsciously.Thereafter, he took his wife to a private nursing home where first aid was given to the accused and on their advice, he took her to Raiyapettai Hospital and admitted her.After admitting her in the said Government Hospital, P.W.4 informed P.W.1, the father of the accused, who had preferred Ex.P.1-complaint on 20.11.1999 before P.W.12-Inspector of Police.P.W.12, who had registered the case under Section 302 and 309 IPC, proceeded to the place of occurrence and prepared observation mahazar and a rough sketch Ex.P.13 and conducted inquest on the corpse of the deceased minor Sairam and minor Indumathi and also seized the letter alleged to have been written by the accused to her father and send the corpse for postmortem and went to the Raiyapattai Hospital and arrested the accused on 30.11.1999 at about 2.00 p.m. and recorded her confession statement-Ex.P.14 and on the basis of the confession statement he recovered Bacon spray container(M.O.10) in the presence of the witnesses under Ex.P.15/Mahazar.The Doctor, who had conducted autopsy on the corpse of the children, was examined as P.w.11 and he issued Ex.P.7 and Ex.p.9 postmortem certificates respectively.The husband, who left the house after lunch came back home at about 9.30 p.m. on the 27th and found the door open without anybody inside.JUDGMENT A.C. Arumugaperumal Adityan, J.This Appeal has been preferred against the Judgment in S.C. No. 474/2000 on the file of the Court of II Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai.After examining the witnesses and recorded their statements and completing the investigation, P.W.12 filed charge sheet against the accused.The case was taken on file by the learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, who had furnished copies to the accused under Section 207 of Cr.P.C and since the case is triable by a Court of Sessions, had committed the case to the Court of Sessions under Section 209 of Cr.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge had framed the charges under Section 302 IPC (2 counts) and also under Section 309 IPC against the accused.When questioned the accused had denied her complicity in the crime.P.Ws.1 to 12 were examined and Ex.P.1 to 15 were filed and M.Os.1 to 10 were marked.After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Sessions Judge has found the accused guilty under the above said provisions of law and consequently convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC (2 counts) and three months RI under Section 309 IPC.Aggrieved by the findings of the learned Sessions Judge, the accused has preferred this Appeal.Now the point for determination in this Appeal is whether the conviction and sentence passed in S.C.474/2000 on the file of the Court of II Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, is liable to be set aside for the reasons stated in the grounds of Appeal?The point: It is a heart rendering pathetic murder case in which the mother is cited as the accused having murdered her 4 1/2 year old son-Sairam and 2 1/2 year old daughter-Indumathil by administering poison (pesticide) mixed in milk, she had also consumed the poison, but due to the treatment given to her, she had survived.Hence, she was charged under Section 302 IPC (2 counts) and under Section 309 IPC.P.W.4, the government transport bus driver, who is the husband of the accused, when returned from his duty on 19.11.1999 at about 10.45 p.m. saw the house locked inside and made an attempt to open the door, but failed to do so, with the help of P.W.7, a carpenter, who is residing in the same locality, broke open the door with the help of a chisel, and found inside the house both his children were lying dead with froth and blood oozing out from their mouth respectively and his wife/accused lying in an unconscious state.The evidence of P.W.4 was corroborated by the evidence of P.W.7, the carpenter. P.W.3 had also deposed to the fact that two children were lying dead in the house of the accused lying unconsciously on the bed.P.W.9, the doctor, who had examined her, issued Ex.P.6, copy of accident register.P.W.11, the doctor, who had conducted autopsy on the corpse of minor Sairam aged 4 1/2 years, has opined that due to poisoning and injuries over the neck the boy would have been dead.P.W.11, the doctor, has also conducted autopsy on the corpse of minor Indumathi and has given Ex.P.9-Postmortem certificate and has opined that the minor Indumathi would have died due to asphyxia due to strangulation.P.14 is the confession statement of the accused before P.W.12, the Inspector of Police, wherein she has admitted the fact of having committed the crime.During question under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused had stated that her husband had boiled the milk and gave it to their two children and also to her to drink and after she took the milk, she became unconscious.But, there is no evidence on record to show that her husband had given the milk mixed with poison to the children and to the accused.On the other hand, the evidence of P.W.4 and P.W.7 would go to show that both the children and the accused were found in the house, which was locked inside.So, from the available evidence it is clear that the accused alone had committed the crime.After administering poison, the accused had also strangulated them to ascertain that they are dead, before committing suicide.The situation which pushed her to take the extreme step as narrated by her in Ex.P.14, is that her husband and her mother-in-law suspected her fidelity that she is having illicit intimacy with some other person and that her mother-in-law used to keep her under lock and key in the house and that since her sister Chitra had eloped with a boy by name Geevan, her mother-in-law used to abuse her referring to the past incident and due to the unbearable shame received at the hand of her mother-in-law, she had decided to inform this to her father through an inland letter on 13.11.1999 at 2.00 p.m. and administering poison to her children in the milk and also strangulated them and after committing murder of the children she also took the poison in order to commit suicide.Taking into the piquant situation under which the accused was placed, which led her to take an extreme step of murdering her own children and also to put an end to her life, now derive us to consider whether the accused is liable to be punished under Section 302 IPC (2 counts) and under Section 304, Part I, IPC.The accused in the said case had caused the death of her two children aged 2 1/2 years and six months and also attempted to commit suicide by throwing the children and herself by jumping into a well.She was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment.The accused in that case took such an extreme step of murdering her children and also to commit suicide only because her marital life was not happy because of her husband's callousness.Her husband used not to give enough money for meeting the household expenses and also he became addict to drink, which resulted in poverty and destitution to the murder of the children.There were constant quarrel between the spouses and her husband never allowed her to go to her parents' house and never allowed her mother or brother to visit his house.The accused would endure the ill-treatments meted out to her, but it was hard to her to swallow the total absence of care and affection of the husband towards the children.Even when they were sick she will have to carry both of them herself and he would not oblige by carrying one of them.Under the above circumstances, the younger child has fallen sick for about a month.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
182,748,142 |
It has been alleged that initially for about 2-3 months of the marriage all things were normal, but thereafter, first informant was maltreated and harassed by her husband and appellants for unlawful demand of money.They used to insult and humiliate the first informant by scolding her that she was belonging from lower caste.The first informant also cast allegations about beating and abusing by husband.1. Heard.The matter is taken up for its finality on merit with the consent of both sides.::: Uploaded on - 11/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/04/2020 09:37:17 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/04/2020 09:37:17 :::2 927-CriAl-876-19This appeal is directed against the impugned Order of rebuffing the relief of pre-arrest bail of the appellants in Crime No. 53 of 2019 registered with Pundaliknagar Police Station, Aurangabad, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter, referred to as "Act of 1989", for the sake of brevity).The prosecution case in short compass is that on 05-02- 2019, complainant - Anita Akash Sonawane, resident of Bharatnagar, Garkheda Parisar, Aurangabad, approached to the Police of Pundaliknagar Police Station, Aurangabad, District Aurangabad and ventilated the grievance that she was married with one Gokul Rangnath Adsule, resident of Gangapur, District Aurangabad, as per customary rites.But, there was marital discord between the spouses which resulted into dissolution of marital relationship of first informant and her husband Gokul.After marriage, first informant joined::: Uploaded on - 11/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/04/2020 09:37:17 ::: 3 927-CriAl-876-19 the company of husband - Akash.Appellants No.2 and 3 are the in-laws, whereas, appellant No.1 is the sister-in-law of respondent No.2-first informant.The marital discord between spouses resulted into lodging the report for penal action against appellants under Section 498-A, 323, etc. of the IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Act of 1989 by the respondent No.2-first informant.::: Uploaded on - 11/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/04/2020 09:37:17 :::Pursuant to FIR, the Police of Pundaliknagar Police Station, Aurangabad, registered the Crime bearing No. 53 of 2019 and set the penal law in motion.The appellants, apprehending their arrest, filed the Criminal Bail Application No. 723 of 2019 under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.).The learned Additional Sessions Judge considered the circumstances on record and rejected the application of the appellants on the ground that there are allegations sufficient to make out the offence under the Act of 1989 and in view of bar under Section 18 of the Act of 1989, the appellants are not entitled for relief of anticipatory bail in this case.The impugned order of rejection of::: Uploaded on - 11/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/04/2020 09:37:17 ::: 4 927-CriAl-876-19 application for anticipatory bail of the appellants is the subject- matter of present appeal.::: Uploaded on - 11/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/04/2020 09:37:17 :::The learned counsel for appellants vehemently submits that the appellants are innocent of the charges pitted against them.They have not committed any crime, but they are falsely implicated in this case.Learned counsel for appellants further submits that there were no physical and mental cruelty to the first informant on the part of appellants.But, she has filed present false penal proceeding with an malafide intention to harass the appellants.There were no specific allegations about maltreatment and torture meted out to the first informant-wife.The present FIR came to be lodged to wreak vengeance against members of appellants' family.The appellants have no any reason to cause interference into the marital affairs of the spouses.The allegations made in the FIR are vague and general in nature.Therefore, the impugned order rejecting application for bail by learned trial Court be set aside and appeal be allowed.::: Uploaded on - 11/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/04/2020 09:37:17 :::6. Learned APP and learned counsel for respondent No. 2 opposed the contentions propounded on behalf of appellant and submitted that the section 18-A of the Act of 1989 put embargo on the Court for exercise of discretion under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. The present appellants participated in the incident of assault to the first informant.The appellants used to scold the first informant on her caste.Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submit that the allegations of ill-treatment nurtured on behalf of first informant in the FIR discloses commission of crime under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 of IPC.The complainant categorically described the episode of her maltreatment and torture at the hands of appellants.There was unlawful demand of money from the appellants.There were allegations of physical and mental torture to the complainant.There is no propriety to entertain the appeal.It has also been observed that application for anticipatory bail can be entertained only on the ground of inapplicability of provisions of Act of 1989 and it would be ascertained only on the basis of recitals of the FIR or complaint and not embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegation made in the FIR.Paragraphs No. 13 and 15 of aforesaid judgment are reproduced as under:::: Uploaded on - 11/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/04/2020 09:37:17 :::In the matter in hand, there are no such allegations against appellants of intentionally insult or intimidate with intent to humiliate the first informant on his caste within public view.The act of utterance of name of caste of first informant during altercation in a fit of rage would not be considered the intentional act of appellants to humiliate or insult on her caste.::: Uploaded on - 11/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/04/2020 09:37:17 :::Be that as it may, taking into consideration all the aforesaid attending circumstances of the matter, there is no impediment to perceive that in spite of bar under Section 18 of the Act of 1989, for invocation of powers under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. it is still open to this Court to find out by looking to the recitals of FIR of the case itself, as to whether prima facie case is made out by the first informant against present appellant.Therefore, there is no impediment to entertain the application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for relief of pre-::: Uploaded on - 11/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/04/2020 09:37:17 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/04/2020 09:37:17 :::9 927-CriAl-876-19 arrest bail on behalf of appellants.In the cases, where accusations are made, the overt-acts attributed to persons other than husband, are required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.Their Lordships of Apex Court further observed that, "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. "In the case of - Preeti Gupta and another Vs.State of Jharkhand and another, reported in (2010) 7 Supreme Court Cases 667, it has been delineated that ultimate object of justice::: Uploaded on - 11/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/04/2020 09:37:17 ::: 10 927-CriAl-876-19 is to find out truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent.A serious relook of the entire provision of Section 498- A of Cr.P.C. is warranted by the legislature.It was observed that the exaggerated versions of the incidents are also reflected in a very large number of complaints.::: Uploaded on - 11/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/04/2020 09:37:17 :::Likewise, in the case of - Arnesh Kumar Vs.State of Bihar and another, reported in (2014) 8 Supreme Court cases, 273, the Honourable Apex Court elucidated the fact that, "Section 498-A of IPC is a cognizable and non bailable offence has lent it a dubious place of pride amongst the provisions that are used as weapons rather than shield by disgruntled wives.The simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his relatives arrested under this provisions."In the matter in hand, in view of aforesaid legal guidelines there is no impediment to nod in favour of appellants.Moreover, the appellants have shown inclination to co-operate with the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation.In such circumstances, there is no impediment to allow the bail application filed on behalf of appellants before learned trial Court.In sequel, the Criminal Appeal stands allowed.The impugned order dated 26-06-2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Special Judge SC & ST), Aurangabad, in Criminal Bail Application No. 723 of 2019 is hereby quashed::: Uploaded on - 11/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/04/2020 09:37:17 ::: 11 927-CriAl-876-19 and set aside.The application of the appellants filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for their pre-arrest bail before the learned Sessions Court is hereby granted.The present appellants be released on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No. 53 of 2019 registered with Pundaliknagar Police Station, Aurangabad, for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, on furnishing PR bond of Rs.20,000/-(Rupees Twenty Thousand) with one solvent surety of like amount each.It is stipulated that appellants-applicants shall not indulged, directly or indirectly, in any kind of activities of tampering with the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and shall co-operate the Investigating Officer for the sake of investigation into the crime.Inform the concerned Investigating Officer accordingly.::: Uploaded on - 11/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/04/2020 09:37:17 :::The present Criminal Appeal stands disposed of in above terms.No order as to costs.[ K. K. SONAWANE ] JUDGE MTK.***::: Uploaded on - 11/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/04/2020 09:37:17 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/04/2020 09:37:17 :::
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
182,755,824 |
sdas rejected C.R.M. 1765 of 2018 In Re: An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 12.04.2018 in connection with Belghoria Police Station Case No. 960 of 2017 dated 09.11.2017 under Sections 366A/370A/376/109/120B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4/5/6/7/9 of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act and Sections 17/4 of POCSO Act.And In Re: Juthika Nan ... ... Petitioner Mr. Somnath Nan (husband of the petitioner) ....... for the petitioner Mr. Bazlur Rahaman Khan ......(I.O. , CID, W.B.) Husband of the petitioner is present in person and submits that the petitioner is in custody for 166 days and she has been falsely implicated in the instant case.Investigating officer is also present in person and submits case diary.We have considered the materials on record.The application for bail is, thus, rejected.(Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)
|
['Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
63,389,926 |
At the most offence under Section 451 of IPC may constitute, which is bailable.The remaining offences are bailable.(N.K. GUPTA)Heard the learned counsel for the parties.The applicant has an apprehension of his arrest relating to Crime No.555/15 registered at Police Station Narsinghpur for offence punishable under Sections 354- A, 452, 506, 34 of 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 prosecutrix is tenant of the applicant, who unnecessarily quarrelled with the applicant.In scuffled, it is alleged against the applicant that he held the hand of the prosecutrix, however, it was not done with any bad intention.Prima- facie no offence under Section 354 or 354-A of IPC is made out against the applicant.It is not alleged against the applicant that he entered into the premises with any weapon.Prima-facie no offence under Section 452 of IPC is made out against the applicant.The police is unnecessarily harassing the applicant for bailable offences.Under these circumstances, he prays for bail of anticipatory nature.
|
['Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
63,391,261 |
of the case is that one private complaint was filed by the petitioner against respondents No.1 to 4 alleging that on the basis of false facts FIR of Crime No.666/2001 was lodged for the offence punishable under Section 342, 294, 506-B, 392 and 397 of IPC.After investigation charge-sheet was filed and S.T.No.12/2006 was registered.After trial the judgment of acquittal was passed.Thereafter this private complaint was filed on the ground that, because of false FIR session trial had to be faced by the petitioner.C.No.4136/2011 (Ramesh Sahu Vs.Having regard to the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties.Record of both the Court below has been perused.
|
['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
633,917 |
3.The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated thus:(a) P.W.1 is the elder brother of the deceased Rajan.The deceased was running a mess.They were all residing at Sundamet area within the jurisdiction of the respondent police.On 16.5.2004, the pipeline proceeding to the house of the deceased was damaged.On seeing this, he warned the accused No.1 and 2 and others also.Thus, the accused were on inimical terms.On the next day, that was on 17.5.2004 at about 10.30 A.M., the deceased was taken by his friends.P.W.1 was returning from Thennampalayam.At about 2.00 P.M., when he was just crossing the Classic Saloon Shop of P.W.2, A-1 to A-5 surrounded the deceased, and A-3 to A-5 facilitated the crime when A-2 held the deceased, and A-1 stabbed him on the stomach.The knife was snatched by A-2, and he in turn stabbed him.Then, the deceased was pushed down.When he was in a lying position, A-1 and A-2 stabbed him again.In that process, the deceased died.P.W.1 went near the dead body, and then he proceeded to the respondent police where P.W.14, the Sub Inspector of Police, was on duty.At about 16.00 hours, P.W.1 gave Ex.P1, the report, on the strength of which a case came to be registered in Crime No.396 of 2004 under Sec.302 of I.P.C. The printed First Information Report, Ex.P15 was despatched to the Court.(b) The case was taken up for investigation by P.W.15, the Inspector of Police of the said Circle, on receipt of the copy of the FIR.He proceeded to the scene of occurrence, made an inspection, and prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.P16, and a rough sketch.Then, the Investigator conducted inquest on the dead body in the presence of witnesses and pachayatdars and prepared Ex.P17, the inquest report.Thereafter, the dead body was sent to the Government Hospital along with a requisition, Ex.P9, for the purpose of postmortem through a Constable.(c) P.W.10, the Assistant Surgeon, attached to the Government Head Quarters Hospital, Coimbatore at Tiruppur, on receipt of the said requisition, conducted autopsy on the dead body of Rajan and noticed 14 external injuries.He has issued Ex.P10, the postmortem certificate, and has given his final opinion under Ex.P11 stating that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries mainly injury No.12 causing division of main vessels of neck about 18 to 24 hours prior to autopsy.(d) P.W.16, the Inspector of Police, took up further investigation.Pending the investigation, the Investigating Officer arrested A-3 on 22.5.2004 when he volunteered to give a confessional statement.He produced M.O.2, shirt, which was recovered under a cover of mahazar.On the very day, A-4 was also arrested.He volunteered to give a confessional statement.(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) This appeal challenges a judgment of the Additional Sessions Division, Fast Track Court No.V, Coimbatore at Tirupur, made in S.C.No.252 of 2006 whereby these appellants as A-1 and A-2 respectively along with three others shown as A-3 to A-5, stood charged as follows:A-1 under Sections 302 and 148 of IPC.A-2 to A-5 under Sections 147 and 302 read with 149 of IPC.2.On trial, A-1 was found guilty under Sections 148 and 302 of IPC and awarded three years Rigorous Imprisonment and life imprisonment respectively, and A-2 was found guilty under Sections 147 and 302 read with 149 of IPC and awarded two years Rigorous Imprisonment and life imprisonment respectively.He produced M.O.3, shirt, which was recovered under a cover of mahazar.Then, the Investigator arrested A-5 on the same day.They were all sent for judicial remand.(e) The Investigating Officer came to know that A-1 surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate No.VII, Coimbatore.On a requisition, police custody was ordered.A-1 came forward to give a confessional statement.The sane was also recorded, and the admissible part is Ex.Pursuant to the same, he produced M.O.1, knife, which was recovered under a cover of mahazar.He was sent for judicial remand.(f) All the material objects recovered from the place of occurrence, from the dead body and from the accused were subjected to chemical analysis by the Forensic Sciences Department which resulted in two reports, Ex.P20, the Chemical Analyst's report, and Ex.P21, the Serologist's report.On 17.9.2004, A-2 was arrested and sent for judicial remand.On completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer filed the final report.4.The case was committed to Court of Session and necessary charges were framed.In order to substantiate the charges the prosecution examined 16 witnesses and also relied on 22 exhibits and 13 material objects.On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused were questioned under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.They flatly denied the entire evidence as false, and no defence witness was examined.8.The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on all the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.The dead body following the inquest made by P.W.15, the Investigator, was subjected to postmortem by P.W.10, the Doctor, who has given the postmortem certificate wherein he opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and harmorrhage due to the multiple injuries sustained.The fact that the deceased died out of homicidal violence was never questioned by the appellants at any stage of the proceedings, and hence without any impediment, it could be recorded so.10.The case of the prosecution was that in furtherance of the common object, A-1 to A-5 constituted into an unlawful assembly; that A-3 to A-5 facilitated the crime; and that A-1 and A-2 stabbed the deceased Rajan to death.When the charges are looked into, it would read that it was A-1 who stabbed him to death, and all other persons who were members of the unlawful assembly, facilitated the crime.Nowhere the charge whispered that A-2 also stabbed him.According to P.W.1, he was just proceeding from a nearby place, and he was just crossing the place of occurrence, and he witnessed the occurrence.According to him, he was running a Saloon Shop, and when he heard the noise, he came out of the shop and found A-1 actually stabbing the deceased.This evidence of P.W.2 stood fully corroborated by the medical evidence, and the corresponding scientific evidence was also placed which is in support of the prosecution case.But, the Court below has pointed out that as far as A-3 to A-5 were concerned, their identity was not fixed, and their names were also not mentioned in the FIR.P1, the complaint, would indicate that there were four persons and not five, and under the circumstances, question of common object of an unlawful assembly will not arise for consideration.
|
['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.
|
63,394,916 |
Heard on this first post arrest bail application filed by applicant under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail.The applicant is in custody since 24.07.2020 in connection with Crime No.695/2020 registered at Police Station-Motinagar, District-Sagar (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.T he case of prosecution against the applicant, in short, is that, the applicant and Ramdayal Ahirwar were involved in the business of selling eggs on cart.On the date of incident, applicant hurled filthy words and pushed Ramdayal Ahirwar and also beaten him by fists and kicks, as as result of which, Ramdayal Ahirwar received the injuries.Thereafter, he was shifted to the hospital and report was lodged.Initially the report was registered under Sections 294, 323 and 506 of the I.P.C., later on, on the basis of medical examination report, offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. was added.However, during the course of treatment, Ramdayal succumbed to the injuries and, therefore, offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. was also added.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that a simple quarrel arose between the applicant and the deceased.The deceased was habitual to consume liquor.The applicant only pushed him and he fell on the ground and, later on, succumbed to the injuries.Therefore, it has been prayed to enlarge the applicant on bail.Consequently, this application for bail filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of applicant-Kamlesh Valmik, is hereby dismissed.(VISHNU PRATAP SINGH CHAUHAN) JUDGE Digitally signed b by BIJU Date: 2020.09.30 15:10:25 +05'30'
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
63,395,459 |
C.R.M. 4898 of 2020 PG With C.R.A.N. 3111 of 2020 (Via Video Conference) In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Pingla Police Station Case No. 174 dated June 07, 2020 under sections 341/323/325/ 307/354B/ 506/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of: Swapan Kumar Mondal & Ors. ...petitioners Mr. Rajeshwar Chakraborty.....................for the petitioners Ms. Faria Hossain Mr. Mirza Firoj Ahmed Begg.........................for the State C.R.A.N. 3111 of 2020 is treated as on day's list.(Sanjib Banerjee, J.) (Aniruddha Roy, J. )
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
63,395,755 |
Appeal No. 1272/2014 Page 1 of 24 deceased visited the place of incident.The father of deceased namely Sh.His daughter was harassed by her in-laws on account of dowry demands and demand for money to construct the house at their village as well as on account of birth of a child to her sister-in-law (nanad).The celebration of chuchak ritual was to be conducted in Agra on account of birth of son of sister-in-law of deceased, for which mother-in-law and sister-in-law had made demand of Rs. 2 lacs as gift from the deceased.Accused Kishan (brother-in-law of deceased) had also asked the deceased to attend this function necessarily and had given threats of spoiling of the relationship, if she did not attend the same."After the marriage immediately again said that at the time of the marriage the mother-in-law of my daughter made a demand of Rs. 2,00,000/-.At that Crl.The marriage of Nand of my daughter took place at Delhi.I had attended her marriage.Her name was Pratibha.I had spent around Rs. 25,000/- on the goods given to Pratibha.On that occasion my daughter was slapped by her mother-in-law while she was sitting in a vehicle and she demanded more money.Manjula, daughter of the deceased was examined as PW5 who in her testimony deposed that :"None other accused never quarrelled with my mother.None of them demanded any dowry from my mother before me.They had good relations with my mother."From the perusal of the testimonies of PW2 (father of the deceased) and PW6 (mother of the deceased), we may note that the respondents used to demand money from the deceased on different occasions.Present appeal filed by the appellant under Section 372 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is directed against the impugned judgment dated 16.07.2014 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitting the respondents of the charges under Section 498-A/304-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the learned Trial Court, are as under:Information of this incident was received in PS : Mandawali vide DD No. 10-A and thereafter, police as well as SDM Preet Vihar and family members of Crl.The deceased was also harassed in the past by her mother-in-law, brother- in-law (jeth) and others on account of several demands.On the basis of such allegations, present FIR was registered U/s 498-A/304-B IPC.(2) During inspection of dead body, a suicide note was also recovered from the dead body, which was sent to FSL along with admitted handwriting of the deceased.After completion of the investigation, present charge-sheet was filed for offence U/s 498- A/304-B IPC against accused Vimlesh, Anil Kumar Gautam, Kishan Dutt Gautam, Dinesh Kumar Gautam, Mohan Lal Gautam and Pratibha @ Pinki.During pendency of trial of this case, accused Mohan Lal Gautam expired and the case was abated against him.Appeal No. 1272/2014 Page 1 of 24(3) Charges were framed against accused Vimlesh, Dinesh Kumar Gautam, Kishan Dutt Gautam, Anil Kumar Gautam and Pratibha @ Pinki for offence U/s 498-A/304-B/34 IPC on 13.07.2004, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial."Appeal No. 1272/2014 Page 2 of 24In order to prove its case and to bring home the guilt of the respondents, the prosecution examined 32 witnesses in all.After completion of prosecution evidence, statements of the respondents were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein they denied the prosecution evidence and claimed that they have been falsely implicated in this case.In defence, the respondents examined two witnesses in their support.Mr. Madhu Mukul Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant while advancing his arguments contended that the impugned judgment of acquittal is contrary to the material available on record and the same is based upon surmises and conjectures and has resulted in miscarriage of justice and thus it is liable to be set aside and the respondents be held guilty for offences punishable under Sections 498-A/304-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the learned trial court erred in holding that none of the allegations make out a case of demand of dowry and of cruelty even though the demand of money and consequent cruelty for the purpose of construction of house as well as chuchak has been proved by the testimony of PW2, PW6 and PW26 and thus an offence under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code is made out.Appeal No. 1272/2014 Page 3 of 24The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned trial court failed to appreciate the evidence produced by the prosecution witnesses which was corroborated by the suicide note as well as the depositions made by the family members of the deceased who clearly deposed that the deceased was tortured by the respondents.Appeal No. 1272/2014 Page 4 of 24Counsel further submits that the deceased committed suicide after about 7 years of marriage and during these 7 years, neither the deceased nor her parents lodged any complaint against the respondents.PW2/C which was recovered from the dead body of the deceased in the presence of SDM, was examined by the FSL and found to be written by the deceased but did not contain any allegations against the respondents nor held them responsible for the death of the deceased which clearly proves the innocence of the respondents.The learned counsel for the respondents further argued that respondent no. 4 Kishan Dutt and respondent no. 6 Pratibha (sister- in-law of the deceased) lived in Agra and never lived with the deceased.The only allegation against respondent no. 4 and respondent no. 6 is that they had invited the deceased at chuchak ceremony of their son at Agra and the statement of respondent no. 4 Kishan Dutt on phone that if the deceased would not attend the function, then their relations would come to an end which does not make out a case of dowry death under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code and cruelty under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code against them.It is also argued by the counsel for the respondents that PW5 Manjula, the daughter of the deceased in her testimony deposed that none of the respondents demanded dowry from her mother (deceased) and they had good relations with the deceased which proves that the allegations raised by the appellant against the respondents are false.Appeal No. 1272/2014 Page 5 of 24Hence on an examination of the evidence, which has come on record, the impugned judgment is justified in law.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions and perused the impugned judgment as well as the material available on record.The respondents were thus charged with allegation that they subjected the deceased with cruelty for not bringing sufficient dowry and thus they committed an offence under Section 498A/34 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 304-B/34 of Indian Penal Code.Appeal No. 1272/2014 Page 10 of 24 time I had given Rs. 50,000/- to the in-laws of my daughter and thereafter I gave them the balance of Rs. 1,50,000/- in instalments.About 11 months after the marriage of my daughter was blessed with a female child.On the birth of the female child the in-laws started quarrelling with my daughter that as to why she gave birth to a female child and had she given the birth to a male child, they would have got Choochak from me.However, I had given them Choochak and spent Rs. 25,000/-.Appeal No. 1272/2014 Page 10 of 24The in-laws of my daughter were constructing a house in their village and they again started demanding money for the construction of their house at their village.When the Nand of my daughter was blessed with a child at Agra, my daughter went to Agra, they also demanded Choochak for her.Pratibha demanded Choochak to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- from my daughter.My daughter told me that she had been beaten by Anil Jeth and the mother-in-law on Diwali festigal and Dhanteras festival.They also pressurised her to bring Rs. 2,00,000/- otherwise she would be killed.Anil had threatened to kill by hanging her with her head towards the earth.On 2nd November, 2000 my son-in-law Dinesh came to our house and took away my daughter on the plea that he had to go to the house of his sister for giving Choochak.On 4th November, 2000 I was informed that my daughter had died.I gave statement to S.D.M. Sh.S. M. Haider.My statement is Ex.PW2/A and it bears my signatures."Appeal No. 1272/2014 Page 11 of 24Beena, mother of the deceased appeared in the witness box as PW6 and deposed on the same lines as her husband Kuber Dutt (PW2), father of the deceased about the demand of dowry by the respondents.In her testimony she deposed that :"Savita told us that she was not allowed to by accused to perform Laxmi Pujan.She also told me that her brother-in-law Anil and her husband had given her beatings.She also told about Anil who had gone to Pune where my daughter was residing.He had insulted her there by unveiling her face.He also compelled my daughter to fulfil their demand of dowry."However, in the cross-examination, PW6, mother of the deceased clearly stated that there was no demand of cash and gifts by the respondents on the occasion of marriage of respondent no. 6 Pratibha but PW6 had given the gifts and cash voluntarily.Further testimony of both these witnesses are supported by the depositions made by the other witnesses examined by the prosecution i.e. PW8 Mridula (wife of the brother of the deceased), PW17 Usha (neighbour of the father of the deceased), PW18 Crl.Appeal No. 1272/2014 Page 12 of 24 Bhuvnesh Kumar, (brother of the deceased), PW19 Manisha (aunt of the deceased) and PW26 Satyam Sinha (tenant of respondents) where they alleged that money was demanded from the deceased for different purposes by the respondents.The third occasion may appear to be an unending period.Appeal No. 1272/2014 Page 16 of 24In the present case, the suicide note left by the deceased was proved as Ex.PW2/C which was found by the SDM immediately after the death of the deceased in the presence of PW2 Kuber Dutt Sharma, father of the deceased who disputed the handwriting of the deceased in the recovered suicide note Ex.PW2/C. Therefore the suicide note Ex.PW2/C was sent to FSL for comparison of the handwriting of the deceased along with admitted handwriting of the deceased and the FSL report Ex.PW30/DA was received according to which the suicide note was written by the deceased.There was one more letter Ex.PW2/DA written by the deceased to her parents earlier.From the suicide note Ex.PW2/C and the letter Ex.PW2/DA written by the deceased to her parents, it is proved that there was no demand of dowry by the respondents and these two documents do not support the case of the appellant.The deceased wrote in the suicide note Ex.Shayad mujhse anjane me kuch galati ho gayi ho mujhe to kuch pata nahi hai.Appeal No. 1272/2014 Page 19 of 24In this background, it is to be assessed whether any cruelty had been meted out to the deceased by the respondents which induced her to end her life.From the testimony of PW2 (father of the deceased) it emerges that the deceased told him about beatings given to her by the respondent no. 5 Anil and respondent no. 2 Vimlesh on Diwali and also about the threats extended to her that she would be killed if she fails to bring Rs. 2 lacs.It is strange that if the deceased told her father about this, how could he remain silent and did not take any action against the respondents.From the evidence on record we also find that PW2, father of the deceased referred to a phone call made by respondent no. 4 Kishan Dutt and his wife respondent no. 6 Pratibha to the deceased asking her to attend the function of Chuchak Ceremony of their son and should she not attend the function, their relationship would come to an end.In our opinion, the prosecution witnesses depicted the invite as a threat to the deceased of facing dire consequences in case she failed to attend the function.The allegations against respondent no. 4 Kishan Dutt and respondent no. 6 Pratibha are devoid of any merit as they neither relate to demand of dowry nor any kind of harassment.Appeal No. 1272/2014 Page 20 of 24It stands established that the deceased resided with her husband at different places of his posting i.e. Allahabad, Pune and Purnia before coming to Delhi as he was serving Indian Air Force and after coming to Delhi the deceased lived in Vinod Nagar and her in-laws were living separately and her brother-in-law Anil was also serving Air Force so he was also posted at different places of posting.So there is no question of demand of dowry from the deceased by the respondents or any cruelty or harassment on the deceased.The respondent no. 4 Kishan Dutt and respondent no. 6 Pratibha were residing at Agra.The allegation of any dowry demand by them from the deceased has not come forth on the material on record.From the preceding discussion and taking into consideration the cases cited above, it is clear that the term dowry mentioned in Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code implies any property or valuable security which is given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly at or before or any time after the marriage and 'in connection with the marriage of the said parties'.It is proved that demand for money by the respondents on the occasion of chuchak ceremony of the son of Crl.Appeal No. 1272/2014 Page 21 of 24 respondents Kishan Dutt and Pratibha from the deceased does not come within the ambit of dowry as the dowry mentioned in Section 304B of Indian Penal Code should be any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given in connection with the marriage.Appeal No. 1272/2014 Page 24 of 24
|
['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
63,398,830 |
In view of the order passed by this Court in Sugesan Transport Pvt. Ltd., -Vs- The Assistant Commissioner of Police, J2, Adyar Police Station, Adyar, Chennai-600 020 and another [2016 (5) CTC 577 : 2016-2-LW (Crl.) 499], this petition is not maintainable.Hence, this petition is closed with liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedy in the manner set out in Sugesan (supra).24.04.2018Index : Yes / NoSpeaking / Non-speaking orderdh/avrToThe Deputy Superintendent of Police, Office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Devala, Niligiri, Niligiri District.O.P.No.9927 of 201824.04.2018This criminal original petition has been filed to direct the 2nd respondent to register the complaint dated 19.03.2018 under Section 383, 416, 406, 420, 423, 324, 506(II) IPC r/w 120 (B) of Indian Penal Code.2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondents.The Inspector of Police, Anti Land Grabbing Cell, Niligiri District.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.P.N.PRAKASH, J.,dh/avrCrl.
|
['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
63,400,329 |
Heard on I.A.No. 3044/17, which is an application for correction of Crime number.Accordingly, I.A.No.3044/17 stands allowed.In place of Crime No. 157/16, the Crime No. 366/16 be read.It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the bail has been granted to the present applicant by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court and he has also been directed to deposit a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-.The order passed in M.CR.C.No.2807/2017 reads as under :Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer for the non- applicant/ State.Case diary perused.This is first bail petition under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.Applicant - Ranjit Singh is in custody since 26/12/2016 in connection with Crime No.157/2016 registered at Police Station-Badod, Agar, Malwa(M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420 and 120-B/34 of IPC.Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant was Director for the period from 15/11/2011 to 28/08/2014 and his case is identical and similar to the case of co- accused Ayyub whose bail application has been allowed vide order dated 13/01/2017 passed in M.Cr.He also submitted that after investigation, charge-sheet has been filed and the main allegation is against co-accused Ambaram, Chairman and Manager - Subhash Sharma and prays that on the ground of parity with aforesaid co-accused Ayyub, his application for grant of bail be allowed and the present applicant be released on bail .On the other hand, learned panel lawyer for the non- applicant / State opposed the prayer and prays for its rejection.
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
63,405,524 |
Counsel for the State submits that the case diary is available with him.This is the first application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for anticipatory bail.The applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.381/2019 registered at Police Station- Semariya District Rewa for the offence under Sections 353,323, 294, 506-B and 34 of IPC.I t is alleged that the applicant along with other co-accused persons abused with filthy language and thereafter assaulted the workers who were on duty.Certified copy as per rules.(AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) JUDGE nd Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by NEETI TIWARI Date: 2020.11.03 10:50:56 IST
|
['Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
63,413 |
Few Relevant Facts:On 9th September, 1998 at about 6.00 p.m. oneShivalingayya lodged a first information report before theSub-Inspector of Yedrami Police Station inter alia allegingthat his son Sharanaiah was murdered by four personsnamely Sangappa(A-1), Sharanappa(A-2), Malappa(A-3)and Jagadavappa (A-4).It is alleged in the report that onthe fateful day Shivalingayya and his wife - Boramma(PW-1) joined their son Sharanaiah (deceased) in thefields to remove the unwanted weeds from their land.The matterdid not end there.B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.Leave granted.All the accused-appellants were charged and tried forthe offences punishable under Sections 447, 504, 302read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) butwere acquitted of all the charges by the trial court.Onappeal preferred by the State of Karnataka, the HighCourt reversed the order of acquittal in relation to all the 2appellants and convicted them under Section 304 (Part-II)read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced them toundergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two yearsand imposed a fine of Rs.30,000/- each, in default, tosuffer simple imprisonment for a period of three years.During that time all the accused persons were passing bythe side of the complainant's land along with their bullocksand all of a sudden one bullock strayed into their fieldsand started grazing the crops.The deceased on findingthat the bullock so entered into the fields asked the 3appellants to ensure that no damages caused to thecrops.Enraged by the demand so made by the deceasedall the accused started abusing the deceased.It is further alleged that Sharanappa(A-2) caught hold of the deceased, floored him to theground and gagged his mouth and Sangappa (A-1)attacked the deceased with a knife and the other twoaccused Mallapa and Jagadevappa (A-3 & A-4)respectively hit the deceased on his back and legs withstones.Shivalingayya and his wife (PW-1) made anattempt to rescue their son but A-2 and A-3 forcefullypushed them aside.In the report, it is alleged that all theaccused trespassed into the fields with the commonintention of committing murder of the deceased as thedeceased interfered in a matter concerning some illicitrelationship between the sister of the accused and oneSiddanna.Having received the first information report PW-11registered a case against all the accused on the file ofYadrami Police Station for the offences punishable underSections 447, 504, 302 read with Section 34, IPC.The 4next day i.e. 10th September, 1998, PW-11 commencedthe investigation and completed the formalities includingrecording of the statement of witnesses and handed overthe case for further investigation by the Circle Inspector(PW-12) who also visited the scene of offence and drawnpanchanama in the presence of two panch witnesses(Ex.P4) and seized the several incriminating articles.The learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Gulbarga,on the basis of the material available on record framedcharges against all the accused for the offencespunishable under Sections 447 and 302 read with Section34, IPC.The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to betried.The Sessions case was transferred to the Fast TrackCourt, Gulbarga for the trial.The Fast Track Court videjudgment and order dated 4th December, 2003 acquittedthe accused of all the charges framed against them andheld that the prosecution miserably failed to establish itscase beyond reasonable doubt.On appeal preferred by the State of Karnatakaagainst the order of acquittal the High Court by the 5impugned order dated 10th June, 2009 reversed the orderof acquittal and accordingly sentenced all the accused forthe offence punishable under Section 304 (Part-II) readwith Section 34, IPC.Be it noted, the High Court did notrecord any finding whatsoever with regard to the chargefor the offence punishable under Section 447 IPC.We have heard learned counsel for the appellants aswell as the State.The trial court after an elaborate consideration of thematter refused to place any reliance on the evidence ofPW-1 (Boramma) who is none other than the mother ofthe deceased.The trial court did not discard the evidenceof PW-1 on the sole ground that she was the interestedwitness.The trial court carefully scrutinised the evidenceof PW-4 being an interested witness.We do not proposeto discuss the evidence of PW-1 in detail for the simplereason that the High Court did not assign any reasonwhatsoever as to why it had chosen to rely upon theevidence of PW-1 without even discussing andconsidering the reasons assigned by the trial court inparagraphs 13 and 14 of its judgment.The High Court 6merely observed that the evidence of PW-1 is very naturaland credible.The High Court in the impugned Judgmentdid not even notice the details of the injuries found on thebody of the deceased.No seriousattempt appears to have been made by the High Court toappreciate the evidence on record." The observations somade are equally applicable to the present case and wewish to say no more and leave the matter at there. 9In such view of the matter, we set aside theimpugned judgment and order and remit the matter to theHigh Court for fresh consideration and disposal inaccordance with law.It is however, made clear that wehave not expressed any opinion whatsoever on the meritsof the case since it is for the High Court to re-appreciatethe evidence and arrive at its own conclusions.The appeal is allowed.We have already released theappellants on bail.They shall continue to be on bail.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
6,341,391 |
M.C. No.4081/2012 Page 4 of 4M.C. No.4081/2012 Page 4 of 4Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that on 21.08.2012, two persons namely, Ayub and Vinod @ Nadeem were arrested at ISBT, Anand Vihar, Delhi with the purported fake currency notes.The FIR bearing No.19/2012 under Sections 489(B) and (C)/120B IPC was registered at PS Special Cell.On the basis of their disclosure statements, respondent herein namely Jahir Momim @ Javed was arrested on 24.08.2012 and 27 purported fake Indian currency notes of Rs.1,000/- (Rupee One thousand) denomination were recovered from his house.The respondent/accused moved an application for regular bail which was Crl.M.C. No.4081/2012 Page 1 of 43. Learned APP for the State urges that during investigation, Investigating Officer collected call detail record of mobile phone of all the three accused persons which shows that they were in constant touch with each other.He also pointed out that none of the mobile numbers recovered and used by the accused persons were procured by furnishing their real identities.No supervening circumstances have been brought to the Crl.M.C. No.4081/2012 Page 3 of 4 notice of this Court which may warrant the recalling of the order dated 25.09.2012 for cancellation of bail.The investigation is already complete and charge-sheet has been filed.In my view, there is no sufficient ground for cancellation of bail granted to the respondent.M.C. No.4081/2012 Page 3 of 4
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
144,649,393 |
By filing this criminal revision the petitioners have prayed for quashing the criminal proceeding in connection with Case No.C-7214/2009 under Section 420/120B of the Indian Penal Code pending before the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 14th Court, Calcutta.It appears from record that the opposite party no.2 supplied 437 KVA Alternator to the petitioners at a consideration of Rs.9,70,000/- inclusive of tax.Learned Magistrate examined the witnesses, considered the petition of complaint and issued process against the petitioners under Sections 420/120B of the Indian Penal Code.
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 155 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
144,651,429 |
Bombs were seized and defused.It is the S.I. of the concerned police station who has filed the F.I.R. The F.S.L report at pages 35 to 39 of the case diary be looked into.Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail is allowed and the application is, thus, disposed of.Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.( Patherya, J.) ( Debi Prosad Dey, J. ) 4
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
144,660,977 |
The respondent herein / complainant has filed a case in C.C.No.71 of 1997, on the file of Judicial Magistrate-II, Sankari, against 10 accused persons including the revision petitioners herein, stating that the first accused, viz., Raja had married her on 18.08.1990, as per Hindu Customs and Rites.The said marriage had been registered on 20.08.1990, on the file of Sub Registrar, Kumarapalayam.Out of wedlock, the complainant, viz., Alamelu gave birth to a female child, viz., Uma Maheswari, who is now studying in the first standard.After the marriage, the first accused had demanded a sum of Rs.10,000/- from the parents of the complainant, on the instigation of his parents.The same was not provided due to non-payment capacity of her parents.Therefore, the accused 1, 3 and 4 had driven out the complainant and her child from the matrimonial home.Under the circumstances, on 27.03.1997, the first accused had married the second accused with the co-operation of the parents of the second accused.The fifth and sixth accused are sister and brother-in-law of the first accused and the 7th and 8th accused are parents of the second accused and the 9th and 10th accused are the uncle and aunt of the first accused.All the accused have assembled on 27.03.1997, at about 9.30 a.m., in front of the Sakthi Vinayagar Temple and performed the said marriage as per Hindu Customs.The said marriage had been witnessed by one Manickam and Vellaiyan.Knowing the same, the complainant went to the first accused house on 06.04.1997 and questioned him about the second marriage.The accused, in reply, used abusive language towards the complainant and hence, the complainant has levelled a case under Section 494 against the first accused and under Section 494 r/w 109 against the other accused.On questioning, the accused had pleaded not guilty after receiving copy of the complaint.On the side of the complainant, five witnesses were examined and one document has been marked, viz., marriage registration certificate bearing registration No.42 of 1990, on the file of Sub Registrar, Kumarapalayam.On scrutiny of this, it is seen that the first accused had married the complainant.3. P.W.1 had adduced evidence that the first accused married her 7 years ago and the said marriage has been registered.Further, the marriage was solemnized as per Hindu Rites and Customs.Immediately, after marriage, she led her marital life at the matrimonial home.After a few months, her in-laws had started torturing her and demanded dowry.Out of wedlock, she gave birth to a female child.P.W.1 further stated that her husband had demanded a sum of Rs.10,000/- in order to discharge a loan for payment of lorry dues.Her parents were however not able to provide the loan due to financial difficulties.Therefore, she was driven out from the matrimonial home.On 14.12.1998, she met one Manickam of Kaveri Village and he informed that her husband had married the second accused herein on 27.03.1997, and he and one Ramalingam had witnessed the said marriage and the said witness had disclosed the date, time and kind of marriage.Further, he disclosed that at the time of marriage, all the accused had assembled in front of the vinayakar temple and performed the marriage as per Hindu Customs and Rites.P.W.5, had spoken about the first marriage solemnized between P.W.1 and A-1 and that he also signed in the Sub Registrar Office as witness.Further, he was informed by A-1 about the second marriage.On considering the evidence of witnesses and on perusing the documentary evidence marked by the complainant and on hearing the arguments of the learned counsels on either sides, the learned Magistrate observed that the first accused was guilty of offence under Section 494 of IPC and that the accused 3 to 6 were found guilty of offence under Section 494 r/w 109 of IPC and as such, the first accused was sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs.250/-, in default, he was to undergo further period of one month simple imprisonment and each of the accused 3 to 6 were sentenced to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment and each of them were imposed a fine of Rs.250/- in default, they have to undergo further period of simple imprisonment for one month.The accused 2, 7, 8, 9 and 10 were discharged from the criminal case.Against the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, the accused have filed the above appeal in C.A.No.167 of 2002, on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal.The learned Judge, after hearing the arguments of the learned counsels on either side and on carefully verifying the trial Court judgment, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence passed imposed by the trial Court.7.Against the concurrent findings of the Courts below, the above revision has been filed by the accused.The P.W.2 is an interested witness and as per his statements, he had met P.W.1 on 14.12.1998 i.e., after 1 1/2 years of the alleged marriage and had disclosed about the performance of the said marriage which is not a believable one.Further, the complainant had initially levelled the complaint against 10 accused including parents of the second accused and the other two accused who were the uncle and aunt of the first accused.On the said complaint, the accused 2, 7 to 10 were acquitted and therefore, the co-accused are also entitled to get similar relief.The complainant herself had deserted the first accused and left the matrimonial home, without assigning any reason.Due to difference of opinion between the P.W.1 and A-1, the case has been falsely foisted on all the accused.The complainant had not produced any material evidence pertaining to the alleged marriage, which had been solemnized between A-1 and A-2 in the presence of the other eight accused, like photographs and other material evidence.Further, as per evidence of P.W.1, the marriage was not solemnized by the temple priest (prohit).The complainant had not proved the case beyond doubt through marking substantial documents.As per the statements of P.W.2, the marriage was not performed properly and as such, his statements are only hypothetical theory and not backed by any documentary truth.As per the ingredients of the complaint, the complainant has to lodge a complaint before the concerned police station but instead of that she had filed a complaint in order to punish the accused to take vengeance on them.The very competent counsel for the revision petitioner further contended that the accused 3 to 6 are aged persons who are involved in the agricultural operations as coolies.The third and fourth accused are aged parents of the first accused and both are bedridden and their health condition does not permit them to move from one place to another place.The fifth and sixth accused are the sister and brother-in-law of the first accused and they are living separately after marriage and are not in touch with the family of the first accused.The complainant had impleaded them as co-accused with mala-fide intentions.It was submitted that the accused had never participated in the marriage.Further, all the accused are illiterate persons and depending upon the agricultural coolie work for their livelihood.On considering the factual position of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and on verifying the judgments of the Courts below, this Court does not find any infirmity in the conclusions arrived at for finding the first accused guilty of offence under Section 494 IPC and that the accused 3 to 6 were found guilty of offence under Section 494 r/w 109 of IPC.This Court is of the view that on the side of the defence, they have not denied to performance of second marriage before the trial Court.Therefore, this Court reduces the sentence from one year rigorous imprisonment to three months rigorous imprisonment, as it is found to be appropriate in the instant case.The fine imposed on the first accused remains unaltered.The sentence imposed on the accused 3 to 6 i.e., a period of three months rigorous imprisonment is also slightly harsh since all the accused are advanced in age and their health condition is not sound as per the submission made by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners.Besides this, it is seen that they were involved in cultivation work as coolies upto their retirement.Considering this aspect, this Court is inclined to reduce the sentence imposed on each of the accused 3 to 6 from three months rigorous imprisonment to one month rigorous imprisonment.The fine amount imposed on them is confirmed.The period of sentence already undergone by the accused would be deducted from the period of sentence imposed by this Court, as it is found to be appropriate in the instant case.In the result, the above revision is partly allowed.Consequently, the judgment and conviction passed in C.A.No.167 of 2002, on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal, dated 09.12.2003, confirming the conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.71 of 1997, on the file of Judicial Magistrate-II, Sankari, dated 10.04.2000 is modified.Accordingly ordered.r n sToThe Judicial Magistrate-II, Sankari.The Principal Sessions Judge Namakkal
|
['Section 494 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
144,662,182 |
I, Nagarcoil.Each was entitled for 1 + cents.The said Shanmugam sold the entire threecents to one Pichaikannu Pillai, who is the father of the petitioners 2 to 8and the husband of the first petitioner.3.In the said suit, a preliminary decree was passed on 31.08.1999, infavour of the respondent and the respondent was held to be entitled to halfshare in the property.As against the judgment and decree, the saidPichaikannu Pillai filed an appeal in A.S.No.96 of 1999 before the DistrictCourt, Nagercoil and during the pendency of the appeal, he died and thepetitioners filed an application to implead themselves to prosecute theappeal.Thereafter, the respondent filed an application for passing ofthe final decree and the same was pending.The question iswhether the petitioners have created a false document by executing the saledeed for the entire 3 cents.The petitioners are claiming title throughtheir father who purchased the property from one Shanmugam.
|
['Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,446,756 |
ORDER Dipak Misra, J.The facts as have been unfurled are that Sunita, sister of the applicant Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 and daughter of the applicant No. 2, was married to one Pramod son of Shambha Ji.The investigating agency registered offences punishable under Sections 498A/34 and 304B of the Indian Penat Code (in short 'the IPC') against the husband, Pramod, in-laws of the deceased and some other relations.It has been putforth in the petition that the applicants after receiving information relating to the death of Sunita, reached her in-laws' house on 2-8-2000 at 9.30 a.m. As alleged by the prosecution the applicants made enquiry about the death of Sunita and on not getting satisfactory reply they started beating her husband, Pramod, and mother-in-law, Ranjanabai, as a result of which she sustained certain injuries.The report of this incident was lodged by the husband, Pramod which gave rise to a crime for offences under Sections 307 and 147 of the IPC.Later on, Ranjanabai succumbed to the injuries in the hospital while availing treatment and offence under Section 302 of the IPC was added.Eventually a charge-sheet was filed in respect of the aforesaid offences against the applicants, who faced trial before the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Burhanpur, Distt.The Trial Court framed charges against the applicants for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 294, 302 and 307 of the IPC.It is averred, in course of the trial the prosecution witnesses were examined.At this stage the file relating to Sessions Trial No. 145/2000 was sent to the District Judge (Vigilance) for inspection and the District Judge (Vigilance) gave a note that an additional charge under Section 149 of the IPC should be framed against the applicants.On the basis of the aforesaid the learned Trial Judge framed an additional charge under Sections 302/149 and 307/149 of the IPC.On 11-5-2000, it has been averred, that this charge was framed as an alternative charge to what had been framed earlier.The petitioners had denied the charge and submitted an application under Section 217 of the Code for recall of the eye-witnesses who had been examined for the purpose of cross-examination in the light of framing of an additional charge under Section 149 of the IPC.The Trial Judge rejected the said application on the ground that Section 149 of the IPC is not independently punishable and eye-witnesses have already been cross-examined.It has also been observed by the learned Trial Judge that the prosecution was not examining any other witnesses and, therefore, there was no justification to allow the application.Mr. Ajay Tamrakar, learned Panel Lawyer for the State, on the contrary, has contended that the charge under Section 149 of the IPC being not an independent offence there is no necessity for recall of the witnesses and the learned Trial Judge has rightly rejected the application.The matter was listed on 29-5-2001 on which date the learned counsel for the petitioner wanted to bring on record the petition which was filed before the learned Trial Judge to highlight that there was categorical assertion that no cross-examination was made keeping in view Section 149 of the IPC.The petition in question was filed and has been brought on record.
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
14,467,687 |
/379/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of : Kushal Dutta @ Akash & Ors.... ... petitioners Mr. Sayen De, Mr. Ritesh Pal ... ... for the petitioners Md. Sabir Ahmed ... ... for the State The petitioners seek anticipatory bail in connection with Matigara P.S. Case No. 480 of 2018 dated 06.09.2018 under Sections 447/325/427/307/379/34 of the Indian Penal Code.The State produces the case diary and refers to the injury reports.Sticks and rods were used to beat up the victims.In addition, the petitioners are directed to meet the investigating officer at such time and place as may be specified by the concerned police officer.The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed subject to the conditions as indicated above.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioners, subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J) (Sanjib Banerjee, J.)
|
['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,446,795 |
JUDGMENT B.G. Deo, J.I have heard Shri Deshpande for the applicant-revision petitioner.Shri Bhide for the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 and Shri Sinha Public Prosecutor for the State.In this revision petition the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Khamgaon, on 18-5-1985, allowing the revision filed before him against the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Malkapur, issuing process against accused-respondents for the offence punishable under sections 420, 109 read with section 34, I.P.C. has been challenged.In the revision before the learned Sessions Judge, the Court by allowing the revision petition set aside the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Malkapur, and dismissed the complaint.P.C. even though considerable time has lapsed after the order passed by the learned Magistrate.The revision is, therefore, allowed and the following order is passed.
|
['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
214,834 |
2. Shortly stated the prosecution case as mainly emerging from the recitals contained in the FIR lodged by the deceased Ramnarayan Singh is as under : --The appellant-Prayag Sinha Bharat Sinha is the father-in-law of the appellants Vedprakasinha Birendra Kumar Sinha and Ashok Kumar Upendrakumar Sinha.The three appellants at some places in the record of the trial Court instead of Sinha have been also mentioned as Singh.At the time of the incident they were residing at Dennis compound, Prayag Sinha Chawl in Karvalo Nagar in District Thane.At that time, the deceased Ramnarayan Singh also referred to as Ramnarayan Sinha at some places in the record of the trial Court and the three eyewitnesses namely Kusum Ramnarayan Singh PW-1, Lalidevi Ramnarayan Singh PW-2 and Anil Kumar Singh PW-4 the daughter, wife and nephew respectively of the deceased Ramnarayan Singh and Dinesh Kumar Singh PW-3 also lived there.Prior to the incident, the deceased Ramnarayan Sinha and his uncle the appel-lant-Prayag Sinha were running a dairy farm in partnership at Devidayal Park.There was a dispute between them from four years prior to the incident over the ownership of the said dairy farm.There was also a dispute between them Over the chawl wherein Ramnarayan Sinha was residing.Prior to the incident, Ramnarayan Sinha had filed a civil suit against the appellant-Prayag Sinha which at the time of the incident was pending .At 3 p.m,.Anilkumar Singh PW-4 came to take food at his house.At that time, the appellant-Prayag Singh came and broke the lock of Ramnarayan Sinha's room.Consequently, Anil Kumar Singh forthwith went to the factory where Ramnarayan Singh was employed and brought him to his room at 3.15 p.m. At 3.30 p.m. while Ramnarayan Singh was sitting in front of Jagnarayan Pandey's room, he asked the appellants Vedprakash Singh and Ashok Kumar Singh who were the sons-in-law of his Uncle, the appellant Prayag Singh, as to why they had broken the lock of his room.Thereunpon, the three appellants abused him.The appellant-Vedprakash with a spear and the appellant Ashok Kumar Singh with a knife started assaulting him resulting in his sustaining injuries on various parts of his body and intestines protruding out.After assaulting Ramnarayan Sinha, the appellants are said to have run away.My intestines have protruded out.This incident has been witnessed by Pandey and his son.The statement has been read over to me and is as per my narration.It is pertinerit to mention that on the said statement, there is a endorsement by Dr. Vaze (5-12-1994 at 4.25 pm.) that the patient was conscious and in a condition to give the statement.In the opinion of Dr. Rode the probable cause of death was due to shock following injuries to liver, stomach and femoral artery.In his opinion, the said injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to qause death and were possible by the knife shown to him and article No. 1 (spear).The case was investigated in the usual manner by API Vasantrao Chaudhari PW 14:At that time, the appellant -- Prayag Sinha was putting a terricot shirt having blood stains and Vedprakash was putting on a open shirt having blood stains.He seized the said clothes in the presence of public panch Umesh Padwal PW 4 who however, turned hostile during trial.On 6-12-1994 the appellant Vedparakash stated, that he could produce the spear which he had concealed behind his house.Consequently he sent for the public panchas, out of whom one namely Vithal Chorge PW 10 has been examined and who also became hostile during trial.He recorded the willingness of appellant Vedparakash to have the spear recovered under a panchanama.Thereafter, appellant Vedprakash Sinha led him and the panchas to his house and produced a blood stained spear from his house.The said recovery was effected under a panchanama.On 6-12-1994, at 4 pm.API Vasaritrao Chaudhri PW 14 arrested the appellant -- Ashok Kumar Sinha.On 7-12-1994, the appellant -- Ashok Kumar Sinha expressed his willingness to produce the clothes which he had concealed behind the dairy situated at Sanat nagar.In his presence, he recorded his willngness.JUDGMENT Vishnu Sahai, J.Through this appeal, the appellants challenge the judgment and order dated 19-3-1997 passed by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Thane, in Sessions Case No. 164 of 1995 whereby they have been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each in default to suffer three months' R.I. for the offence Under Section 302 read with 34, IPC.When Lalidevi Singh tried to rescue the deceased, she received injuries on her left hand.The evidence of Dinesh Sinha PW 3 shows that when on 5-12-1994 at 3 pm.he came to take lunch at his house, people were shouting.He noticed that Ramnarayan Sinha was lying on a cot in an injured condition.Consequently he, Anil Kumar Sinha PW 4 and Jaganarayan Pandey (not examined) took Ramnarayan Sinha in a rick-' shaw to Civil Hospital, Thane.3-A. The evidence of Dr. Dilip Vaze PW 13 shows that on 5-12-1994 at 4.15 pm.he was working as Chief Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Thane.At that time, Ramnarayan Sinha came to be admitted at Male Surgical Ward.The evidence of PSO Ramchandra Shinde PW 5 shows that on 5-12-1994 at-3.45 pm.while he was working as PSO at Vartak Nagar police station, a person who did not disclose his name telephoned him that there was a quarrel at Karwalo nagar and the injured had been admitted to Civil Hpspitl.Consequently, he made an entry in his station diary and rushed to Civil Hospital, Thane, His evidence and that of Dr. Vaze PW 13 shows that he enquired from the latter whether the injured was in a condition to speak and when the latter (Dr. Vaze) examined the injured and made the endorsement in the letter produced by the PSO Shinde that the injured was conscious and mentally fit to make a statement, PSO Shinde recorded the statement of the injured (Ramnarayan Sinha).The evidence of Dr. Vaze shows that when the statement of Rarnanarayan Sinha was recorded by PSO Shinde, he was conscious and he gave an endorsement to the said effect after the statement had been recorded.The said statement has been recorded In Marathi by PSO Shinde.Since Ramnarayan Sinha died after making it and it is a dying declaration and a vital piece of evidence on which the conviction of the appellant is founded, we are extracting its English trans lation in entirety: --I, Ramnarayan Sinha Kharban Sinha aged 42 years, occupation: Service, Resident of Kawalo nagar, Prayag Sinha Chawl, Dennis compund, Thane.I today While being admitted at Civil Hospital, Thane for treatment on enquiry I state as under: --I have been staying at the above place along with my wife Lalidevi and my four children since last 22 years.I work in Kores Company from 1977 on a printing machine.Prayag Sinha Bhart Sinha resident of Karwalo, nagar, Prayag Sinha chawl, Dennis compound is my uncle.We are running a dairy farm in partnership at Devidayal Park.There is a dispute between myself and my uncle since four years over the ownership of the dairy farm.There is also a dispute between us over the chawl where we are residing.I have filed a civil suit in Thane against Prayag Sinha which is pending.Today being my second, shift, I left my house at 2.25 pm.and went to the company.My nephew Anil Kumar Sinha came to call me at the house.I came back to my house.At 3.30 p.m. I was sitting in front of Prayag Sinha's room.At that time, I asked my uncle's sons -in-law Vedprakash Sinha and Ashok Kumar Sinha as to why they had broken the lock of my room.On that my uncle and his sons-in-law abused me.Vedprakash Sinha with a spear and Ashok Kumar Sinha with a knife started assaulting me.I am bleeding from the injuries which I have sustained, on my nose, right upper arm, left hand thumb, stomach right side below neck, on the left thigh at two places and on right thigh.After recording the statement, Ramanarayan Sinha signed it.It is pertient to mention that the evidence of Dr. Vaze shows that the said statement was recorded in his presence.The evidence of PSO Ramchandra Shinde PW 5 shows that on the basis of Ramnarayan Sinha's statement, C.R. No. 134 of 1994 Under Sections 307/504, IPC was registered at 5 pm at police station Vartak nagar.At 8 p.m. same day, Ramnarayan Sinha succumbed to his injuries and the case was converted to one Under Section 302, IPC.It is pertient to mention that on 7-12-1994 at 12.40pm.Dr. Vaze PW 13 medically examined Lalidevi Singh who is alleged to have sustained injuries in the incident and found on her person the following InjuriesAbrasion 1 cm x 1 cm over right knee, scab formation present, tender.Linear abrasion 5 cm x 1 cm over lateral part of neck right side, scab formation present, tender.Linear abrasion 4 cm x 0.25 cm over left forearm.1 cm over the wrist on dorsal aspect, scab formation present, tender.In the opinion of Dr. Vaze the said injuries were inflicted within 24 to 48 hours and wre atrributable to a hard and blunt object.It is pertinent to mention that, in his cross-examination Dr. Vaze stated that the injuries mentioned in Exhibit 45 could be caused by a fall.The autospy on the corpse of Ramnarayan Sinha was conducted on 6-l0-1994 by Dr. Ramchandra Rode PW 8 who found, on it the following ante-mortem: injuries :--1. Abrasion on nose 1/2 cm x 1/4 cm.Incised wound on front of neck 4x 1/ 2 cm muscle deep.Incised wound on abdomen right side to umbilicus 2x1cm cavity deep.4. I.W. on abdomen right side to injury No. 3x1 inch away, 3x1 cm cavity deep.I.W. on left thigh, 5 x 1cmmuscle deep.Ipcised; wound on left eye, 5x1 cm muscle deep.7. I.W. on right inguinal region.11/2 x 1/2 cm.muscle deep.I.W. on left palm in between thumb and rear finger 4 x 1/2 cm mucle deep.9. I.W. on left hand middle finger and ring finger 1/2 x 1/4 cm muscle deep.cm mucle deep.In the opinion of Dr. Rode, injury Nos. 2 to 10 were caused by a sharp object and injury lyo.1 by a hard and blunt object.On Internal examination, Dr. Rode found as under:--(b) Liver incised wound on posterior surface on lobe right 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/4 cm deep in conjunction with injury No. 4; and(c) right intestineal region beneath injury No. 7, the femoral artery was having a incised wound 1 x1/4 cm with blood clot around it.Thereafter; the appellant Ashok Kumar Sinha led them to his house in Dennis compound where he had concealed his pant and shirt and produced the same.The said recovery was effected under a panchanama.API Chaudhari sent the recovered articles to the Chemical Analyst, After completing the investigation, he submitted the charge sheet against the appellants.The case was committed to the Court of Sessions in the usual manner where the appellants were charged for the offences punishable Under Section 302 read with 34 IPC to which charge, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.During trial, in all the prosecution examined, 14 witnesses.We my straight away mention that the three of them namely Kusum Singh, Lalidevi Singh and Anil Kumar Singh PWs 1. 2 and 4 respectively furnished the ocular account.The prosecution also examined PSO 'Ramchdndra Shinde who recorded the statement of Ramnarayan Sinha which has been treated to be FIR FIR and which has been adduced as a dying declaration.It also examined Dr. Vaze PW 13 who medically examined Ramnarayan Sinha before PSO Shinde had recorded his statement and found him to be physcially conscious and fit to give the statement.It also exam ined API Chaudhary PW 14 and some public panchas to prove the recoveries effected from the appellants but, in respect of the recoveries, we only have the evidence of API Chaudhari for the public panchas have turned hostile.Hence, this appeal.We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record.In our view, this appeal deserves to be partly allowed in asmuch as the appellant -- Prayag Sinha Bharatisinha deserves the benefit of doubt.In the instant case, the evidence of a three-fold nature has been adduced by the prosecution against the appellant namely(a) the dying declaration of the deceased Ramchandra Singh (Ram Narayana Sinha) recorded by PSO Ramchandra Shinde PW 5;(b) the ocular account furnished by Kusum Singh PW 1, Lalidevi Singh PW 2 and Anil Kumar Singh PW 4; and(c) recoveries from the appellants.We would first like to take up the dying declaration of Ramnarayan Singh (Ramnarayan Sinha) recorded by PSO Shinde.Since it is a crucial piece of evidnece, we have earlier extracted is English-translation.Its perusal shows that there was enmity between Ramnarayan Sinha and his uncle, the appellant Prayag Sinha on account of dairy business and a civil suit had been filed by Ramnarayan Sinha aga inst the appellant -- Prayag Sinha, Its perusal further shows that on 5- 12-1994, at 3.30 p.m. when Ramnarayan Sinha was sitting in front of Pande's room and asked the appellants Vedprakash and Ashok Kumar Sinha, the sons-in-law of the appellant -- Prayag Sinha as to why they had broken the lock of his room, 'they and the appellant -- Prayag Sinha abused him and thereafter, the appellant Vedprakash with a spear and Ashok Kumar with a knife started assaulting him.We have gone through this dying declaration and in our view, it inspires implicit confldence.The evidence of PSO Shinde PW 5 and Dr. Vaze PW 13 to which we have referred to earlier, shows that Ramanarayan Sinha was consecious when he made the said dying declaration.A perusal of the Said dying declaration shows that the same bears the endorsement dated 5-I2-.1904 at 4.25 p.m. signed by Dr. Vase that Ramnarayan Sinha was in a consious condition to give the statement.It is pertinent to mention that the evidence of Dr. Vaze shows that he was present throughout when the statement was recorded.In our considerd view, this dying declaration inspires implicit confidence.We also feel that it squarely shows that the appellant-Vedprakash and Ashok Kumar with a spear and knife respectively in furtherance of their common intention committed the murder of Ramnarayan Sinha.However, in our view, the said dying declaration does not show that the appellant -- Prayag Sinha shared the common intention with respect to the murde of Ramnarayan Sinha.It only shows that he was merely present when Ramnarayan Sinha was assaulted by the appellant -- Vedparakash and Ashok Kumar.It is well settled that mere presence does not ipso facto attract the application of Section 34, IPC.To invoke the application of the said provision, it has to be established that the criminal act committed by more than one person was committed in furtherance of their common intention.There is nothing in this dying declaratin to show that the murder of the deceased was committed in furtherance of common intention of the appellant -- Prayag Sinha.We make no bones in observing that we are reticent to accept the claim of these eye -witnesses of having seen the incidnet.It is pertinent to mention that in the dying declaration, the deceased Ramchandra Sinha has categorically mentioned that the incident was witnessed by Pandey (Jagnarayah) and his son.Had these witnesses witnessed the incident, then in the dying declaration, their names would have been mentioned.All the three eye witnesses of the incident have described the manner thus : --After Ramnarayan Sinha on learned from Dinesh Sinha that his lock had the broken came home, he went to the house of the appellant -- Prayag Sinha and asked him as to why he had broken the lock.Thereafter he returned to his house and sat on a cot.Thereafter, the appellant -- Prayag Sinha armed with a knife came and inflicted an injury on the back side of Ramnarayan Sinha, Appellant Vedprakash inflicted a spear blow on the abdomen of Ramnaryana Sinha, and the appellant Ashok Kurnar snatched the knife from Prayag Sinha, and inflicted and when Lalidevi Singh rushed to the rescue of Ramnarayan Sinha, she sustained injury over her left hand.(a) there is no injury on the back side of Ramanarayan Sinha;(b) it only explains the injuries sustained by Ramnayan Sinha on his abdomen and chest region and does not explain the five incised wounds which he had suffered on front neck, left eye, left palm, left hand middle finger and right arm.The ocular account also militates against the recitals in the deying declaration because in the dying declaration it has not been mentioned that the appellant -- Prayag Sinha was armed with a knife and the appellant -- Ashok Kumar snatched his knife.So far as the injuries of Lalidevi are concerned, we are constrained to observe that the less said about them the better it is..., In the first place, they were medically examined by Dr. Vaze PW 13 at 12.30 pm.on 7-12-1994 i.e. nearly forty five hours after the incident (the incident took place on 7-12-1994 at 12.30 pm.Secondly, had they been genuine Injuries then Lalidevi Singh whose evidence shows that she immediately after the incident rushed to Givil Hospital, Thane where her husband Ramnarayan Sinha was taken and who remained there till 8 pm.on the date of the inevident would have got them medically examined at the said hospital without any loss of time.Thirdly, they could be caused by a fall as admitted by Dr. Vaze in his cross-examination.Had Lalidevi Singh really received the injuries in the incident, then the same would have been reflected in the dying declaration.But, to repeat neither her name nor her injuries nor the names of other two eye witnesses are contained in it and specifically it has been mentioned therein that the incident was seen by Pandey and his son.For the said reasons, in our view, the ocular account which has been furnished by Kusum Singh PW 1 Lalidevi Singh PW 2 and Anil Kumar Singh PW 4 the daughter, wife and newphew of the deceased respectively cannot be accepted.We now come to the recovery evidence.Since the public panchas of recovery have turned hostile and we have the solitary evidence of the Investigating Officer API Chaudhari PW 14, we do not think that it would be safe to accept it.For the reasons, contained in pagraphs 10 to 12 of this Judgment, in our view the appellant Prayag Sinha deserves benefit of doubt.A perusal of paragraph 11 and 12 respectively would show that we have not accepted the ocular account and recovery evidence.A perusal of paragraph 10 shows that we have placed reliance on the dying declaration.But, as we have mentioned in the said paragraph, the dying declaration only shows that the appellant Prayag Sinha was present at the place of the incident and does not show that he shared the common intention in respect of the murder of the deceased.It is pertinent to mention that in the dying declaration no weapon has been assigned to Prayag Sinha and the only overt act assigned to him therein is of absuing the deceased.A perusal of the dying declaration would show that the common intention to commit the murder of the deceased was shared by the appellants -- Vedprakash and Ashok Kumar who assaulted the deceased with a spear and knife respectively.In our view the dying declaration implicitly established the involvement of the appellants Vedprakash and Ashok Kumar who are said to have assaulted the deceased with a spear and knife respectively.We have earlier referred to the evidence of the Autopsy Surgeon Dr. Rode.He stated that nine incised wounds suffered by the deceased could be caused by a spear and knife.We may mention that in the said dying declaration the appellant Vedparakash has been attributed the role of assaulting the deceased with a spear and the appellant Ashok Kumar the role of assaulting him with a knife and the evidence of Autopsy Surgeon Dr. Rode, to which we have referred to earlier, clinchingly fixes their involvement in as much as Dr. Rode candidly stated that the injuries of the deceased could be caused by a spear and knife.It is well -- settled that the conviction can be recorded/sustained on dying declaration simpliciter provided it inspires confidence.See AIR 1958 SC 22 : 1958 Cri LJ 106, Khushalrao v. State of Bombay.In the instant case, we have seen that the dying declaration was recorded in consonance with law and Ramnarayan Sinha was fit to make it.It should be borne in mind that since the attack on Ramnarayan Sinha was made in broad -- day light and the assailants namely the appellants -- Vedprakash and Ashok Kumar were the sons-in-law of his uncle the appellant -- Prayag Sinlia, he must had no difficulty in recognising them.The Autopsy Report and the evidence of the Autopsy Surgeon Dr. Rode shows that there were nine incised wounds and one abrasion on the corpse of the deceased .The evidence of Dr. Rode shows that the nine incised wounds could be caused by a spear and kinfe, and beneath three of them, namely injury Nos. 3, 4 and 7 there was severe internal damage, in asmuch as there was incised wound on abdominal cavity, incised wound on lobe of liver and cut of femoral artery.The evidence of Dr. Rode shows that the deceased died on account of injuries on liver, stomach and femoral artery and the said injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.Since the appellants -- Vedprakash and Ashok Kumar in a concerted manner caused these injuries, we do not eVen have an iota of doubt that they committed the murder of the deceased in furtherance of their common Intention.Hence, an offence Under Section 302 read with 34 IPC would be made out against them.The evidence of PSO Shinde shows that he took 15 minutes to record it.In the circumstances, it appeas that the dying declaration was recorded around 4.25 pm.It should borne in mind that the dying declaration has been recorded In the pres-ence of Dr. Vaze PW 13 and since both he and PSO Shinde PW 5 had no rancour of enmity against the Said appellants they would have been parties to a concocted dying declaration against them.The circumstance that apart from abusing the deceased.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
21,496,730 |
His presence is noted and dispensed with.He has stated in his report as follows:-We have perused the report filed by the learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta."I further beg to submit that on 13.06.2019 the Investigating Officer was not present before this court at the time of hearing and an adjournment application was filed and moved by the Ld.In the said adjournment application, the Ld.Public Prosecutor mentioned 'that due to some unavoidable and inadvertence circumstances the investigating officer of the instant case could not comply u/s. 41A of the Cr.P.C.' and only prayed for further date for hearing."The report also encloses the order dated 13th June, 2019 and the application filed by the learned Public Prosecutor in the instant case on that day.The explanation given by the judicial officer, therefore, runs counter to the report submitted by the Investigating Officer to the Joint Commissioner of Police (Crime), Kolkata Police wherein it is stated that the learned Chief Judge verbally directed the Investigating Officer to issue notice under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
|
['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
215,005 |
Both of them pelted stones on petitioner and thereafter petitioner left Basanti Bai and ran away from the place of incident.The incident was narrated by the said eye-witnesses to the parents of Basanti Bai, Basanti Bai also came to know that the witnesses have informed her parents regarding the incident.She felt very much ashamed because of the incident and feeling herself defamed ultimately she committed suicide by hanging with the help of a rope.ORDER S.C. Vyas, J.This revision petition under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the order dated 17-10-2005 in Sessions Trial No. 130/ 2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Manawar, District-Dhar, whereby trial Court had directed framing charges against the petitioner under Section 306 of the IPC.As per the final report submitted by police Manawar, District-Dhar before the learned Lower Court the case of the prosecution was that on 21-2-2005 when Basanti Bai D/o Bhangda Bhil aged about 16 years of village Piplaj was attending natural call in the forest, then petitioner came there and caught hold of the girl with intend to outrage her modesty and tried to snatch her towards Nala.The said Basanti Bai was opposing the act of the petitioner.At that time Surbai W/o Mohan Bhil aged about 20 years, and younger sister of Basanti Bai, Rumu Bai D/o Bhangda Bhil aged 11-12 years, who were also attending natural call had witnessed the incident.The matter was reported to the police and Marg No. 17/05 was registered.On enquiry the offences punishable under Section 354, 306 of IPC were registered against the petitioner and he was arrested.After completing the investigation charge-sheet was filed before the JMFC, Munawar who committed the case for trial to the Court of Session.Feeling aggrieved by this order present revision petition has been filed.
|
['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
21,521,123 |
2.The case of the prosecution is that on 12.11.2004 at about 23.30hours, due to previous motive, the accused have formed themselves into anunlawful assembly and A1 caught hold of PW1 and A2 attacked PW1 with Aruval, thereby caused injuries and also threatened him with dire consequences.TheSub Inspector of Police attached to Kovilpatti East Police Station has fileda final report under Sections 147, 148, 324 r/w 34, 506(ii) IPC against theaccused by examining the witnesses.3.In the trial court, on the side of the prosecution, 13 witnesses wereexamined and 6 documents were marked.On the side of the accused, one witness was examined and no document was marked.When the accused were questioned about the incriminating circumstances, they denied the same.4.The trial court convicted A1 for the offence under Section 342 IPCand sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.250/-, in default to undergo two weeksSimple Imprisonment and found guilty under Section 324 r/w 34 IPC andconvicted and sentenced him to undergo R.I for two years and to pay a fine ofRs.500/-, in default to suffer one month SI and A2 found guilty under Section324 IPC and sentenced him to undergo RI for two years and to pay a fine ofRs.500/-, in default to undergo SI for one month.Aggrieved by the judgmentpassed by the trial court, the revision petitioners filed an appeal inC.A.No.114 of 2008, which was heard by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.I), Tuticorin.The first appellate Court confirmed thefindings of the trial court.Hence, this criminal revision.5.The learned counsel for the revision petitioners/A1 and A2 submittedthat the prosecution witnesses have not witnessed the occurrence itself andthe eye witnesses are interested witnesses and the prosecution has failed toprove the case beyond reasonable doubt and the accused are entitled toacquittal and prays that the criminal revision may be allowed.6.On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side)appearing for the respondent/State submitted that both the courts belowappreciated the evidence in a proper manner and believed the evidence of theeye witnesses and having regard to the nature of the offence, convicted therevision petitioners and passed proper sentence, which do not require anyinterference by this court and the revisions petitioners are not entitled foracquittal and prays that the criminal revision has to be dismissed.7.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.8.PW1 is the injured and he gave Ex.P1 complaint.PW1 in his complaintstated that on 12.11.2004 at 10.00 pm, his brother Raja and his friendSaravanan went to answer for nature call, at that time, the accused Dharmar @Dharmaraj and his brother Manikandan, Raja and two others were consuming liquor and asked his brother to drink liquor and it was refused by hisbrother and they assaulted him and when it was stated by his brother to him,he asked the Accused Dharmar @ Dharmaraj why he compelled his brother to drink the liquor and due to it, wordy quarrel arose between him and theaccused Dharmar @ Dharmaraj and the accused Dharmar @ Dharmaraj assaulted him and then he went to his house and talked with his friends Balamurugan and onthe same day at 11.30 pm, the accused Dharmar @ Dharmaraj and Manikandan, Palani, Sakthi and Raja came and he requested the accused for compromise, at that time, the accused Manikandan with Aruval assaulted on his forehead andthe accused Dharmaraj caught hold of him and the Accused Manikandan repeatedly throw the Aruval towards him, it caused injury on his noise, righteyebrow and then caused injury on his left side thigh and when his neighbourand relatives came, the accused fled away.9.PW1 during his evidence stated that on 12.11.2004 at 10.00 pm, theaccused came with liquor and the accused called his brother Raja and hisfriend, who were trying to answer for nature call and when his brotherrefused to drink liquor, they assaulted his brother and on the same day at11.30 pm, when he was talking with his friends Balamurugan, at that time, allthe accused came and when he tried to compromise the matter, the accused Manikandan with Aruval caused injury on the forehead and he caused injurieson his nose, right side eyebrow and near the left side thigh and when hisneighbours came, the accused fled away and he was taken to Kovilpatti PoliceStation and he gave the complaint statement to the police.10.PW2 to PW5 are cited as eye witnesses.PW2 to PW5 stated during their evidence that due to previous enmity, the accused Manikandan withAruval caused injury on the forehead and then, the accused Dharmarajunlawfully caught him and the accused Manikandan with Aruval caused injury onthe nose, right eyebrow, right thigh of PW1 and all the accused threatenedthem and PW1 was taken to the hospital.11.PW1 during his cross examination stated that only after hearing thesound, his brother and mother came.12.PW1 during his cross examination has stated as follows:- ?rk;gtk; elf;Fk; nghJ 10> 15 ngh; epd;whh;fs; vd;W brhd;dhy; vd;mk;kht[k; jk;gpa[k; rj;jk; nfl;L jhd; te;jhh;fs;.?13.PW2 during his cross examination stated as follows:- ?rj;jk; nfl;L fhrpkhhpag;gdpd; jhahh;> jk;gpfs; ,Uth; Xote;Jtpl;lhh;fs; ehq;fs; vy;nyhUk; rj;jk; nghl;nlhk;.?14.PW3 during his cross examination stated as follows:-?rk;gtk; elf;Fk; nghJ tPl;oy; ,Ue;jjhft[k; rj;jk; nfl;L brd;nwd; vd;Wbrhd;dhy; rhpjhd;.?15.PW4 during his chief examination stated as follows:-?3k; bjUtpy; cs;sKdparhkp kpl;lha;fil Kd;g[ ,Ue;J vd; kfd; rj;jk;nfl;lJ clnd ehDk; vd;Dld; ,Ue;j kw;w ,uz;L kfd;fSk; nrh;e;J me;j ,lj;jpw;FXondhk;.?16.PW5 during his cross examination stated as follows:-?,e;j rk;gtk; elf;Fk; nghJ ehd; tPl;oy; ,Ue;njd; vd;Wk; rj;jk; nfl;Lbrd;nwd; vd;W brhd;dhy; rhpjhd;.?Hence, there is no chance for PW2 to PW5 to see the occurrence.Hence, PW2 to 5 are interested witnesses.PW10 stated during his evidence that PW1 told him that on 12.11.2004 at 11.00pm, he was assaulted by two known persons with knife and he found lacerated injury of size 20x5x4 cm on the right thigh and a cut injury on the nose ofsize 1x1/2x1/2 cm and then, PW1 was referred to Tirunelveli GovernmentHospital for further treatment.PW10 found only two injuries.One contusionon the right thigh and another cut injury on the nose.But PW1 stated inEx.P1 and evidence that in the occurrence, he sustained injury on theforehead, nose, right eyebrow and left thigh.19.PW10 during his cross examination stated as follows:-?ehd; brhd;d ,uz;L fhaq;fs; jtpu mtUf;F ntW fhaq;fs; ,y;iy vd;Wbrhd;dhy; rhpjhd;.?PW13 stated during his evidence that he found one wound with two sutures onthe forehead and another wound with sutures on the right eyebrow andlacerated injury of size 2 x 1 cm on the nose and another injury with sore onthe left thigh.PW13 found injuries on the left thigh and X-ray took for leftthigh.But PW13 during his evidence stated as follows:-?,lJ gf;f bjhilvd;W Fwpg;gpl;oUf;fpnwd;. Mdhy; mijghh;g;gjw;F Mh; vd;gJnghy; bjhpfpwJ. (tyJ vd;W bjhpfpwJ).?21.At this juncture, the cross examination of the Investigating Officer(PW12) was referred.PW12 during his cross examination stated as follows:-?mUthis itj;J bew;wpapy; btl;oajhf brhy;yp cs;shh; lhf;lh; thf;FK:yj;jpy; fj;jpahy; jhf;fpajhf thf;FK:yj;jpy; brhy;ypa[s;shh; vd;W brhd;dhy;rhpjhd; Kjy; jfty; mwpf;ifapy; ,lJ fhy; nky; bjhifapy; mUthis itj;J btl;oajhfbrhy;ypa[s;shh; vd;W brhd;dhy; rhpjhd; kUj;Jth; thf;FK:yj;jpy; tyJ bjhilapy;fhak; ,Ue;jjhf brhy;ypa[s;shh;.?22.In this case, PW10 the Doctor, who gave first aid to PW1 stated thathe found only two injuries, one on the right thigh and another on the nose.But PW13, the Doctor, who gave further treatment to PW1 found injuries on theforehead, right eyebrow, nose and on the left thigh.23.It is not explained on the side of the prosecution, where PW1sustained injury in the right thigh or left thigh.PW12 during his evidence stated that the accused Dharmaraj sustained injury in theoccurrence and he was sent to Government Hospital for treatment.Thedocuments relating to the injuries sustained by the accused Dharmaraj was notproduced in this case.Hence, this court is of the considered view that thenon-production of the above document creates doubt about the prosecutioncase.24.For all the reasons stated above, this Court is of the consideredview that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonabledoubt and hence, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence are liableto be set aside.Hence, the charges against the 1st revision petitioner/A1 is abated.26.In the result, this Criminal Revision is allowed.The impugnedjudgment of conviction and sentence are set aside.2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
|
['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
21,521,500 |
The applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.359/2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 420, 406, 409, 468, 471 and 471-B of IPC registered at Police Station Hatpipliya, District Dewas.Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant submits that the earlier application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 18.10.2015 with the liberty to file regular bail before the Trial Court.However, the applicant has filed this second application for anticipatory bail as at the time of filing first application some papers were not available with the applicant.Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant further submits that presently the applicant is posted as Chief Municipal Officer at Rajgarh, District Dhar.At the relevant -: 2 :- point of time, the applicant was not posted at Karnawad.In Departmental Enquiry, the applicant has been exonerated.The case is registered on the basis of private complaint.There is no specific allegation against the applicant.He has been falsely implicated in this case.He is ready to co- operate with the investigation and abide all the conditions imposed by this Court.In such circumstances, the applicant be granted anticipatory bail.-: 2 :-On the other hand, learned Deputy Govt.Advocate for the Non-applicant/State vehemently opposes the prayer.She submits that Police Station Hatpipliya has registered a case on 08.10.2013 against the present applicant and 5 other persons.There is serious allegations against the present applicant.Earlier the applicant had filed a petition for quashment of the FIR.Criminal Case No.8366 of 2013 vide order dated 10.09.2015 dismissed the petition.Thereafter the applicant had filed first application under Section 438 of the Code which is also dismissed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 15.10.2015 -: 3 :- and thereafter for about a month this second application for anticipatory bail is filed, but there is no change in circumstances.In such circumstances, she prayed for dismissal of the application.However, as has already been observed, the said second bail application can of course be rejected even summarily when it is not based or necessitated on account of subsequent events and developments or changed circumstances.From the above pronouncement, it is clear that -: 4 :- second application for anticipatory bail can be considered only on account of subsequent events and developments or changed circumstances.In the present case earlier application was withdrawn on 15.10.2015 with the liberty that the applicant shall file regular bail application before the Trial Court.However, I have considered merits of the case.-: 4 :-The case is registered on 08.10.2013 against the applicant and 5 other persons.Thereafter the applicant had -: 5 :- filed the petition for quashment of FIR and this Court in Misc.Criminal Case No.8366 of 2013 dismissed the petition.The operative part of the order is as under :-
|
['Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
31,533,143 |
Bail Application No. 1338/2017 Page 1 of 11The complainant Sh.Gautam Khattar had lodged a written complaint against (1) Mr.Yogesh Gupta, R/o; E-1/130, Sector-16, Rohini, Delhi-110085, (2) Concerned Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank (in short PNB), Connaught Place Branch, New Delhi and (3) Mr.Narinder Jain (petitioner) under Section 420/406/467/468/471/506/120B/34 of IPC.He was allured by him to purchase his property bearing No. 752, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurugram (in short "property in question").The petitioner told the complainant that he had a dispute with one Ms.Manu Sehijpal in respect of the property in question but he was in need of money and he had applied for a loan through one Mr.Pradeep Aggarwal from PNB, which was rejected on the objection of Haryana State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corporation (in short HSIIDC).After rejection, Sh.Pradeep Aggarwal introduced the petitioner to one Mr.Yogesh Gupta, who had given him a personal loan of Rs.55,00,000/- against the original title documents of the property in question with the assurance that the documents shall be returned after the loan is repaid.The complainant further alleged that on 04.04.2016 after being allured and assured by the petitioner that the original documents shall be handed over to him on return of money, the deal to buy the property in question with the petitioner was finalized for a total sum of Rs.2,25,00,000/-.He further alleged that the petitioner then called him in his office Bail Application No. 1338/2017 Page 2 of 11 and there Mr.Yogesh Gupta admitted that the original chain of title documents were lying with him.At that time, Mr.Yogesh Gupta demanded Rs.1,00,00,000/- from the petitioner which includes principal amount and the interest.The complainant made complete payment of Rs.2,25,00,000/- to the petitioner by RTGS, who then paid a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- to Mr.Yogesh Gupta.This was also assured by the petitioner.The sale deed of the property in question was executed and registered in the name of the complainant and his brother namely Mr.Gaurav Khattar on 09.06.2016 by the petitioner after meeting out the formalities of HSIIDC.The complainant further alleged that he unsuccessfully approached Mr.At the time of arguments, learned APP submits that the role of the Branch Manager/AGM Mr.Subhash Chand Jindal, Senior Manager R.K. Kataria, Mr. Varun Narula and Chief Manager Sh.Sarabjeet Singh is being examined and the IO intends to seek opinion of the senior police officers as to whether Section 13 of of Prevention of Corruption Act is to be added/invoked.It is submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required to unearth the larger conspiracy hatched by the petitioner in collusion with Yogesh Gupta and officers of PNB.Apprehending his arrest in a case registered against him vide FIR No.0072/2017 dated 25.05.2017, PS Rajinder Nagar, Central District, Delhi under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short IPC), the petitioner has approached this court for granting him anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short Cr.PC).Reply to bail application has been filed on behalf of the prosecution.Bail Application No. 1338/2017 Page 2 of 11Yogesh Gupta and the petitioner several times to provide him the original documents.However, Yogesh Gupta failed to hand over the documents to the complainant till date.Later on the complainant came to know that Yogesh Gupta in connivance with the petitioner and the Branch Manager of PNB Bail Application No. 1338/2017 Page 3 of 11 procured a loan on the basis of original documents of the property in question in the name of firm M/s.Arihant Traders consisting of Yogesh Gupta and Pradeep Aggarwal.It is alleged that all these accused persons i.e. Petitioner, Yogesh Gupta and the concerned Branch Manager of PNB in connivance with each other and with malafide intention from the inception to cheat him, have caused wrongful loss to him and wrongful gain to themselves.Bail Application No. 1338/2017 Page 3 of 11Yogesh Gupta from whom the petitioner had taken a loan of Rs.55,00,000/- to perform the marriage of his daughter.Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submitted that Yogesh Gupta has assured to return him the original documents of the property in question but he, in collusion with the Manager of the PNB, had obtained huge amount of loan of Rs.6,40,00,000/- in the name of the firm M/s.Arihant Traders.Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submitted that Bail Application No. 1338/2017 Page 4 of 11 Yogesh Gupta had taken the petitioner to PNB, where he unknowingly signed several documents.He submitted that the petitioner had only executed the personal guarantee to secure the loan of M/s.Arihant Traders.He submitted that in order to settle the dispute with Mr.Sachit Sehijpal (Ms.He further submitted that the IO has not called Yogesh Gupta even once to join the investigation.He submitted that the petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail as no case of cheating is made out against him.Bail Application No. 1338/2017 Page 4 of 11Bail Application No. 1338/2017 Page 5 of 11It is submitted that the huge amount of Rs.6,40,00,000/- was sanctioned and disbursed on 30.09.2015 to the borrower firm M/s.The petitioner had also confirmed in writing on 22.12.2015 having created mortgage in favour of PNB.It is submitted that the Branch Manager of the PNB had sent a letter to HSIIDC on 17.11.2015 seeking its consent for creation of mortgage of the property in question by the petitioner to secure the loan in favour of M/s.She submitted that the petitioner had refused to give his specimen handwriting and signatures for the purpose of comparison.It is also submitted that as per section 311-A of Cr.PC a Magistrate is empowered to direct any person including the accused persons to give his specimen signatures or handwriting and under the provisio of section 311-A of Cr.PC, it is provided that no order shall be made under this section unless the person has at some time been arrested in connection with such investigation or proceeding.It is submitted that unless the petitioner is arrested, he cannot be directed to furnish his specimen handwriting and signatures.Bail Application No. 1338/2017 Page 6 of 119. Learned APP further submits that the photographs of the petitioner are affixed on the agreement of guarantee, which is duly signed by him.It is submitted that when the deal was finalized between the complainant and the petitioner on 04.04.2016, the original documents of title were already with the PNB since 30.09.2015 and it was falsely represented to the Bail Application No. 1338/2017 Page 7 of 11 complainant by the petitioner that the documents were with Mr.Yogesh Gupta so as to receive huge amount of Rs.2.25 crores from the complainant.Bail Application No. 1338/2017 Page 7 of 11Learned APP submitted that Yogesh Gupta is on the run after the registration of the FIR.
|
['Section 420 in 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 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
31,537,768 |
This criminal original petition has been filed underSection 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records in C.C.No.328 of 2009on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Madurai and quash the same.2.It is averred in the petition that the petitioners havebeen charge sheeted for the offence under Section 409 and 420 of I.P.C.alleging that the petitioners, who had been purchasing textile from thesecond respondent/defacto complainant failed to pay the purchase money ofRs.1,27,295/- under various bills and though the petitioners executed anagreement on 21.03.2007, agreeing to pay the said sum, has not paid theamount.Therefore, the petitioners committed offences under Section 409,415, 420 read with 120(b) of IPC.3.The learned counsel for the petitioners contends thatcommercial civil transaction has been converted into a criminal case and theoffences as alleged in the charge sheet are not made out and therefore, theproceedings as against the petitioners are liable to be quashed.4.The learned Government Advocate (criminal side) appearing forthe first respondent, per contra, contends that only after thoroughinvestigation, charge sheet has been laid and the same was also takencognizance of by the Judicial Magistrate.The offences as alleged in thecharge sheet are made out and therefore, the criminal original petition is tobe dismissed.5.No representation on behalf of the second respondent.6.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners, who aredoing textile business had been purchasing textiles from the secondrespondent on various dates in 2006 and the petitioners had failed to repayRs.1,27,295/- and though they agreed to pay the same under an agreement dated 21.03.2007, they have not paid.To attract section 409 of IPC, there wouldbe an entrustment of property and breach of trust with respect to thatproperty.Here, the petitioners purchased the property and they have notpaid part of purchase money.This does not attract the offence underSection 409 of I.P.C.7.Nowhere, it is stated that the petitioners either deceived orfraudulently or dishonestly induced the defacto complainant to deliver theproducts.Even according to the prosecution, the petitioners had beenpurchasing the textiles several times and finally, they failed to pay theamount, which is due to the defacto complainant.As rightly pointed out bythe learned counsel for the petitioner, it is only civil nature.Failure tocomply with the agreement entered into between the parties does not attractany criminal offence.Therefore, this Court is of the considered view thatthe offence as alleged by the prosecution in the charge sheet are not madeout and therefore, the proceedings in C.C.No.328 of 2009 is liable to bequashed against the petitioners.8.Accordingly, this criminal original petition is allowed.Theproceedings in C.C.No.328 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial MagistrateNo.1, Madurai are quashed against the petitioners.1.The Judicial Magistrate No.1, DindigulThe Sub Inspector of Police, CCB, Madurai City Madurai District.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai..
|
['Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
31,538,737 |
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.This is the repeat bail application of the applicant, whereas his previous bail application was dismissed vide order dated 18.2.2015 on merits.The applicant is in custody since 28.12.2014 relating to crime No.810/2014 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Damoh for offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-II of IPC.
|
['Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
31,546,619 |
(iii) The applicant shall report concerned police station once in a month on every first Saturday between 11:00 a.m. to 01.00 p.m. till further orders;(iv) Bail Application stands disposed of.(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.) ::: Uploaded on - 15/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2020 08:22:04 :::::: Uploaded on - 15/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2020 08:22:04 :::
|
['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
31,547,524 |
Heard on this first application for bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of petitioner Omprakash in Crime No.30/2017 registered by P.S. Kotwali District Balaghat under sections 419, 420 & 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.As per the prosecution case, petitioner Omprakash and co-accused Abhinav Sonekar took three mobile phones of HTC company valued at Rs.49,000/- from the shop of the complainant under pretext that Superintendent of Police wants to see those phones.They also arranged for another co-accused namely Vishal Jamulkar to speak to the complainant impersonating for Superintendent of Police.Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that co-accused Vishal Jamulkar was released by the trial Court on bail by order dated 01.02.2017; however, the application of the petitioner Omprakash and co-accused Abhinav Sonekar was dismissed because the investigation was going on.The charge sheet has now been filed and by order dated 27.02.2017, co-accused Abhinav Sonekar has also been released by the trial Court.It has been prayed that on the ground of parity, petitioner Omprakash is also entitled to be released on bail.Learned panel lawyer for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the application.Consequently, this first application for bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of petitioner Omprakash, is allowed.It is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- with one solvent surety in the same amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Court for his appearance before the trial Court on all dates fixed in the case and for complying with the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Certified Copy as per rules.(C V SIRPURKAR) JUDGE b
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
31,558,056 |
[a] The deceased in this case was one Kavitha.The accused and the deceased had fallen in love and married 11 years before the occurrence.Out of the said wedlock, they got two children aged 9 and 4 years respectively.The accused was working in a private cotton mill known as Jaihind Spinning Mill at Puduchathiram Village.The deceased was going for coolie work.They were living at Devender Colony, Navanee.P.W.1 is the mother of the deceased.She was living along with her husband and others in the opposite house.The accused had, in due course, developed suspicion over the fidelity of the deceased.When the accused questioned the same, there arose frequent quarrel between the accused and the deceased.On many occasions, P.W.1 and her husband had come to the house of the deceased and mediated between them.[b] 13.04.2011, was election day.The accused, therefore, did not go for work and he remained at his house.The deceased had gone out to cast her vote and then she returned home by about 4.15 p.m. The accused asked her as to why she was behaving in such a manner to bring disrepute to him, by her adulterous life.The deceased retarded calling the accused as impotent.She further scolded him that he was not capable of leading a marital life.She also ridiculed him using abusive language.Provoked by these words of the deceased, the accused took out an koduval which was kept in the house for cutting wood and cut the deceased on her neck.The occurrence was witnessed by P.W.4, who is the sister of the deceased, who stayed along with the deceased.The accused ran away from the scene of occurrence.[c] P.W.4 raised hue and cry.P.W.1 rushed to the house of the deceased.P.W.6 also came to the house of the deceased.When they entered into the house, they found the deceased lying with cut injuries on her neck and hands.The deceased was dead.P.W.11, the then Special Sub Inspector of Police, on receipt of the said complaint under Ex.P19 is the FIR.Then, he forwarded Exs.[d] P.W.13 took up the case for investigation.She proceeded to the place of occurrence and prepared an Observation Mahazar and a Rough Sketch in the presence of P.W.5 and another witness.She recovered the blood stained earth and sample earth from the place of occurrence.Then, she conducted inquest on the body of the deceased and prepared Ex.P3 is the Post-mortem Certificate.[e] During the course of investigation, on 14.04.2011, at 11.15 a.m., P.W.13 arrested the accused, on being produced by P.W.7, the Village Administrative Officer.According to P.W.7, when he was the then Village Administrative Officer of Navanee Village, on 14.04.2011 at 11.00 a.m., the accused appeared before him and wanted to confess.Then, P.W.7, along with his report, took the accused and produced him before P.W.13 at 11.15 a.m. P.W.13 arrested the accused in the presence of P.W.7 and another witness.On such arrest, he made a voluntary confession, in which he disclosed the place where he had hidden the koduval and a lungi.In pursuance of the same, he took the police and the witnesses to the place of hide out and produced the blood stained lungi [M.O.4] and also koduval [M.O.1].P.W.13 recovered the same under a mahazar.[f] Then, on returning to the police station, P.W.13 forwarded the accused to Court for judicial remand and handed over the material objects also to the Court.(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.NAGAMUTHU, J.) The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.47 of 2012 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Namakkal.He stood charged for offences under Sections 302 and 506(ii) IPC.By judgment dated 19.12.2012, the trial Court convicted him under both charges and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years for the offence under Section 302 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence under Section 506(ii) IPC.P23, the Inquest Report.She made arrangements to take photographs of the dead body and the place of occurrence.Then, she forwarded the body for post-mortem.P.W.2 conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 14.04.2011 at 11.00 a.m. He found the following injuries:An incised wound 7 x 1 x 1.5 cm on right temporal region at head across the open part of external ear.An incised wound 15 x 1 .5 x 3 cm extending from right zygomatic region running below the right deeper muscles, small blood vessels and nerves.An incised wound 10 x 1.5 x 2 cms below the left ear lobule extending from mastoid region to parietal region.An incised wound involving whole of the right side neck and post aspect of the neck running across the mid line and extending on to the left side of the neck below the level of thyroid cartilage involving all major vessels (jugulars and carotids), nerves and muscles of the neck on right side and trachea, oesophagus and major blood vessels (carotids and jugulars), nerves and most of the neck muscles on left side, only a (connecting the) strip of skin (5 cms) and part of neck muscle (sternomastoid) connecting the neck with throacic region of art. lateral aspect on post shivering spinal cords into two parts cut ends of both ends of trachea, oesophagus, spiral cord are clear cut regularAn incised wound 20 x 1 x 1.5 cms on left shoulder and extending on the left scapular region.An incised wound 1 inch about the right elbow joint live, involving whole thickness of the right arm involving muscles, blood vessels, nerves and right humus bone cut into two, only portion of skin and muscle connecting the upper portion with lower portion on the medial side.An incised wound about 7 x 1 .5 cms on the ulnar side of the right forearm about 4 cms above the left wrist joint, involving muscles of forearm, nerves and blood vessels on ulnar side and ulnar bone if fractured.An incised would 8 x 2 cms exposing metacorpal bones and deeper muscles, tendons on the dorsum of the right hand on radial side.An incised wound on the dorsum of the left hand extends from 3rd web space turns across the dorsum towards the writ and extending into the pulmar aspect and ends at the 3rd web space with loss of thumb, index finger, and middle finger-which was present separately nearby.All cut end margins are regular.Dark, black clotted blood present on the margins."He opined that the death of the deceased was due to shock and haemorrhage due to the cut injuries found on the body and the said cut injuries could have been caused by a koduval [M.O.1].She recovered the blood stained cloth from the body of the deceased and forwarded the same also to the Court.As requested by her, the material objects were sent for chemical examination, which revealed that there were human blood stains on the material objects, including the koduval.On completing the investigation, he laid charge sheet against the accused.Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed charges as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgment.The accused denied the same.In order to prove the case of the prosecution, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 13 witnesses were examined and 26 documents were exhibited, besides 8 material objects.Out of the said witnesses, P.W.1 - the mother of the deceased has stated that on hearing the hue and cry raised by P.W.4, when she went to the house of the deceased, she found the deceased lying with injuries in her neck and hands.When she reached the house of the deceased, according to her, the accused was found fleeing away from the scene of occurrence.P.W.4 is an eye witness who has stated about the entire occurrence.P.W.5 has spoken about the Observation Mahazar and Rough Sketch prepared at the place of occurrence and also recovery of blood stained earth and sample earth from the place of occurrence.P.W.6 has stated that on hearing about the occurrence, he rushed to the house of the deceased and found the dead body.P.W.2 has spoken about the post-mortem conducted on the body of the deceased. P.W.3, Assistant Director, Regional Forensic Science Laboratory has spoken about the blood stains found on the material objects.P.W.8 has spoken about the photographs taken by him at the place of occurrence.P.Ws.9 and 10 - Police Constables have spoken about the FIR taken to the Court and the dead body taken to the hospital respectively.P.W.12 has spoken about the statement of P.W.4 recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. P.W.13 has spoken about the investigation done and the Final Report filed by her.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the same as false.However, he did not choose to examine any witness nor he did mark any document in his favour.His defence was a total denial.We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and we have also perused the records carefully.The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that P.W.4 would not have witnessed the occurrence at all.According to him, P.W.4 was residing along with P.W.1 and therefore, her presence at the place of occurrence is highly unbelievable.Though attractive, this argument does not inspire the confidence of this Court.P.W.4 cannot be stated to be a chance witness.After all, she is the sister of the deceased.Her house is situated just opposite to the house of the deceased.Thus, the presence of P.W.4 cannot be doubted at all.Further, P.W.4 had no axe to grind against the accused.She has very vividly spoken about the entire occurrence.Apart from that, the prosecution relies on the extra judicial confession given by the accused on 14.04.2011 at 10.00 a.m. to P.W.7, the Village Administrative Officer.The learned counsel would submit that the accused would not have chosen a stranger to make such an extra judicial confession.In our considered view, this argument cannot be accepted, because the accused, for his own reasons, had chosen the Village Administrative Officer to make the extra judicial confession.As a matter of fact, in the extra judicial confession itself, he has explained as to why he had chosen the Village Administrative Officer to confess.M.Os.1 and 4 were accordingly recovered on being produced by the accused.M.Os.1 and 4 contained human blood.Thus, the recovery of M.Os.1 and 4 also duly corroborates the extra judicial confession.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
31,558,487 |
The first case has been registered in Cr.No.68 of 2013 under Sections147, 148, 341, 427 and 302 IPC on the file of C2 Subramaniapuram PoliceStation, Madurai.The second adverse case has been registered in Cr.No.142 of2012 for the offence under Section 302, 201 IPC r/w 34 IPC on the file of B4Keeraithurai Police Station.The third adverse case has been registered inCr.No.749 of 2010 for the offences under Sections 392 r/w 397 and 506 (ii)IPC.The second adverse case has ended in acquittal.The first adverse caseis under investigation and the third adverse case is pending trial, when theorder of Detention came to be passed.The ground case came to be registeredon 07.01.2014, in Cr.No.3/2014 for the offences under Sections 147, 341, 323,365 IPC @ 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 387, 364(A), 307 IPC on the file ofRameswaram Temple Police Station.The order of detention has been assailed on the following grounds.2.7.Further, the detenu has not been furnished with the copy of thecomplaint alleged to have been given by the complainant P.Murugan in theground case, in Cr.No.3/2014 and it has caused prejudice to the detenu inmaking an effective representation and hence, the Detention order is liableto be quashed on that ground also.2.8.The booklet furnished to the detenu namely the document relied uponby the Detaining Authority, is not legible and readable, more particularlypage Nos.2, 4, 35, 36, 37, 65, 66, 67, 68, 81 to 86 and hence, the detenu isprejudiced.Details of the documents, furnished to the detenu, have beendone as an empty formality.The above dates and eventshave clearly show that perception and conception are in favour of the detenueand that the Detaining Authority has passed the order of Detention withoutperusing the affidavit of the Sponsoring Authority, as well as the booklet.2.10.Photographs of the accused has been published in the newspaper andplaced in the booklet of the documents served on the detenue, and that thesame has been placed before the Detaining Authority.The same is notpermissible, without the permission of Magistrate under Section 5 ofIdentification of Prisoners Act, 1920 and that the same has not even lookedinto nor any clarification has been sought for, by the Detaining Authority,which shows non application of mind.Hence, the order of Detention is liableto be quashed.Based on the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent,Mr.C.Ramesh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that thedetention order has been passed, after arriving at a subjective satisfaction,that there is compelling necessity to detain the detenu, in order to preventhim from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of Public Order.The detenu came to adverse notice habitually and his activities have beenfound prejudicial to the maintenance of Public Order, which has been wellestablished by the documents and materials supplied to the detenu.
|
['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
31,559,064 |
The brief facts, leading to this case are as follows:-(i) The case of the prosecution is that on 10.05.2007, at about 07.15 p.m., when Anitha (P.W.2) was in her house at Seeni Mohammed Illam, Mankatti Theppakkulam, Melur, at around 19.50 hours, due to previous enmity, the accused with an intention to do away with her life, trespassed into her house with knife, scolded her in filthy language and caused injury and during the said attack when Anitha's mother/ P.W.1 had tried to save P.W.2 from the accused, she also sustained injury.This appeal has been preferred by the appellant to set aside the conviction and sentence passed in S.C.No.115 of 2008 dated 18.11.2008 by Additional District and Sessions Court (Fast Track Court No.2), Madurai.Thereafter, P.W.1 & P.W.2 were taken away to the hospital.On receiving information about the incident, the respondent police went to the hospital and recorded the statement of P.W.2, based on which, the respondent police registered a case against the accused in Crime No.295/ 2007 for the punishable under Sections 448 & 307 2/14http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.A.(MD)No.522 of 2008 IPC and the same was taken on file in PRC.No.2 of 2008 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Melur.Thereafter, committed to the Court of Session S.C.No.115 of 2008 and the same was made over to the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, No.2, Madurai for disposal.(ii) The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, No. 2, Madurai, framed charges against the accused for the offences under Sections 448, 307 (2 counts), 342 and 324 IPC.iii) In order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.12, marked 13 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.iv) On completion of the evidence of the accused was questioned u/s 313 Cr.P.C., on the incriminating circumstances made out against him in the evidence rendered by the witnesses and he decided the same as false.Neither oral nor documentary evidence was produced on the side of the defense.3/14http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.A.(MD)No.522 of 2008The trial Court, after hearing the arguments and considering the entire material records placed before it found the accused guilty and sentenced him as under Section 448 IPC, the accused is sentenced to undergo one year RI and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment.For the offense under Section 307 IPC to undergo 5 years RI and also to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- in default to undergo 6 months RI, for the offense under Section 324 IPC to under go 1 year RI and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to under to 3 months SI.The sentences of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently.Out of the total fine amount of Rs.6,000/- , a sum of Rs.5,000/- was directed to be paid to the victim/P.W.2 as compensation under Section 357 of the Cr.P.C. This accused has also granted the benefit of set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. Aggrieved against the said conviction and sentence, the accused has filed the appeal before this Court.4/14http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.A.(MD)No.522 of 2008(i) The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.Further, he would submit that P.W.1 and P.W.2 are the main witnesses, but the respondent police had recorded the statement only from P.W.1 and no statement was recorded from P.W.2 and no reason has been stated by the respondent police for not recording the statement of P.W.2, which creates a doubt as to the availability of P.W.2 at the scene of occurrence as putforth by the prosecution.Based on the P.W.1 statement, the respondent police registered a case against the accused.(ii) Further, he submitted that the occurrence took place at 08.50 p.m. The First Information Report was registered at 09.00 p.m, on the same day itself, whereas the same has been sent to the learned Judicial Magistrate, only at 12.50 a.m. The police station and the Magistrate Court are located in the same premises.The delay in sending the printed FIR to the Magistrate Court has not been properly explained by the prosecution, which also casts a serious doubt in the theory projected by the prosecution.5/14http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.A.(MD)No.522 of 2008iii) Further, the prosecution has not properly explained the injuries sustained by the appellant.iv) The statement of the Doctor/P.W10, who had given treatment to P.W.2, was also not recorded.v) X-ray and scan report were not marked in accordance with the EvidenceAfter the time of occurrence, the respondent police had not examined near by witnesses and had not produced any independent witnesses.Vii) It is further submitted that though P.W.4 in his evidence has stated that he went to the place of occurrence, the accused was there, however P.W.6 in his evidence has stated that after committing the offence, the door was broken and the accused ran away from that house and while trying to jump over the stack of hay, sustained 6/14http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.A.(MD)No.522 of 2008 lacerated injuries by hitting the iron fence.Further, there is material contradiction between the testimony of the eye witnesses and the medical evidence and the witnesses.Who have been examined to speak about the injuries have not corroborate the prosecution case.viii) It is further submitted that the testimony of P.W.5 supports the case of the defense rather than the case of the prosecution.The knife/M.O.3, which is alleged to have been used was not sent to the finger print expert to find out the presence of the finger prints.Had the knife been subjected to finger printing, the finger prints on the knife would have strengthened the prosecution case and the non-subject of the knife for finger printing analysis raises a serious doubt into the theory projected by the prosecution.Very many discrepancies and contradictions galore in the theory projected 7/14http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.A.(MD)No.522 of 2008 by the prosecution and the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt and therefore the benefit of the same should erux to the accused and he is entitled for an acquittal.(i) Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) would submit that the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt.(ii) It is submitted that P.W.1 and P.W.2 are eye witnesses/ injured witness and they have corroborated each other testimony of all material particulars.P.W.4 and P.W.6 are neighbours and they are independent witnesses.They have clearly deposed about the accused coming out of the house and escaping and the subsequent apprehending of the accused.Since, P.W.1 sustained only a minor injury, she was not admitted into the hospital, but, P.W.2 sustained grievous injury and she was admitted in the hospital and took a treatment for more than 12 days as inpatient.8/14http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.A.(MD)No.522 of 2008(iii) P.W.4 and P.W.6 have supported the prosecution case.Their testimony that the accused escaped from the house of P.W.2 and jumped in the stack of hay and during the said act he sustained lacerated injuries by hitting against the iron fence is cogent and corroborate each other.(iV) The trial Court, on proper appreciation of the evidence placed before it, both oral and documentary has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused and therefore no interference is narrated with the findings recorded by the trial Court.Heard the arguments of the learned counsel on either side and perused the entire materials available on record.It is the case of the prosecution, that on the date of occurrence, i.e., 10.05.2007, P.W.2 was in her house, at that time, the accused entered into her house and quarrelled with her.When P.W.1 intervened to save P.W.2 from the attack, she also 9/14http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.A.(MD)No.522 of 2008 sustained injury.P.W.1 lodged a complaint before the respondent police, wherein after the criminal machinery was set in motion.A reading of the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, who are injured witnesses, as well as testimonies of the other eye witnesses clearly prove the specific overt act of the accused.The evidence of P.W.1 finds full corroboration with the testimony of P.W.2 on all material particulars.Further, the evidence of P.Ws.4 & 6 clearly show that they have seen the accused which he tried to escape from the scene of occurrence and the further fact that he was apprehended by P.W.4 and handed over the police.Further, the evidence of P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.6, P.W.9 and P.W.10, corroborate each other with regard to the injury sustained by the accused.Therefore, it is clear that the prosecution, through cogent and convicting evidence have proved the case against the accused.Further, it is to be pointed out that the defense inspite of cross examination of the various witnesses was not able to elicit any testimony in favour of the accused.10/14http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.A.(MD)No.522 of 2008The prosecution through oral documentary and independent testimony has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and, in the absence of any material contradiction, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the conviction passed by the trial Court.Insofar as the delay in the sending of the FIR to Court, a perusal of the records reveal that it has reached the Court well within time and no delay, as advanced on the side of the appellant could be attributed.Further, the materials available on record also reveal not only the motive for the accused to commit the crime, but the trespass of the accused into the house of P.W.2 and attacking P.W.1 & P.W.2 has also been proved beyond an iota of doubt.For all the reasons aforesaid, this Court finds no reason to interfere into the conviction rendered by the trial Court.Insofar as the sentence is concerned, this Court is in agreement with the sentence of imprisonment awarded under Section s 448, 324 & 342 IPC.However, in the overall facts and circumstance of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the sentence of 5 years Rigorous Imprisonment awarded under Section 307 IPC could be reduced to three years in the interest of justice.11/14http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.A.(MD)No.522 of 2008Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed, modifying the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the accused/appellant u/s 307 IPC from 5 years to 3 years.22.06.2019 Index: Yes / No Internet: Yes / No dss 12/14http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.A.(MD)No.522 of 20081.The Additional District and Sessions Court (Fast Track Court No.2), Madurai.2.The Inspector of Police, Melur Police Station, Madurai District.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.13/14http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.A.(MD)No.522 of 2008 P.VELMURUGAN,J., dss CRL.A.(MD)No.522 of 2008 22.06.2019
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
31,559,097 |
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD COURT NO. 50 CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 2019 OF 2013 Revisionist : Saurabh Jain Versus Opposite Party - C.B.I., S.C.-II, New Delhi Counsel for revisionist : Sri Viresh Mishra, Sr.Assisted by Sri Ram Milan Mishra, Adv.471 IPC and u/s 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against the revisionist and other co-accused.Application 236Kha/1 to 236Kha/16 was filed on behalf of the revisionist for his discharge u/s 239 Cr.P.C.The revisionist has annexed the FIR and the charge-sheet submitted by the opposite party with the revision.
|
['Section 409 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.
|
315,677 |
The sentence imposed wasrestricted to the period already undergone, which was about 2 years andfine of Rs. 15,000 which, if deposited, was directed to be paid ascompensation to the widow of Sarnam Singh (hereinafter referred to as 'thedeceased') and in her absence to other dependents and heirs of thedeceased.On 8.4.1981 Devi Singh (PW-1) with his sister Sushilabai (PW-3), hissister's husband and elder brother Maharaj Singh went to bus stand ofvillage Barod to see off Sushilabai and her husband, who were going by bus.At that time, all the six accused reached there with different weapons intheir hands.Accused Ghanshyam Singh had a gun; Sitaram had a farsa andHarnam Singh and Diwan Singh had lathis.They all surrounded Devi Singh(PW-1) and jointly assaulted him.Sitaram gave a farsa blow on the backsideof his head.Amar Singh gave a lathi blow on his head which, however, fellon the hand.When he raised a cry for help, Ghanshyam Singh then fiired athim but the bullet missed.Hearing the alarm, Hanumant Singh (PW-4), fatherof Devi Singh, deceased Sarnam Singh who was his uncle, and Jaswant Singh(PW-5) came on the spot.Accused Ghanshyam Singh then fired at JaswantSingh and he received injury on the arm.He fired two shots thereafterwhich hit Sarnam Singh on his leg and abdomen.Harbir Singh gave a farsablow on leg of Hanumant Singh (PW-4).Udham Singh (PW-12), Jagannath andBanjara were at that time at motor-stand and they tried to save theassault.In default of payment of amount of fine, the default stipulationwas further imprisonment of two years.Six persons including accused Ghanshyam faced trial for allegedly havingcommitted offences punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 149 IPC,Section 148 IPC, Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC.While therespondent-Ghanshyam Singh was found guilty of offence punishable udnerSections 302, and 307 read with Sections 148 and 149, other accused personswere convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC.They were alsoconvicted under Sections 148 and 307 read with Section 149 IPC.Varioussentences were imposed.All the six accused persons filed appeals beforethe High Court.As accused no. 6 Diwan Singh expired during the pendency ofthe appeal, it was held that the same stood abated so far as he isconcerned.Information was lodged at the police station.Injured persons weresent for medical treatment.Subsequently, Sarnam Singh breathed his last.On completion of investigation charge sheet was placed.Accused personspleaded innocence and false implication due to strained relationship.Theyclaimed to have been assaulted by deceased and his companions.The trialCourt convicted and sentenced the accused as indicated supra.Accusedpersons challenged the conviction and sentence.It was noted that there were two parts of theincident.In the first part it was noted that when Devi Singh ran away fromthe bus stand to save himself and raised an alarm, accused-Ghanshyam Singhcame on the spot with his gun and fired.In the second part, there was freefight between the parties.He was acquitted of other charges.It needs to be noted that though the High Court had held that the appealagainst Diwan Singh had abated, yet he was made a party in the specialleave petition.But that is really of no consequence as the special leavepetition has been dismissed so far as he and other accused 2 to 5 areconcerned.He referred to the factual background and findings to substantiateboth the above pleas.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
31,569,701 |
[1] Appeal is partly allowed.[2] The Judgment and order of conviction of appellant is maintained, but the sentence is reduced to make it for the period which he has already undergone and to pay the fine of Rs.2,00,000/-.[3] The appellant is to be released from Jail forthwith.[4] Bail bond of Rs.15,000/- [Rupees Fifteen Thousand] with one surety in the like amount are to be taken from him as directed under Section 437 [A] of I.P.C., which will remain in force for a period of six months.[5] The amount already deposited as fine is to be kept and continued in the name of son of the parties as already observed.::: Uploaded on - 21/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2018 01:59:41 :::this Court for respondent No.2 is quantified as Rs.5,000/- [Rupees Five Thousand], which is to be paid by the High Court Legal Services Authority.[SMT.VIBHA KANKANWADI,J.] [T.V. NALAWADE, J.]SRM/21/09/18 ::: Uploaded on - 21/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2018 01:59:41 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2018 01:59:41 :::
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
3,157,595 |
1 15.1.2019 (04) Partly allowed md.(04)Bappa Chakraborty and another ... Petitioners Mr. Biswajit Hazra, Mr. Arif Mahammad Khan .. for the petitioners Mr. Madhusudan Sur, A.P.P., Mr. Dipankar Paramanick .. for the State The petitioners seek anticipatory bail in connection with Burwan Police Station Case No. 343 of 2018 dated 18.09.2018 under Sections 448/325/307 of the Indian Penal Code and subsequently added Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.The State produces some of the eye-witness statements from which it appears that the principal accused is one Bapi Chakraborty, and the first petitioner herein, Bappa, Bapi's brother, may have joined with his brother to commit the assault.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioners subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Suvra Ghosh, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J. ) 2
|
['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
31,580,196 |
This Criminal Revision is directed against the judgment of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tuticorin, in Cr.A.No.37 of 2014, dated 20.08.2014, confirming the judgment of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tuticorin, in C.C.No.79 of 2012, dated 16.03.2014.http://www.judis.nic.in 22.The case of the prosecution is that on 03.09.2011 at 9.30 pm, when the de-facto complainant along with Ambika, Vijaya, Thamilarasi, Sathya, Kaleeswari and others were walking on the service road leading to the Harbour near Diomand Container Yard, the accused drove the Bajaj Pulser motor cycle TN-37-BC-1323, while one Arunkumar travelling as a pillion rider, in a rash and negligent manner and hit behind them.In that process, all got grievous injuries and after three days Tamilarasi died at Thiraviam Orthopaedic Hospital at Nagercoil.The Inspector of Police attached to Theremal Nagar Police Station, Tuticorin has a final report under Sections, 279, 337 (5 counts), 338 and 304(A) IPC against the accused examining the witnesses.3.In the trial court, 16 witnesses were examined and 18 Exhibits were marked.When the accused was questioned about the incriminating circumstances, he denied the same.The trial court convicted the revision petitioner for the offences under Sections 279, 337 (5 counts), 338 and 304(A) IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo 1 month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 279 IPC; for the offence under Section 337 IPC, sentenced him to undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment for each count ( 5 counts) and imposed a fine of Rs.500/- for each count (5 counts); for the offence under Section 338 IPC, sentenced him to undergo 6 months of rigorous imprisonmenthttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo 1 month simple imprisonment and for the offence under Section 304(A) IPC sentenced him to undergo 2 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment and the sentences were directed to run concurrently.Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court, the revision petitioner filed an appeal in C.A.No.37 of 2014, which was heard by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tuticorin.The first appellate Court had also confirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court.Hence, this criminal revision.4.The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish the ingredients required for all the offences with which he stood charged and convicted him for the said offences and none of the witnesses have spoken that the accused has driven the vehicle either rashly or negligently and there is no specific allegation of negligence as against the accused in driving the vehicle and the eye witnesses are interested witnesses and the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and the accused is entitled to acquittal and prays that the criminal revision may be allowed.5.On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondent/State submitted that the both the courts below appreciated the evidence in a proper manner and believed the evidence of the eye witnesses and having regard to the nature of the offences, convicted the revision petitioner for rash and negligent driving of the vehicle and passed proper sentence, which does not require any interference by this court and the accused is not entitled for acquittal and prays that the criminal revision may be dismissed.6.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.7.The main contention raised on the side of the petitioner/ accused is that there was no evidence for rash and negligent driving on the part of the petitioner/accused and there is no corroborative evidence to show that the accused drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and prays that the criminal revision has to be allowed.8.In this case, PW1 to PW5 are the injured persons.PW1 gave Ex.P1 complaint.PW1 in his complaint stated that on 03.09.2011 at 09.30 pm, when he along with Ambika, Vijaya, Thamilarasi, Sathya, Kaleeswari and others were walking on the Service Road leading to Harbour near Diamond Container Yard, the accused drove his vehicle in ahttp://www.judis.nic.in 5 rash and negligent manner and dashed against the above persons and as a result of which, they sustained injuries and then, he went to the police station and gave Ex.P1 complaint.9.PW1 in his evidence stated that on 03.09.2011 at 09.30 pm, when he along with Ambika, Vijaya, Thamilarasi, Sathya, Kaleeswari and others walking on the Service Road leading to Harbour near Diamond Container Yard, the accused drove his vehicle in a speedy manner and dashed against the above persons and due to it, they sustained injuries and then, he went to the police station and gave Ex.P1 complaint.10.PW2 to PW5 deposed that on 03.09.2011, when they were walking on the Service Road leading to Harbour near Diamond Container Yard, the accused drove his vehicle in a speedy manner and dashed against them and they sustained injuries.PW2 to PW5 have not stated that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused.11.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused submitted that the accident occurred only due to the mechanical defects in the offending vehicle and hence, the accused is not responsible for the accident.PW6 deposed that the accident has not occurred due to the mechanical defect and the offending vehicle TN-37-BC-1323 was examined only on 25.11.2011 i.e., after the delay of 2-1/2 months from the date of accident.Further, PW6 in his cross examination stated that he did not specify the conditions of rear and front brakes separately.It is to be noted that PW6 has not inspected the offending vehicle on the date of the occurrence, but he inspected the vehicle after two and half months from the date of accident.Hence, it is not possible for him to come to the conclusion that by whose negligence, the accident was occurred.“19.In State of Karnataka vs. Sathish (1998)8 SCC 493), in a road accident where the accused was prosecuted under Section 304-A IPC, one of the witness had stated that the bus drive came driven the bus at a high speed.The Hon'ble Apex Court held that it would not satisfy the requirement of the driver driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner as required under Section 304-A IPC and acquitted the accused.”None of the witnesses examined by the prosecution could give any indication, even approximately, as to what they meant by "high speed"."High speed"Review Petition No. 1317 of 2010 dated 4.3.2016 (Karnataka High Court)}, the Karnataka High Court held as under:“In this view of the matter, both the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court have not assessed the oral and documentary evidence in right perspective.Both the Courts should have navigated through the evidence of material witnesses cautiously.Glaring inconsistencies have been brushed aside as minor variations.They have adopted wrong approach to the real state of affairs and have not properlyhttp://www.judis.nic.in 10 scanned the evidence.Both the Courts have forgotten that the initial burden was on the prosecution to establish the charge of rashness or negligence beyond reasonable doubt.Thus, the judgments of both the Courts suffer from perversity and illegality.Hence, this Court is of the opinion that the revision petition is to be allowed.”15.On coming to the instant case on hand, the prosecution witnesses have not stated that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused.For all the reasons stated above, this court is of the considered view that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.16.In the result, this Criminal Revision is allowed.The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence are set aside.The revision petitioner/accused is acquitted of the charge levelled against him.The bail bond if any executed by him shall stand cancelled and the fine amount if any paid by him shall be refunded to him.07.08.2019 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No erhttp://www.judis.nic.in 11 To,1.The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thoothukudi.2.The II Additional District Judge, Thoothukudi.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in 12 T.KRISHNAVALLI,J er Judgment made in Crl.R.C(MD)No.431 of 2014 07.08.2019http://www.judis.nic.in 13 304(A) IPC - ALLOWED14.In the result, this Criminal Revision is allowed.
|
['Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
31,580,376 |
Present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A Sub Sec. (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the order dated 25.04.2019 passed by Special Additional Judge (Atrocities), Gwalior, whereby the application of the appellant under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking bail has been rejected.Prosecution story, in short, is that on 20/04/2019, complainant was coming back to his village by his motorcycle from village Dang Karera after attending the marriage ceremony of relative, as he near at Government School, the present applicants and other co-accused THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A-3871-2019 (RAJ PRATAP SINGH PARMAR AND ANR.Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) persons obstructed his path and started hurling abusive language also stated that "Chamara wale bada neta banta hai".When he stopped from using filthy language.Co-accused Narendra Singh and Raghwendra caused injury to him by stone.Due to which, he received injury on his head and elbow.The allegation against the present applicants is that they have assaulted him by kicks and fits and also threatened that if he lodges the complaint, he shall face dire consequences.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are aged about 28 & 26 years respectively and they have been falsely implicated in the present case.Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State opposed the prayer made by the appellants and prayed for dismissal of THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A-3871-2019 (RAJ PRATAP SINGH PARMAR AND ANR.
|
['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
31,582,376 |
In Re: - An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 06/01/2020 in connection with Chandrakona P.S. Case No. 242 of 2018 dated 11/08/2018 under Sections 143/149/447/323/325/307/379/427/354B/ 506 of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of: Suman Chowdhury ....petitioner.In the event the petitioner fails to comply with the conditions as enshrined hereinbefore, it is open to the trial court 2 to cancel the bail without any further reference to this Court.The application for bail is, thus, disposed of.(Suvra Ghosh, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
31,582,473 |
Heard on I.A. No. 12310/2014, second application for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.Appellant has been convicted by the trial Court under sections 365 (on two counts), 366 (on two counts) and 376 (1) (on two counts) of IPC and sentenced to RI for 3 years with fine of Rs.1000/- (on two counts), RI for 4 years with fine of Rs.2000/- (on two counts) and RI for 10 years with fine of Rs.5000/- (on two counts) respectively with default stipulations.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that previously appellant has been charge sheeted under sections 363, 365, 366 of IPC and during trial second charge sheet was filed with the allegation that appellant has committed rape on two minor prosecutrixes.It is further submitted that during trial both the charge sheets were amalgamated and appellant tried and convicted as mentioned hereinabove.It is submitted that in first information report of previous charge sheet and statements recorded u/s 161 of Cr.P.C, nothing has been alleged by the prosecutrixes in regard to fact that they were subjected to rape.On recovery of both the prosecutrixes, their statements were recorded before the SDM wherein they have not stated anything in regard to committing rape on them.All these facts were brought in cross-examination of both the prosecutrixes but trial Court has lightly brushed aside aforesaid facts at the time of recording the conclusion in regard to committing rape on prosecutrixes and thereby, trial Court has committed illegality in appreciating the evidence on record therefore, the conviction recorded u/s 376 of IPC was unwarranted.Under such circumstances, he prays for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.Remaining jail sentence of appellant is hereby suspended and it is directed that he shall be released on bail subject to depositing the fine amount and furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 35,000/- (Rs. Thirty Five Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 6th of May, 2015 and on such subsequent dates as may be fixed by the registry in this regard, which shall not be less than the period of 6 months till final disposal of this appeal.List the case for final hearing in due course.Certified copy as per rules.(G.S. SOLANKI)
|
['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
3,158,566 |
When complainant rushed, then Immu and other co-accused stopped him and gave beating and also snatched his chain.This is first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. The applicants have been arrested in Crime No.370/2014 registered at Police Station, Kotwali, Guna, District Guna, under Sections 341, 294, 323,506-B, 327, 34 of IPC.As per the prosecution case, complainant alongwith Aditya was standing near Masjid, the applicants and co-accused came there and started abusing.Israil gave Danda blow on the leg of the complainant.They have not committed any offence.Trial will take some time.Therefore, the applicants be released on bail.The applicants will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; andA copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.as per rules.(D.K.Paliwal) Judge Patil
|
['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
31,585,893 |
The petitioner in his petition, further submits that no reason has been assigned by the ... 4 ... M.Cr.In reply to the petition on behalf of the respondent/State, it has been submitted that the crime branch was well within its right to raid the officer of petitioner upon receipt of a credible secret information to the effect that the petitioner company has cheated and received many individuals causing financial losses to them by running the aforesaid investment adviser business.When the crime branch raided the office, no documents pertaining to registration with SEBI KYC and other such documents were available.The petitioner was absconding and hence, investigation was initiated in the matter.The statements of various employees were obtained who gave out the statements that such employees were directed to change their names and talk to various customers encouraging them to invest in shares.These employees were only under graduates who are not qualified technically or otherwise to be financial advisers to offer financial advise to any one therefore the chances of mishandling of funds of various investors could be ruled out.In the reply, it is further submitted that as per the Regulations of SEBI termed "Investor Adviser Guidelines, 2013", the ... 5 ... M.Cr.C.No.23883/2020 qualifications of a investment adviser has been specified and none of the employees having qualification to indulge in investment advise to the customers.During the investigation, it was found that some of the employees who are offering investment advise to customers did not hold NISM certificate nor did they possess any such degree or qualification mandated by SEBI.The investment advise involves, thorough market analysis, which an undergraduate employee would not be able to do, if he does not hold the requisite qualifications.Many of the customers of this company had lodged details of the company on the SEBI portal stating that the company made them to invest huge amount of money and their ill advise caused heavy losses.The question before this court is whether in view of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, the FIR registered against the petitioner deserves to be quashed.The petitioner has pointed out to the certificate issued by SEBI, which is dated 24.9.2018, wherein Alka Shrivastava (petitioner) has been granted certificate of registration as an investment adviser, running her trade named as "Money Secure Investor Investment Adviser".The petitioner has annexed NISM certificate (National Institute of Securities Markets) issued by ... 7 ... M.Cr.C.No.23883/2020 National Institute of Securities Markets.KYC document (Annexure A/4) has also been submitted by the petitioner in which number of guidelines for operating as investor adviser have been prescribed.Shri Manish Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, Public Prosecutor for State.******** (ORDER) 22.9.2020This order seeks to dispose of the petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C for quashment of FIR and subsequent proceedings.The facts as narrated in the petition succinctly are that on 4.3.2020, a team of police officers from Crime Branch, Indore raided the office of Money Secure Investor Investment Adviser on complaint filed by a broker also involved in investment consultancy.They seized documents, equiptment etc placed in the Office.Subsequently, an FIR was registered against the petitioner who is the proprietor of the company along with two other persons under Sections 406, 418, 419, 420, 109 and 120B of IPC and Section 6(1) of M.P. Nikshepakon Ke Hiton Ka Sanrakshan, 2000 (hereinafter referred as 'the PID Act').As per the petitioner, the Company is registered in SEBI and has complied with all the SEBI regulations and is also registered with Local Municipal Corporation and Labour Department.The petitioner submits that the FIR mentions the name of one Anoopam Gupta (respondent No.2) who had filed a complaint against the Company.Anoopam Gupta, is a broker and not a client nor investor ... 3 ... M.Cr.C.No.23883/2020 or employee and no way connected to the company and his complaint is without any basis and based on hearsay.The Investigating Officer has taken cognizance of such complaint without verifying the same.There is a specific procedure laid down under Section 11 of SEBI Act, 1992, for carrying out investigation in respect of companies, which are registered in SEBI because these companies managed investment of large number of clients at any given point of time and any disturbance in regulations of such companies can result in huge loss of the clients.Hence, specific procedure for carrying out investigation has been laid down.The companies following all the SEBI guidelines makes sufficient disclaimers and disclosures well in advance.The company merely provides advice to its client and execution of such advice is completely at the discretion of the client.It is further stated that there is no complainant in the case who had accused this company of cheating him and therefore, provisions under Section 420 of IPC are not applicable.C.No.23883/2020 complainant as to why he did not approach the Vijay Nagar police station, as the company operates within the jurisdiction of Vijay Nagar police station.Lastly, it has been mentioned that the petitioner is a mother of infant breast feeding child and was on maternity leave at the time when said raid took place and therefore, she was not present in the office and join the investigation.On these grounds the FIR has been sought to be quashed.The clients were assured huge profits.The company was handling and operating jobs of execution and investment adviser together, which is prohibited as per SEBI guidelines.The company has charged exorbitant fees from customers for rendering advise by any qualified persons.It has been further mentioned that more than 20 clients have complained to the SEBI that they were cheated by the company.An officer incharge of the police is empowered and authorized to investigate any congnizable offence and hence the contention of the petitioner that the crime branch did not have any locus to register and investigate the matter is devoid of any merit.A Division Bench of ... 6 ... M.Cr.C.No.23883/2020 the High Court at Gwalior in M.Cr.Regarding submission that compliance of Section 6(2) of PID Act has not been made, the respondent has referred to Annexure R-1/4 in which the Superintendent of Police has expressly permitted to carry out the investigation in the present matter.Both the parties to the petition have submitted the documents in support of their cause.P.C was filed praying for quashment of FIR as well as investigational proceedings in six cases, five of which were initiated on the basis of private complaint and one ... 12 ... M.Cr." I am not unmindful of the fact that SEBI was set up for all such purposes and SEBI Act, 1992, came into force w.e.f. 30.1.1992 and the preamble of the Act explains the objective which is an Act to provide for establishment of a Board to protect the interest of investors in securities and to promote the development of and to regulate the security market and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto."Further in para 51 the final conclusion was made which reads as under :-In the result, the First Information Reports and the investigations impugned in all the six cases are hereby quashed."This petition was allowed.C.No.18348/2017 order dated 25.10.2018, the FIR was quashed in view of the following observations :-
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
31,592,018 |
as per rules.Case Diary is perused.Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.The applicant has filed this repeat application under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.The earlier one was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 18/3/19 passed in M.Cr.The applicant has been arrested by Police Station Gormi, District Bhind, in connection with Crime No.29/2019 registered in relation to the offence punishable under section 307 read with 34 of the IPC.Prosecution story in short is that there was some enmity going on between complainant Ramu and co-accused Kaushal.The complainant was going on motorcycle to Gormi and Vishnu Shrivas was the Pillion rider.Co-accused Kausal Thapak and others were standing with the motorcycle.Co- accused Kaushal Thapak fired gun shot with intention to kill which hit Vishnu Shrivas.Coaccused Kaushal Thapak also THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 18115/2019 (Rahul alias Atul Thapak Vs.State of M.P.) (2) fired two rounds due to which complainant fell down from his motorcycle and received injuries on the right palm of right hand as well both the knees.Co-acused Kaushal Thapak alongwith other co-accused ran away from the spot.On the aforesaid basis, crime has been registered.The applicant is not named in the FIR and no overt act has been ascribed to him.The applicant has been impleaded only on the basis of enmity.The offence under section 307, IPC is not made out against him.He is a permanent resident of Kachnav Road, P.S.Gormi, District Bhind and there is no likelihood of his absconsion if released on bail.With the aforesaid submissions, prayer for grant of bail is made.Learned Public Prosecutor 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.He submitted that the applicant exhorted the co-accused persons to kill the injured.Mere THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 18115/2019 (Rahul alias Atul Thapak Vs.(S.A. Dharmadhikari) Judge (and) ANAND SHRIVASTAV A 2019.05.04 14:26:46 +05'30'
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
31,593,937 |
rpan Ct.The Petitioner, apprehending arrest in connection with Bolpur Police Station Case No.250 of 2013 dated 20.06.2013 under Sections 498A/307/3420/467/468/120B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4, D.P. Act, has filed this application for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned advocate for the Petitioner as well as the learned advocate for the State.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J.) (Kanchan Chakraborty, J.)
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
31,595,477 |
1) Rule, rule made returnable forthwith.By consent, heard both the sides for final disposal.2) The proceeding is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for compensation of Rs.5 lakh and also for relief of action against respondent No.2, a police officer.Allegations of illegal arrest and illegal detention are made by the petitioners who were practising Advocates at the relevant time.Compensation is sought from the State Government, respondent No.1 and the police officer, who made arrest and obtained police custody remand against the petitioners.3) The petitioners were arrested in CR No.I-276 of 2014 registered with Kotwali Police Station Ahmednagar on 26-10-2014 in the evening time for offences punishable under sections 376, 504, 506, 34 of Indian Penal Code.The report is given by a lady aged about 26 years and she is a businesswoman.He was also practising Advocate at the relevant time.It is contended by the informant that she had come in contact with Abhijit in the year 2007 when she was attending tuition of Accounts subject in Ahmednagar.It is her contention that acquaintance then developed into love and from the years 2007 to 2013 they had an affair.::: Uploaded on - 18/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 08:32:13 :::4) It is the contention of the informant that in the year 2013 when she was alone in her house, Abhijit came there and requested to allow him to have sexual intercourse with her.It is her contention that she refused to do so and then Abhijit promised to marry.It is contended that due to such promise she gave consent and from that time they had physical relationship.It is contended that after the first incident, on many occasions due to such promise, she had allowed Abhijit to have sexual intercourse in her house.It is contended that on one occasion she was called to the residential place of Abhijit by Abhijit as no other members were at home and there also Abhijit had taken sexual intercourse with her by giving promise of marriage.::: Uploaded on - 18/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 08:32:13 ::: This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 19/07/2019 4 Cr WP 906 of 2018::: Uploaded on - 18/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 08:32:13 :::5) It is contention of the informant that in the year 2013 husband of petitioner No.3 (sister of Abhijit) committed suicide.It is contended that a crime was registered in respect of that incident and due to that all the petitioners had virtually absconded for many days.It is contended that in January 2014 when bail was granted to the petitioners they appeared and after that Abhijit again started contacting her.It is contended that after 25th February 2014 on many occasions Abhijit took sexual intercourse with her.6) It is contention of the informant that she is in the business of running tourist centre and Abhijit had come with her to Tirupati.It is her contention that on that occasion Abhijit and she had stayed in a room of a guest house from Tirupati for 2 days and there also they had sexual relationship.7) It is contention of the informant that when she became pregnant and when she informed about it to Abhijit, Abhijit asked her to abort the child.It is her contention that she requested Abhijit to marry with her::: Uploaded on - 18/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 08:32:13 ::: This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 19/07/2019 5 Cr WP 906 of 2018 but he refused to marry.It is contended that even after that day, Abhijit had taken sexual intercourse with her.::: Uploaded on - 18/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 08:32:13 :::8) It is the case of the informant that as Abhijit was refusing to marry with her, she contacted petitioner Nos.2 and 3, mother and sister of Abhijit.It is contended that she was asked by petitioner Nos.2 and 3 to abort the child.It is contended that due to such threat of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 she disclosed everything to her father.It is contended that on 12-10-2014 petitioner Nos.1 and 2 went to the office of her father and there they gave threat of life to her father and asked to see that the informant aborts the child.It is contended that on her mobile phone threat was given by petitioner No.1 to her father and brother.It is contended that on 22-10-2014 petitioner No.1 called the informant and her father to his residential place and there, all the petitioners gave them offer of Rs.5 lakh subject to condition that the informant aborts the child.It is contended that she refused to accept the offer and then::: Uploaded on - 18/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 08:32:13 ::: This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 19/07/2019 6 Cr WP 906 of 2018 threat of life was given to her and as there was no other alternative, she approached police to give report.::: Uploaded on - 18/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 08:32:13 :::9) It is the contention of the petitioners that they had no concern whatsoever with the so called allegations of rape made against Abhijit.It is their contention that even if the allegations made against them are accepted as they are, they could have made out the offences under sections 504, 506 of Indian Penal Code.It is contended that from 26-10-2014 to 29-10-2014 they were kept in police lock up of the aforesaid police station.It is contended that on 29- 10-2014 when they were produced before the Judicial Magistrate they applied for bail on aforesaid grounds but the Judicial Magistrate rejected the application.It appears that they were released on bail by sessions Court.::: Uploaded on - 18/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 08:32:13 :::10) It is the contention of the petitioners that they could not have been made accused in the crime punishable under section 376 of Indian Penal Code which could have been registered only against Abhijit.It is contended that the allegations made against them were different and the incident was also different and on the basis of such allegations only non cognizable offence could have been registered.It is his contention that he was Ex-President of District Bar::: Uploaded on - 18/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 08:32:13 ::: This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 19/07/2019 8 Cr WP 906 of 2018 Association of Ahmednagar District.It is the contention of petitioner No.2 that she was practising at Ahmednagar since 1986 on criminal side and in Motor Accident Claims matters.It is her contention that she was Vice-Chairman of Nagar Urban Cooperative Bank for about one year and she was Director for 10 years of the said bank.It is her contention that she was Legal Retainer of Ahmednagar Municipal Corporation at the relevant time.::: Uploaded on - 18/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 08:32:13 :::It is her contention that she had completed LL.M. She had done certificate courses in forensic science, in Medical Jurisprudence and in cyber crime investigation.It is contended that in the past she was Caption of Maharashtra State Carrom team and she had participated in that capacity in the competition.She has contended that at the relevant time she had a son of 2 year old and the kid was also with her in the lock up as there was nobody to look after him when she was in the lock up.::: Uploaded on - 18/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 08:32:13 ::: This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 19/07/2019 9 Cr WP 906 of 2018::: Uploaded on - 18/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 08:32:13 :::13) The submissions made show that the petitioners were released from custody after 5 days of the arrest due to the order made by the Sessions Court.It is contended that the petitioners had filed Criminal Revision No.62/2015 in Sessions Court to challenge the order of police custody remand made by the Magistrate and in that case the Sessions Court has held that both arrest and detention of the petitioners were illegal.It is contended that even compensation was::: Uploaded on - 18/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 08:32:13 ::: This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 19/07/2019 10 Cr WP 906 of 2018 claimed by the petitioners in the criminal revision but the Sessions Court did not give compensation by observing that the Sessions Court has no such power.::: Uploaded on - 18/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 08:32:13 :::15) Copy of remand report dated 27-10-2014 is produced on record.Police had given reason for arrest that the accused are likely to abscond.It needs to be kept in mind that the accused were practicing Advocates in Ahmednagar.The report shows that arrest was made at the residential place of the petitioners.(i) Allegations made against them were serious in nature.(ii) Mobile handsets need to be recovered from them.(iii) Accused No.1 Abhijit was not yet arrested.The order of the Judicial Magistrate shows that these reasons were accepted by the Judicial Magistrate for giving police custody remand.::: Uploaded on - 18/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 08:32:13 ::: This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 19/07/2019 11 Cr WP 906 of 2018::: Uploaded on - 18/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 08:32:13 :::16) Copy of application filed for bail before the Judicial Magistrate on 29-10-2014 is produced.In that application also it was specifically mentioned that provision of section 376 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be used against them and at the most offences punishable under sections 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code can be made out on the basis of allegations levelled against them.On 29-10-2014 learned Judicial Magistrate rejected the bail application on the following grounds :(ii) There was possibility of tampering with witnesses.(iii) Investigation was at initial stage.17) Copy of judgment of Criminal Revision No.62/2015 decided by learned Additional Sessions Judge on 25-1-2018 is produced on record.This decision shows::: Uploaded on - 18/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 08:32:13 ::: This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 19/07/2019 12 Cr WP 906 of 2018 that order of remand granted by Judicial Magistrate dated 27-10-2014 was challenged.The Sessions Court has held that the order under challenge was illegal.::: Uploaded on - 18/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 08:32:13 :::There is reference of first Schedule to ascertain as to whether the offence is::: Uploaded on - 18/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 08:32:13 ::: This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 19/07/2019 14 Cr WP 906 of 2018 cognizable or non-cognizable.::: Uploaded on - 18/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 08:32:13 ::: This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 19/07/2019 16 Cr WP 906 of 2018::: Uploaded on - 18/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 08:32:13 :::For the same reason in the present matter police could not have used the provisions of section 155(4) of the Code which is indirectly mentioned by respondent No.2 in the reply affidavit.Thus, the allegations made as against present petitioners could not have been registered under section 154 of the Code and further action like arrest could not have been taken on the basis of such allegations by police in view of other provisions which this Court is quoting.::: Uploaded on - 18/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 08:32:13 :::When citizenry rights are sometimes dashed against and pushed back by the members of City Halls, there has to be a rebound and when the rebound takes place, Article 21 of the Constitution springs up to action as a protector...." .::: Uploaded on - 18/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 08:32:13 :::Said revision came to be decided in the year 2018 and only after that the present petition came to be filed.As there was such order against the petitioners it was open to them and it was also necessary for them to challenge that order.33) The aforesaid circumstances show that there was apparent malice.In such a case much more amount could have been given as compensation to the petitioners::: Uploaded on - 18/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 08:32:13 ::: This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 19/07/2019 28 Cr WP 906 of 2018 considering their occupation.However, the petitioners have claimed total compensation of Rs. Five lakh.This Court holds that such amount needs to be given by way of compensation to all the petitioners together.In the result, following order.This Court holds that there is no need to make order in respect of the Judicial Magistrate.::: Uploaded on - 18/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 08:32:13 :::(K.K. SONAWANE, J.) (T.V. NALAWADE, J.) rsl::: Uploaded on - 18/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 08:32:13 :::::: Uploaded on - 18/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 08:32:13 :::
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 155 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 2 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
316,015 |
a)The deceased Vellaichamy is the grandson of one Unnamalaiammal throughher daughter.The second accused is her granddaughter through an anotherdaughter.Unnamalaiammal executed a Will in respect of her immovable propertysituated at Meenakshipuram in favour of the said Vellaichamy.The first accusedis the husband of the second accused and A-3 to A-5 are their sons.They wereall aggrieved over the execution of the Will made by the said Unnamalaiammal infavour of the deceased.The said Will was attested by P.W.6, Nagadevar.b)There was often quarrel and the parties were in inimical terms in thatregard.The said Vellaichamy mortgaged the property in favour of one Chelladuraifor Rs.50000/- on othi.In view of the prevailing circumstances, the saidChelladurai did not occupy the property.The family of the deceased shiftedtheir residence to Elumalai Village.While the matter stood thus, on 18.11.1997,the deceased accompanied by his wife, P.W.1 and mother P.W.3 and other relativeswent to Meenakshipuram and stayed in the house.c)On 19.11.1997 at about 6.30 a.m., Vellaichamy proceeded towards thegarden.When he was proceeding and just crossing the house of A-2, which issituated nearby, P.Ws.1 and 3 and one Pandian found that all the accused wereproceeding with deadly weapons.Immediately, P.Ws.1 and 3 and the said Pandianfollowed them.In the place of occurrence, A-4 first gave a blow with aruval onthe head of the deceased and also on the left thigh.A-5 attacked the deceasedwith aruval on his right hand.A-2 attacked the deceased with aruval on theright hand knee.A-3 stabbed the deceased on his chest and A-1 stabbed thedeceased with the velstick on his stomach.The occurrence was witnessed byP.Ws.1,3 and one Pandian.When they raised alarm, the accused fled away fromthe place of occurrence.d)They immediately took the severely injured Vellaichamy from the place ofoccurrence and put him in front of his house, but they found him dead.P.W.1proceeded to the respondent police station and gave Ex.P.1, complaint to P.W.13,the Sub Inspector of Police at about 2.00 p.m. On the strength of the same, acase came to be registered in Crime No.379/1997 under Sections 147, 148 and 302IPC.P.21, the F.I.R. was despatched to the Court.e)P.W.14, the Inspector of Police, on receipt of the copy of the F.I.R.,took up the investigation and proceeded to the spot.He prepared Ex.P.4, theobservation mahazar and Ex.P.23, the rough sketch.He also recovered the sampleearth and bloodstained earth under a cover of mahazar.The place of occurrenceand the dead body were photographed by P.W.12, the photographer.The photos andnegatives were marked as M.O.3 (series).P.W.14 has conducted inquest on thedead body of the deceased in the presence of the witnesses and panchayatdars andprepared Ex.P.22, the inquest report.He has sent the dead body of the deceasedto the hospital for the purpose of autopsy.f)P.W.8, the Doctor attached to the Government Hospital, Thirumangalam, onreceipt of the requisition, has conducted autopsy on the dead body of thedeceased.He has noted the injuries on the dead body of the deceased in Ex.P.7,the post-mortem certificate, wherein he has opined that the deceased wouldappear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries sustained about28 to 32 hours prior to post-mortem.g)P.W.15, the Inspector of Police, took up further investigation.Pendinginvestigation, the Investigator came to know that A-2 and A-5 have surrenderedbefore the concerned Judicial Magistrate Court.The Investigator filed anapplication for police custody and the same was also ordered.Both the accusedhave come forward to give confessional statements, which were recorded in thepresence of the witnesses.The admissible part of the same were marked asEx.P.24 and P.25 respectively.Pursuant to the same, A-2 produced M.O.4 Aruvaland M.O.5, saree, which were recovered under a cover of mahazar.(The judgment of the court was delivered by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) This appeal challenges the judgment of the Second Additional SessionsDivision, Madurai made in S.C.No.76 of 1999, whereby the appellants, five innumber, stood charged under Sections 148, 341 and 302 r/w S.34 IPC, tried, foundguilty as per the charges and awarded life imprisonment each under Section 302r/w S.34 IPC, 2 years R.I. each under Section 148 IPC and one month R.I. eachunder Section 341 IPC.2.The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be statedthus:A-5 alsoproduced M.O.6, aruval and M.O.7, shirt, which were recovered under a cover ofmahazar.A-2 and A-5 were sent for judicial remand.All the material objectsrecovered from the place of occurrence, from the dead body of the deceased andthe M.Os recovered from the accused were sent for chemical analysis by theForensic Science Department, which resulted in three reports.P.10 and 11are the Chemical Analyst's reports and Ex.P.12 is the Serologist's report.Oncompletion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed the finalreport.3.The case was committed to the court of Sessions and necessary chargeswere framed.In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused,the prosecution examined 15 witnesses and also relied on 27 exhibits and 7 M.Os.On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, all the accusedwere questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstancesfound in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, which they flatly denied asfalse.No defence witness was examined.After hearing the arguments advanced,the trial court took the view that the prosecution has proved the case beyondreasonable doubt, found them guilty and has awarded imprisonment as referred toabove.Hence, this appeal has been preferred at the instance of the appellants.4.Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellants, the learned counselwould submit that according to the prosecution, the occurrence has taken placeon 19.11.1997 at about 6.30 a.m.; that a case came to be registered at about2.00 p.m.; that there was a delay of 7-1/2 hours; that the distance between thepolice station and scene of occurrence was about 4 Kms.and hence this delaywould clearly indicate that all improvements and embellishments possible havebeen made in the F.I.R.; and that this delay, which remained unexplained, wasfatal to the prosecution case.5.Added further the learned counsel that according to the prosecution, theeyewitnesses were P.Ws.1 and 3; that P.W.2 was the close relative and was alsoresiding in a village situated 3 Kms.away; that P.W.1, immediately after theoccurrence, informed P.W.2 through a messenger about the occurrence.Though hereceived the message, he was not informed as to who were the assailants.Had itbeen true that P.W.1 sent a messenger to P.W.2, the names of the assailantsshould have also been mentioned, which has not done so; that this would clearlyindicate that P.W.1 could not have seen the occurrence at all; that further, inthe instant case, according to the prosecution, there was motive; that theparties were on inimical terms in respect of the bequest made by Unnamalaiammalin respect of the immovable property she owned, but it cannot be said to be animmediate motive; that after the execution of the Will, the parties have beenmoving all along the years and under these circumstances, this cannot be said tobe the motive; that according to the prosecution, the property was alsomortgaged to P.W.5 and hence, it casts a doubt whether such a motive attributedby the prosecution could be the reason for the occurrence.6.The learned counsel would further add that after the occurrence hastaken place, the Village Administrative Officer has come to the spot at about9.00 a.m. and he was informed about the occurrence; that this would beindicative of the fact that the V.A.O. has come to the spot earlier and aninformation was passed to him even by 9.00 a.m.; that the prosecution story thatP.W.1 went to the respondent police station and gave Ex.P.1, the complaint andthe same was registered at 2.00 p.m. was nothing, but an introduction; thatEx.P.1 could not have been the first information at all; that in the instantcase, the witnesses have actually shifted the place of occurrence; that so faras the place of occurrence was concerned, P.Ws.1 and 3 have given inconsistentversions and apart from that, it did not tally with the prosecution story as towhere the occurrence has taken place.7.Added further the learned counsel that nearly about 150 houses aresituated around the place of occurrence; that the occurrence has also takenplace at about 6.30 a.m. in the morning hours; that number of independentwitnesses could have witnessed the occurrence, but no one independent witnesshas been examined; that the prosecution had no explanation to offer; that it wasnot the case of prosecution that there was no independent witness; that whenindependent witnesses are available, a duty was cast upon the Investigator torecord the statement of those independent witnesses; that the non examination ofthe independent witnesses by the Investigator would clearly indicate that it wasnothing, but a false story introduced and thus, the prosecution has not provedthe case.8.The learned counsel would further add that in the instant case,according to the prosecution, A-1 to A-5, who are the appellants herein, hadcommon object and in furtherance of the common object, they have also acted, butthere is nothing to indicate or infer that they have got common object to causedeath of the deceased; that even assuming that the prosecution has proved thefactual position of the case, they have got to be dealt with independently inthe absence of common object; that according to the post-mortem Doctor, theinjury Nos.1,2 and 4 caused the death of the deceased, but not the otherinjuries; that those injuries were caused, according to the prosecutionwitnesses, by A-1, A-3 and A-4; that so far as the other two accused areconcerned, they caused injuries only on hand and the injuries are simple innature and hence, they could not be attributed with the common object and theywere not responsible for causing fatal injury and hence, these legal positionshave got to be considered by this court.9.The court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the abovecontentions and has paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.10.It is not in controversy that one Vellaichamy, the husband of P.W.1,was done to death in an incident that took place at about 6.30 a.m. on19.11.1997 at the place of occurrence.Following an inquest made by P.W.14, theInvestigator, the dead body of the deceased was subjected to post-mortem byP.W.8, the Doctor, who has not only issued Ex.P.7, the post-mortem certificate,but has also deposed before the court to the effect that the deceased wouldappear to have died out of shock and haemorrhage due to the multiple injuriessustained.The fact that the deceased Vellaichamy died out of homicidal violencewas never disputed by the appellants.Hence, it has got to be recorded sowithout any impediment whatsoever.11.In order to prove the accusations levelled against the appellants, theprosecution examined two witnesses, namely P.Ws.1 and 3, as eyewitnesses.It istrue, P.W.1 was the wife and P.W.3 was the mother of the deceased and hence,they were close relatives to the deceased.Merely because the relationship,their evidence cannot be discarded and the court has to apply the test ofcareful scrutiny.After applying the said test, the court is of the consideredopinion that their evidence is in one voice to the effect that all of them wentto Meenakshipuram Village and they stayed in their house, which was the subjectmatter of the Will; that in the next day morning, Vellaichamy proceeded towardsthe garden; that when he was going there, the witnesses have found that theaccused were proceeding with deadly weapons, which impelled them to follow theaccused and that they witnessed all the accused attacking the deceased withdeadly weapons.Those inconsistencies, which were brought to thenotice of the court by the learned counsel for the appellants, are minor mostand no weight or importance could be given to those contradictions, since theydid not affect the case of prosecution.12.In the instant case, this court is unable to accept the contention thatthe scene of occurrence was also shifted.At the time of inspection, theInvestigator has prepared the rough sketch and observation mahazar.The witnessfor the observation mahazar has also been examined.Insofar as the contents ofthe observation mahazar and also the rough sketch, no dispute was raised.Underthese circumstances, the contentions have got to be discountenanced.A perusalof the observation mahazar and also the rough sketch would indicate the place ofoccurrence as spoken by the eyewitnesses.13.Merely because the witnesses have deposed to the effect that the V.A.O.was present at the place of occurrence at about 9.00 a.m., it could not beinferred that any report was given to him either, or in turn, he gave a reportto the police or the first information was suppressed.Even assuming that V.A.O.was present at the place of occurrence at about 9.00 a.m., it cannot be takenthat Ex.P.1 was not the first information.As could be seen from the evidence of theeyewitnesses, A-1 has attacked the deceased with velstick on his stomach and A-3has also attacked the deceased with velstick on his chest. A-4 has also attackedthe deceased with aruval on his head.All put together would go to show that A-1, A-3 and A-4 have caused fatal injuries, which caused the death of thedeceased instantaneously.Under these circumstances, so far as A-1, A-3 and A-4are concerned, they have got to be punished under Section 302 IPC.A-2 hasattacked the deceased with aruval on his right hand and A-5 attacked thedeceased with aruval on his right hand upper palm and they have caused simpleinjuries.Hence, A-2 and A-5 have got to be dealt with under Section 324 IPC andawarding punishment of 2 years R.I. would meet the ends of justice.15.Accordingly, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellantsunder Section 148 IPC are set aside and the appellants are acquitted of the saidcharge.The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants under Section 341IPC are confirmed.The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants underSection 302 r/w S.34 IPC are set aside and instead A-1, A-3 and A-4 areconvicted under Section 302 IPC and they are sentenced to undergo lifeimprisonment, and A-2 and A-5 are convicted under Section 324 IPC and sentencedto undergo two years R.I. The sentences already undergone by A-2 and A-5 areordered to be given set off.The sentences are directed to run concurrently.Itis reported that the appellants are on bail.Hence, the concerned Sessions Judgeshall take steps to secure them and commit A-1, A-3 and A-4 to prison to undergothe life sentence and A-2 and A-5 to prison to undergo the remaining period ofsentence, if any.16.With the above modification in conviction and sentence, this criminalappeal is dismissed.1.TheInspector of Police, Sedapatti Police Station.2.The II Additional Sessions Judge, Madurai.3.The Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
31,602,371 |
2.The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Krishnasamy and his wife were running a chit business.The appellant and his brother Ayyanar had paid chit amount of Rs.50,000/ each.Even though the chit cycle was completed, the deceased Krishnasamy did not pay the dues payable to the appellant Manoharan.Manoharan is said to have exerted considerable pressure on Krishnasamy.He is said to have fixed offending posters on the doors of the house of the deceased.Unable to bear the harassment of the appellant, Krishnasamy consumed poison on 04.05.2003 at about 06.45 a.m., and died.Hence, Ex.P1 complaint was lodged by PW.1 who is a relative of the deceased.The statement of PW.1 was recorded and on that basis Crime No.282 of 2003 was registered on the file of the B8 Subramaniyapuram Police Station under Section 174 of Cr.PC.Investigation was undertaken and final report was filed against the appellant under Section 306 IPC before the Judicial Magistrate No.4, Madurai.Charge under Section 306http://www.judis.nic.in 3 IPC was framed against the appellant.The appellant denied the charge and claimed to be tried.The prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses and marked Exs.On the side of the accused, no evidence was adduced.Incriminating circumstances were put to the accused and he denied the same.The learned Trial Judge by the impugned judgment dated 05.08.2011 held that the appellant was guilty of the offence under Section 306 IPC and sentenced him to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment.Challenging the same, this appeal came to be filed.3.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant reiterated the contents set out in the appeal memorandum and wanted this Court to reverse the impugned judgment.4.I carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the evidence on record.P2 letter on the door of the house of the deceased.I carefullyhttp://www.judis.nic.in 4 went through the contents of Ex.P2 and Ex.The incident of slapping by the Appellant in September, 2001 cannot be the sole ground to holdhttp://www.judis.nic.in 7 him responsible for instigating the deceased to commit suicide.As the allegations against all the three Accused are similar, the High Court ought not to have convicted the Appellant after acquitting the other two Accused.”6.Applying the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decision, I have to necessarily hold that the essential ingredients of Section 306 IPC are not present in this case.The appellant is acquitted of the charge under Section 306 IPC.This appeal is allowed.
|
['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
31,603,706 |
sdas rejected C.R.M. 4525 of 2019 In Re:- An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 24.04.2019 in connection with Uttarpara Police Station Case No. 520 of 2018 dated 12.07.2018 under Sections 366A/370/370A/372/373/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3/5/6/7/9 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act and Sections 4/17 of the POCSO Act.However, in view of the fact that date for recording of evidence has been fixed in the month of November, 2019 it is open to the petitioner to make an application for preponement of such date before the Trial Court and in the event such application is made within seven days from date trial court may consider such application in accordance 2 with law, however, subject to pendency of other matters in the file of the said Court.(Manojit Mandal, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
31,608 |
The appellant, who was the Assistant Director of Metals (non-ferrous), in the Directorate General of Munitions Productions Department, searched the shop of one Balwantram Gangarara on March 1, 1945, and threatened to prosecute him for not reporting the stock of certain controlled articles in his shop.He then negotiated with Balwantram through one Chimanlal Mohanlal and eventually he accepted Rs. 15.000 from Balwantram as illegal gratification for refraining from prosecuting him.Police Inspector Quilter, who had been informed by Balwantram beforehand and had taken down the numbers of the currency notes to be given to the appellant, raided the appellant's house and Found those notes in his cupboard.The consequent review will come on at the same time as this appeal.
|
['Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
31,611,793 |
similar reliefs are claimed in both the proceedings in respect ofdifferent crimes and so, both the proceedings are decided by ::: Uploaded on - 26/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2017 01:00:51 ::: Cri.855 & 856/09 3common judgment.Both the sides are heard.::: Uploaded on - 26/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2017 01:00:51 :::2) Criminal Writ Petition No. 855/2009 is filed for relief ofquashment of F.I.R. No. 180/2009 registered in Georai Police Stationfor the offences punishable under sections 341, 506, 34 of IndianPenal Code ('IPC' for short) and section 3 (1)(x) of the ScheduledCastes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.This crime is registered on the basis of report given by oneJagannath Harale, who belongs to scheduled caste.In his F.I.R., hehas made allegations that on 30.8.2009 at about 14.25 hours whenhe, Yudhajeet Pandit, Achut Gopal etc. were present in a jeep andthey were proceeding towards Pandharewadi, their jeep wasintercepted by Dnyaneshwar Lad, petitioner No. 2 by using his jeep.He has made allegations that then from the jeep of Dnyaneshwar,the persons like petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 3 and alsopetitioner No. 4 alighted and they started giving abuses to him.Hehas made allegations that they took the name of his caste which is ascheduled caste and they gave threat of life to him by saying that heshould not work as a driver on the jeep of Yudhajeet Pandit.3) The second proceeding bearing Criminal Writ Petition No.856/2009 is filed in respect of C.R. No. 3049/2009 which wasregistered on the basis of report given by Sunil Kandekar, who also ::: Uploaded on - 26/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2017 01:00:51 ::: Cri.855 & 856/09 4belongs to scheduled caste.He has made allegations that on30.8.2009 at about 1.00 to 1.30 p.m. when he was sitting on theplatform of Boudhvihar, place of the people and when he was in thecompany of Bhaskar Saudarmal, the petitioners of this petition camethere and they started giving abuses by taking the name of hiscaste.He has made allegations that they gave threat of life bysaying that he should not participate in election campaign which wasstarted by opposite side.::: Uploaded on - 26/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2017 01:00:51 :::5) The learned Senior Counsel for petitioners submitted thaton that day, the crime at C.R. No. 179/2009 was registered againstYudhajeet Pandit and his men on the basis of report given by oneBabasaheb Sasane and only to give counter blast to that report, theaforesaid reports were given against the petitioners.It wassubmitted that there was political rivalry between the two groupsand petitioner No. 1 Amarsingh Pandit was sitting M.L.A. at therelevant time.He submitted that false allegations were made in theF.I.R. due to political rivalry and so, the F.I.Rs. need to be quashed.6) The submissions made by the learned APP and the reportcollected by him from police show that against the petitioners in thepast also crimes were registered in the year 2007 and they wereeven for causing damage to the public property and cases were filed ::: Uploaded on - 26/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2017 01:00:51 ::: Cri.855 & 856/09 5in the two crimes against them.The submissions made show thatnobody disputes that there are rival groups in that village.That legislation is made to giveprotection to the persons of scheduled castes and scheduled tribesand so, it cannot be presumed at this stage that the F.I.Rs. are inrespect of imaginary incidents.There was political rivalry and therewas the election campaign started by both the sides.When the sideof the petitioners is making allegation that some incident took place,it cannot be believed at this stage that other side has made falseallegations against petitioners.Thorough investigation needs to bemade in to the allegations in view of the object behind the speciallegislation.In the result, both the petitions stand dismissed.::: Uploaded on - 26/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2017 01:00:51 :::
|
['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
316,188 |
These appeals have been filed by the state challenging the impugned order of the High Court whereby the High Court dismissed criminal appeal No. 125/1987 which had been filed by the state to challenge the acquittal of 10 accused by the court of sessions and allowing criminal appeal No. 389/1987 filed by three accused Chandu, Budh Singh @ Buddhu and Jodh Singh wherein they had challenged their conviction and sentence by the court of sessions.In the sessions trial 13 accused were put on trial.Ten of them were acquitted.Their acquittal was subject matter of criminal appeal No. 125/1987 filed by the state.The aforesaid three accused were convicted.First two for offence under Section 302, IPC and third - Jodh Singh for offence under Section 307, IPC.Chandu and Budh Singh were directed to undergo life imprisonment besides fine of Rs. 1,000/-, Jodh Singh was sentenced to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/-.Thus the short question that requires for consideration is the state appeal challenging the acquittal by the High Court of the aforesaid three accused.The incident in question took place on 20.1.1984 in the afternoon at about 2.30 p.m. There were injuries on both sides.Six persons died from the complainant side and one from the accused side.The one who died from the accused side was wife of one of the accused Chandu.She was pregnant at the time of her death as a result of injuries received during the course of the incident in question.The FIR was lodged by PW1 Ayub Khan stating therein that the accused had gone to his field 'chidiya peer kakhet for cutting mustard crop; when he and others found that the accused were putting the crop into the tractor of one Amar Singh, they resented and asked them not to do so which resulted in altercation; accused Chandu fired on deceased Dalmod, Amar Singh also fired a shot on Hakim, Jodh Singh fired at Sahid, Budh fired on Abdul and other accused persons inflicted injuries by pharsi and lathi on the members of the complainant party.The challan was submitted against 16 persons, 13 were committed to court of sessions, the remaining three were tried in juvenile court.The court of sessions while acquitting the 10 accused, on appreciation of evidence, found various material discrepancies in the case of the prosecution and the testimony of the eye-witnesses.19 witnesses were examined by prosecution out of them 10 were said to be the injured eyewitnesses besides another 11 eye-witnesses as well.The sessions court found that the case as stated in the testimony of the eye-witnesses and genesis of resulting in incident as stated in the FIR was not correct.It was found that the incident did not take place at the field of Ayub Khan but it took place in the field of accused party.It was further found that the accused were not trying to take away the mustard crop of the complainant but complainant party was trying to take away that crop of accused which resulted in the altercation and the free for all shooting incident.Even PW1 was not found reliable and trustworthy to large extent in so far as he implicated accused other than three who were convicted.In respect of three convicted accused also discrepancies were found in the testimony of PW1 but they were held as not material resulting in the order of their conviction by the trial court.That has been the thrust of argument of learned counsel for the state before us as well.It is contended that the trial court rightly relying upon the testimony of PW1 convicted Chandu, Budh Singh and Jodh Singh and their appeal was allowed by the High Court without properly appreciating the evidence and thus the impugned judgment is unsustainable in so far as three accused are concerned.The Court of sessions found Chandu guilty of murder of Dalmod, Budh Singh was found guilty of murder of Abdul and Jodh Singh for attempt to kill Sahid.There was severe enmity between the complainant group and accused group.There relations were fiercely inimical.The aforesaid rule that the conviction can be based on the sole testimony of an interested eye-witness is subject to the limitation that the testimony of such a witness is trustworthy and consistent and court finds it safe to fully rely upon the deposition of such a witness in regard to the nature of the occurrence and the involvement of the accused.In present case, however, it was prudent to look for corroboration on material particulars.Turning to the facts of the case in hand, the trial court also found that there was enmity between the parties; no independent witness had been examined though the incident was seen by them; the place of occurrence had not been proved; the incident ensued on when complainant tried to take away the crop and not the accused and no explanation was offered for the injuries suffered by 5 members of the accused party, one of whom, namely, Bannow/o.Chandu died as the consequence of the injuries.Besides these discrepancies, it was also found by the trial court that although case of the prosecution was that Chandu shot down Dalmod as also one Kabuli and that was the statement of PW1 but prosecution had failed to establish that Chandu had shot dead Kabuli.It was found that there was no fire arm injury on Kabuli.Therefore, PW1 was not believed to the extent of his deposition that Chandu shot dead Kabuli,The High Court on appreciation of evidence has held that no independent witness had been examined as also that the prosecution had failed to explain the injuries received by the accused persons.To convict the three accused, the testimony of PW1 has to be of sterling worth.His testimony in court is at variance with medical evidence.He is an interested witness.He deposed to have seen the shooting of Kabuli by Chandu that has not been accepted, Kabuli had no fire injury.The very genesis of the start of the controversy as stated in the FIR has not been found to be true.It has been found that it was not the accused party which was taking away the mustard crop of the complainant but it was the complainant party which was trying to take away the crop of the accused, thus doubting the place of occurrence.The investigating officer has been believed by the trial court on the aspect of place of occurrence that was affirmed by the High Court.On all major aspects the prosecution witnesses have been disbelieved.Under these circumstances, the non examination of independent eye-witnesses assumes importance.It also becomes important that the prosecution failed to produce any expert evidence from forensic laboratory to tally the weapon with the bullets.There is no proper explanation for non examination of the expert evidence.The prosecution on these facts ought to have secured the forensic opinion particularly keeping in view the variance in medical and ocular evidence.The corroboration to the testimony of PW1 is absent.Under the aforesaid facts, we find no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of the High Court.Resultantly, these appeals are dismissed.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
3,162,671 |
This order disposes of this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR dated 16.04.2008 registered against the petitioners bearing Crime No.407/2008 at Police Station- Kotwali, District-Dewas under Sections 323, 327, 342, 504, 506 of IPC and all consequential criminal proceedings.Aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the Sessions Court.During the pendency of appeal, a compromise was entered into between the complainants and-2- MCRC NO.45958/2018 the petitioners, consequent to which the petitioners were acquitted for the offence punishable under section 342 of the IPC.In that particular case, the petitioner having been convicted under sections 420 & 120-B of the IPC preferred an appeal against his conviction and during the pendency of the appeal, a compromise was entered into leading to acquittal under section 420 of the IPC.After loading, the complainant Rashid Kha along with Cleaner Bhuru went home in the evening and when they came back the truck was found to be standing but there was no trace of wheat bags.Thereafter, both were called by the petitioners in their office where they were beaten up with iron rod for about five hours.In fact, the complainants belonged to economically weaker sections as against the petitioners.Further, there is a discrepancy in the petition inasmuch as while just below the title the petitioners seek quashment of FIR, in the prayer column they prayed for quashment of criminal appeal and it is not possible to quash the criminal appeal.
|
['Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 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.
|
31,627,131 |
As per prosecution case, applicant and co-accused Ejaj Ahmed extorted money and jewellery from the prosecutrix telling her that they had clicked her obscene photographs and threatened her to send them to her parents and uploading them on the website.This way they extorted Rs. 95,000/- and two gold earrings from the complainant.Co-accused Ejaj Ahmed also posted obscene photographs of complainant on Instagram.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the offence.He submits that police implicated him in the crime only on the basis of memorandum of co-accused.There is no direct evidence on record to connect the applicant with the crime.There is no evidence on record that applicant took Rs.95,000/- and gold ornaments from the prosecutrix.The charge-sheet has already been filed.The applicant is in custody since 06.02.2018 and the conclusion of trial will take time, hence prayed for release of the applicant on bail.On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the prayer and submitted that sufficient evidence is available against the applicant to connect him with the crime.The police seized Rs.4,500/- and one mobile from the possession of the applicant which were used for sending messages to the prosecutrix.Applicant blackmailed complainant who was minor at the time of incident, so he should not be released on bail.Digitally signed by MAHENDRA KUMAR DIXIT Date: 2018.05.05 12:05:19 +05'30'
|
['Section 384 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,650,851 |
8-1997, dt. 17-1-1995 from the Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai to show thatthe Government has decided that the petitioner be released on completion of 30 yearsof his imprisonment including the remissions, subject to completion of actual imprisonment of 14 years, his good behaviour and conduct in the prison up to the aforesaid time of his release.ORDER A.D. Mane, J.On request of learned Counsel for the parties, rule is made returnable forthwith.This petition is filed by prisoner No. C-1791, who is undergoing sentence oflife imprisonment in Open Jail at Paithan, for his premature release.The petitioner was convicted under section 302 and 307 of the Indian PenalCode in the Sessions Case No. 163 of 1981 by the learned Sessions Judge, Yeotmal.The petitioner's mother made an application and that was treated as CriminalWrit Petition No. 459 of 1995, for premature release of the petitioner on his completion of actual 14 years of imprisonment.On 8-11-1995 that petition came to be rejected, since it was found that prisoner had not undergone substantive imprisonmentof 14 years.The present petition is therefore, filed on 7-4-1997, inter alia stating thatthe petitioner has completed actual imprisonment of 14 years and therefore, underthe guidelines for premature release under '14 years Rule' the petitioner is eligible tobe released forthwith.In support of the petition, the petitioner submits that during pendency of thispetition on a quarry made by the Court, the respondent-State produced a letter on 20-Petition dismissed.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
165,088,678 |
Side) appearing for the respondents/State would submit that the marriage between the first petitioner 7/14http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.RC.No.571 of 2012 and PW-1 was solemnised on 21.02.2005 at Puttaparthi Saibaba Temple.Thereafter, the reception was held on 27.02.2005 at Namakkal Kongu Vellalar Marriage Hall.After completion of the ceremonies, both the first petitioner and PW-1 started to live in the house belongs to one Ganesan Chettiar at VNS Nagar, Chidambaram.On one occasion, while PW-1 was alone in the house, the petitioners 3 and 4 dashed the head of PW-1 against the wall of the house, due to which, PW-1 sustained headache.On 18.06.2005, the petitioners 2 to 4/A2 to A4 intentionally threatened PW-1 and coerced her at the connivance of the first petitioner to settle all her properties in the name of the first petitioner/A1, when PW-1 refused for the same, the fourth petitioner/A4 gave 10 volume tablets and said as if the properties not transferred, die herself by consuming the sleeping tablets.This Criminal Revision Case has been filed to set aside the judgment dated 30.04.2012 in Crl.A.No.24 of 2011 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal, confirmed the judgment dated 16.09.2011 in SC.No.129 of 2006 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Namakkal.The respondent police registered a case in Crime No.22 of 2005 for the offence punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and 498A r/w 34 and 307 of IPC as against the first petitioner/A1 and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and 498A r/w 34 and 307 r/w 109 of IPC as against the petitioners 2 to 4/A2 to A4 and after completing investigation, laid a charge sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Namakkal.Since the offence is triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate, Namakkal, committed the case to the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal.After taking the case on file in SC.No.129 of 2006, the learned Principal Sessions Judge made over the same to the learned Assistant Sessions Judge (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Namakkal for disposal.The learned Assistant Sessions Judge (Chief Judicial Magistrate) after receiving the case and completing the formalities, framed the charges against the revision petitioners herein.After completing trial, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge found that the revision petitioners/accused 2/14http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.RC.No.571 of 2012 have not committed the offence under Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act, however, the revision petitioners are found guilty for the offence under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and 498A r/w 34 of IPC and convicted them by judgment dated 16.09.2011 and sentenced them as follows:-Accused Offence Sentence Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition 6 months Simple Imprisonment Act and fine of Rs.5,000/- in default, 2 months Simple Imprisonment 498A r/w 34 of IPC One year Simple Imprisonment A1 and fine of Rs.5,000/- in default, 3 months Simple Imprisonment 307 of IPC 7 years Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/- in default, 6 months Simple Imprisonment Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition 6 months Simple Imprisonment Act and fine of Rs.5,000/- in default, 2 months Simple Imprisonment A2 to A4 498A r/w 34 of IPC One year Simple Imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/- in default, 3 months Simple Imprisonment The Trial Court directed the sentences to run concurrently.Challenging the said judgment of the trial Court, the accused preferred an appeal in Crl.A.No.24 of 2011 before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal.After hearing the arguments advanced on either side and perused the entire materials and judgment of the trial Court, the learned Principal Sessions Judge found that the appellants therein/accused have committed the offence as stated by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellants therein/accused on 3/14http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.RC.No.571 of 2012 30.04.2012 and confirmed the judgment of the trial Court.There against, the accused filed the present revision before this Court.P3, the certificate issued by PW-9 would prove that PW-1 herself has consumed the tablets of 10 mg in the morning in the empty stomach.The evidence of PW-1 reveals that the tablets were forcibly put into her mouth by the first petitioner in contra to her statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the first petitioner/A1 found guilty for the offence under Section 307 of IPC, is not sustainable, when there are material contradictions between the statement of PW-1 recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C and the evidence given by PW-9 before the Court.Further, the Doctor has clearly stated that it is highly impossible and improbable for the first petitioner/A1 to administer tablets to PW-1 as alleged by her.Both the Courts below failed to consider the fact that one person cannot forcibly administer 20 tablets against her will when she forcibly resisted the same.The opinion of the Doctor also would prove that 4/14http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.RC.No.571 of 2012 PW-1 foisted a false case against the first petitioner regarding the allegation of administered 20 tablets forcibly against her will.There is absolutely no evidence to prove that the petitioners/accused demaded dowry in connection or in consideration of the marriage as defined under Section 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Both the Courts below have failed to consider the legal as well as factual position.There are material contradictions in the prosecution witnesses regarding the time, place and the manner of the demand, acceptance and giving gold, cash dowry, car and other valuable articles.Both the Courts below have failed to consider the fact that the bride will not constitute as a Dowry and no offence is said to have been committed by any of the petitioners in demanding Dowry at the time of marriage.The mandatory provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Rules are not followed and there is no document produced by the prosecution as per Rule 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Rule to maintain the list of the articles given at the time of the marriage and it has to be signed by both parties.The complaint was fabricated with the consultation and deliberation after reading the petition for divorce filed by the first petitioner.Further, both the Courts have failed to consider the fact that PW-1 filed the petition for restitution of conjugal rights in HMOP.No.22 of 2005 and the same itself shows that the averments made in the petition to prove the intention of PW-1 to wreck vengeance against the revision petitioners/accused.The first petitioner is the husband of PW-1 and the first 5/14http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.RC.No.571 of 2012 petitioner is working as a Lecturer at Chidambaram Annamalai University and after marriage, they were living at Chidambaram.The petitioners 2 and 3 are the parents of the first petitioner/A1 and the fourth petitioner is the only sister of the first petitioner, who was already married with one Siva, who is a Scientist and she is living separately in her matrimonial home.The allegations against the petitioners 2 to 4 are not correct and the prosecution failed to establish the allegations against the petitioners 2 to 4 and both the Courts below failed to consider the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court that the in- laws cannot be prosecuted for the offence under Section 498A of IPC when there is no evidence to show that they caused cruelty.Since the petitioners 2 to 4 are living separately, the offence under Section 498A r/w 34 of IPC would not attract.Both the Courts have failed to consider the legal and factual position and wrongly convicted the revision petitioners for the offence under Section 498A r/w 34 of IPC.There is no material evidence to prove the demand and acceptance of dowry in consideration of marriage and therefore, Section 8A of Dowry Prohibition Act is not attracted.Both the Courts below failed to consider the oral and documentary evidence and the petition for divorce filed by the first petitioner in HMOP.No.176 of 2005 and the petition for restitution of conjugal rights filed by PW-1 against the first petitioner in HMOP No.22 of 2005 which clearly shows that all the allegations levelled in the complaint are subsequent improvement and in order to get the petition for divorce be dismissed, PW-1 foisted a false case against the revision petitioners/accused.If at all they demanded dowry and caused mental cruelty 6/14http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.RC.No.571 of 2012 and also the first petitioner/A1 committed the offence under Section 307 of IPC, PW-1 ought not to have filed the petition for restitution of conjugal rights in HMOP.No.22 of 2005, which clearly shows that there is no dowry demand, cruelty and there was no attempt to murder.Both the Courts below failed to consider these facts and wrongly convicted the revision petitioners/accused for the offence under Section 498A r/w 34 IPC.Though the trial Court acquitted the petitioners 2 to 4 for the offence under Section 307 of IPC and Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act, it ought to have acquitted them for the offence under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and also 498A r/w 34 of IPC.There are material contradictions between the prosecution witnesses specifically between PW-1 and PW-9 and also there is an improvement from stage to stage even PWs-1 and 2 and the Doctor's evidence also clearly show that it is impossible for administering the tablets forcibly against the will.Before marriage, the revision petitioners demanded one kilogram gold, Rs.10 lakhs and one new Tata Safari Car as dowry in connection with the said marriage of A1 with PW-1 and the parents of PW-1 also accepted for the same since PW-1 is the only daughter of her parents.The Court also accepted that at the time of marriage, the parents of PW-1 provided one kilogram gold, a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-, one Tata Safari car and also other household goods worth about Rs.2,00,000/- without any demand and also spent a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards marriage expenses.One of 8/14http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.RC.No.571 of 2012 the allegations against the petitioners is that while PW-4 came to the house of the second petitioner with the first petitioner during Aadi 2005, near Namakkal Anjenayar temple, the petitioners 2 to 4 persistently demanded jewels and case of Rs.1 lakh and also to transfer her father's income in their favour.Further, the charge against the revision petitioners is that while PW-1 lived at matrimonial house with the first petitioner at Chidambaram, during August 2005, the second petitioner intentionally abetted A1 to transfer the car, TN 28 P 6161 worth about Rs.10.5 lakhs in the name of the fourth petitioner herein and on such illegal demand of transfer, the first petitioner took PW-1 to Namakkal in the Safari Car, near Srinivasa Store at Mohanur Road, the second petitioner joined with them in a car and illegally threatened to transfer the car in the name of the fourth petitioner, when PW-2 refused for the same, she was ill-treated and humiliated and the first petitioner drove the car to the parental house of PW-1 and stopped the car in front of the house of PW-1 and came back.Furthermore, the charges against the petitioners are that PW-1 and the first petitioner lived as husband and wife and on 19.09.2005 at about 8.30.am the first petitioner/A1 forcibly administered 20 volume tablets to PW-1 on the instigation of the petitioners 2 to 4 by saying that if you are alive, there would be a problem and if you die, all the properties will come to us.Therefore, the first petitioner forcibly holding her and also put 20 volume sleeping tablets in her mouth and poured the water and made her to swallow the same.Therefore, the first petitioner has committed the offence under Section 307 of IPC and the petitioners 2 to 4 have abetted to kill 9/14http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.RC.No.571 of 2012 PW-1 and fortunately, PW-1 recovered after the treatment.The trial Court convicted the first petitioner/A1 for the offence under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and Sections 498-A r/w 34 & 307 of IPC and also convicted the petitioners 2 to 4/A2 to A4 for the offence under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 498-A r/w 34 of IPC.Therefore, the accused preferred an appeal in Crl.A.No.24 of 2011 before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal.The Appellate Court has rightly re-appreciated the entire evidence and dismissed the appeal on 30.04.2012 and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court, which warrants no interference.5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent and also perused the materials available on record.On reading of the evidence of prosecution witnesses in order to prove the charges levelled against the revision petitioners, the defacto complainant/victim was examined as PW-1, she has clearly narrated the events from the date of engagement to till the date of filing the complaint.Though the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there are material contradictions between the statement of PW-1 recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C and the evidence given before the Court, there are improvements in both the complaint and the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. On reading of 10/14http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.The evidence of PW-2 corroborated the evidence of PW-1/victim.Though at the time of giving complaint, recording the Statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C and investigation, the father of PW-1 was alive, unfortunately, he died before commencement of Trial.Therefore, he could not have been examined before the Court to corroborate the evidence of PW-1 to some extent.In this case, there is no compelled circumstances have been established by the defence that the evidence of PW-1/victim is not trustworthiness.Further PW-2/Mother of the victim has clearly spoken about the subsequent events and also the demand of dowry some extent.Even though most of the incidents had taken place in the four walls of the matrimonial home, one cannot expect the independent evidence to corroborate the evidence of the victim.Both the Courts below have pointed out the oral evidence and also the documentary evidence to corroborate the events.At the instance of dashing PW-1's head against the wall by demanding money and also the jewels, she immediately went to the hospital for treatment and she has not revealed the said fact before the Doctor and it does not mean that the evidence of PW-1/victim is false.Unfortunately, in this country, the girls till taking the decision not to live 11/14http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.RC.No.571 of 2012 with the husband, whatever happens in the matrimonial home through the in- laws, they won't reveal the same to anyone.If the incident goes beyond their control and extended the extreme stage, they would reveal with the parents or closely related person or friends.Therefore, the Court cannot expect the corroboration or the documentary proof for each and every events, the Court has to see whether the evidence of PW-1 is trustworthy or not and find out the reason to believe or not to believe.RC.No.571 of 2012 or more a personal wrong.Seriousness of crime and its social impact should be a key consideration.Therefore, this Court is not inclined to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that parties are ready to compound the offences since the first petitioner has already filed petition for divorce.In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.The judgment dated 30.04.2012 in Crl.A.No.24 of 2011 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal is hereby confirmed.The Trial Court is directed to secure the petitioners to undergo remaining period of sentence forthwith.The Assistant Sessions Judge (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Namakkal.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Namakkal, Namakkal District.13/14http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.RC.No.571 of 2012 P.VELMURUGAN, J KMI Crl.R.C.No.571 of 2012 19.08.2019 (1/2)
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
165,097,005 |
Criminal Appeal No. 176 of 2015 filed by convict is allowed asfollows ;::: Uploaded on - 07/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2018 02:08:34 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2018 02:08:34 :::Aurangabad given against him in Sessions Case No. 264 of 2013, bywhich he was convicted and sentenced for offences punishable underSection 304 (I), 324, 504 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code ishereby quashed and set aside.(iii) He stands acquitted of those offences.Fine amount, if any,deposited by him is returned to him.He be set at liberty forthwithfrom jail.Bail bonds of the amount of Rs.15,000/- with one solventsurety of like amount be obtained from him for the period of six (06)months as provided under Section 437-A of Code of CriminalProcedure.(iv) The appeal of appellant No.1 Pralhad s/o Sandu Dandge ispartly allowed.(v) The Judgment and order convicting him for offence punishableunder Section 304 (I) read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code is setaside and he is convicted for the offence punishable under Section304 (II) of Indian Penal Code.He is sentenced to sufferimprisonment for the period for which he has already undergone andhe is to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (one thousand), in default of payment ::: Uploaded on - 07/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2018 02:08:34 ::: 3 Cri.Appeal 296-2015 & 176-2015of fine, he is to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one (01) month.::: Uploaded on - 07/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2018 02:08:34 :::Bail bonds ofRs.15,000/- with one solvent surety of like amount be obtainedfrom him for the period of six (06) months as provided underSection 437 -A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.(vii) Reasons to follow.(viii) Application filed for early hearing is disposed of.::: Uploaded on - 07/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2018 02:08:34 :::
|
['Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
165,097,308 |
Heard on the question of admission.Also heard on I.A.No.2269/2016, which is an application for suspension of execution of jail sentence filed on behalf of the appellant.The appellant has been convicted under Section 354, 354- A(iv) of the IPC and Section 12 & 18 of POSCO Act and sentenced to undergo one year six months RI with fine of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 354 of the IPC, one year RI with fine of Rs.500/- under Section 354-A(iv), one year six months RI with fine of Rs.500/- under Section 12 of the POSCO Act and one year six months RI with fine of Rs.500/- under Section 18 of POSCO Act with default stipulation vide judgment dated 29.02.2016 passed by Sessions Judge, Khategaon, Distt.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that trial Court has not correctly appreciated the evidence and material and wrongly convicted the appellant.During trial, the appellant was on bail.He has not misused the liberty.Disposal of the appeal likely to take time, hence prayed for suspension of execution of sentence.Prayer is opposed by the learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and material available on record, the application is allowed.It is directed that the jail sentence of the appellant shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rs.Fifty Thousand only) with a surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.The appellant is directed to appear before the Registry of this Court on 28.04.2016 and on all such other dates as may be fixed in this behalf.Accordingly, the application (I.A.No.2269/2016) stands disposed of.
|
['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
165,097,744 |
This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment passed in SC No.125 of 2013, dated 17.02.2014 by the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Tiruchirappalli.The Inspector of Police attached to Srirangam All Women Police Station, Tiruchirappalli has filed the final report against the accused person for the offence under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC.3.In the trial court, 14 witnesses were examined and 10 Exhibits and 1 material object were marked.When the accused was questioned about the incriminating circumstances, he denied the same.On the side of the accused, no witness was examined and no document was marked.Aggrieved by the judgment passed by the trial court, the appellant/accused is before this court.4.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.5.The main contention raised on the side of the appellant/sole accused is that the deceased has given three statements, first one is recorded by PW7, which leading to registration of the present case, the second one is recorded by PW11 and the third one is recorded by PW8 Judicial Magistrate.Hence, all the three statements are taken to be Dying Declaration, in this situation the second Dying Declaration, which was recorded by PW11 was suppressed by the prosecution and at this juncture, it would be unsafe to convict the accused and there are lot of improvements in the three Dying Declarations and the Hon'ble Apex court has laid down laws that if there are apparent discrepancies in the case of multiple Dying Declaration, it would be not proper and dangerous to convict the accused on the basis ofhttp://www.judis.nic.in 4 those Dying declarations and there are material discrepancies in the evidence of witnesses and the prosecution witness have improved their version before the trial court and derived from their original version and hence, their testimony could be relied upon and prays that the appellant/accused is entitled to acquittal.6.PW1 is the mother of the deceased.PW1 deposed that the accused used to consume alcohol and assaulted her daughter and hence, her daughter came to her home and after mediation by the elders her daughter was taken by the accused and afterwards, the accused assaulted her and abused her daughter and it was informed by her daughter through phone and then her daughter poured kerosene and set fire and her daughter was taken to the Trichy Government Hospital and after five days, her daughter died.7.PW2 is the brother of the deceased.PW2 deposed that the cruelty caused by the accused on the deceased and due to it, the deceased had self immolation.But he turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution.8.In this case, the complaint statement was recorded from the deceased on 20.11.2012 at 8.30 am and the learned Judicial Magistrate recorded the Dying Declaration of the deceased on 20.11.2012 at 6.45 pm.The deceased in Ex.P3 complaint statement stated that her husband used to consume alcohol and due to it, she went to her mother's house and after mediation, she went to her matrimonial home and on 19.11.2012, her husband consumed liquor and it was questioned by her and the accused assaulted her and caused injury on his hip and due to it, she poured kerosene and set fire.10.On perusal of Ex.P5, it is stated as follows:-“vd;Dila fzth; jpdKk; Foj;Jtpl;L te;J rz;ilapLthh; ehd; Ntiyf;F Vd; Nghftpy;iynad Nfl;ljhy; vd;id ifahy; fhNjhL mbj;J fhag;gLj;jpdhh; vd; rpj;jg;gh fhj;jhd; vd;gtUf;F Nghd; Ngr NghdNghJ cd; rpj;jg;gh jhd; cdf;F GU\dhnadf; Nfl;L cdf;F mt;tst[ jpkpuhbad moj;jhh; vd; fzth; vd;id re;njfg;gl;L Foj;Jtpl;L te;J ngRtjhy; ehnd kz;bzd;bza; Cw;wpf;http://www.judis.nic.in 6 bfhz;nld; new;W ,ut[ Rkhh; 10 kzpastpy; ehd; nghl;oUe;j iel;oia fpHpj;J tpl;L vd;id bjUtpw;F miHj;J te;J moj;jhh; epiwa ngh; ntof;if ghh;jth;fs; tpyf;f te;jnghJ eP ahh; vd vd; fzth;nfl;ljhy; brd;Wtpl;ldh; ehnd cldoahf kz;bzz;bza; Cw;wpf; bfhz;nld;.”11.On careful perusal of the above Dying Declaration it reveals that the accused took her with night dress in the night and brought her to the Street and assaulted her and when the neighbours attempted to save her, the accused asked them as to why they are and he connected with her with the above persons and hence, they did not rescue her and hence, she poured kerosene and set fire.12.On careful perusal of Ex.P3 complaint statement and Ex.P5 Dying Declaration, it reveals that the accused subjected the deceased to cruelty and due to it, the deceased has committed suicide.13.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused argued that the case was registered on 20.11.2012 at 8.30 am and the Dying Declaration was recorded on the same day at 6.45 pm.No suggestion was put to PW1 that she tutored her daughter to give statement as against her husband.15.The learned Judicial Magistrate, who recorded the Dying Declaration stated that at the time of recording the Dying Declaration of the deceased, no one was present near the deceased.On conjoint reading of Ex.P3 complaint statement and Ex.P5 complaint, it reveals that the version of the deceased is natural and there is no circumstance to discard the Dying Declaration.The evidence of PW21 and PW2 is consistent and trustworthy and hence, the evidence of PW1 and PW2 cannot be discarded.http://www.judis.nic.in 816.In this case, even though the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused argued on merits, but he has stated that in the interest of the welfare of the children both the appellant family and victim family compromised all the issues between them and both the families are taking care and interest toward the children namely Dhanalakshmi and Kasthuri and and the appellant/accused is ready to deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- each as fixed deposit in the name of Dhanalakshmi and Kasthurai for their peaceful future and also he undertakes that he would provide proper care and interest with regard to his daughters and provide necessary support in the future apart from the fixed deposit.18.In AIR 2009 SC 675 (Ishwar Singh Vs.At the same time, however, while dealing with such matters, this Court may take into account a relevant and important consideration about compromise between the parties for the purpose of reduction of sentence.Even when the prayer for composition has been declined this Court has in the two cases mentioned above taken the fact of settlement between the parties into consideration while dealing with the question of sentence.Apart from the fact that a settlement has taken place between the parties, there are few other circumstances that persuade us to interfere on the questionhttp://www.judis.nic.in 11 of sentence awarded to the appellants.The parties are related to each other.It is seen from the records that the appellant/accused was in judicial custody for more than two years and three months.http://www.judis.nic.in 1221.Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is partly allowed, by reducing the sentence awarded to the appellant/accused to the sentence already undergone by them.In respect of fine amount, the findings of the trial court is confirmed.The appellant/accused is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- each as fixed deposit in any one of the nationalised bank in the name of Dhanalakshmi and Kasthuri.19.08.2019 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No erhttp://www.judis.nic.in 13 To,1.The Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Tiruchirappalli.2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in 14 T.KRISHNAVALLI,J.gns/er Judgment made in Crl.A.(MD)No.97 of 2014 19.08.2019http://www.judis.nic.in
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
388,615 |
According to the prosecution the facts of the case in brief are that Truck No. PUG 2120 belonged to Jagir Singh deceased resident of village Athwal P.S. Dera Baba Nanak district Gurudaspur and appellant Balkar Singh and co-accused Pyara Singh who has been acquitted were drivers thereon.That on 23rd March 1977 along with the Truck and the two drivers Jagir Singh had gone to the Truck Union at Batala and from there he did not return.On 14-4-1977 cleaner Balvendra Singh along with Gurumeet Singh (P.W. 10) owner of another truck informed the complainant.Gurmit Singh (P.W. 2) brother of the deceased Jagir Singh that a quarrel had taken place in between Pyara Singh and Jagir Singh as the latter wanted to remove Pyara Singh from driving the truck and that Pyara Singh had told Gurmeet Singh (P.W. 10) that he would murder Jagir Singh.It is further alleged that on 22-4-1977 he had received a letter of Jagir Singh informing him that he would return on th(Sic) May 1977, When Jagir Singh did not return then on 16-5-1977 complainant Gurmit Singh (P.W. 2) went to enquire at the Truck Union.Then he met Balkar Singh at his house and the latter told him that Jagir Singh had come to Delhi on 30th April. 1977 to return to the village and he did not know anything about him.On feeling suspicious that his brother had been murdered, he lodged a written report (Ex. Ka-14) at police station Dera Baba Nanak district Gurudashpur.Thereafter on 25th May 1977 Subba (P.W. 4) along with Budhwa Singh carried appellant Balkar Singh to the Police Station and told the Investigating Officer.Deedar Singh (P.W. 15) that Balkar Singh had made an extra-judicial confession to them having killed Jagir Singh along with Pyara Singh and left his dead body somewhere in the way, within Police Station Chatta district Mathura and that some of his articles he had kept in a bag at his house in Batala.Thereupon Deedar Singh also recorded the statement of Balkar Singh and then Balkar Singh accompanied the Investigating Officer and the witnesses to his house and took out the bag from the pit which contained a Kurta.Paijama Phatauri Kachcha.Pagri which were in the bag.Balkar Singh is also alleged to have handed over a golden ring and a wrist watch of the deceased.It is, further alleged that thereafter Balkar Singh accompanied the Investigating Officer and the witnessed to the place in police station Chatta district Mathura where the dead body of Jagir Singh was thrown and from there a skeleton of the dead body having a shirt and shoes lying nearby were also recovered.Smt. Balwander Kaur has also admitted in her cross-examination that the clothes mixed with the clothes identified by her did not bear any mark while the clothes which she had identified had Dhobi Mark thereon.Regarding the ring also she has stated that the ring identified by her had the letter J.S. engraved while the other rings which were mixed had no such mark.She has also stated that she recognised the shoes because there was a particular stitch on the shoes which was not on other shoes mixed with those shoes.She further admitted that she had not kept any coloured clothes when her father had left.JUDGMENT H.C. Mital, J.I.P.C. for a period of two years R.I. and fine of Rs. 200 -(in default of payment of fine, one year R.I.) and under Section 379 to two years R.I. passed by Sri C.G. Garg.III Additional Sessions Judge Mathura.Co-accused Pyara Singh had however been already arrested on 22-5-1977 in Batala by Batala Police along with the gun of Jagit Singh deceased and a case under Section 25 of the Arms Act was registered against him and that fact subsequently came to the notice of Deedar Singh.S.O. and then he was also implicated in the case.As the dead body was found within the district of Mathura the investigation was entrused to Police Station Chatta district Mathura and then charge-sheet was submitted by Narrotam Singh Chauhan.S.I. (P.W. 13) and thereafter on committal of the accused both the accused were tried together.To prove its case the prosecution in all examined the following fifteen witnesses :Karnail Singh (P.W. 1).in whose presence the Skeleton was recovered at the pointing out of the accused Balkar Singh.Gurmit Singh (P.W. 2) is the complainant.Smt. Balvendra Kaur (P.W. 3) is daughter of the deceased.Subba Singh (P.W. 4) has deposed about the extra-judicial confession made to him by accused Balkal Singh.Balvant Singh (P.W. 5) in his presence recovery of the bag containing clothes etc. and of ring and a wrist watch from the possession of Balkar Singh was made.Prem Chandera Sharma (P.W. 6) is the Photographer who had taken snaps of the skeleton at the time of recovery.Dr. Y.K. Dubey (P.W. 7) had done the autopsy and prepared the post mortem report (Ex. Ka-11).Dalip Singh Chandra (P.W. 8).a shoe maker, has deposed that the shoes recovered were prepared by him and sold to the deceased.S.I. (P.W. 9).Gurmeet Singh (P.W.10) is owner of another Truck, had seen Truck No. 2120 in Bihar and that Pyara Singh had told him that he would kill Jagir Singh but he had told Pyara Singh not to do so and that on returning to the village he had informed Gurmit Singh brother of Jagir Singh about it.Gurmes Singh (P.W. 11) produced the chik report and other necessary papers.S.I. Narottam Singh Chauhan (P.W. 13), had prepared the inquest report.Shiv Shanker (P.W. 14) gave the affidavit that he had taken the dead body to the mortuary for post mortem.Deedar Singh (P.W. 15) is the Inspector who had conducted the investigation of the case till the recovery of the dead body.i.e. after five and a half months after closure of his testimony filed certain documents a bilty dated 27-3-1977 (Ex. Ka-3) bearing signature of Balkar Singh.(Ex. Ka-1) an inland letter dated 12-10-1977 alleged to be written by accused Balkar Singh.1977 alleged to have been written in the handwriting of accused Balkar Singh and another paper (Ex. Ka-17) dated 21-7-1976 about the truck in dispute.On the other hand the accused denied the prosecution case and alleged to have been falsely implicated.Then version was that they were not even employed with the deceased on his truck as drivers and that they did not even know driving.Pyara Singh denied to have been apprehended along with the gun.Balkar Singh denied to have made any extra-judicial confession or made any recovery regarding the skeleton and articles of the deceased.He has also denied the letters etc. to be in his handwriting and has asserted that he was totally illiterate.It was further alleged that Kanrail Singh (P.W. 1) is son of Badhawa Singh and Gurmeet, Singh (P.W. 10) is the grand son of Badhawa Singh, (another prosecution witness not examined in whose presence also the accused is alleged to have made extra-judicial confession) that Satpal Singh Sarpanch is uncle of his father-in-law and Jagir Singh (deceased) had contested election of Sarpanch against him.Jageer Singh was defeated and Satpal Singh was elected, that Daleep Singh is another brother of Jageer Singh deceased that in the murder case of Daleep Singh's daughter-in-law Daleep Singh and his son as well as P.W. 5 Balwant Singh and Badhawa Singh were accused and Satpal Singh Sarpanch had appeared as a prosecution witness, hence it was possible that murder of Jageer Singh might have been committed by some one relating to the deceased daughter-in-law of Daleep Singh; that it was also not proved that Jageer Singh was murdered and the possibility of his being alive also could not be ruled out.In defence, however, any evidence has not been adduced.I.P.C. instead of 394, I.P.C. as stated above.Accused Pyara Singh has been however, acquitted as evidence against him was not found credible.On being aggrieved Balkar Singh has preferred this appeal and on his behalf it has been urged that the prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence only which is neither credible nor sufficient to bring home the guilt to him;We have heard at length learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Advocate.The prosecution sought to prove the following circumstances against the appellant.1. Motive.Extra-judicial confession.Recovery of the skeleton at the pointing out of the appellant himself along with shirts shoes and licence of the gun.The appellant was last seen with the deceased in Bihar on the truck.We proceed to scrutinise the prosecution: evidence on the above circumstances.1. MOTIVE :-In the F.I.R. (Ex. Ka-14) dated 23-5-1978 (P.W: 2) Gurmeet Singh, the brother of the deceased had alleged that Balvindar Singh cleaner of the truck and Gurmeet Singh (P.W. 10) owner of another truck had come to him on 14-4-1977 and told him. "KISI BAAT SE MERA BHAI JAGEER SINGH PYARA SINGH DRIVER KO KISI BAAT PAR NAUKARI SE HATANA CHAHTA THA.INKA AAPAS MEN KAFI KAHAN SUNAN HO GAYA THA.US WAQT BALKAR SINGH AUR PYARA SINGH NE ISKE ALAHDA MEN KAHA THA KI JAGEER SINGH HAMARI NIGRANI KARTA HAI AUR UNKO TANK KARTA HAI.WAH USE KHATAM KAR DENGE AUR USNE AAPAS MEN BEECH BACHAO KARA DIYA THA."The above only is the alleged motive for the crime.To prove it there is evidence of P.W. 2 Gurmeet Singh the complainant and P.W. 10 another Gurmeet Singh.Balvindar Singh who is alleged to be the cleaner of the truck and was also present as alleged along with P.W. 10 Gurmeet Singh when the alleged quarrel had taken place in between Jageer Singh and the accused and the accused had threatened to kill Balvinder Singh has not been examined by the prosecution and on the record there is no reason for it.In fact he was not even mentioned in the charge-sheet indicating that even his statement under Section 161, Cr.P.C. was not recorded.P.W, 2 Gurmeet Singh the complainant has made the following statement in support of the above allegation of motive."14-4-1977 KO BALVINDAR SINGH WA GURMEET SINGH PUTRA HARPAL SINGH NE HAME BATAYA KI PYARA SINGH KA JAGEER SINGH KE SAATH JHAGARA HUA THA.JAGEER SINGH PAYARA SINGH DRIVER KO GAKI SE HATHANA CHAHATA THA.PYARA SINGH MULZIM NE GURMEET SINGH KO BATAYA KI HAM ISE QATAL KAR DENGE."Even if the above statement of Gurmeet Singh (P.W. 2) is wholly taken to be true, it does not show any motive for the appellant Balkar Singh against Jageer Singh.P.W. 10 Gurmeet Singh has also made the following statement."PYARA SINGH NE KAHA HAMEN SARPANCH (JAGEER SINGH) TANG KARTA HAI KAHTA HAI HAM TUMHARA JALDI HISAB KAR DENGE.PYARA SINGH NE MUJHSE KAHA KI HAM ISE RASTE MAEN KHATAM KAR DENGE.MAINE KAHA AISA MAT KARNA AUR INKA RAZI NAKA KARWA DIYA".Even if the above statement of P.W. 10 Gurmeet Singh is believed in toto that does not indicate any motive for appellant Balkar Singh to commit the murder of Jageer Singh.Thus, the prosecution has miserably failed to Substantiate any motive for appellant Balkar Singh to commit murder of Jageer Singh.2. EXTRA JUDICIAL CONFESSION :According to the prosecution appellant Balkar Singh on 25-5-1977 had made an extra judicial confession before P.W. 4 Subha Singh and one Badhawa Singh.The latter has not been examined and there is testimony of P.W. 4 Subha Singh who has stated that he and Badhawa Singh were talking about the Assembly election when appellant Balkar Singh came to him and told him that he and Pyara Singh along with Jageer Singh (Sarpanch) had taken that truck to Bihar.They had quarrelled with Jageer Singh whereupon Jageer Singh showed temper and told them something; that Gurmeet Singh son of Harpal Singh also met them and to him they narrated it and he got their dispute settled even then Jageer Singh remained angry.Hence he with his Kripan and Payara Singh with his knife had killed Jageer Singh near Chatta village in district Mathura and the dead body has been left behind the bushes in a pit.He further stated that he had approached him as he was a member of Panchayat and could help him as the police was after him.Subba Singh has further stated that he and Badhawa Singh then carried Balkar Singh to police station Dera Baba Nanak district Gurdashpur where he was handed over to the Inspector of police with his Kripan (Ex. 15).In his cross-examination he admitted that Fauja Singh was a maternal uncle of Balkar Singh and that Mahendra Singh was father-in-law of Balkar Singh, that Satyapal Singh uncle of Mahendra Singh was Sarpanch since ever and that Jageer Singh deceased had contested election of Sarpanch against Satyapal Singh, but was defeated.The witness, however, denied that he belonged to the party of Jageer Singh.The witness further admitted in his cross-examination, "BALKAR SINGH SE MERA US DIN SE PAHILE WASTA NAHIN PARA THA.MEL JOL BHI NAHIN THA.US DIN YAH MERE PAS APANI MARZI SE HI AA GAYA.MAIN KOI KHAS BAAT ISKE AANE KI NAHIN BATA SAKTA."From the above it is clear that there does not appear to be any reason for appellant Balkar Singh to have gone to P.W. 4 Subba Singh to make a clean breast of the murder alleged to have been committed by him.That apart a strong feature of the alleged extra judicial confession is also the fact that the appellant had also told him that Gurmeet Singh son of Harpal Singh had also met them and settled their dispute with Jageer Singh even then simply because Jageer Singh used to remain angry, they had murdered him.Moreover, neither Gurmeet Singh (P.W. 10) nor P.W. 2 Gurmeet Singh to whom the former is alleged to have told deposed that this appellant Balkar Singh had any grouse against Jageer Singh deceased or this appellant Balkar Singh had made, any complaint to Gurmeet Singh (P.W. 10) against Jageer Singh deceased.Badhawa Singh the other witness before whom the alleged extra judicial confession was made by the appellant was not examined.It was urged on behalf of the appellant that he was not examined obviously because he was closely associated with other witnesses namely, P.W. 1 Karnail Singh witness of the recovery of the dead body is son of that Badhawa Singh and P.W. 5 Balwant Singh witness of the alleged recovery of the articles including ring and wrist watch of the deceased from the house of the appellant Balkar Singh.That Balwant Singh (P.W. 5) had been co-accused and convicted along with Badhawa Singh in a criminal case as admitted by him in his cross-examination (Paragraph 4).P.W. 10 Gurmeet Singh had also admitted himself to be grand-son of Badhawa Singh.In that view of the facts on record it would not be safe to place reliance on the prosecution evidence regarding the alleged extra judicial confession and the learned Sessions Judge had erred in not considering at all the factors pointed out above.3. RECOVERY OF CLOTHES, RING AND WRIST WATCH ETC.According to the prosecution the appellant Balkar Singh had stated before, P.W. 15 Inspector Deedar Singh that he would get recovered the clothes of the deceased.Thereafter along with appellant Balkar Singh (PW. 15), Inspector Deedar Singh and witnesses Chandan Singh and P.W. 5 Balwant Singh had gone to his house and there the appellant had taken out the bag containing the clothes.There is evidence of P.W. 15 Inspector Deedar Singh that the appellant was brought to the police station by P.W. 4 Subba Singh and Badhawa Singh, who said that he had made extra judicial confession before them; that to the Inspector also appellant Balkar Singh had said that he could produce the clothes Kurta, Pajama, Kachchi, Pagdi, Bag from his house; that the gold ring and a wrist watch which the appellant was bearing of the deceased had already been seized by him at the police station and then along with Chandan Singh and P.W. 5 Balwant Singh he had reached Batala and there the appellant brought out the bag containing the aforesaid clothes about which he prepared the memo (Ex. Ka-9).According to Inspector Deedar Singh P.W. 15 the appellant was taken to the police station by P.W. 4 Subba Singh and Badhawa Singh on 25-7-1977 and his cross-examination he has stated that he had taken Balkar Singh into custody at 9.30 a.m. He has further stated that on 26-5-1977 he had sent the accused for remand at 8 a.m. In his cross-examination he has admitted that he did not note the time of recovery in the G.D. nor made any entry in G.D. at the police station when he had taken him to Batala for the recovery.He has further admitted that on 26-5-1977 he had reached the police station and in the G.D. the entry is dated 27-5-1977 at 5.30 p.m. and according to the G.D. dated 31-5-1977 he returned at 5.15 p.m. Thus, the entries in the G.D. prima facie do not appear to be consistent with the statement of the witness.That apart, the witness Inspector Deedar Singh has admitted that at the time of the recovery he did not take any neighbour of that place and he did not give any copy of the recovery memo to the accused or to the wife of the accused who was present.He also did not obtain her attestation on the memo of recovery, that in the map he has also not shown the pit from where the goods were recovered.The witness has also admitted that he had not sealed the goods recovered and brought them to the police station where also they were not sealed and their identification was got done by the witnesses at the police station itself.P.W. 5 Balwant Singh the alleged witness of the recovery has deposed that he had also gone to police station Dera Baba Nanak along with Chandan Singh and there the accused had made statement to the S.O. that he had concealed the articles of the deceased and would, take them out; that a memo was prepared at the police station of his statement on which, he himself, Chandan Singh and appellant Balkar Singh had put their thumb impressions, that he had also gone to the house of Balkar Singh and there he had taken out Pagri, Shirt, Kachcha, Pajama, Ring, wrist watch and bag; that all these articles were kept in the bag.In his cross-examination the witness has admitted that prior to this occurrence he was prosecuted in a murder case along with Badhawa Singh father of P.W. 1 Karnail Singh and that he was convicted and sentenced along with Badhawa Singh.He has also admitted that Sarpanch Satpal Singh might have given evidence against him in that criminal case.He also admitted that Satpal Singh was uncle of the father-in-law of Balkar Singh.He has also admitted that Jageer Singh had contested against Satpal Singh Sarpanch and Satpal Singh had won the election.Thus, the character of the witness stands self-condemned, in view of the fact that he was co-accused and convicted along with Badhawa Singh another alleged witness of the extra judicial confession.The prosecution evidence j regarding extra judicial confession before j P.W. 4 Subba Singh and Badhawa Singh had already been doubted as discussed above and it is subsequent to that extra judicial confession that the appellant was taken to the police station and alleged to have made the statement for handing over the articles of the deceased.The testimony of Balwant Singh P.W. 5 also suffers with the infirmity that according to him the ring and the wrist watch of the deceased were also recovered at the house of Balkar Singh as stated above from the bag, while according to P.W. 15 Inspector Deedar Singh he had seized them at the police station from the person of Balkar Singh.That apart, admittedly, the articles were not sealed and no witness of the locality was taken and Deedar Singh has admitted that he did not make any effort to take any witness nor mentioned that fact in the recovery memo.That apart, no entry in the G.D. was made before leaving for recovery.He has further admitted not to have sent the goods or their list of the recovery or made any reference to the Magistrate that from the possession of the accused goods have been recovered when his remand was further sought.It is indeed Very surprising that details of the articles recovered were mentioned in the F.I.R. (Ex. Ka-14) dated 23-5-1978 by P.W. 2 Gurmeet Singh, when he has admitted in his cross-examination that he and deceased Jageer Singh were not living jointly and they were living separately.He has also not stated that in his presence Jageer Singh had left.In the F.I.R. he had mentioned that when he had gone he was putting on a Kurta, while in his cross-examination he stated that he was putting on a shirt.P.W. 3 Balwander Kaur, daughter of the deceased could have been the best person to have deposed about the clothes the deceased was bearing when he had left.She had simply identified the clothes and the articles.She did not state that she had given the details about her father's clothes etc. to her uncle P.W. 2 Gurmeet Singh before he had got the F.I.R. scribed nor P.W. 2 Gurmeet Singh has stated he had been told by her.Thus, the prosecution evidence regarding the alleged recovery at the pointing out of the accused is highly suspicious and not worthy of credence.That apart, as already stated above, the articles were not sealed.Hence the alleged identification carried out at the police station of these articles by P.W. 2 Gurmeet Singh and Smt. Balwander Kaur (P.W. 3) is also of no consequence.It is indeed surprising that in the F.I.R. (Ex. Ka-14) even this fact was noted that in the shoes there was a particular stitch and the details of the ring and the wrist watch were also given which normally P.W. 2 Gurmeet Singh could have no occasion to know and that further raises grave doubts about the genuineness of the F.I.R. and the sanctity of the identification.Hence the contention that the F.I.R. appears to have been subsequently prepared after the arrest of the appellant, finds corroboration from these circumstances.It is also pointed out that according to the appellant he was apprehended earlier though his arrest was not shown and that fact was supported from the unsatisfactory maintenance of the entries in the G.D. It was also argued that the articles appear to have been obtained from the complainant and their false recovery has been set up by the prosecution.In view of the facts and circumstances discussed above the prosecution evidence regarding the alleged recovery of clothes and bag and other articles of the deceased at the pointing out of Balkar Singh is also highly suspicious and not safe to be relied upon.4. RECOVERY OF THE SKELETON ETC. :There is evidence of P.W. 1 Karnail Singh, P.W. 2 Gurmit Singh, P.W. 6 Prem Chandra Sharma, Photographer, and P.W. 15 Inspector Gurmeet Singh on this point.According to the prosecution case Balkar Singh had told the Investigation Officer that he could get the dead body of the deceased Jagir Singh recovered and then appellant Balkar Singh was taken by Inspector Deedar Singh along with P.W. 1 Karnail Singh, P.W. 2 Gurmit Singh and P.W. 6 Prem Chandra Sharma and others and on the way within the area of police station Chatta behind some bushes a skeleton of a dead body was pointed out to be of the deceased by Balkar Singh.P.W. 1 Karnail-Singh has deposed that on 30-5-1977 along with the Daroga and three four constables, Gurmeet Singh, Ajeet Singh, Jassa Singh and accused Balkar Singh he had gone in the area of Police Station Chatta district Mathura.The accused had taken them to the place where the skeleton was lying.The human skeleton had a terricot shirt, besides a cotton shirt and a pair of shoes were lying nearly that Daroga Deedar Singh prepared the memo as well as inquest report.In his cross-examination he could not give time, even approximate time, when he had gone there.He has further specifically admitted that in his presence no other talk had taken place in between appellant Balkar Singh the Investigating Officer.It is further stated that before the recovery the Investigating Officer did not go to Police Station Chatta even though it falls in the way but sent information subsequently and before the arrival of the police the appellant had pointed out the skeleton.He also admitted that he was son of Badhawa Singh (Prosecution witness of extra judicial confession in the case).He, however, denied that his father Badhawa Singh and Balwant Singh were prosecuted in any murder case and that Satpal Singh, Sarpanch had given evidence against his father Badhawa Singh and Balwant Singh.However, P.W. 5 Balwant Singh has specifically admitted that he himself and Badhawa Singh were prosecuted and convicted in that case and that Sarpanch Satpal Singh might have given evidence against them.Badhawa Singh is the prosecution witness in whose presence and that of Subba Singh the appellant is alleged to have made extra, judicial confession and on that point the prosecution evidence has already been discussed and disbelieved.P.W. 2 Gurmit Singh is the complainant and brother of the deceased.On this point he has also stated that on 29-5-1977 he had also accompanied the police to that place within police station Chatta and there Balkar Singh had pointed out the place where the skeleton was lying.It is also stated that in the right hand of the dead body there was an iron kara, there were also a pair of shoes besides the shirt (Ex. 3) another shirt (Ex. 4) was lying nearby and from the pocket of the shirt licence of the gun was also recovered.He has further stated that the skeleton was just tied and it was not sealed though it was stitched in a cloth.In his statement on oath he has not stated that the accused had stated at the police station Dera Baba Nanak to the Inspector, the Investigating Officer, that he could point out the dead body where it was lying and thereafter the Investigating Officer had taken him, the appellant and other persons to that place.P.W. 6 Prem Chandra Sharma is the Photographer and has deposed that he had a Studio in Chatta by the name of 'Prem Studio'.That Punjab Police had taken him to take snaps of the skeleton.In his own words : --"MAY 1977 KI BAT HAL PUNJAB KI POLICE AAI THI.HAMSE KAHA KI EK IASHKA PHOTO EK PINJAR KI USHKA WA MULJIM KA LENA HAL MAI UNKE SATH GAYA."From the statement of this witness it is clear that when police had taken him to Chatta to have the snaps the police also knew that the dead body was a skeleton.Hence subsequent statement of this witness P.W. 6 Prem Chandra Sharma that Balkar Singh had taken them to the place where the dead body was lying is, prima facie, of no consequence.That apart, P.W. 1 Karnail Singh has also not stated that this Photographer, Prem Chandra Sharma had also accompanied them to the place where Balkar Singh had pointed out the skeleton.He has specifically stated that only two Sub Inspectors, 3-4 constables, Surmeet Singh, Ajeet Singh, Jassa Singh and accused Balkar Singh had accompanied.The witness has also stated that they had gone to the scene of occurrence where the skeleton of the deceased was lying.Thus it is clear from the statement of P.W. 6 Prem Chandra Sharma that the police knew the fact that the dead body was in the shape of a skeleton.It would, therefore in the circumstances of this case also be unsafe to rely on this information for proving the appellant's guilt.That apart, it appears highly suspicious that the condition of the licence remained without any damage and even though the dead body had turned into mere skeleton as shown in the Photograph (Ex: 13) while no change had taken place in the licence though it remained exposed to the vagaries of the weather and there is also evidence as noted in the post-mortem report that some of the dead body, had been eaten away by the animals.That apart, the identification of the shirts and the shoes which were not sealed on the spot by the Investigating Officer and the fact that in the first information report even minute detail regarding the stich on the shoes had been given speaks volumes about the suspicious nature of the prosecution evidence.The prosecution has thus not succeeded in establishing that at the pointing out of the appellant dead body of the deceased Jagir Singh along with his shirts, shoes and the licence of the gun were recovered.THE APPELLANT WAS LAST SEEN WITH THE DECEASED IN BIHAR ON THE TRUCK :To prove this circumstance there is evidence of only P.W. 10 Gurmit Singh, who is grand son of Badhawa Singh, in whose presence the extra judicial confession is alleged to have taken place.P.W. 10 Gurmit Singh has deposed that he had seen on Truck No. 2120 Jagir Singh along with Pyara Singh and Balkar Singh that Pyara Singh had said that Jagir Singh was creating trouble for him and he would kill him.That after, returning from Bihar he had told Gurmit Singh brother of Jagir Singh about it.He has also stated that both Balkar Singh and Jagir Singh were drivers on the truck.According to the defence Balkar Singh was not a driver of the truck and this allegation has been strongly refuted, though P.W. 10 Gurmeet Singh has said that Balkar Singh and Pyara Singh were drivers but he has also stated in para 3 of his statement that both of them used to pay hire charges to Jagir Singh "YE DONO JAGGER SINGH KO BHARE KA RUPIYA DETE THE".If this part of the statement is believed it indicates that Balkar Singh and Pyara Singh had taken the truck from Jagir Singh on hire but that is not the prosecution case.Besides P.W. 10 Gurmeet Singh there is also evidence of P.W. 2 Gurmit Singh, brother of Jagir Singh that Balvindar Singh, cleaner of the truck, had also told him that a quarrel had taken place in between Pyara Singh and Jagir Singh.But Balwinder Singh has not been examined nor he was interrogated by the Investigating Officer to confirm that there was some quarrel between Balkar Singh and Jagir Singh.P.W. 2 Gurmit Singh has also stated that he had received a letter dated 22-4-77 from Jagir Singh that he would come back within fifteen days.However, in his first information report he had given specific date 7th May 1978 when Jagir Singh had written to return, that letter has also not been produced.There is also evidence of P.W. 3 Balvendra Kaur, daughter of deceased Jagir Singh that Balkar Singh was a driver on the Truck and so has also been stated by P.W. 2 Gurmit Singh.P.W. 2 Gurmit Singh on 24-7-1978 i.e. after more than 2 1/2 months of the closure of his testimony filed a 'Bilti' and inland letters alleged to be bearing signatures of Balkar Singh.Balkar Singh denied that they bore his signatures and stated that he was wholly illiterate.The fact that he was illiterate and could not even make his signatures is clear from the record as there is no document bearing his signatures.His statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C. also contains two thumb impressions.P.W. 5 Balvant Singh in para 18 of his cross-examination also stated that Balkar Singh had put his thumb impressions though earlier he had stated in para 1 of the examination-in-chief that Balkar Singh had signed but immediately corrected and said that he had put his thumb impression.That apart, P.W. 2 Gurmit Singh has simply stated that he recognised the handwriting and signatures of Balkar Singh on the documents Exs.but has not stated that he had seen him reading or writing or that ever in his presence Balkar Singh had made his signatures.On behalf of the defence it was also suggested that the 'Bilty' produced was fictitious and to substantiate it on behalf of the defence through an application dated 17-8-1978 a bilti in duplicate was filed showing the name of Gurmit Singh as driver on Truck No. 2120 P.U.G. The learned Sessions Judge though passed an order that the same be kept on file did not take notice of them in his judgment.Hence merely because some bilti was filed and the writer of the bilti was not produced nor any one connected with the Transport Company was produced, mere name of Balkar Singh and his alleged signature on the Bilti do not carry any credence.Admittedly as stated by P.W. 15 Inspector Deedar Singh they had gone on the truck of the deceased to P.S. Chatta along with the appellant and other witnesses for the recovery of the dead body of the deceased.However, Inspector Deedar Singh has not deposed when and from whose possession the truck was recovered.There is also no recovery memo on the record about it.It is definitely not the case of the prosecution that the accused had gone to P.W. 4 Subba Singh and Badhawa Singh for making his confession on that truck and that on that very truck they had come to the police station when Balkar Singh was taken into custody.In para 15 of his cross-examination P.W. 15 Inspector Deedar Singh has specifically stated that on 26th May, 1977 when he reached police station in the evening i.e. after getting the remand of the appellant from the Magistrate the truck was not found.Appellant Balkar Singh had been taken into custody admittedly on 25-5-1977 at 9.30 a.m. The recovery of the truck was a material circumstance, but the prosecution for the reasons best known to it has concealed that fact and has not given any evidence nor had connected its recovery with the investigation of the case.Had the truck been recovered from the possession of the appellant that would have been a very strong circumstance that he had been driving the truck of the deceased.In that view of the evidence on record the prosecution has also failed to establish that the appellant was last seen with the deceased in Bihar on the truck as set up by the prosecution.It is also relevant to point out that the conduct of P.W. 15 Deedar Singh during the investigation is not free from suspicion.Deedar Singh, (P.W. 15) had deposed that after the case was registered on 23-5-1978 under Section 364, I.P.C. he searched for accused Balkar Singh at his house on 24-5-1978 but he did not prepare any memo which in the normal course he should have done.He also stated that after the alleged recovery of the skeleton on 30-5-1977 a case was registered at police station Chatta.There is nothing on record to show why the case was registered at P.S. Chatta on 30-5-1977 and not on 29-5-1977 when the inquest report was prepared at 1.10 p.m. in the afternoon and P.W. 13 Norottam Singh S.I. who had prepared the inquest report has also stated that he reached the place where the skeleton was lying at 12.45 p.m. He has further admitted that crime number was not written in the inquest report and it was even suggested to him that the time has been written subsequently as the ink was different.P.W. 15 Inspector Deedar Singh also stated that on 26-5-1977 he had sent Balkar Singh for remand at 10 a.m. and admitted in his cross-examination that he did not note the time of recovery of articles in the G.D. nor made any entry when he had taken Balkar Singh to Batala for recovery.He also did not bother to have any independent witness of the locality at the time of the recovery nor had sealed the articles which required identification of the witnesses.He also could not give an approximate time when the death might have taken place.The skeleton was also found to have been eaten by animals.The skeleton according to the prosecution was that of Jagir Singh because of the shirts a licence and shoes alleged to have been recovered from there.The recovery and identification of the articles has already been treated with great suspicion and not believed.The evidence of the extra judicial confession has also been disbelieved.The appeal is, therefore, allowed, His conviction and sentence for the offenne under Sections 302 and 201 and 379, I.P.C. are set aside.
|
['Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
38,871,802 |
According to the ou complaint, the marriage of the complainant Smt. Radha Tiwari was solemnised on 12.02.2015 with the petitioner No.1- Anil at C village- Makroniya, Sagar.The parents of the complainant had h given dowry including motorcycle, ornaments and jewelry etc. ig When she went to her matrimonial house, the mother-in-law and H sister-in-law started saying that she did not brought sufficient dowry from her parental house and no sufficient cash has been given.If the marriage was solemnised somewhere else, they would have got more cash and other goods.The complainant said to them, her parent have given according to their capacity.No.1/State.e Heard.ad This petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed to Pr invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court and to quash the FIR at Crime No.145/2016 dated 09.06.2016, registered at a hy police station Gourjhamar, district Sagar for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 506 and 406 read with Section ad 34 of the IPC.Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts just necessary for disposal of this case are that on the report of the respondent No.2 of Smt. Radha Tiwari, crime has been registered against the rt petitioners for offences mentioned above.Her husband and father-in-law told her that when she would come again from maternal home for second time (dursri bida), she should bring Rs.1 Lac and a TV.Because of this, the complainant was repeatedly taunted and harassed by the accused persons.Sister-in-law used to entice her husband to beat her.Father-in-law used to tell him to kill the complainant or to leave her at her parental home.They wanted male child to be born, but a girl child was born to the complainant.Therefore, the father of the complainant borne the expenses of birth of the child.After ten days, husband took her to the maternal home and left her there.Her ornaments and clothes were also taken away.She was also threatened to bring Rs.1Lac and a TV otherwise, she should leave the house along sh with the daughter.On 15.01.2016 when she was at her e matrimonial home, her daughter fell sick.They did not even care ad to treat her.They always demanded dowry.She was mentally and Pr physically harassed.On this report, FIR dated 09.06.2016 has been registered for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, a 506 and 406 read with Section 34 of the IPC as well as Sections 3 hy and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.On behalf of the petitioners, it is claimed that the petitioners M are innocent and have been falsely implicated.Medical bills were paid by the petitioners.Respondent No.2 has taken all her jewelry of with her.Offence under Section 406 of the IPC is not made out.rt The petitioners are old parents and unmarried sister-in-law.The FIR is abuse of process of law, hence, the same be quashed.On behalf of the respondent No.1/State, it is contended that the C complainant has given vivid description of harassment caused to h her.The petitioners are responsible for offences, therefore, the ig petition is not entertainable.Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 opposing the contentions, submits that the statements of the witnesses and complaint clearly indicate commission of offence.Perused the record.So far as the contentions raised by the petitioners that when the application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed on 13.05.2016 and notice was sent to the complainant on 28.05.2016, the complainant has lodged the FIR on 31.05.2016 concocting a false story.
|
['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
388,730 |
The accused was charged with the offences under the saidprovisions of law as follows:-The accused and the deceased were married about 5 years priorto the occurrence and the accused harassed the deceased wife for dowry fromher parents.While so, on that account, he used to harass and beat hercausing cruelty.On 21.6.1989 at about 3.00 p.m. owing to an altercationwith his wife for not getting dowry from her parents, he beat her andsmothered her by pressing the mouth and nose with the intention to murder andthereby committed the offences punishable under the said provisions of law.The case of the prosecution as discerned from the evidence may bestated briefly as follows:-(a) On 21.6.1989 at 3.00 P.M. when P.W.2 happened to passthrough the house of the deceased and the accused, the accused called him andconfessed voluntarily about the commission of the offence.When P.W.2 wentalong with the accused into the hut, he saw the dead body of the deceasedhanging from the roof and both the accused and P.W.2 had brought down the deadbody of the deceased and laid it on the ground.On the same day, the parentsand brothers of the deceased were informed and they came to the occurrencevillage where the panchayat was held.When P.Ws.2, 3, 4 and others enquiredthe accused with reference to the occurrence, he admitted that he committedthe murder of his wife.(b) The panchayatdars sent for P.W.1, Village Administrativeofficer who on receipt of such information went to the scene of occurrence on22.6.1989 at 6.00 A.M and saw the dead body of the deceased in the pial of thehouse.He did not find the accused available at that time and therefore hewent to the T.Pazhur Police Station and gave the complaint, Ex.P-1 to P.W.10,the Sub Inspector of Police who having received the said complaint registereda crime in Cr.No.154/1989 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and since the deceasedPoovayee died within 5 years from the date of marriage, he prepared theprinted form of F.I.R., Ex.P-9 and sent Exs.P-1 and P-9 to the JudicialMagistrate's Court and copies thereof to the Revenue Divisional Officer andhigher police officials for necessary action.(c) P.W.11, Revenue Divisional Officer, Ariyalur on receipt ofthe said document from P.W.10 on 22.6.1989 at 2.10 P.M. went to theoccurrence village and conducted an enquiry and held an inquest on the deadbody of the deceased in the presence of panchayatdars.His enquiry report isEx.On receipt of such report from P.W.11 on 24.6.19 89, P.W.10 alteredthe offence into one under Section 302 and 498-A I.P.C. and sent expressreport, Ex.P-10 to the Court as well as to his higher officials.(d) P.W.12, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ariyalurhaving received the copy of the complaint, the F.I.R. from P.W.10 and theenquiry report from P.W.11 took up the investigation and went to theoccurrence village on 25.6.1989, inspected the place of occurrence, preparedthe observation mahazar, Ex.P-2 and drew the rough sketch, Ex.Furtherhe has examined P.Ws.1, 2, 3, 4 and other witnesses and recorded theirstatements.Appearances found at the post-mortem: A decomposed female body lieson its back with arms flexed rigor mortis passed off in all the four limbs.Whole body clotted with bullae and blibs found all over the body.Thorax: Blood clotspresent over the upper part of sternum.Lungs: Surface congested, intact.Dark colour fluid oozes.On cut section.Right side 55 0 gms.left 500 gms.Heart: Surface pale, chambers empty weight 300 gms.abdomen: Stomachdistended with gas.Muscosa congested.50 ml.of red colour fluid presentinside.Liver: 1200 gms.Surface congested, intact.(Torn) Semi-solid 120gms each.Intestine: Surface congested and distended with gas.Spleen:Semisolid, 150 gms.P-13 is the admissible portion.Inpursuance of such confession, the accused took the police party and thewitnesses to the occurrence village and he took M.O.1 (series) coir ropepieces from the granary in his house and the same was recovered by P.W.12under cover of mahazar, Ex.The trial Court isdirected to secure the accused to commit him to prison to undergo theremaining portion of the sentence.Index: YesWebsite: YesdppToThe II Additional Sessions Judge, Thiruchirappalli.2. -do- through the Principal Sessions Judge,Thiruchirappalli.The Judicial Magistrate, Jeyamkondam.4. -do- through The Chief Judicial Magistrate,Thiruchirappalli.the Judicial Magistrate, Madurai.6. -do- through The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Chennai.The District Collector, Thiruchirappalli.The prosecution examined 12 witnesses, marked 14 documents andproduced 1 material object to prove the guilt of the accused.The accused hasnot examined any witness nor produced any document.On 26.6.1989 P.W.12 examined P.W.7 and other witnesses andrecorded their statements.(e) P.W.11 Revenue Divisional Officer sent requisition Ex.P-3to the Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Jeyamkondam for conductingpost-mortem on the dead body of Poovayee and thereupon P.W.6 along withanother Doctor conducted the autopsy and gave the post-mortem certificate,Ex.At the time of the post-mortem, they found the following injuries onthe dead body of the deceased:-Both eyesopened and eye balls protruding outside.Mouth opened and tongue protruded.Bloody frothy fluid present over both nostrils and mouth.Post-reorferencestaining present over the back.Both breast enlarged and nipples prominent.Internal Examination: Hyoid bone intact.Thyroid cartilage laryngealrings are intact.Congestion of laryngeal mucosa.Uterus: Normal in size, empty.Bladder empty: Skull:No fracture of skull bone.Brain: Membrane present.Liquified 950 gms.P.W.6 has opined that the deceased would appear to have died about 36 to 48hours prior to autopsy on account of asphyxia due to smothering and Ex.(f) P.W.12 continued his investigation and arrested theaccused on 23.7.1989 at 8.30 A.M. and he gave a voluntary confession in thepresence of P.W.9 and another and Ex.P-14 in the presence of the same witnesses.On21.9.1989, P.W.12 examined P.W.6, P.W.10 and other witnesses and recordedtheir statements.He completed the investigation and laid the final reportagainst the accused.We heard the contentions of the learned counsel for theappellant/accused and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and perused therecorded evidence in this case.The evidence of P.W.6, Autopsy Surgeon and the post-mortemcertificate, Ex.P-4 are relied upon by the prosecution to show that thedeceased died of homicidal violence.The evidence of P.W.6 is to the effectthat due to smothering of the mouth and nose with a piece of cloth, thedeceased would have died of asphyxia and that after receiving the ChemicalExaminer's report, Ex.P-5 to the effect that there is no evidence ofpoisoning, both she as well as the other Autopsy Surgeon have issued the finalreport, Ex.Though she has been crossexamined at length to show that thedeceased committed suicide by hanging, she has denied such possibility andstated categorically that there was no evidence of suicide by hanging.Further according to her evidence, since the deceased had been smothered, theyfound bloody frothy fluid present over both nostrils and mouth and both eyesopened and the eye balls protruding outside and mouth opened and tongue alsofound protruded.Hence, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has urgedthat the symptoms found by the Autopsy Surgeon would undoubtedly point outthat the deceased died on account of asphyxia due to smothering.In view ofthe medical evidence as narrated above and in the absence of any contrarycircumstance shown by the learned counsel for the accused, we are inclined toaccept the contention put forth by the prosecution and hold that the deceaseddied of asphyxia due to smothering.Hence we find that the prosecution hassucceeded in proving that the deceased died on account of homicidal violence.It is not in controversy that thedeceased and the accused lived together in the same house where the occurrencetook place.It is in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that theaccused used to harass the deceased for getting money and other things by wayof dowry from her parents.The evidence of P.W.11, Revenue Divisional Officerand the enquiry report, Ex. P-11 would indicate that on account of such dowryharassment, he rendered a finding that the deceased died of cruelty meted outby the accused on account of dowry demand and that therefore he directed thepolice authorities to initiate action against the accused in accordance withlaw.The evidence of P.Ws.3 to 5 would indicate that they are thepanchayatdars hailing from the same village where both the accused and thedeceased lived and therefore their evidence cannot be brushed aside.Theevidence of P.Ws.3 to 5 coupled with that of P.W.11 and Ex.P-1 1 in ouropinion has proved beyond doubt that the motive for committing the offence hasbeen clearly established.Further, as seen from the evidence of P.W.5 who isan independent witness, such dowry harassment made by the accused 10 or 15days prior to the occurrence has been proved and his evidence is in ouropinion reliable.Therefore, we confirm the finding rendered by the trialcourt that the harassment and cruelty meted out by the accused on account ofdowry demand was the prime motive for the commission of the offence.It is in the evidence of P.W.2 that when he saw the body of thedeceased hanging from the roof top, the feet were resting on the floor andtherefore it is probable in the normal course of events that the accusedshould have tied her neck with the rope M.O.1 and made it a scene of suicideby tying the other end of the rope on the roof top.At the same time, when hewanted to get the body down, he requested P.W.2 who happened to pass that wayto help him in untying the rope from the roof top and to lay down the body onthe ground which a single man could not be able to do properly.Therefore, weare of the opinion that while requesting for the help the accused hadnecessarily to make a confession to P.W.2 regarding the occurrence.Thoughthe learned counsel for the accused has urged us to reject such confession onthe ground that while the medical evidence shows that the deceased died ofasphyxia due to smothering, P.W.2 has given another version that the accusedhad confessed to have beaten his wife which resulted in her death.It is seenfrom the evidence of the case that P.W.2 happened to be one of thepanchayatdars in the village and therefore we are of the opinion that he hascome out with the truth in the course of investigation.Therefore, we areunable to give much credence to the argument of the appellant's counsel andhold that such confession is true and voluntary one.10. P.W.2 has stated that he does not remember to have stated to theInvestigating Officer, P.W.12 that the feet of the deceased were resting onthe floor when he found the body hanging from roof top.On the contraryP.W.12 however, admitted that during his investigation, P.W.2 told him thatthe feet of the deceased were resting on the floor when he found the body ofthe deceased hanging from the roof top.Therefore, the medical evidence tothe effect that no ligature mark had been found on the neck of the deceasedlends corroboration to the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 12 on this aspect.It istherefore clear that the accused had deliberately hung the body of thedeceased on the roof top to screen the evidence of the crime committed by him.In this regard the finding rendered by the trial Court has to be confirmed.Nextly, the learned counsel for the accused has urged that theevidence of P.Ws.3 to 5 in relation to the panchayat held on the date ofoccurrence and the alleged confession made by the accused to them are notbelievable in entirety.It is however admitted by the learned counsel for theaccused that there was in fact a panchayat held on the date of occurrence, buthe has argued that since the accused refused to pay the amount demanded by thepanchayatdars towards the common fund maintained by the villagers, theyreported the matter to P.W.1 , Village Administrative Officer for takingaction in accordance with law.P.C. he has merely denied that he was arrested by P.W.12 on 23.7.1989 ,but failed to explain his whereabouts till that date.It is in the evidenceof P.W.1 that on 22.6.1989, a day after the occurrence when he had gone to theoccurrence place to verify the fact with reference to the information hereceived, he found the dead body of the deceased lying on the pial of thehouse and that the accused was not found at that time.Therefore, it isevident that immediately after the panchayatdars decided to request P.W.1,village Administrative Officer to lodge the complaint to the police, theaccused absconded till he was arrested and therefore, the necessarypresumption is that his absconding from the scene village would point out tohis guilt only.Thus, the appeal is dismissed confirming the conviction andsentence imposed upon the accused by the trial Court.The D.I.G., Chennai.10.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.11.The Sub Inspector of Police, T.Pazhur Police Station,Thiruchirappalli.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
3,887,691 |
Learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application on the ground that there are as many as 7 cases pending against him.It is directed that subject to the aforesaid condition the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.30,000/-(Rs.Thirty Thousand only) and one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate for his appearance on all the dates of hearing as may be directed in this regard during trial.He is further directed that on being so released on bail, he would comply with the conditions enumerated under section 437(3) Cr.P.C. meticulously.Certified copy as per rules.( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/
|
['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
388,840 |
(Order of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J) This Writ Application challenges an order of the second respondent made inCr.M.P.No.42/2008 dated 12.9.2008 whereby a relative of the petitioner wasordered to be detained under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prevention ofDangerous Activities of Boot-Leggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas,Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act,1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) branding him as a "Goonda".The Court heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner andlooked into all the materials available including the order under challenge.Pursuant to the recommendation made by the sponsoring authority thatthe detenu was involved in three adverse cases viz., Crime No.281/2008 underSections 387, 506(ii) altered to 392 of the IPC registered by Kallakkudi PoliceStation; Crime No.760/2008 under Sections 387, 506(ii) altered to 392 Of theIPC; Crime No.276/2008 under Sections 387, 506(ii) of the IPC and 3 of TNPP(D&L)Act and in one ground case in Crime No.307/2008 under Section 392 of theIPC registered by Kallakudi Police Station, after looking into the materials,the detaining authority recorded his subjective satisfaction that the activitiesof the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and that heshould be detained under the law of preventive detention and accordingly, madethe order of detention, which is the subject matter of challenge before thisCourt.The only ground of attack of this detention order is that noapplication of mind on the part of the detaining authority.Hence, the order ofdetention has got to be set aside.Accordingly, the order of detention is set aside.The detenu isdirected to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in connection withany other case.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
|
['Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
38,892,523 |
This is the first application under Section 438 Cr.P.C filed by the applicant for grant of anticipatory bail.Applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.70/2018 registered at Police Station Vindhya Nagar Distt.Singrauli for the offences under Sections 353, 294, 323, 506, 332 & 333 of IPC.As per the prosecution case on 15.3.2018 at about 12.05 noon Civil Office of CWS, NCL the complainant Dineshwar Pandey was sitting in his chamber, the applicant reached there and asked him to make payment of bills, which are due since long.When the complainant has directed the applicant to talk to the staff officer of the project, the applicant abused him and also beaten him by kicks and fists and also thrown the papers which were kept on the table.The office staff has intervened the matter then after threatening the complainant regarding his life, the applicant left the office.On the report of the complainant aforesaid crime has been registered under Sections 353, 294, 323 and 506 of IPC.But during the medical examination of the complainant, the injury on the left shoulder was found to be grievous in nature.On that basis Sections 332 and 333 added in the already registered crime.Learned counsel for the applicant contends that a false case has been registered against the present applicant.It is Digitally signed by SANTOSH MASSEY Date: 04/03/2019 21:27:05 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH urged that the applicant is permanent resident of the address described in the application and there is no possibility of his absconding.The applicant is ready to cooperate with the investigation.Hence, prayer is made to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail.Accordingly, M.Cr.C. stands dismissed.(Mohd. Fahim Anwar) Judge skm Digitally signed by SANTOSH MASSEY Date: 04/03/2019 21:27:05
|
['Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
38,892,972 |
The prosecutrix lives with her parents and six brothers and sisters in Crl.On 23/05/2011, the day of the alleged incident, at about 8:00 pm the prosecutrix was coming back from the house of her friend Ruksar, when Sunny forcibly caught her, pressed her mouth with his right hand and forcibly took her in Beriwala Bagh (Beriwala Garden) and raped her.Her mother, Kaushal Khatoon, went searching for her and reached the Bagh (garden).On seeing her, Sunny fled from there.She dressed her daughter, and their neighbor Yusuf, made a call to the police informing them about the incident.When they reached home, the police officials were there.They were taken to the Police Station where their statements were recorded U/s 164 Cr.P.C. and then the report was lodged U/s 376 I.P.C. The prosecutrix in the presence of her parents has been medically examined.Accused Sunny was arrested on 24/05/2017 at about 5:00 p.m. and his blood samples and clothes were taken into Police possession.On seeing my mother and father other public persons, accused managed to escape by jumping over the boundary wall of the Berry Bagh and thereafter, I was taken to the home.Thereafter, my mother and father went to the house of Sunny to know about his whereabouts but accused did not found there.At that time my daughter was naked and I dressed her.My daughter told me that accused had brought her forcefully and the accused had raped her.I brought my daughter to the house."Through : Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for the State.HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL % ORDER 15.09.2017 Crl.M.B. No. 1071/17 (Suspension of Sentence)By way of the present petition filed under Section 389 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.PC."), the petitioner seeks Suspension of Sentence in case FIR No. 125/2011 under Sections 363/376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "IPC") registered at Police Station Kanjhawala, New Delhi.The facts noted by the trial court are as under that on 24/05/2011 the prosecutrix (name withheld being a case U/s 376 IPC) alongwith her mother Kaushal Khatoon and father Mohd. Siraj came to the police station and disclosed about the rape committed upon her on 23/05/2011 at about 8:00 pm.M.B.1071.17 in Crl.A.No.1688.2014 Page 1 of 7 village Madan Pur.She studies in the 4th standard and her classmate Ruksar who she often borrows books from lives very close to her.The petitioner, Sunny Pal, aged 20/21 years, about 2 weeks back, had called the prosecutrix to the Mandir of Madan Pur Dabbas in the evening, but she did not go.A.No.1688.2014 Page 3 of 7 for more than 6 years i.e. more than half of the sentence and the appellant's family has suffered extreme hardships as the appellant is the only earning member of the family and thus a prayer has been made to order for suspension of sentence under sympathetic consideration.A.No.1688.2014 Page 3 of 7I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the material on record.Admittedly, prosecutrix was a minor on the date of incident.PW-1 (prosecutrix) during her examination in chief deposed as under :-"Prior to leaving my home for collecting the note book from Ruksar, I had told to my younger sister if I cone late she can know my whereabouts from the house of Ruksar.As I got late, my sister went to the house of Ruksar to know my whereabouts and Ruksar told my sister that I had left with the note book.On late, my brother and mother came towards the side of house of Ruksar and when they made alarm on the way and near the Berry Bagh on hearing the scream Crl.M.B.1071.17 in Crl.A.No.1688.2014 Page 4 of 7 of my mother accused Sunny present in the Court today hold me down when I tried to escape from the clutches of accused.After some time my mother came at the spot with my father and I was escaped free from the clutches of accused.Thereafter, my father made a call at 100 number."M.B.1071.17 in Crl.A.No.1688.2014 Page 4 of 7PW-5, Smt. Kaushal Khatoon during her examination in chief deposed on the same lines of PW-1 (prosecutrix) that :-"On 23/05/2011, I alongwith my husband has left for work (labour) at about 7:00-7:30 AM at Kanjhawala.My six children (five daughters and one son) were at the home at that time.My daughter/prosecutrix (name/withheld) aged about 13 years was at home.At about 7:00 - 7:30 PM.I alongwith my husband returned to my home.My daughter Gulabsha aged about 7 years told me that prosecutrix aged about 13 years was taken by one boy forcefully.Thereafter I alongwith my husband & my younger daughter Gulabsha went in search of my daughter/ prosecutrix and when we reached Beriwala Bagh which was at a Crl.A.No.1688.2014 Page 5 of 7 distance of about km. from my house.We saw accused present in the court today was lying on my daughter and on seeing us he ran away.
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
38,896,067 |
From the perusal of the case diary and looking to the fact that the FIR was lodged with the delay of more than one month and also that the applicant is an Engineering student his custo- dial interrogation is not necessary.In the circumstances, I am of the view that it is a fit case in which the anticipatory bail may be granted to the applicant.Accordingly, without express- ing any opinion on the merits of the case, the application for grant of anticipatory bail is allowed.
|
['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
38,896,325 |
The jurisdiction of this Court may not be allowed to be exploited by theaccused, who can well afford to wait for a logical conclusion.Theantecedents of the accused have also to be taken into consideration beforeaccepting the memo of compromise and the accused, by means of compromise, cannot try to escape from the clutches of law."This petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings inSTC No.913 of 2018 on the file of the District Munsif ? cum ? JudicialMagistrate, Sengottai.2.On the complaint lodged by the second respondent herein, thefirst respondent police has registered a case in Crime No.15 of 2017 for theoffence punishable under Sections 294(b), 323 and 506(ii) IPC against thepetitioners herein.After completing investigation, the first respondent hasfiled final report and the same has been taken on file in STC No.913 of 2018on the file of the District Munsif ? cum ? Judicial Magistrate, Sengottai andfor quashing the same, this petition has been filed.3.The parties have filed a joint memo of compromise on25.06.2018, wherein, it is stated as follows:For the foregoing reasons it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may begraciously pleased to accept the compromise memo and quash the proceedings in STC No.913 of 2018 on the file of the District Munsif ? cum ? JudicialMagistrate, Sengottai .?4.Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, Mr.A.SamuelRaj, Special Sub-Inspector of Police, Achanpudur Police Station, TirunelveliDistrict is present.The petitioners and the second respondent appeared inpersons and their identifications were also verified by this Court, inaddition to the confirmation of the identity of the parties by the GovernmentAdvocate (Crl.Side) through the respondent Police, namely, Mr.A.Samuel Raj,Special Sub-Inspector of Police, Achanpudur Police Station, TirunelveliDistrict.Learned counsel appearing for the parties also endorsed theidentify of their respective parties.5.When such a situation arose in similarly placed matters inCrl.Therefore, this petition is allowedand the entire proceedings in STC No.913 of 2018 on the file of the DistrictMunsif ? cum ? Judicial Magistrate, Sengottai.in respect of thepetitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 are hereby quashed.The joint compromise memo filed on 25.06.2018 shall form part of this order.7.At the instance of the learned counsel for the petitioners, thepetitioners themselves voluntarily came forward to contribute some amount tothe Mediation and Conciliation Centre attached to this Bench.After making payment, a copy of the challan shall be furnished tothe Registrar (Administration), Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.Note to office:Registry is directed tomark a copy of this order to the Registrar (Administration),Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.1.The District Munsif ? cum ? Judicial Magistrate, Sengottai.2.The Special Sub Inspector of Police, Achanpudur Police Station, Tirunelveli District.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
38,904,419 |
pk CRM No. 6812 of 2015 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 21.07.15 in connection with Kotwali P.S. Case No. 908/14 dated 11.11.14 under Sections 341/325/326/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of:- Tapas Pramanick & Ors.341/325/326/34 of the Indian Penal Code have come to this court for anticipatory bail.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Malay Marut Banerjee, J)
|
['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
38,909,757 |
Though the learned counsel for the petitioner raised several grounds to assail the impugned order of detention, he mainly focussed his arguments on the question of delay in consideration of the petitioner's representation, which has not been properly explained by the respondents.Therefore, it would vitiate the rights guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.We have heard Mr.P.Govindarajan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above point and perused the records.
|
['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
389,099 |
ORDER Somasundaram, J.This is a revision filed against the order refusing to accept the contention of the petitioner herein, who was a Revenue Inspector of a Municipality, that he is entitled to protection under Section 353-A of the District Municipalities Act.
|
['Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
3,891,273 |
As soon as his nephew reached near the filed of Ram Kumar Lodh at about 12 noon, accused Ravindra Singh son of Shiv Pal singh, Jai Deo Singh son of Bhola Singh, Shailendra Singh, Narendra Singh sons of Guru Bux Singh, Naresh Singh (son-in-law of Lawa Singh), Rajan Lal, son of Nanhoo, Bawan Baghwan Singh son of Mahavir Singh came out from bushes which were by side of Rajwaha and surrounded his nephew and Jai Deo Singh exhorted that he would not be spared and would be killed, on this, all the accused exhorted let him be done to death.Right then, Ravindra Singh, Jai Deo Singh, Bawan Bhagwan Singh by the licensed guns in their hands and Naresh Singh by country made pistol made fire upon Dharmendra Singh which hit him, the other three accused Naresh Singh, Shailendra Singh Rajan Lal who were armed with Lathi.This occurrence was seen by him, Chandrabhan Singh son of Amar Singh, Nagendra Bahadur singh son of Mahipal Singh, Sarnath Singh son of Khan Singh all residents of village Nigoha, Rajjan Singh son of Rama Singh, resident of Gauri, P.S. Shivli, Bal Krishna son of Jaswant Singh, resident of village Kharagpur, P.S. Shivrajpur.Accused Shailendra Singh, Narendra Singh, Rajan Lal and Naresh had thrown the dead body of the deceased in the field of paddy from Patri.His nephew died instantaneously after having received fire arm injuries, who was killed due to enmity because against Jai Deo Singh in a case under section 409 IPC, his nephew was witness and Jai Deo Singh had told him not to depose against him but his nephew did not oblige him and asserted that he would certainly give evidence.Apart from that accused persons Narendra Singh and Shailendra Singh wanted to illegally occupy his land which was in possession of the complainant side.Rest of the accused were friends of these accused persons.When the above-named witness challenged, they fled towards Pratappur.He has further stated that chik FIR no. 331 dated 2.9.2015 which is Exhibit Ka-8 has also been numbered by him.In the cross-examination, this witness has stated that after the registration of case no cognizable offence was registered on 8.9.1980 by him.He denied that FIR was prepared with consultation.After registration of the case, investigation was handed over to S.I. Saligram Ratnakar, PW7, who had visited at the said police station on 8.9.1980, who immediately after lodging of report proceeded along with other constable to the place of incident and he found the dead body of deceased Dharmendra Singh at the 10 yards to the north of the northern Patri of Rajwaha Maidan Bhausana in the field of Ram Kumar Lodh, resident of Mittanpur with face up.He prepared inquest report after appointing Panchas which is Exhibit Ka-9 and sent the dead body for postmortem along with copy of FIR and other relevant papers which included Challan-nash Exhibit Ka-10, Photo-nash, Exhibit Ka-11, Chitthi to RI, Exhibit Ka-12, Chitthi to CMO for postmortem Exhibit no. 13, report CMO Exhibit Ka-14, which were prepared in his handwriting and were signed by him.At a small distance from the place of occurrence, he recovered one pair of shoes to be worn in rainy season, one 'Tehmat' near the dead body.He also found one briefcase near motorcycle in which there were clothes meant for being worn by the deceased.The clothes recovered from the body of the deceased i.e. Shirt material Exhibit-15, Sando baniyan material Exhibit-16, underwear material Exhibit 17, Janaiu material Exhibit-18 and after postmortem, these material exhibits were got deposited at the police station.The blood at Patri was found at place ''C' and nowhere else on the Patri.The stocks of paddy were found pressed and not crushed and he did not find any pallet or bullet over there.Between the places ''A' and ''B' on the Patri where he had found blood or not, he does not recollect because it was rainy season.He had not considered it necessary to mention as to what clothes were found in the briefcase.He also did not note the spots/dents which were caused on the motorcycle with pallets.The place of recovery of briefcase is shown in the site plan by ''K'.At the place of incident, Patri must have been 7-8 feet wide although its width has not been noted and he has also not shown the distance in the site plan from where ''Tehmat' and shoes were recovered.He has further stated that when investigation was handed over to him, he had tried to take in his possession the guns from the accused persons regarding which he had also interrogated family members of the accused.Witness Harnam Singh had stated to him that Dharmendra Singh after dismounting him from motorcycle, went alone on his motorcycle so as to take it out of the difficult part/broken patch of the passage.He had not stated that Dharmendra Singh was carrying motorcycle dragging the same, after dismounting him.He had also not stated that after surrounding his nephew, the accused had started screaming.Thereafter, supurdagi of the said land had gone to Raghuraj but he could not tell as to why the said change was made with respect to supurdagi of said land and has stated that Raghuraj and Dharmendra were real brothers.Further he has stated with respect to the incident that on 8.9.1980 he was going to Kanpur by motorcycle from his village with Dharmendra (deceased) who was driving the same and he was pillion rider and when they reached on patri of Rajwaha near field of Ram Kumar Lodh of village Mitalpur, the passage there was in bad condition because there were lot of cuts, hence he got down from the motorcycle and Dharmendra also got down from it and dragged it forward.Since the said passage was in bad condition for good amount of distance, Dharmendra started driving his motorcycle at slow pace while he proceeded behind him on foot.When he reached near the field of Ram Kumar Lodh at about 12 noon, all of a sudden, accused Jai Deo Singh, Ravindra Singh, Shailendra Singh, Narendra Singh, Naresh Singh, Rajjan Lal and Bawan Bhagwan came out of the bushes and surrounded Dharmendra.Jai Deo Singh roared that the deceased would not be spared today and would be killed to which all of them stated that he would be killed immediately.Jai Deo, Bawan Bhagwan and Ravindra were armed with gun, Naresh with country made pistol and rest of them were wielding 'lathis'.Those who were having gun and pistols in their hands, made fire upon Dharmendra by their respective weapons which hit Dharmendra as a result of which, he fell down, thereafter Shailendra, Narendra, Rajjan Lal, Naresh dragged Dharmendra towards the paddy field of Ram Kumar about 8-10 yards away towards north of the patri and, thereafter, the accused went towards village Pratapur in the western direction.At the time when the deceased was surrounded by the accused, P.W.1 was about 30-32 paces behind him towards east and he raised alarm.About 8 to 10 paces ahead of him, Sarnam and Chandar were going and even they had stopped.From western side, Rajjan Singh and Bal Kishan had also come.His brother Nagendra Bahadur who was in the field of paddy about 100 paces away from the place of incident towards the east also arrived there and all of them had seen the occurrence.Further he has stated that when the accused had surrounded the deceased, they had raised an alarm.After departure of the accused, he came near Dharmendra where witnesses were also present and saw that Dharmendra had died.He had taken the said written report to P.S. and handed it over there and after sending Rajjan to his home, he gave information, where on all the persons from home also arrived at the place of incident.The patri towards southern side is high.None from the Abadi of village Milunpur had reached there at the time of incident, although they had reached afterwards.Further he has stated that after the incident, he had gone near the dead body of his nephew accompanied with Narendra and Rajjan, Bal krishnan and Sarnam and Chandra Bhan also reached there.They let dead body lie there and had remained there till the police reached.He had left the brief case and clothes etc. there only and when he returned from the P.S., he does not recollect whether the brief-case was still there or not, as he had not seen.The dead body was taken away about 5:45-6:00 pm from the place of incident but he did not see the wife of the deceased and his children weeping near the dead body.The wife of the deceased had not reached at the place of incident prior to his going to the P.S., rather had reached there subsequently.After having returned from the P.S., he remained at the place of occurrence till 6:00-6:30 pm and when he started from there, the police had reached and the inspector had also interrogated him, but whether he had communicated others also, he could not tell.When he had gone to lodge the report at the P.S., he had not found inspector there and none had made any interrogation at the P.S.Further, he has stated that at about 8:00 to 9:00 pm, Nagendra Singh had met him but he had not seen in the said night Chandra Bhan and Sarnam Singh.He does not know whether police had come to the village in night or not.Lantern was burning/glowing near the dead body when it became dark.He does not know whether the panchayatnam of the deceased was done.The dead body was lifted by the police from the place of incident and was kept on the Patri of Bamba.Co-accused Bavan Bhagwan does practice at District Court in Kanpur Kutchehri but mostly he lives in village and does farming because he is not a busy Advocate having good practice but he does not know whether he was practicing for last 10 years.He has further stated that it was right to say that the incident had taken place towards East of the western medh of the Ram Kumar Lodh but he could not tell whether it took place at a distance of about six to seven paces from the said medh.Thereafter, stated that the said distance may have been fifteen to twenty paces from the western medh.Further he has stated that after descending from the Nali, he had walked about 30 to 32 paces and then the occurrence happened.He was proceeding at a slow pace.Chandra Bhan was going eight to ten paces ahead of him and Rajjan were about 20 to 25 paces towards West of the place of incident and they also stopped at some place as soon as firing started which must have been made hardly for about two to four minutes.After falling of deceased, soon thereafter one more fire was made and immediately thereafter, he was thrown in the field of paddy.He had seen injuries of Dharmendra Singh (deceased) which included one bullet injury on his forehead and pallet injuries in his chest and nose.He was lying with face upwards.The assailants were making firing from the Patri of Bamba.The assailants had sprung out of the bushes from both sides of the Patri.He had started from the house of his sister at about 10:00-11:00 am and due to it being month of Bhadon, there was no sun as it was cloudy and he must have taken about 1:30 to 2:00 hours in reaching the place of incident approximately.About 100 paces away from Raj Kumar Lodh's field, he saw a motor-cycle.At that time, Dharmendra (deceased) was four to six yards away from eastern Medh of Raj Kumar Lodh.He had started from the village at about 11-1/4 a.m. and had reached at the field at about 11-1/2 to 11-1/4 and had taken about 10 kg of manure there in sack.He had gone there on foot having the said sack on his head and by that time, he had already used half the manure when the incident had happened.He saw none else sprinkling the manure, although there were some villagers working at a distance of about 300-400 yards.In the night, it had rained hard and because of that, people had started working in their fields.He did not see any person working near his field nor did he see anyone working in the field situated nearby the place of incident.On either side out of the bushes, the accused had made fire.Again he was put a question when Dharmendra was surrounded by accused persons, what would have been the distance between Dharmendra and accused, he responded that it must have been 5 to 7 paces and some of them went towards North of them some towards West and some towards South.Again he was put a question, after getting hit by first fire whether the motor-cycle of Dharmendra was got halted, he responded by saying that 6 to 7 fires in a row were made and the motor-cycle got wavered and the deceased was bounced up in the air and fell down towards north and, thereafter, the engine of the said motor-cycle got switched off.In the entire happening hardly 3 to 4 minutes must have been consumed including the time taken in throwing the dead body.He further stated that he had not seen anybody assaulting by 'lathi'.He knew the son-in-law of Laova Singh i.e. Naresh Singh, who is accused in this case because he used to live near him, he does not know the other son-in-law of Laova Singh.He does not know whether the name of other son-in-law of Lauwa Singh was Naresh Singh or not but he had told the I.O. that Naresh Singh was resident of Arra, P.S. Biduna.He had denied the suggestion that he had not seen the occurrence and was making false statement and on the date of incident, the place of incident being near the river, was in the grip of floods.He further stated that he had stated before I.O. that Dharmendra Singh was lifted by accused Shailendra, Narendra, Rajjan Lal and Naresh and also dragged, if the same has not been written, he could not tell its reason.Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.(Delivered by Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.)1. Heard Sri Dileep Kumar, Sri Mahesh Chand Joshi, Kamlesh Kumar Tripathi, Hardev Singh Sengar, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla, learned counsel for the complainant, Sri Gaurav Pratap Singh, learned Brief Holder appearing for the State and perused the record.This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellants Ravindra Singh, Jai Deo Singh, Naresh Singh, Shailendra Singh, Narendra Singh, Rajjan Lal against the judgment and order dated 30.04.1983 passed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur in S.T. No. 543 of 1980 arising out of Case Crime No.205 of 1980, P.S. Shivli whereby the accused appellants have been convicted and punished and sentenced under section 302/149 IPC by life imprisonment.Accused appellants Ravindra Singh, Naresh Singh and Jai Deo Singh have been held guilty under section 148 IPC and have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year; the accused appellants Shailendra Singh, Narendra Singh and Rajjan Lal have been held guilty under section 147 IPC and have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months; accused-appellants Shailendra Singh, Narendra Singh, Rajjan Lal and Naresh Singh have been held guilty under section 201 IPC and have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and all the sentences are directed to run concurrently.In brief the prosecution case as given in the FIR is that the informant Harnam Singh son of Mahipal Singh, resident of village Nigoha, P.S. Shivli, District Kanpur along with his nephew Dharmendra Singh son of Iqbal Bahadur Singh were going on motorcycle from his village to Kanpur and when they were proceeding on the patri of Mausana Rajwaha and reached near the agricultural field of Ram Kumar Lodh, resident of Mitanpur, finding Patri broken, the first informant got down and his nephew tried to negotiate the passage on his motorcycle by traveling on his foot for a certain distance.Thereafter on 8.9.1980, he again made search for the accused but they could not be found.He remained at Nigoha at the night and in the morning he called Nagendra Bahadur Singh, Rajjan Singh and recorded their statements.The report was submitted before CJM for issuance of warrants under sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. against the accused persons.The said report was given by the brother of the deceased Raghuraj Singh, whereon warrants were issued against the accused persons.The process issued under section 83 Cr.P.C. against the accused Shailendra Singh is Exhibit Ka-44 and on the reverse of it, the report of S.I. Babu Singh is Exhibit Ka-44/1 and the attachment memos are Exhibit Ka-45 and Exhibit Ka-46 of these two accused.The process issued under section 83 Cr.Exhibit Ka-46 is carbon copy of memo of having sent the cattle of Rajju Prasad to cattle house.This witness has stated in cross-examination that he did not know whether accused Bawan Bhagwan used to do vakalat in Kanpur and he could not tell reason why he did not search for him in Kutchery, Kanpur.He did not know his house in Kanpur and from which cattle house, he had got his cattle released, he does not know.He denied suggestion that accused Bawan Bhagwan never absconded and that the articles which were attached, belonged to his father.To a question put to him that as to why he had not recorded the statements of Harnam Singh and Nagendra Bahadur Singh at the police station, he responded that after the report having been registered, when he returned to police station, these people had already left the police station and he did not consider it necessary to make entry on this fact in C.D. He was again put a question as to where Panchayatnama was conducted, to which he responded that first of all when he reached the place of incident, he found the dead body of the deceased in the field of Ram Kumar Lodh and the inspection of dead body was made there only and thereafter dead body was taken by the side of Patri and after lifting the same.In the field there was water but Panchayatnama was done there only.The dead body was lifted by the constable with him and the same was placed at a small distance from the place where incident had happened.The place where the dead body was kept, no blood had fallen.Further he has stated that he had not recorded the names of accused in Panchayatnama.The nature of incident has been mentioned in its column and there was no overwriting in the parentage of the person who had given information and it was wrong to say that prior to writing Harnam Singh, earlier there was written Raghuraj Singh and where Mahipal is written, earlier there was written Iqbal.Further, he stated that the dead body was lifted from field and was brought at the Patri where Panchayatnama was prepared although no mention is made in C.D. about this fact.He was again put a question that it was evident from reading the Panchayatnama that the same was prepared where the dead body was found, to which he responded that after having done spot inspection, the dead body was sealed on the Patri and rest of the written work was also done at the Patri.He has further stated that when he had gone to the place of incident, he had met Harnam Singh there, who is an eye witness but regarding rest of them, he could not tell because he had got involved in preparing Panchayatnama and many people were assembled there.After preparation of Panchayatnama, he recorded the statement of Harnam Singh and had also enquired about other eye witnesses, and then he came to know that Nagendra Bahadur Singh had gone from there but regarding others, he did not ask because he had to conduct proceedings of arresting the accused persons.On his own, he further stated that after inquest, he made spot inspection collected soil, inspected motorcycle and gave the same in Supurdagi and thereafter took statement of Harnam Singh.He has further stated that he had proceeded for the village at about 7.30-8.00 p.m. The memo was prepared initially in the light of day and subsequently in the light of torches.There was no other external light.The recovery memo of ''Tehmat' and shoes had already been prepared prior to preparation of Panchayatnama at the places where these articles were found and thereafter Panchayatnama was prepared at the Patri.He has further stated that in Exhibit Ka-10 in column no. 3 he did not consider it important to write the time of incident and made entry in C.D. in the same order in which he had conducted investigation.He has further stated that in memo Exhibit Kha-2, crime number is not mentioned.In Exhibit Kha-1, crime no. 205 is not written by other ink nor any section has been added and the same was written at the same time.Exhibit Kha-1 and Exhibit Kha-2 on one side and memo Exhibit Ka-18 and Exhibit Ka-19 were not written by separate ink although papers are separate.He had not recorded statement of any person who had assembled in the field near the place of incident.The place of occurrence and village Nigoha was in the grip of flood as lot of rain was happening and in Bamba (Irrigation rivulet ) there was one to two inches of water.On both sides of the place of incident, there were bushes but largely they were towards southern side and this kind of bushes were all around the Bamba or not he did not notice.He has not mentioned as to at what distance the place was located where Nali was cut from the eastern Medh of the field of Ram Kumar Lodh.He had not noted the distance of the field from the place of incident which was stated by Nagendra Bahadur Singh to be close to the place of incident.He had seen Kachchi Puliya (Culvert) on Rajwara from a distance but has not mentioned its direction and the distance.There were blood stain on the motorcycle but has not mentioned about the same in its memo nor had he thought it proper to take it in possession.Such blood has not taken after getting it scraped.He also did not consider it necessary to get the motorcycle photographed.Water at the said place where the dead body was lying was little red but he did not consider it necessary to take the same in his possession.He had stated that his nephew fell down after getting fire arm injuries then and there and had also screamed.Witness Rajjan Singh had not told him that he had gone to matrimonial home of her sister nor had he stated that at the house of Luxmi Singh of his village, son-in-law of Lawa Singh was coming for last many days to Nigoha for settling the account for milk.The witness Nagendra Bahadur Singh has not stated that Harnam Singh had given little support to motorcycle(to help it clear the bad patch) nor had he stated that he had also proceeded towards them to give them support believing that they might not succeed in getting the motorcycle out.This witness has also not stated that Naresh Singh was resident of village Arra, P.S. Bighnu nor he had stated that Nagendra Bahadur Singh was dragged by the accused persons from the Patri.He has denied that the first information report was prepared with the consultation of police and under influence of Harnam Singh and Nagendra Bahadur Singh.He has also denied that the case was registered against the accused falsely and that Nagendra Bahadur Singh was a ''Dalal' of accused.He has further stated that Shirt material Exhibit 15 was taken out after cutting right and left shoulder, therefore, it could not be said that whether there were marks of pallet on the same or not.In the back portion of the shirt there were marks at two places which indicates that the same was taken out after cutting the cloth and apart from that there were marks of cuts also at various places.He has further stated that on ''Tehmat' material Exhibit Ka-12, there were two marks indicating that the same was taken out after being cut and there was no other cut on it but there were small hole in the same.He has denied that the statements of witness were recorded with much delay and the names of accused Shailendra Singh and Rajjan were introduced subsequently.S.I. Biri Lal PW 5 who had taken over the investigation of this case from the earlier Investigation Officer Sri S.R. Ratnakar on 10.09.1980 has stated that accused persons Ravindra Singh, Jai Deo Singh, Shailendra Singh, Narendra Singh, Naresh Singh, Rajjan Lal, Bawan Bhgwan Singh were not being found due to which processes under sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C were obtained from CJM and thereafter accused Narnedra Singh was arrested by S.I. A.K. Upadhyay on 17.9.1980 where-after his statement was recorded in Kotwali Kanpur.The accused Deo Singh, Naresh Singh and Rajjan Lal had surrendered at Lucknow, accused Ravindra Singh had surrendered at Unnao and accused Shailendra Singh and Bawan Bhagwan had surrendered before Court in Kanpur.Thereafter, he submitted charge-sheet which is Exhibit Ka-3 on 24.10.1980 in this case.In cross-examination, this witness has stated that he did not take the guns of any accused in custody although he had made an attempt by writing a letter to the District Magistrate as to whether accused had got the same deposited at the shop of Arms Dealer.The correspondence was made in this regard but there is no endorsement of the same in case diary.With regard to accused Bawan Bhagwan, he has stated that during the investigation, he came to know that he was doing practice in Kutchery at Kanpur and was living in his own house in Gawal Toli but he did not try to find out as to whether on the date of incident, he was in Kutchery or not nor has he made its entry in the case diary.He also does not remember whether this accused had moved an application for inspection of his gun or not nor does he know that he had deposited his gun in court on 18.9.1980 and had denied that he deliberately did not make investigation properly to know that he was available in district court, Kanpur on the date of incident.He has not got identification made of accused persons or witness Bal Kishan.On the basis of evidence on record, charge was framed under Sections 148 and 302 I.P.C. read with Section 149 I.P.C. against accused appellant Naresh Singh, Ravindra Singh, Jai Deo Singh and Bawan Bhagwan Singh on 8.07.1981 and under Sections 147 and 302 I.P.C. read with Section 149 I.P.C. against the accused appellants Shailendra Singh, Narendra Singh and Rajjan Lal on the same day and under Section 201 I.P.C. against accused appellant Shailendra Singh, Narendra Singh, Rajjan Lal and Naresh Singh also on the same day to which all the accused appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.From the side of prosecution, Harnam Singh as P.W.1, Rajjan Singh as P.W.2, Nagendra Bahadur Singh as P.W.3, Dr. J.S. Rathore as P.W.4, Biri Lal as P.W.5, Ram Niwas as P.W.6, Saligram Ratnakar as P.W.7, Shahab Singh as P.W.8, S.A. Husaini as P.W.9, Sri Kant as P.W.10 were examined, thereafter, the evidence of the prosecution was closed and the statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which accused Jai Deo Singh has stated that father of Shailendra Singh and his own father, Bhola Singh had contested 'pradhani' election and since then there was animosity between them.Further he stated that the relationship was alright but there was no friendship.Accused, Bawan Bhagwan is resident of Nigoha but he used to practice in district court, Kanpur and he is not friendly with him.It has come on record that Surjan Singh, was cousin grand-father of informant Harnam Singh and that he had no child and Surjan Singh had executed sale-deed of his land in favour of accused, Narendra and Shailendra and in proceedings for mutation for which, Dharmendra Singh, deceased had objected; to this he stated that Dharmendra Singh had not made any objection rather objection was made by his father.To another question that the evidence has come on record that informant, Harnam Singh, Surjan Singh, Shailendra and Narendra (accused persons) hadcommon khata of land and at the time of mutation of the land which was sold, the said land was being ploughed by informant, Harnam Singh and deceased, Dharmendra and even after mutation, they used to plough the said land and accused Narendra, Shailendra wanted to grab that land but because of Dharmendra (deceased), they could not forcibly occupy that land because of which they had animosity towards Dharmendra, he responded that they had common agricultural land and were in occupation of their respective shares.To the next question put to him that there was evidence on record to the effect that against accused, Jai Deo, a case was filed under Section 409 I.P.C. in respect of 'Gaon Samaj' land in which deceased, Dharmendra was witness against Jai Deo Singh and Jai Deo Singh had told the deceased not to depose but Dharmendra Singh had insisted that he would give statement and because of that Jai Deo Singh became annoyed with the deceased, he responded that there was no case proceeding against him neither any statement was given by Dharmendra nor any such thing had happened.To another question put to him to the effect that Ms. Sundari Kunwar had been murdered in his village and because of she being without any heir, her land had gone to Gram Samaj regarding which proceeding under Section 146 Cr.P.C. had been initiated in which the possession of the said land was given to accused Bawan Bhagwan Singh which later on was changed to brother of deceased, Dharmendra i.e. Raghuraj.In this regard he stated that the possession of the said land was with him and he was 'pradhan' in those days.Accused Bawan Bhagwan Singh had got an application moved from his brother because of which the possession of the said land had gone to him.Thereafter he moved an application and after proceedings having been drawn under Section 146 and 147 Cr.P.C., possession of the said land had gone to Raghu Raj.Further he denied that on 8.9.1980, no such incident happened as has been stated by the prosecution side and also not happened in the manner in which it is stated to have happened and further he denied that he had caused any injury to the deceased which resulted in his death and that entire evidence produced from the side of prosecution was false.He also denied that informant Harnam Singh (P.W.1), Rajjan Singh (P.W.2), Nagendra Bahadur Singh (P.W.3) and besides them, Sarnam etc. had reached the place of incident and had seen the occurrence and also stated that the report of the incident (Exhibit Ka-1) was got lodged due to enmity naming him therein.He denied that the I.O., Saligram Ratnakar had gone to the place of occurrence and found the dead body of the deceased in the field of Ram Kumar Lodh of village Mitanpur and prepared his inquest report there.He also denied recovery of motorcycle of the deceased during investigation which was given in possession of Raghuraj and stated it to be wrong that any brief case was found lying at the place of incident belonging to the deceased.He also denied the proceedings under Section 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. against him to have been conducted by the I.O. as he had never absconded and as soon as he came to know of the case having been filed against him, he had appeared.Regarding injuries having been found on the dead body of the deceased by Dr. J.S. Rathore on 9.9.1980 which resulted in his death, he showed ignorance.He denied to say anything in respect of chemical examiner's report, Exhibit Ka-55 and he made additional statements that his father Bhola Singh had initiated a case against informant and his brothers under Section 122-B of U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act because of which there was animosity between two sides although he did not have any enmity with deceased and lastly he stated that all the witnesses belonged to one gang and have stated against him due to animosity.The accused appellant, Naresh Singh has also given the same replies to almost all the questions which were put to him as were given by the co-accused Jai Deo Singh apart from additional fact that Laova Singh had two sons-in-law and both were called Naresh Singh.Laova Singh was an aged man to whom they used to go often.The informant side wants to illegally grab their land because of which he has been falsely implicated and denied his involvement in the present incident and stated that the entire evidence against him is false and has been given due to enmity.Appellant Rajjan Lal has also repeated the same replies as given by the two co-accused named above and stated that he has been implicated due to enmity.In additional statement, he has stated that he, Shailendra and Narendra had got the sale-deed executed of the field of Hari Shankar Mishra which deceased, Dharmendra and Harnam wanted to purchase.Appellants, Narendra Singh, Ravindra Singh and Shailendra Singh have also denied their involvement in the incident and has stated that entire evidence led by the prosecution is false and have been led due to enmity and have answered in the same manner as has been done by the other accused named above.On the basis of evidence on record mentioned above as well as after hearing the arguments of both the sides, learned trial court has held the accused appellants guilty under the afore-mentioned sections.We have to carefully peruse the entire evidence and in the light of the same, we have to appreciate the arguments made from both the sides and have to arrive on conclusion as to whether there is any infirmity in the judgement passed by the court requiring our interference in any manner.18. P.W.1, Harnam Singh in support of prosecution case has stated in examination-in-chief as narrated in the F.I.R. that the deceased Dharmendra Singh was his real nephew and accused Narendra Singh and Shailendra Singh are brothers.Accused Jai Deo Singh and Ravindra Singh are cousin brothers, all the four of these have friendly relation with each other as they belonged to the same clan.Naresh Singh is son-in-law of Laova Singh but often visits the house of Laova Singh; Laova Singh is resident of his village.Bawan Bhagwan and Rajjan Lal also reside in his village; all the accused have friendly relation with each-other.Surjan Singh was uncle of his father who had no child and had executed sale-deed of his land in favour of accused Shailendra and Narendra and the names of these accused have been mutated.In the said mutation proceedings, deceased Dharmendra had made objections.Further he has stated that Surjan Singh, Shailendra and Narendra, all accused had common 'khata' with P.W.1 and at the time of mutation, the land of Surjan Singh was being ploughed by the P.W.1 and the deceased and even after the mutation proceedings, they continued to plough the same.Accused Shailendra and Narendra wanted them to leave the land of Surjan Singh and intended to grab the same but could not take its possession because of the said land being ploughed since long by the deceased, Dharmendra Singh and because of this reason both Shailendra and Narendra had enmity towards the deceased.He has further stated that one case under Section 409 I.P.C. was lodged against accused, Jai Deo regarding the land of Gram Samaj in which Dharmendra was a witness from the side of prosecution against Jai Deo and Jai Deo had told Dharmendra not to depose against him but he had denied to do so and stated that he would give evidence in the said case.This witness has further stated that Smt. Sudar Kunwar was murdered in his village who was child-less and her land had gone to the Gram Samaj and in respect of that land, the proceeding under Section 146 I.P.C. had been initiated and the possession of the said land was given to co-accused, Bawan Bhagwan and at that time Jai Deo was pradhan.Nagendra had accompanied him to the police station.In cross-examination, this witness has stated that his grand-father's name was Raja Singh who had four sons i.e. Iqbal Singh, Badri Singh, Jagannath Singh and Mahipal Singh.He himself had four brothers excluding him out of whom, Baijnath Singh and Barnam Singh have died.Barnam Singh had died two to three years ago without any child as he was murdered in Sirsaganj, District Etah; he had not married and has turned to be a saint.Iqwal Singh and Nagendra Singh were brothers who are still alive.Dharmendra Sngh, Deceased and Raghuraj Singh are sons of Iqbal Singh.He himself has four sons i.e. Gajendra Singh, Jogendra Singh, Mahendra Singh and Shivendra Singh.The name of father of accused, Ravindra Singh is Shivpal Singh.The name of father of Jai Deo Singh is Bhola Singh.Ravindra and Jai Deo have a common house in the village.Father of Ravindra used to do service earlier but had retired about two to three years ago from Hardoi and used to go Hardoi even after retirement but did not settle there and was staying in the village.He and his brother Nagendra Singh have a common house but were residing in their separate portions.Iqwal Singh, deceased and his father used to live in one house which was separate from his house.Some of the agricultural land was common between him and Iqwal Singh while some of it was separate.Iqwal Singh was having about 30-40 bighas of land and also owned a tractor.In the share of Nagendra Singh, there was 25-30 bighas of land.Nagendra Singh has studied upto B.A. and was serving in a bank.No case of embezzlement was ever lodged against him but he does not know whether he was getting pension or had left the job.At the time of incident, he had come to village and was there in the village since 4-6 months prior to the occurrence but had not returned to work.He used to go out some times only.Pointing out this piece of evidence, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that accused, Narendra Singh could not have participated in the incident because he was servicing in bank at a distant place and, therefore, his presence on the spot, is doubtful as he has been falsely implicated by saying that he was present in the village on the date of incident.Further this witness has stated that he does not know whether prior to the incident, Dharmendra had got sale-deed of Laova Singh executed in his favour nor does he know as to how much land, Laova Singh had possessed though he was about 50-55 years of age.He has further stated that from the place of incident, village, Nigoha was one mile to the south.From the place of incident, the 'Abadi' of the village is about two furlong away and not just after four fields, rather there are many fields between them.Mitanpur is village belonging to Lodhas which consists two 'purwas' (hamlets).On the patri of Rajwaha on which they were going, the same flows from west to east.The rajwaha is small Bamba which ends at a distance of one km. The Rajwaha is located at the height from the place of incident and land on either side of it is on the lower plane.About two feet below the patri is danger level.The surface of the agricultural fields on either side is almost similar.He further stated that it was right to say that in the year 1980, a huge rain had taken place which had never happened earlier in his consciousness.After proceeding from the place of incident, the agricultural fields come to a higher plane.If one travels from the place of incident towards Pratapur straight, one would find some 'Jhavar' near Pratapur and in between, there is barren land.The field of Ram Kumar was about two feet below the patri where the occurrence had taken place.On the date of incident, there was water in the Bamba which could be measured around 2-2 to 3-3 fingers and that in the field of Ram Kumar, there was less than one foot of water.On proceeding towards village, no 'nali' would be found to have been cut from Rajwaha rather the same was found cut where he had got down from the motorcycle.He further stated that it was right to say that the said Rajwaha was cut on various places, there were many pot-holes because of elephant passing through there and at some places, bamba was in running condition while at other it was not functioning and at various places, one had to get down to negotiate the passage.Towards east of Rajwaha at a distance of four furlong, there was 'pucci' culvert and from that culvert, there was circuitous route going towards Nigoha.The distance between 'pucci' culvert and Negoha was about 4-5 furlong.He denied that there was pandav river adjoining their village towards south.The land from Bamba to Nigoha was at the lower plane but it was not that the same was filled with water.The river was flowing up to its bank.There was no kutchcha passage towards west of Nigoha which would meet Baba road.In Nigoha, there is some land at the height and some at the lower plane.Baba road meets at Bela road and Bela road patri (kutcha passage) leads towards Kanpur city and the Baba Road was about one km. away from his village.Further this witness has stated that it was right to say that from the place of incident towards east there is a pucci culvert which was constructed on Rajwaha, about which he had told in spite of that there was no 'pucci' culvert rather the same was 'kuttchi' culvert and he had gone through 'kuttchi' culvert which has now get cut which had become in bad shape about 2-3 days ago.He had also stated about it to the Investigating Officer.In the agricultural field of Ram Kumar, the dead body of his nephew was lying which must have been about 2.5 to 3 bighas in length and breadth.On the other side of Bamba is located the field of Ram Kumar and in the said field, the crop of paddy was 2 to 2.5 feet high.In site plan Ext. Ka-15, Bhavsana Rajwaha is shown flowing from West to East and to the North of it is the Patri on which the deceased was alleged to be going on motor-cycle.By 'XA' is shown the place where motor-cycle was found lying.By 'XB' is shown the field of paddy which was said to be full of water and wherein, the dead body of the deceased was found lying.The distance between 'XA' and 'XB' is shown to be 10 yards and the direction of 'XB' is to the North of 'XA'.The bushes are also shown on either side of the said Patri, where the assailants are said to be hiding, from where they had came out and surrounded the deceased.By 'XC' is shown the place on the Patri, from where the plain soil and the blood stained soil were collected.By 'XD' is shown the place from where witness Harnam Singh (PW-1) is stated to have seen the accused-appellants assaulting the deceased.By 'XE' is shown the place from where witnesses Chandrabhan Singh and Sarnam Singh had seen the accused assaulting the deceased.By 'XF' is shown the place from where witness Narendra Bahadur Singh (PW-3) had seen the accused assaulting the deceased.By 'XG' is shown the place from where witness Bal Krishnan and Rajjan Singh (PW-2) had seen the accused assaulting the deceased.By 'Arrow' is shown the route by which the accused persons fled after having murdered the deceased Dharmendra Singh and the said direction is shown in the North-West of the place of incident.By 'XH' is shown the field in which Nagendra Bahadur Singh (PW-3) was administering manure in his field of paddy.By 'XI' is shown the place where Patri was found broken and from there the deceased Dharmendra Singh had dismounted Harnam Singh from his motor-cycle.By 'Dots' is shown the place where there were found marks of dragging.By 'XJ' is shown the place where the shoes and Tahmad were found near the dead body.By 'XK' is shown the place where brief case was found near the motor-cycle.In this site plan the village Nigoha and village Gauri are shown to the South-East of the place of incident.He has stated that from the field of Nagendra Bahadur Singh, the place of incident is about 175 paces from where the place of incident was visible.There is one Nali between Kachchi Pulia and the place of incident where PW-1 had got down but the said Nali must have been about two to three furlong from Kachchi Pulia.The place of incident must be 70 paces away from the Nali.This nali is carved out of Bamba which was having water and mud.The said Nali would have been two to three feet wide at the top and must have been about two feet in depth.Due to rains, the Patri of Bamba had broken at various places and there was lot of mud.He has further stated that in 1953, he had been implicated in murder of Shiv Charan Chamar in which apart from him, his father Jairam Singh and Jodha Singh were also accused and prior to that murder, his father had also been murdered in which Shiv Charan Chamar had been convicted and sentenced for 20 years.Shiv Charan had appeared in P.S. himself with Gandasa or not he could not say.He does not know whether the nephew of Ujagar had murdered his wife with the help of deceased Dharmendra Singh and he also does not know whether a complaint case was initiated regarding causing disappearance of the dead body of wife of Ujagar upon brother of Deceased Dharmendra namely Raghuraj and witness Rajjan Singh.There is long searching cross-examination made in respect of other criminal cases in an effort to establish the criminal antecedents of the deceased which are not being reproduced here.He has also shown ignorance that deceased Dharmendra Singh used to work of lending money, although he knows that he had got land written in his name of some persons but he does not know that he had lent money in order to realize the interest, he had got the land written in his name.He does not know whether he had got the land written in his name when the amount given on interest was not paid back to him.He has further stated that he does not know Samudri Devi.His son Gajendra resides in Unnao, who was married after this murder in Zodha Kheda, District Unnao but he does not know the name of his wife, although her father's name is Raghunath.About 15 to 20 days prior to the murder, Dharmendra Singh had told him that Jai Deo (accused-appellant) had told him not to give statements against him in case under Section 409 IPC but he does not recollect whether Dharmendra had given evidence in that case or not, although he was a witness in that case.He also does not know that the evidence in that case had been concluded on 6.8.1980 and that 9.9.1980 was fixed for hearing in that case.He has stated that it is right to say that at the time of death of Sandara Kevat, Jai Dev Singh was village Pradhan.He further stated that Sandara Kevat was murdered but on his own he further stated that Jai Deo might have given report in respect of Sandara Kevat's land to be declared unclaimed.Supurdgi of the said land was given to Jai Dev, he does not know.Bawan Kevat had got opposed through brother of Sundar a Kevat namely Durga Singh against Jai Dev.It is right to say that Bavan Bhagwan (co-accused) had got the supurdgi of the said land.He does not know whether moving an application, Jai Dev had got the supurdgi of the said land from Bawan Bhagwan.A case under Section 145 Cr.P.C. might have been contested and in that only under Section 146 Cr.P.C., the brother of Dharmendra Singh namely Raghuraj had got the supurdgi but he does not know that in case under Section 145 Cr.P.C., on one side, there was Bawan Bhagwan and on the other there was Jai Dev or not.The father of accused Jai Deo namely Bhola Singh had once been Pradhan in his times, who died 20 years ago, he does not recollect whether Bhola Singh had got a case filed under Section 122-B of the Zamindari Abolition Act in respect of having taken permission forcibly of the land against him (PW-1) or not, however, his elder brother was doing pairvi in one case and he denied that he had taken possession forcibly.He further stated that the election for Pradhan was held in 1972, which was contested by Jai Deo and uncle of Bawan Bhagwan namely Shivraj and the said election was won by Jai Deo.He denied that at the time of mutation of the land belonging to Sarvan Singh, the deceased Dharmendra Singh was a minor and also stated that the field of Raj Kumar Lodh (in which dead body was found) was in two parts.Further he has stated that he was going for purchasing clothes because his niece was to be sent to her matrimonial home.There was no specific reason for going in the afternoon because farmers go for such purchases whenever they find times.He does not remember the make of motor-cycle, although he did recollect its number and admitted that the said motor-cycle was at home, behind which there was carrier and also for keeping articles, there was one basket on the side of it.Further he has stated that from Kachchi Pulia till the place of incident, apart from Nagendra Bahadur Singh (PW-3), there were others also who were working in their fields but at the time of occurrence, other persons had not come to the place of incident.The dead body was left there in supervision of his brother and other villagers and the brothers of Dharmendra Singh etc.. The wife of Dharmendra had also reached near the dead body.He denied that he had taken out any money from the person of deceased, Dharmendra.Citing this piece of evidence, it was argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that it was unusual for a person to go for purchasing cloth etc. relating to ceremonies of marriage without having any money and since there was no money found with the deceased, it shows that the story of prosecution that the PW-1 and the deceased were going for making purchase appears to be false.This witness has further stated that the brief-case was kept on the carrier of the motor-cycle which contained clothes and some papers.He has studied up to class four and till prior to the occurrence, he had never lodged any report in a case of murder.The report was written by him after sitting on the Patri of Bamba and also stated on his own that he had opened brief-case in which there was paper.He had written with the dot pen and in writing the said report, about 45 minutes to 60 minutes might have been taken.The place where he had written the report Rajjan and other witnesses were not present because Rajjan had been sent to the village, rest of the witnesses were also not there.He could not tell as to whether the witnesses were present, when he was writing the report.After having written report, five minutes thereafter he proceeded to P.S. on foot.P.S. was eight to ten miles away from the place of incident.He had not gone to the P.S. via his village rather had gone straight and he must have taken about 2:30 to 2:45 hours in reaching there.The assailants had not stopped while making fire.He had seen them firing but he could not see where the said fire hit.When the first fire was made, at that time, Dharmendra Singh was on motor-cycle driving it slowly but where the said fire hit, he did not pay attention; six-seven fires were made.The question was put to him whether after getting hit by the first fire Dharmendra who was on motor-cycle, had fallen down? to which, he replied that indiscriminate fires were made by which Dharmendra jumped and then fell down.Thereafter, one fire was made at his forehead.The said fire which was made at the forehead, was made from a distance of about one feet.He could not tell as to how many fires were made from behind when the deceased was on motor-cycle and how many were made from the sides.It was argued by the learned counsel for the appellants in the light of above evidence that who had actually made fire upon the deceased from close range, has not been disclosed by this witness and also drew attention to the statement of Dr. J.S. Rathore, who conducted post-mortem, and it was argued that the said shot was contact shot.He has been put several questions by defence side which have been answered separately by this witness in question answer form, out of which relevants answer are being mentioned by us.This witness when asked as to whether the deceased was assaulted by Lathi, he replied that those who were armed with Lathis, had surrounded him but he had not seen anyone assaulting the deceased by Lathi and he could also not say with certainty whether anyone had assaulted him by Lathi but he saw fierce firing.When he had reached the place of incident, he found that Tahmad was lying away in water and towards West of the dead body were lying shoes at a distance of about one to two paces.The water over there was little red and blood was lying on Patri.The crop of paddy had got crushed.He has further stated that near the field of Ram Kumar Lodh, they had got down from the motor-cycle and from there, had proceeded seventy paces ahead, then the assault had started.He also replied in affirmative that as soon as deceased reached near the field of Ram Kumar Lodh, right then accused surrounded him and made fire by pistols.Further he clarified that they were going near the said field and the incident had not happened when they had reached near the field, rather he had got down near the field.He further stated that the motor-cycle of the deceased was parked after getting down from it and he had also given some push to it and also stated that it was not that the deceased single handedly had taken out the motor-cycle, rather he had also given some support in that.He also replied that it was right to say that as soon as his nephew reached near the field of Ram Kumar Lodh, about 12 noon, the accused who were hiding in the bushes of Rajwaha, came out of it and surrounded his nephew and made fire upon Dharmendra, which hit him but he had also written in report about the gun.He was again confronted with the question that in the statement given today by him that incident took place at a distance of 15 to 20 paces towards East of the western medh of the field of Ram Kumar Lodh which is a wrong statement to which, he replied in the negative and stated that his said statement was correct.He also has given reply in affirmative when he was put a question that he had stated to the Investigating Officer that as soon as his nephew reached near field of Ram Kumar Lodh at about 12:00 noon, right then out of bushes by the side of Rajwaha, the accused came out and all of them surrounded his nephew, at the same time, all the accused with their gun and country made pistol made fired upon Dharmendra Singh.Further he was put a question that he has stated earlier that Dharmdendra Singh after dismounting had single handedly taken out his motor-cycle, to which he replied that he does not recollect in this respect and he was asked as to how said statement was recorded by I.O. to which he stated that he could say nothing about it.Thereafter, he was again put a question that he had stated that he had written in the report about the motor-cycle being taken out after dragging the same, whether it was told to I.O. or not, he does not recollect.If the same was not mentioned in the report, he could not tell its reason and if the I.O. had not recorded the same, he could not tell its reason.He responded that the dead body of his nephew was dragged away by the accused and this was written by him in his report.Further he argued that deceased had criminal antecedents and the questions put to this witness in this regard have been denied, therefore, to discredit the testimony of this witness, all the documentary evidence has been filed from the side of defence so that his testimony could be dis-believed.The place of incident has also been shifted by this witness, as it is stated that the dead body of the deceased was found in the field where there was water.It is also unbelievable that despite being close relatives of the deceased, as PW-3 was his real uncle and informant is also his real uncle, they would leave dead body there till arrival of I.O. on the spot and it was argued that lot of improvement has been made in the statement given by this witness before court upon the statement which were made by him before the Investigating Officer.Further this witness has stated that if in the written report it has been mentioned that the accused had dragged the dead body of his nephew, he could not tell its reason as to how the same was written therein.The accused had taken the dead body with face upwards.When the accused had surrounded his nephew, he had screamed loudly which fact was mentioned by him in written report, whether this fact was stated to the Investigating Officer, he does not recollect.Further he stated that if the said fact was not found written in his written report, he could not tell its reason.When the deceased Dharmendra had fallen from the motor-cycle, he had not cried.He does not recollect whether the guns which were with the accused were licensed gun or not and on his own he has further stated that accused Bawan Bhagwan and Jai Deo had license of single barrel gun, Jai Deo had also license of double barrel gun, father of Ravindra i.e. Shivpal had license of double barrel gun and in report he had written that they had licensed gun.The accused had made fire from the northern Patri of the Bamba and not from the right Patri.On either side of Kharanja, there are agricultural fields.The accused had came out from both sides of passage and after having surrounded, had made fires.When he was questioned as to whether when he reached with witnesses there, the accused had fled from there having seen them, he replied in negative and stated that they had fled only after having murdered and having thrown the deceased.Further a question was put to him that he had given statement to the Investigating Officer to the effect that when they (informant side) had challenged all the accused after having reached there, all of them had fled towards village Pratappur to which, objection was raised on the ground that the same was out of context.Again, a question was put as to whether he had given statement to the effect that all the accused persons had murdered his nephew, he and the witnesses had challenged the accused when they were assaulting the deceased and because of that they had fled, he responded in affirmative.He had also stated that Laova Singh had two sons-in-law or not he does not know but he knows one son-in-law by the name of Naresh Singh who is an accused in this case and is resident of Ari place and lives in his village.Laova Singh had two daughters and both have been married but he does not know the name of other son-in-law of Laova Singh and also does not know whether his name is also Naresh Singh.He denied that he wanted to usurp the land of Laova Singh but the same could not be done because of their sons-in-law.He has denied suggestion made from the side of defence in which he has showed ignorance that Sugar Singh was his Khatedar, that no such incident has taken place, that he was not going with deceased Dharmendra to Kanpur and had lodged a false case in collusion with his brother and police.He also denied that his nephew was Dalal (mediator/interlocutor) of police and that in the field of Ram Kumar Lodh, there was paddy crop.It was also denied that the F.I.R. was lodged with the consultation of police and no one had seen the deceased having been murdered at the place and time and date of occurrence and that deceased was a person of bad character.He further stated that the land measuring 33 1/4 bighas which had come to the village of Shailendra Singh etc., was in possession of deceased Dharmendra Singh, in that land, Surtan Singh was co-khatedar while Geeta Singh, Ranjit Singh and Raja Singh were not co-khatedars.He along with five brothers namely Bhola, Rampal, Shiv Pal, Gurubaksh, Sumer were co-khatedars of the said land with Sugar and Surtan Singh and the said khata had been partitioned mutually but not officially.Surtan Singh had executed sale deed of his share of land in favour of Raghunath Singh, Shailendra Singh and his partners regarding which he had filed a case but land is yet to be partitioned and this land comprises seven-eight bighas of grove.He was put a question as to how much bighas of land had come in the name of Shailendra and his brothers to which he stated that the same had not been registered.In some part of the land, Ravindra Singh and Jai Deo (accused) were in occupation.After execution of sale deed in favour of Raghunath and Shailendra etc, a case for mutation was contested in which father of Jai Deo Singh had filed objection.The uncle of Bavan Bhagwan namely Shivraj Singh had given evidence against Shailendra Singh and others or not he does not recollect.The objection in the said case was filed by deceased Dharmendra and his father.Thereafter, he was again put a question as to whether he had filed objection or not, to which he again repeated the same answer as above.He further stated that consolidation proceedings has not been concluded in his village and has also showed ignorance whether Raghunath Singh S/o Samre had lodged any report against him, Ikbal Singh and father of Jai Deo Singh or not.Further he stated that Bavan Bhagwan has two brothers, his younger brother Dharm Pal lives in village and does cultivation work while Bavan Bhagwan lives separate.He does not know whether he does legal practice for last 10 to 12 years or not but further stated that he lives in village and goes to Kanpur only sometimes for practice and further denied the suggestion that he was living in Gwal Toli with his children for last 10 to 11 years and also showed his ignorance about his owning house in Kanpur city.51. PW-2, Rajjan Singh is stated to be belonging to the informant's clan and it was argued that he was a chance witness.He has stated in examination in chief that after having sent his sister to her matrimonial home, in village Gaur Navada, under P.S. Shivrajpur, he was returning from there and when at about 12:00 pm, he reached just before the field of Ram Kumar Lodh, he saw deceased Dharmendra coming on motor-cycle from the eastern side and as soon as he reached in front of the field of Ram Kumar Lodh, accused Bavan Bhagwan Singh, Rajjan Lal, Ravindra Singh, Jai Deo, Nagendra, Shailendra and son-in-law of Laova Singh, who is Naresh Singh were present in court, came out from the bushes from either side of bushes and surrounded the deceased and Jai Deo Singh exhorted that he should not be allowed to escape and after that, all the accused also endorsed that he should be done to death today and, thereafter, those who were armed with guns and pistols, started making fire upon the deceased Dharmendra.At that time Naresh had a pistol while Ravindra and Jai Deo were armed with guns.Bawan Bhagvan had also gun.Rajjan Lal, Narendra and Shailendra had lathis in their hand.The deceased Dharmendra bounced up in the air and then fell down.He received injuries due to fire and after having fallen accused Naresh Singh, Rajjan Lal, Narendra and Shailendra had thrown him in the paddy filed after holding his hands and legs.At that time, PW-2 was accompanied by Bal kishan of Khadagpur.From the side, from where Dharmendra Singh was coming, from that side, Sarnam Singh, Chandra Bhan Singh and Harnam Singh (PW-1) and Narendra Bahadur Singh were also coming, who all witnessed this occurrence and when the accused were assaulting the deceased, all of them had cried loudly but accused after having murdered the deceased and throwing him in the field, had fled towards Pratappur.When he saw Dharmendra Singh, he was in dead condition.In cross-examination, this witness has stated that the village Nigoha is situated a little less than one mile towards North-West from his village, where he has been going right from inception.He was not visiting the place of Dharmendra and nor he used to talk with Dharmendra, Harnam Singh and Ikbal Singh, only pleasantries used to be exchanged.He has never gone to their house nor have they come to his house.He has further stated that his father Ram Singh's murder was committed at the time when he was 6 to 7 years old and in that case Gajraj Singh and Medhe Singh were accused.When Gajraj Singh came after being released from jail, even he was murdered in which case he (PW-2) was made accused in which he was acquitted.In that case Jai Deo Singh (accused-appellant no. 2) was scribe of the F.I.R.. In Dhakan Purva, the wife of Vikram Kori was murdered, regarding which whether the case was registered against him and his deceased brother Dharmendra and Raghuraj Singh u/s 201 IPC or not, he does not know nor does he know that a report was lodged against him and his brother and subsequently a complaint was also moved.He has further stated that he has never given any statement from the side of police, he does not remember whether any case against Md. Umar and others i.e. case no. 31 (year not mentioned), under Section 323, 353, 357 and 307 IPC, P.S. Bithoor was filed, whether he was a witness or not but he had not gone to the jail for identification of any accused.He also does not know, whether the father of the deceased of this case namely Ikbal Bahadur, Nagendra Bahadur Singh and Jagdish Mishra resident of Nigoha were witnesses in that case or not nor does he know whether Nagendra had also given evidence in that case.He also stated it to be wrong that the above mentioned Jagdish Mishra had filed any case under Section 392 IPC against Jeevan Singh and others in which he (PW-2) and the deceased were witnesses.He also stated it to be wrong that witnesses Nagendra had lodged any case under Section 392 IPC against Jagsaran and Ram Sajeevan, both residents of village Sairpur, in which he (PW-2) was witness.He also denied that Bashir Miya had filed any case under Section 392 IPC against Dharmendra (deceased) and Nagendra (other witness) in a case of dacoity against Ram Narain of his village in which he was a police witness against Subedar and others and also denied that in a mfatter of inquiry of encounter against Raju and Pawan, he had filed an affidavit from the side of police nor did he have any information in respect to the said occurrence.He further stated that in 1981, in a case under Section 107/116 Cr.P.C., P.S. Nawabganj, he was arrested but was granted bail by the court and on his own he stated that compromise had taken place and the case was closed.It is wrong to say that Raja Kaachhi resident of Hirdaypur Shukla had filed a complaint under Section 395/397 against him, Nagendra (deceased) and his brother and father and also showed ignorance in respect of any case in which Dharmendra had beaten Raju Kachchi in court and contempt proceedings were initiated against him and he was released on probation after submitting personal bonds.Indicating the above statements of this witness, it was pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants that this witness himself has criminal antecedents along with the fact that the deceased had also criminal antecedents and, therefore, the statements of this witness should not be believed and the deceased might have been killed in some other manner, he himself being person of criminal antecedents.Zadepur minor emerges from the present Rajwaha, which passes through village Gauran Navada.From the Jadepur, his village is two and half miles away, but there is no passage to reach there, as there is one river and a Nala between the two places.In rainy season, no body can travel by that route on foot.In those days (when the incident happened), the river was flooded and Nala must have also lot of water as he could guess.If someone travels from Bhavsana Rajwaha to his village, no Nala would fall in between.In front of Nigoha, Rajwaha is left and, thereafter, via Nigoha one can go to his village.Between Nigoha and his village there lies one Nala which is small in size and whenever there is flood in the river, the said Nala gets filled.From village Pratappur through Dilavarpur minor if one would go to his village then no Nala would fall in the way and on his own he further stated that between Bamba and his village, there is lot of water found.From Dilavar minor his village is about two to three furlong and the passage gets inundated with water.From Pratappur towards Bhaujana Rajwaha, there is Pakki road which opens near Minni Purva and from Pratappur his village lies three and three and half miles away.He does not know whether any road goes from Nigoha to Barbar road.He further stated that one day prior to the incident, he had gone to leave his sister and she was taken on a bicycle.He also saw that between him and Dharmendra, Chandrabhan and Sarnam had also come and after sometime Dharmendra became ahead of them while the rest of the two fell behind him but he could not tell how far ahead Dharmendra was going there.He did not see any other person other than the above mentioned persons.Thereafter, a question was put to him whether the deceased was surrounded by the accused coming out of the bushes as soon as he reached near the field of Ram Kumar Lodh, he responded by saying that deceased Dharmendra was coming near the said field and when he had reached at the mid point of the said field and was about two to four yards towards him (PW-2), he saw the accused coming out of the bushes and surrounding him.This incident happened about 16 to 17 paces towards east of the western Medh of Ram Kumar Lodh.His statement was recorded one day after incident by the Investigating Officer in Nigoha primary school as a police constable had come to call him.Thereafter, he was again put a question as to whether the above fact that the accused had surrounded the deceased when he reached near the field of Ram Kumar Lodh, he stated by mentioning that the deceased was near the field, he meant that he was on the side of Patri along the side of field.The accused had came out from the bushes from both the sides and had surrounded the deceased and, thereafter, fire was made.He was, thereafter, put a question as to whether, soon after coming out of bushes fire was made to which he stated that within two seconds after having surrounded him, fire was made.Again it was put to him whether fire was made from the same direction, from where they had come out, he responded by saying that the fire was made from the side and from the front after surrounding him.Then again a specific question was put whether fire was made from the sides or not to which he stated that he could not tell about it but fires were made while proceeding.The motor-cycle of the deceased had also bounced off and fell towards west from its 'Dole' (appears to be side-stand), meaning thereby it had rested on its Dole.The deceased Dharmendra had fallen down towards the right side.The deceased Dharmendra must have fallen about one to two hands away from where the motor-cycle was.The motor-cycle had blood on it.The water was reddish in the field where Dharmendra was lying and the place from where Dharmendra was taken away, blood was dripping, although the same was not visible.He does not recollect whether the deceased was assaulted with any Lathi & Danda or not.The entire incident happened within 3 to 4 minutes.After fleeing of the accused, Harnam Singh had talk with Bal Kishan of Khadag Singh (appears to be name of some place).He stayed there at the place of incident for about eight to ten minutes.At the instance of Harnam Singh, he had gone to his house for breaking the news in the village.During night he stayed in his house.He had disclosed about this incident to various villagers.He had stated to the I.O. that he had gone to leave his sister but if the same was not recorded in his statement, he could not tell its reason.The statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded when he had returned from the matrimonial home of his sister.He had also stated to I.O. that son-in-law of Laova Singh, who was residing in the said village had come in the house of Laxmi Singh for some accounting but the same was not written, he could not tell its reason.He has denied any knowledge that in the murder of Gajraj Singh, his (PW-2's) bail was taken by Raghuraj Singh who was brother of the deceased or not.He had further denied that he had not gone to his sister's place and was returning from there and had not seen the occurrence and only because he belonged to the gang of Dharmendra Singh and others, he was giving false statement.In the case of State Vs.Manipal Singh under Section 436 Cr.P.C. pertaining to P.S. Shivli his name was mentioned as a witness but he had stated before court that he had not seen the occurrence.Further he has stated that he was dealing in the sale of milk for the last one month in Kanpur in Nawabganj.His brother Gaya Singh also used to do the said business for about six to seven months.The brother of Gajraj Singh (whose murder had taken place) namely Subedar Singh, had a licensed gun.In that case, Dharmendra Singh had not got him (PW-2) bailed out nor had he done any pairvi.He had further stated that at the time of incident, water was not flowing in Bamba and the rainy waters hardly two to four fingers was there in the Bamba, on the Patri on which the motor cycle was being driven by the deceased, on the same there was mud at few places.The place where deceased was murdered, there was wet land and there were also potholes, but on Patri, the land had dried but the field in which he was thrown, there was water.Between the place where he (deceased) was assaulted and killed and the place where he was thrown, in between there was field having crop of paddy.The deceased was thrown in the field after holding his hands and legs but he could not tell whether some part of his paddy was got damaged in that process or not.Those, who had held his hands and legs, had held the lathis in other hands.The Tehmad was found lying to the western side at a distance of one to one and half hands away from the dead body and also shoes were lying there and in the meantime till he remained there, apart from the witnesses named above, there no other villagers had passed.After reaching the Patri of Rajwaha, till reaching the place of incident, whether he met any other person or not, he does not recollect, whether in nearby fields, persons were working, no one was found.Whether he met anyone while going from the place of occurrence to his village or not, he does not recollect.After having informed in the village of the deceased, he did not go again to the place of incident.When he was going from village of deceased to his own village, none met him on the way.At the time of incident, he had told accused "khabardar yah kya kar rhe ho" this was uttered by him when Harnam Singh had shrieked.No fire was made towards him (PW-2).Bal Kishan was with him and was standing by the side.The other witnesses, who were standing on the other side, they were also raising alarm but what was said by them, he does not recollect.The firing had started, therefore, he could not understand the whole thing.The firing was not made by the accused on the other side.After having spoken to the father of the deceased in the village, he had returned to his own village, he knew the house of Dharmendra.He does not know whether accused Ravindra Singh, Jai Deo Singh and Bawan Bhagwan were having their own licensed guns or not, although he had stated to the Investigating Officer that they were having guns.He denied the knowledge as to how the Investigating Officer had recorded in his statement that they were having licensed guns and also denied that he was living in Kanpur on the date of occurrence.Further he has stated that it is not correct to say that if one would go to his village via Jadepur minor from Jadepur, the distance would be two miles less, it is not correct to say as there is no such passage.Further he stated that whether Bawan Bhagwan Singh used to do practice law in Kanpur, he does not know although he by and large lives in village.On the date of incident, he had not gone to Kanpur Kutchehry and he denied that on the date of incident, Bawan Bhagwan Singh was in Kutchehry and not on the place of incident.It was argued in respect of this witness that he is not an independent witness and moreover he was not present on the place of occurrence, he was co-accused in many cases regarding which documentary evidence has been given and his statement deserves to be discarded.56. PW-3 Nagendra Bahadur Singh has stated in examination-in- chief that about one year and one month ago at about 12:00 noon, he was present in his paddy field which was adjacent to the southern Patri of Bhavsana Rajwaha and was sprinkling manure.He saw that his nephew Dharmendra Singh and his brother Harnam Singh were going on motor-cycle towards Kanpur from village Nigoha via northern Patri of said Rajwaha.As soon as they passed by his field and were about to reach near the field of Ram Kumar Lodh, resident of Mitanpur, where Patri was broken, Dharmendra Singh dismounted Harnam Singh from the motor-cycle and Dharmendra Singh, thereafter, dragged his motor-cycle out of that bad patch in which some support was given by Harnam Singh along.He (PW-3) also proceeded towards them thinking that they might not be able to take out their motor-cycle through that bad patch.From the place where, the said Patri was broken, at a distance of about 72-74 paces, Dharmendra Singh was going on the motor-cycle and right then Jai Deo Singh, Ravindra Singh, Bawan Bhagwan Singh and the son-in-law of Laova Singh of his village namely Naresh Singh, Shailendra Singh, Narendra Singh and Rajjan Lal sprung out of the bushes, which were there on Rajwaha and out of them Jai Deo Singh stated that the deceased would not be left alive.Thereafter, all the accused surrounded Dharmendra Singh and all of them also exhorted that he should be killed.At that time, Jai Deo Singh, Ravendra Singh and Bawan Bhagwan were armed with guns and Naresh was having a pistol, while remaining accused were armed with Lathis.Jai Deo Singh and Bawan Bhagwan started firing upon Dharmendra Singh by their weapons by which Dharmendra Singh got hit and he got bounced off his motor-cycle and fell down towards right side i.e. in the northern direction and after his having fallen, one more fire was made by the accused-persons.Thereafter, Shailendra, Narendra, Rajjan Lal and Naresh picking up the deceased as well as dragging him took him to the paddy field of Ram Kumar Lodh and threw him in the northern direction in that field.His nephew had died.When accused had surrounded Dharmendra, he had shouted then Harnam Singh, Sarnma Singh and Chandrabhan Singh came from the eastern side while Rajjan Singh resident of Gauri and Bal kishan resident of Khadagpur came to the spot from the western side and saw incident.All of them challenged accused because of which they fled towards Pratappur in western direction and they could not catch the accused persons because witnesses were armed.He also stated that the accused named above by him, were present in court today.He further stated that he (PW-3) had taken bail of accused Jai Deo Singh in an embezzlement case and about 15 to 20 days prior to the occurrence, Dharmendra had told him that Jai Deo Singh used to sit with miscreants, hence he should get his bail cancelled.This witness in cross-examination has stated that Dharmendra had spoken to him for cancellation of bail about 15 to 20 days prior to the occurrence but he had not got the bail cancelled because he found it to be immoral.He does not recollect whether the other surety was Raghuraj, who was brother of the deceased, or not.He has further stated that he had studied B.Com and initially, he was working as Supervisor in U.P. Co-operative Union Lucknow, and, thereafter, he was selected as Manager of Land Development Bank and got posted as Manager in Agra.Thereafter, he went to Kheragarh Tehsil and, thereafter, Barabanki and then Kannauj in District Farukkhabad.Thereafter he was appointed Branch Manager in Head Office as Land Valuation Officer and from there he was sent to Tehsil Karvi and District Banda as Branch Manager and from there to Jhasni and was in service even today and had come from Lucknow.He was informed about the date by the constable.He had not received charge in Jhansi, where he was transferred in 1974 and after having joined there he had come home and had fallen sick and did not go to attend duty.Thereafter, he was put a question that he had stated above that he was still working, whether the same was correct answer to which, he answered by saying that he had seen notice issued in Dainik Jagran on 12.4.1981 and on that basis he had joined the Jhansi Branch where he was not given the charge.He further stated that in Farrukhabad and Banda, no departmental proceedings had been initiated against him regarding embezzlement.He has further stated that he is real uncle of the deceased and owns 25 to 35 bighas of land, break up of which is given as five bighas 19 bswa and 11 biswansi land in Birecha Mau while two to three bighas of land in Bankati.He could not tell as to how much land is in the name of his son.In Nigoha village, he owns about 15 bighas of land and also owns one part of bullocks and sometimes he gets his field ploughed by tractor also.Initially his family was joint as his brothers were doing agricultural work.During the days when this incident happened, there was scarcity of labourers and because of that, some times they had to do the agricultural work on their own.Whenever he got labourers, they worked in his supervision and denied the suggestion that the cultivation work was being done by his labourers and not by him personally.PW-1 had studied up to only class four while this witness has studied up to B.Com, but even then he being an educated person and on the spot, did not lodge the F.I.R., while fire was lodged by PW-1, who is less educated.The F.I.R. also appears to have been got lodged by some persons having legal knowledge.It is also stated from the prosecution side that F.I.R. was lodged at the place of incident.This witness is highly educated then why he would do agricultural work as he is stating, so it appears to be unnatural and he has made false statement only to show his presence on the place of occurrence so as to falsely implicated the accused persons.He has further stated that he knew Rajjan (PW-2) for last two to three years, although he does not visit his place in village frequently but comes there sometimes only in respect of the business of milk.Earlier, he had never any talk with Rajjan.He was put a question whether a complaint was filed by Raja Ram Kaachhi of village Hirdaypur Gukula under Section 395 and 357 IPC against him and Dharmendra, to which he pleaded ignorance.Further, he was inquired whether in the above case, Raja Ram Kaachhi was beaten by him in court regarding which contempt proceedings were initiated against him and was convicted, he pleaded ignorance.Again a common question was put to him that whether he and Rajjan had given statement from the side of police in a case State Vs.Md. Umar and Fayaz and others, under Section 395 IPC, P.S. Bithoor, to which he stated that he does not know Fazal etc. and hence, he does not remember about this fact.Further it was questioned whether he was sent to jail along with Rajjan for identification of the accused, to which also he pleaded ignorance.He was further put a question that the father of the deceased namely Ikbal and Jagdeesh Mishra of his village were witnesses in the said case from the side of police, to which he also pleaded ignorance.He was again put a question whether in a case of murder which took place in village Yugrajpur, crime no. 186 Vs.Ram Chandra and others P.S. Shivli, any statement was given from the side of police by him, he gave reply in the negative and also denied that there was any other person by his name and parentage in the said village.He further stated that he had filed a case under Section 392 IPC against Ram Sajeevan and Jagmohan of village Sherpur, in which Rajjan was a witness but his statement has not been recorded but he also stated that he does not know whether the name of Rajjan was included in the list of witnesses or not.Further he stated that he had no knowledge whether Bashir Miyan had filed any case under Section 392 IPC against Rajjan and deceased.He further stated that in the house of Manni Nai of his village a dacoity had taken place in the year 1972 in which Jagroop Singh of his village was an accused but he does not know whether cases under Goonda Act and Misa were initiated against Jagroop Singh, or not.He knew Bhola Singh, when he died, he was village Pradhan and after his death, his son Jai Deo Singh had also become village Pradhan.Bhola Singh had filed a case against him under Section 122-B of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act and his brothers or not, he does not remember because he used to do service.He also does not recollect whether at the time of Jai Deo becoming Pradhan, Bhola Singh had filed any case in respect of this land or not, which was contested up to the commissioner's court.In respect of above statement of this witness, learned counsel for the appellants stated that all the denials, which have been made by this witness, are disputed on the basis of documentary evidence adduced from the side of defence, therefore, the testimony of this witness is highly suspicious and untrustworthy and his presence on the spot is wholely doubtful, therefore, his statement should be discarded.Further he has stated that he has seen village Jadepur where a minor goes towards that village which comes from the side of Bela road.There is no river situated between Jadepur village and Gauri village, although there are two Nalas in between, which are fairly big in size.Between Bhavsana Rajwaha and Gauri village, there is one Nala which is small in size.Village Besathi, where his land lies from there Gauri village is about six to seven furlong and from his land, the village Gauri is situated about four to five furlong away.He does not recollect whether village Mitanpur is located about two and two and half furlong from the place of incident, although he did not pay attention as to how many fields and the Abadi area lay between these two places.In the field, when he was sprinkling manure on the date of incident, the said field was below Bamba Patri by two and one to one and half feet.The type of bushes which existed near the place of incident, such type of bushes were not near his field nor near the Bamba, although such kind of bushes are found at some places near Bamba.He denied that there was any bush in this field and in front of that Bamba.Near the place of incident, the bushes towards southern side of it are quite high, which would be more in height than the height of a man, while bushes towards north of it would be around two to 1 and 1/2 feet high.The field in which, he was sprinkling manure, from there the place of incident was visible as his field was situated at a distance of about 150-175 paces away from that place.His field is of ten to twelve bishwas and at the time of incident, his field was having about .75 feet of water.There is no specific period for putting manure in the field, because as and when he would get time he used to do that work.To a question that whether he knows that if the manure is sprinkled in the noon time, that would damage the crop, to which he responded that it was wrong to say, moreover on the said date there were little clouds also.Again a question was put to him, whether he knows that in the field of Paddy, the manure is mixed only when there is dryness in the field and not water up to the level of 2.5 - 3 feet, to which, he responded that it was not essential.Except the accused persons and the witnesses, he did not see any other passer-by on the Patri of Rajwaha.After the incident, he had taken away manure there and was not in a position to tell as to what happened of that.He has further stated that for getting a report lodged, he had accompanied his brother and after having got it lodged, he came back to the place of incident.He stayed there till 4:45 pm and, thereafter, left for home because the children were weeping and he had consoled them and had taken home.When he returned to the place of incident, he did not find police there.From the police station to the place of occurrence, he had reached around 4:45 pm and after staying there for just about five to seven minutes, he had taken along the children and till then police was not seen there.When he had left the place of incident, his brother Harnam Singh (PW-1) remained there only but he does not recollect, whether there was any other witness or not.He further stated that the police had come to the village in the night about 7:00 to 7:45 p.m. but did not record his statement, rather the same was recorded on 9.9.1980, which was recorded in Nigoha School.He does not know where the report was written at the place of incident.He remained at the place of incident for about 45 minutes and, thereafter, at the instance of his brother, he accompanied him to the P.S. and during this period, where the witnesses were present, he does not recollect.At the time of occurrence, at the place of incident, only Rajjan was having bicycle.When he returned from the P.S., he found motor-cycle and the dead body at the same place where they had left them.Motor-cycle had blood on it and the place where dead body was lying, water had blood in it.He further stated that it is not correct to say that the deceased had taken out motor-bicycle on his own because he was given some support by one Harnam Singh as well and he also stated that it is not so that Dharmendra had taken out the motor-cycle from the bad patch driving the same.He was put a question as to whether he has stated to the Investigating Officer that his nephew Dharmendra Singh had dismounted him from the motor-bicycle and had taken out the same out of bad patch single handedly, to which he responded that he had also stated apart from the above that Harnam Singh had given little support in that and if the same was not mentioned in his statement, he could not tell its reason.He had not stated to I.O. that the motor-cycle was taken out having been dragged.He had also stated to the I.O. that he (PW-3) had also proceeded towards them believing that they might not be succeeding in taking out the motor-cycle out of the bad patch, but if the same was not recorded by I.O. in his statement, he could not tell its reason.He had stated to the I.O. that Dharmendra Singh had told him many days ago that he (P.W.3) should get the bail of Jai Deo cancelled, which was stated by him on the earlier date.He further stated that Dharmendra had told him for getting the bail cancelled 15 to 20 days ago and not many days ago which statement was given absolutely correct and by saying 15 to 20 days, he meant many days.He further stated that he had taken name of accused Narendra Singh among those who had lifted the dead body.He further stated that the manure, he had left behind in the field, he had not shown to the I.O. and the same was kept on the northern patri of his field which was adjacent to the Bamba.To the north of his field, was barren land and at a distance of about 100 paces thereafter in the north, the other fields begin.He has denied that he has taken name of Shailendra, Narendra and Rajjan Lal because of enmity and he never did work of agriculture.He was put a question as to whether Bawan Bhagwan was practicing advocate in Kanpur District Court to which, he responded that he used to see him often in the village but in last two to four days, he came to know that he was practicing at Kanpur but he did not know that he was practicing since last ten years, he was living in village and used to do agricultural work and he stated it to be wrong that on the date and time of incident, he was practicing law in Kanpur.71. P.W.4, Dr. J.S. Rathore has conducted the post-mortem of the deceased on 9.09.1980 at about 12:30 p.m., the dead body of which was identified by Constable Sahab Singh and Constable Shiv Ram and found following ante-mortem injuries on the dead body:(i) Lacerated gun shot wound of entry 3 cm x 2 cm on the middle of forehead with blackening & tatooing present along with three wounds of exit in an area of 8 cm.x 4 cm.on the left side of neck, size 1 cm.x 1 cm.(ii) Multiple pellet wound in an area of 30 cm x 8 cm on the inner aspect of left upper arm and lower arm 18 cm below elbow size ¼ cm x ¼ cm.(iii) Multiple pellet wound in an area of 18 cm.x 14 cm.on the abdominal wall anterior aspect around the umbilicus size ¼ x ¼.(iv) Multiple pellet wound in an area of 13 cm x 7 cm on the front of right thigh size ¼ cm x ¼ extending up to knee.(v) Multiple pellet wound in an area of 17 cm x 6 cm left thigh front 6 cm.above left knee joint size ¼ cm x ¼ cm.(vi) Abraded contusion 15 cm x 3 cm on the front of right leg upper part.(vii) Skin abrasion 8 cm x 4 cm front of right leg.(viii) Multiple pellet wound in an area of 42 cm x 31 cm on the whole of back both sides chest and upper abdomen size ¼ cm x ¼ cm.He further stated that he found the lacerated scalp under injury no. 1 and there were multiple fractures on both parietal and occipital bones and also there are multiple fractures on skull.Clotted blood weighing 4 ozs.was found in the skull and membrane and brain were ruptured; two wadding pieces were found in brain matter.In thorax wall, multiple pallets were found embedded in soft tissues; from chest wall, 9 pallets were extracted; pleura was ruptured; both lungs were fractured through and through; three pallets were found in right lung and two pallets in left lung; pericardium was ruptured; two pallets were also recovered from heart; 11 pallets were recovered from vertibra column; abdomen had multiple ruptures; 16 pallets were recovered from the abdominal wall.Peritonium was ruptured through and through; nine pallets were recovered from it.Oesphagus had multiple ruptures; stomach had also multiple ruptures.Semi digested food weighing 6 ozs.was present with clotted blood.Mucus membrane was ruptured; 14 pellets were recovered from the stomach; small intestine was empty and six pallets were recovered from it.Large intestine was half full and 8 pallets were recovered from it.Liver had multiple fractures through and through and four pallets were recovered; spleen was ruptured through and though and three pallets were recovered; from skull, three big pallets were found out of which one was found in occipital region and two at the base; two wadding pieces, three big pallets and 87 small pallets were recovered from the dead body and were sealed and handed over to the constable along with one under-wear, banyan, one shirt and jeans.The deceased had been killed about one day before and and cause of death was shock and hemorrhage as a result of above-mentioned injuries.He further stated that except injury nos. 6 and 7, other injuries were of fire arms while the injury nos. 6 and 7 were caused by blunt object and the deceased might have died on 8.09.1980 at 12 noon.The post-mortem report, Exhibit Ka 2 has been proved by him.In cross-examination, this witness has stated that there could be variation in death of about six hours on either side.The injury Nos. 6 and 7 were ante-mortem.There is difference between ante-mortem abrasion and contusion and post-mortem abrasion and contusion.To the question put to him as to whether injury nos. 6 and 7 could have been caused to the deceased by falling on wet-land, he gave reply in negative and, thereafter, he was again put a question whether the said injuries could have been caused to by falling from the motor-cycle to which he responded in affirmative.He was again put a question as to whether after receiving injuries in chest cavity and abdominal cavity which have been found on the dead body of the deceased, could the deceased be able to bounce off the motor-cycle to which he responded that after receiving the said injuries, the deceased could have fallen but whether he would fall after bouncing off or not, he could not tell.With respect to injury no. 6, he explained that the same was possible to be received by blunt object and also by friction but there would be more probability of the said injury being caused by blunt object.With respect to injury no. 7 when he was asked whether the same could be caused by dragging the deceased, he responded that there was small possibility of his having received the said injury on being dragged because in that condition, the deceased would have received other injuries on his person.He further stated that he did not find any indication that the dead body of the deceased kept lying in water for long and further stated it was not essential that if the dead body remains in water for four to five hours, in chest and abdominal cavity, water would be found, this would happen because in chest and abdominal cavity, there are small pores but because of the obstruction of muscles, water would be obstructed from getting into the body.The injury No. 8 might have been caused from behind, if the deceased was upon the motor-cycle.With respect to injury nos. 4 and 5, he was put a question as to whether this could have been received by him in case, he was standing straight.He replied that these injuries were possible to be received only if he was lying on the ground.Thereafter, he was again questioned whether the said injury might have been received when he was lying on the ground, he responded in affirmative.He has further stated that injury no.1 might have been caused from distance of about three feet which was further explained that the distance must have been not more than three feet and not less than one feet while rest of the injuries could have been caused from distance of more than six feet, thereafter, the Court itself put a question as to whether injury no. 8 could have been caused by single fire and injury nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 could also have been caused by one fire each, to this he replied that injury nos. 4 and 5 might have been caused also by single fire.Injury no. 2 was stated by him to have been caused from the left side.After having cited the above statement of this witness, learned counsel for the appellants has argued that injury no.1 shows that it must have been caused from close range as it was hit in fore-head; injury no. 2 might have been caused from distance; injury no.3 could have been caused by stray pallets but he has mainly emphasized on the point with respect to injury no. 1 as to who had caused that injury despite the prosecution version that there were three eye-witness of the occurrence.He again argued that none of the injury corresponds to oral version given by the witness.Injury nos. 2 and 8 must have been caused by one fire arm shot.It is the prosecution case that the deceased fell down and, thereafter again he was shot from the front.It was also pointed out that not a single thing has been recovered from the place of incident though entire brain material would have spread on the road if these kind of injuries which are stated to have been received by the deceased, were caused.Further it was argued that the place of occurrence has been varied by the prosecution side because on the one hand, it was stated that the assault was made when he was on the patri while the dead body is being found in the field which was away from the patri.Simultaneously it was also argued that all the eye-witnesses are interested witnesses who are closely related and the third witness is also closely known person to the complainant side and besides that deceased had criminal antecedents and it was quite possible that some unknown persons might have killed him and the incident did not happen in the manner which has been alleged by the eye-witness.It was also argued that the accused were stated to have come out of the bushes from the sides of patri and started firing on both sides but if that would be true, the kind of injuries which are found on the deceased, could not have been caused.In rebuttal, the learned A.G.A. and counsel for the complainant side, Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla has argued that who would be right person to decide as to whether it was one shot or multiple shot.On record, only on the basis of suggestion given from the side of accused, it could not be determined that these injuries were caused by one shot or multiple shots because for this, expert opinion was required.It was argued on behalf of accused that the injury no.1 was a contact shot but that gets belied because in the said injury, charring has been found which is possible only when there is little gap between object and the weapon by which the said injuries were caused, hence, the injury no.1 could not have been treated to be a contact shot.The case which has been set up in the F.I.R. is a plausible one and attention was drawn of the Court towards the replies given by the doctor for which he stated with respect to injury Nos. 1 and 3 having been caused from approximately distance of about 1 to 3 feet while with respect to injury no. 2, 4, 5 and 8, he stated that they could have been received by one fire each and argued that this would suggest that it is admission on the part of accused side that two fire shots were made at the least, because reliance was placed by them upon the said replies given by the said witness.In this regard it is argued that in-fact, the occurrence did happen which accused only have caused, it is only these accused who have caused said injuries to the deceased which is witnessed by the three eye-witnesses who have been examined from the side of prosecution.77. P.W.8, Constable Sahab Singh has stated that on 8.09.1980 at about 6:00 a.m., he had taken the dead body of the deceased in sealed condition along with necessary documents with his companion constable Shiv Ram and for the purposes of post-mortem, handed them over to the doctor in sealed condition on 9.9.1980 at 12:30 p.m. He is formal witness, hence nothing much is required to be discussed about his statement.P.W.9 is clerk of office of C.M.O., Kanpur who has simply stated that he put sealed bundles in wooden box and sealed the box with special Medico Legal Seal in presence of the of the C.M.O., Kanpur and dispatched the said box on that very day to the Chemical Examiner, Agra, U.P. He is also a formal witness.P.W. 10, Constable 1390, Sri Kant has stated that on 1.10.1981, he had brought four sealed bundles related to section 302 I.P.C. from P.S. Shivli to U.H.B. Hospital and after necessary action, the said material was taken to chemical examiner; he is also formal witness.Learned counsel for the appellants has given main thrust to the argument on the point that the deceased has died in mysterious circumstances in some other manner not as stated by the prosecution and that witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.3 are real brothers who are uncles of the deceased and, therefore, they are highly interested witnesses who have deposed deliberately against the accused, in fact, they were not present on the spot.With respect to P.W.3, it is argued that he is also closely known to the prosecution side and was a chance witness who was shown to be present in his field administrating manure to his crop when, he states that, he saw the deceased coming on a motor-cycle and was assaulted in the manner by the accused as has been stated by the prosecution, therefore, his testimony was also discardable.Rest of the accused were friends of these accused appellants.In pursuance of this motive, this occurrence has taken place on the alleged date and time which is given effect by accused appellants and the same has been witnessed by P.W.1 and P.W.3 who are real uncles of the deceased and P.W.2 who has also seen the occurrence as he was present on the spot at that time.In their testimony nothing has come out which would make their testimony untrustworthy.Whatever discrepancy are pointed out from the side of prosecution are ignorable because they do not go to the root of the incident and it was also argued that simply because P.W. Nos. 1 and 3 were related witnesses, it could not be said that they were not stating true facts and their testimony be discarded because they were related witnesses.All that is required is that scrutiny of their statements should be made minutely and meticulously ignoring the discrepancies which are not relevant and if their testimonies are assessed on the touch stone of principles of sifting grain from the chaff, it would clearly prove that they have proved the prosecution case to the hilt against the accused appellants and their testimonies are also corroborated by the medical evidence on record, therefore, the trial court's judgement needs to be upheld and appeal deserves to be dismissed.As per FIR, the prosecution version is that the deceased along with PW1 who is uncle of the deceased was going on motorcycle on the date of incident at about 12 noon as soon as they reached near the field of Ram Kumar Lodh of Mitanpur, they found the patri which was by the side of Bhausana Rajwaha was broken because of which the PW1 was dismounted from motorcycle so that the deceased could take out his motorcycle through the bad patch and when the deceased moved further ahead on the said patri and reached near the place shown by the Investigating Officer in the site plan as 'XA', the accused-appellants, who were hiding behind the bushes on either side of the said patri surrounded the deceased and started making fires upon him, as a result of which the deceased died and his body was thrown by them in the paddy field of Ram Kumar Lodha which was in the north side of the said patri at a distance of about 10 yards and the accused fled away towards north western direction.The Investigating Officer in the site plan has shown the broken patri by 'XI' where the PW1 had got down from the motorcycle and by 'XA' is shown the place where the motorcycle was found lying and by XB is shown the place where dead body of the deceased was lying in the field of Ram Kumar Lodh and the distance between XA and XB is shown 10 yards.By XC is shown the place from where plain soil and blood stained soil were collected.By XD is shown the place from where PW1 Harnam Singh had seen the incident; by 'XE' is shown the place from where witnesses Chandar Bhan Singh and Sarnam Singh had seen the deceased being assaulted by the accused-appellants, but these two witnesses have not been examined from the side of prosecution.By 'XF' is shown the place from where witness Nagendra Bahadur Singh, PW3 who is uncle of the deceased had seen the accused-appellants assaulting the deceased, who was prior to that in his field administering manure and had reached there when he saw that the deceased and PW1 were finding difficult to take out their motorcycle from bad patch, in order to assist them.By 'XG' is shown the place from where witness Bal Krishna (not examined) and Rajjan Singh (PW2) had seen the accused-appellants assaulting the deceased.By arrow is shown the direction in which the accused-appellants had fled after having murdered the deceased Dharmendra which is in north western direction towards the filed of Shambhu Mishra.By 'XH' is shown the field of PW3 Nagendra Bahadur Singh where he was sprinkling manure in his field; by 'XI' is shown the place where the deceased had dismounted PW1 as he had found the patri broken.By dots is shown the place where signs of dragging were found; by 'XJ' is shown the place near the dead body where shoes and Tahmat were found lying.By 'XK' is shown the place near the motorcycle where briefcase was found lying.We would like to first analyze as to whether on the basis of eye witness account, the manner in which the incident is said to have taken place stands proved or not.PW1 in this regard has stated that on 8.9.1980 when he was going with the deceased on motorcycle sitting behind him and reached near the field of Ram Kumar Lodh of Mitanpur village on the patri of Rajwaha, he found the said patri broken because of which he got down from the motorcycle while the deceased also after getting down from it, tried to drag it ahead and thereafter again having sat on that started to proceed ahead slowly while he himself kept moving on foot.When the deceased reached near the field of Ram Kumar Lodh at about 12 noon, accused Jai Deo Singh, Ravindra Singh, Shailendra Singh, Narendra Singh, Naresh Singh, Rajjan Lal and Bawan Bhagwan Singh came out from the bushes and surrounded the deceased and on exhortation of Jai Deo Singh that they would not leave the deceased alive and further all of them exhorted to kill the deceased, pursuant to that Jai Deo Singh, Bawan Bhagwan Singh and Ravindra Singh who had guns in their hands and Naresh Singh who had pistol while rest of the three who had lathis, started assaulting the deceased with their respective weapons, as a result of which, Dharmendra Singh had fallen down and thereafter Shailendra Singh, Narenedra Singh, Rajjan Lal and Naresh Singh dragged the deceased Dharmendra Singh and had thrown his dead body in the field of Ram Kumar Lodh at a distance of 8-10 yards towards north and fled towards west in the direction of Pratappur village.He had seen this occurrence from a distance of about 30-32 paces away towards east of the place of incident and raised alarm.From a distance of about 8-10 paces Chandra Bhan Singh and Sarnam, had seen the occurrence and from the western side Rajjan Singh PW2 and Bal Krishna also reached there.His brother Nagendra Bahadur Singh, PW3 who was about 100 paces away from the place of incident in his paddy field also reached there and all of them had seen the incident.It is apparent from the above statement that the same is in consonance with the site plan mentioned above, however, the Investigating Officer has not recorded in the site plan the distance from where these witness saw the occurrence.It was vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that this witness was, in fact, not present on the spot because there was no reason why he would allow the deceased to proceed ahead on his motorcycle and would leave himself behind only to be a witness of this occurrence although both of them were stated to be going together on the motorcycle.It was concocted by the prosecution that because of patri being broken, the deceased dismounted the PW1 and thereafter did not allow him to sit again back on the motorcycle and PW1 allowed the deceased to proceed ahead on motorcycle individually only to create a situation in which PW1 would be a witness of this incident.Had he been traveling on the motorcycle with the deceased, he would certainly had received injuries.Moreover, it was also argued that had he been so closed behind the deceased even he would not be spared by the accused-appellants and would have been killed.It is not made clear by prosecution as to where he was hiding to witness this incident.Learned A.G.A. vehemently rebutted that when such occurrence happen in which large number of accused armed with deadly weapons are assaulting the deceased in prosecution of their common object to murder the deceased, the witness of the said occurrence would naturally try to conceal himself somewhere or the other and these things cannot be visualized as to how the witness PW1 might have defended himself.Only because, his presence on the spot was not made clear by this witness, would not make his testimony impeachable.We are in agreement with the argument of the learned A.G.A. and find that the details which are given by this witness of having seen the occurrence are totally in consonance with the site plan and according to him, he had seen the incident from a distance of about 30-32 paces from behind the deceased.We do not find any infirmity in his statement despite the fact that elaborate cross-examination has been made from the side of the accused.His presence on the spot seems to be believable and simply because he did not accompany the deceased soon after he negotiated the bad patch of the patri which was broken, does not mean that he was not present on the spot and was trying only to make himself an witness of this occurrence.The PW3 who is also an eye witness and uncle of the deceased had stated that on the date of incident at about 12 noon he was sprinkling manure to his field and then he saw that on the patri of Bhausana Rajwaha a motorcycle was coming which had passed by the side of his field and when it reached near the field of Ram Kumar Lodh, the patri was found broken and on the said motorcycle Harnam Singh and deceased Dharmendra Singh were going and Harnam Singh was dismounted from the said motorcycle while deceased Dharmendra Singh tried to pull out his motorcycle through broken patri while Harnam Singh gave little help in that regard.PW3 also proceeded towards them thinking that they might not be able to take out their motorcycle.When he reached about the place from where the said broken patri was left about 72-74 paces away, he saw that accused Jai Deo Singh, Ravindra Singh, Bawan Bhagwan Singh and son-in-law of Lawa Singh of his village Naresh Singh, Shailendra Singh, Narendra Singh and Rajjan Lal sprung out of the bushes which were on Bhausana Rajwaha and Jai Deo Singh exhorted that the deceased would not be spared alive and thereafter all the accused surrounded the deceased Dharmendra Singh and thereafter all the accused shouted that he should be done to death and pursuant to that Jai Deo Singh, Ravindra Singh, Bawan Bhagwan Singh armed with guns and Naresh Singh armed with pistol and rest of them armed with lathis, started assaulting the deceased with their respective weapons by which the deceased after getting hit bounced off the motorcycle and had fallen down towards north.After his having fallen, one fire was made by accused and thereafter Shailendra Singh, Narendra Singh, Rajjan Lal and Naresh Singh dragged the dead body of the deceased Dharmendra Singh and had thrown him in the paddy field of Ram Kumar Lodh towards north.His nephew Dharmendra Singh had died.He further stated that when the accused had surrounded Dharmendra Singh, he had shouted and on his shout Harnam Singh (PW1), Sarnam Singh and Chandra Bhan Singh came from east and western side.Rajjan Singhh and Bal Kishan of Kharakpur had also seen the occurrence.When he and the witnesses challenged the accused, they fled towards Partappur in the western direction and they could not catch the accused because they were unarmed.He identified all the accused in court.A long cross-examination has been made by the defence side but nothing much could be found so as to make his testimony untrustworthy.Whatever, he has stated above, has been found to be totally in accordance with the site plan which has been made by the Investigating Officer.His presence on the spot is found proved because otherwise he could not have given graphic description of the occurrence that he had seen, although he is related witness but that would not make any dent on his testimony as after close scrutiny of his statement, nothing much is found to disbelieve him.Rajjan Singh who is PW3 of this occurrence has stated that after having left his sister in her matrimonial home, he was returning to his village and when he reached near Bhausana Rajwaha at about 12 noon, he saw that Dharmendra Singh deceased who was on a motorcycle coming from the eastern side reached near the filed of Ram Kumar Lodh, right then the accused Bawan Bhagwan Singh, Rajjan Lal, Ravindra Singh, Jai Deo Singh, Narendra Singh, Shailendra Singh and son-in-law of Lawa Singh namely Naresh Singh who were present in court, came out from the bushes which were on the either side of the patri and ''gheroued'Dharmendra Singh and Jai Deo Singh exhorted that he should not be left alive and on this, all the accused shouted that today he would be slain to death and the accused who were armed with guns and pistol in their hands started making fire upon the deceased.Naresh Singh was having pistol while Ravindra Singh, Jai Deo Singh and Bawan Bhagwan Singh were armed with guns and RajjanLal, Narendra Singh and Shailendra were having lathi in their hands.After getting hit by fire arm injuries, the deceased Dharmendra Singh bounced off the motorcycle and fell down and thereafter one more fire was made upon him.Thereafter, Naresh Singh, Rajjan Lal, Narendra Singh and Shailendra Singh lifted him and had thrown in the field of paddy holding his hands and legs.At that time Sarnam Singh and Chandra Bhan Singh, Harnam Singh (PW1), Nagendra Bahadur Singh (PW3) were also coming there and they had also seen the occurrence.All of them had shouted when occurrence happened and the accused fled towards Partappur.His testimony is also found to be in accordance with the site plan because his presence has been shown in the site plan at the place XG towards west of the place where the deceased was assaulted by the accused-appellants by their respective weapons.Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that he is a chance witness who simply stated in favour of the prosecution to falsely implicate them, there was no occasion for him to be present there.Long cross-examination has been made by this witness but nothing such has emerged out of it which would make his testimony doubtful.We do not find any substance in the argument that he was a chance witness, hence he cannot be present there.He has specifically stated that he was returning after leaving her sister in her matrimonial home and therefore such circumstance that he was returning through that passage, may not be disbelieved.Testimony of PW4 Dr. J.S. Rathore has found as many as eight injuries on the body of the deceased which have been mentioned-above and all the injuries except injury nos. 6 and 7 are found of fire arms while these two injuries are found to have been caused by hard and blunt object.It is the prosecution case that three accused namely Shailendra Singh, Narendra Singh and Rajjan Lal were armed with lathis while remaining accused were armed with fire-arm weapons, therefore, the injuries which are found on the body of the deceased stand corroborated by the statement of the abovementioned witness and it could be possible that injury nos. 6 and 7 might have been caused by lathis which were being wielded by the above named three accused.Much argument was made by the learned counsel for the appellants that it has come in evidence that one last shot was made by accused on the forehead when the deceased had fallen down but who had actually made that fire, was not stated by any eye witness and that would make their presence unbelievable because had they been present at the spot, they would certainly have pointed out the name of the specific accused who had caused injury.It was also argued that the injuries which are found on the person of the deceased were caused by either one shot or two shots at the most but we do not want to go into this aspect of the matter whether the injuries were caused by one fire shot or two fire shots because fire arms injuries are found six in number and large number of pallet wounds have also been found, therefore, in our opinion it would be difficult to make out as to how many shots were made by the accused by which these injuries were caused.Assailant who were having fire arms were four in number, out of whom one Bawan Bhagwan has been given benefit of doubt by the learned trial court on account of plea of alibi because it is held that on the date and time of the incident he was in Kanpur as he was practicing there as an advocate.Appeal filed by the State against the acquittal of the said accused has also been dismissed.Therefore, we have Criminal Appeal pending before us only of six accused named above.Therefore, three accused are found to have held fire-arm in their hands and caused injuries to the deceased which are six in number.It could not be disbelieved that these injuries might have been caused by three accused namely Ravindra Singh, Jai Deo Singh and Naresh Singh.We also do not find any substance in the argument that the prosecution has failed to prove as to who made last shot at the forehead of the deceased when he had fallen down, it would not create any doubt in our mind that it was common object of all the accused appellants in prosecution of which after being armed with deadly & ordinary weapons; they caused injuries to the deceased which resulted in his death and thereafter together they had thrown the dead body in the filed of Ram Kumar Lodh in order to remove the evidence of murder having been committed.It would also be pertinent to take up the point of motive for committing this offence.The version of the prosecution in this regard is that in FIR itself it was clearly stated by the informant that Narendra Singh, Shailendra Singh wanted to forcibly occupy the land which was being tilled by the PW1 and deceased Dharmendra and was in their possession because they had got the said land mutated after its sale having been made by Surjan Singh who was issueless in favour of Shailendra Singh and Narendra Singh.At the time of mutation proceedings, the deceased Dharmendra Singh had raised objection and due to this enmity this occurrence was given effect to.Apart from it, other enmity has also been stated in the FIR that in a case under section 409 IPC against the accused Jai Deo Singh, the deceased Dharmendra Singh was a witness who had been spoken by the said accused not to depose against him but the same was refused and hence both these enmities were sufficient to give effect to this occurrence.It is also on record that the said enmity has been proved in testimony by PW1 by clearly stating in examination in chief that Surjan Singh was uncle of his father who was issueless and had sold his land in favour of Shailendra Singh and Narendra Singh and in mutation proceedings their names had been mutated, in this proceedings deceased Dharmendra Singh had filed his objection.Khata of Surjan Singh, Shailendra Singh and Narendra Singh was common and at the time of mutation proceedings on the land of Surjan Singh, PW1 and deceased Dharmendra Singh were ploughing the land and even after the mutation proceedings, they continued to plough the said land.Shailendra Singh and Narendra Singh wanted that they should leave the land of Surjan Singh in favour of them but they could not occupy the said land because Dharmenedra Singh was ploughing it since long because of this there was deep enmity between two sides.He has also proved the enmity between the accused Jai Deo Singh and deceased Dharmendra Singh on account of deceased being a witness in a case under section 409 IPC against Jai Deo Singh.We find that the said animosity between the two sides could be the reason for committing this offence.Moreover, we would like to clarify the legal position in this regard that in a case where there is a direct evidence of eye witness, no motive is required to be proved.But in the present case, we find that not only eye witnesses have proved the occurrence rather motive has also been proved because of that motive, this occurrence could easily have been given effect to.We are also of the view that no such evidence has come on record which indicates that there was so much water in the said field that the dead body was wholly submerged in the same, hence there is nothing abnormal in not finding any water in the body of the deceased in postmortem report.This circumstance does not belie the incident which is distinctly proved by the eye witnesses that the deceased was assaulted by the appellants in prosecution of their common object to murder him and ultimately he was killed and his body was thrown in the file of Ram Kumar Lodh.In view of the aforesaid, we are of the view that there is no infirmity in the judgment and order of the trial court dated 30.04.1983 holding the accused-appellants namely Ravindra Singh, Jai Deo Singh, Naresh Singh, Shailendra Singh, Narendra Singh and Rajjan Lal guilty under the afore-mentioned offences.The appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
|
['Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
148,262,178 |
Record of the Court below has been received.Heard on the point of admission.After perusal of the record, the appeal seems to be arguable, hence, it is admitted for final hearing.Heard on IA.No.15852/2019 under section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of further custodial awarded sentence and grant of bail to appellant Mathura Bai.A perusal of record reveals that appellant Mathura Bai has been convicted and sentenced as hereunder:in default of fine further R.I. for 1 month.U/s 467 of I.P.C. R.I. for 2 years and fine of Rs.500/-in default of fine further R.I. for 1 month.U/s 468 of I.P.C. R.I. for 1 year and fine of Rs.1000/-in default of fine further R.I. for 2 months.U/s 471 of I.P.C. R.I. for 1 year and fine of Rs.500/-in default of fine further R.I. for 1 month.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was on bail during trial and her jail sentence has been suspended by the learned trial Court under section 389 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The time was further HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR Cr.A. No.7136/2019 Mathura Bai vs. State of Madhya Pradesh extended by this Court.Therefore, it has been prayed that further custodial awarded sentence of the appellant be suspended.Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State on the other hand, has opposed the bail application.It is directed that on depositing the fine amount, if not already deposited, and furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for her appearance before the trial Court on 09-12-2019 and all other subsequent dates fixed by the trial Court in this regard, execution of the remaining part of the custodial awarded sentence imposed upon the appellant shall stand suspended till disposal of this appeal and she shall be released on bail.Certified copy as per rules.(Vishu Pratap Singh Chauhan) Digitally signed by BIJU Judge Date:b 2019.10.16 15:44:33 +05'30'
|
['Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
148,269,110 |
consent of learned Counsel for the parties.According to Complainant, on 20.5.2017, when she was boarding a private bus, some incident took place wherein she thought that applicant no.2/accused had pushed her deliberately in the crowd and in the course of same incident, stole her purse after abusing her in filthy language, of which applicant no.1 lodged report, upon which offences as aforestated came to be registered.::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2020 02:06:17 :::::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2020 02:06:17 :::State of Punjab and another reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has given guidelines to be considered while quashing F.I.R./Charge- sheet.::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2020 02:06:17 :::::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2020 02:06:17 :::When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure :(i) ends of justice, orWhile exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.The Hon'ble Apex Court has further held that if the parties have settled the dispute and no element of public loss is involved, they can be permitted to compound the offence.It is further held that, upon taking the contents of report as well as charge-sheet at its face value, if the ingredients of offence are not made out and even after the trial, if there is no possibility of matter ending into conviction, this Court should exercise powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for giving an end to the litigation.Since the parties have amicably settled the matter, though we find that there was some dispute between applicant no.1::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2020 02:06:17 ::: 5 apl52.19.odt and applicant no.2 and as such, complaint came to be lodged by applicant no.1, which issue since is now found resolved and for compromise of which, joint application is placed on record, we find that continuation of Criminal Proceedings would unnecessarily create problem in maintaining harmony amongst the parties.In the circumstances, we are inclined to allow the application.No order as to costs.::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2020 02:06:17 :::Cost to be paid with the Registry of this Court which, in turn, shall be paid to Police Welfare Fund, District Washim.Applicant nos. 1 and 2 state that amount of cost shall be deposited within four weeks from today.::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2020 02:06:17 :::::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2020 02:06:17 :::
|
['Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,482,705 |
The prosecution's case as noted down by the Additional Sessions Judge is as follows:-"The prosecution case indicates PW24 SI (now Inspector) RK Meena, the Investigating Officer (IO) on arrival at the scene with constable Jai Bhagwan found a large number of stones and pebbles lying on the road in front of the Bathak of Roomala.Ranjit Singh s/o Prem Raj was present at the scene.The IO recorded his statement as per Ex.PW1/A, whereupon the IO made his endorsement vide Ex.PW24/A and got an FIR registered for offences u/s 147/148/149/341/323/427/307/120B and 109 IPC as per Ex.PW13/A by sending his rukka through constable Bhagat Ram, who had also reached the scene.As per the allegations made in the FIR, Ranjit (PW1) claimed himself to be resident of village Mandi and an agriculturist.He claimed that in the evening of the date of incident he was coming from Mehrauli to village Mandi driving car No.: DIA-62 accompanied by Ram Singh s/o Roomala (PW2) and Sukhbir Singh s/o Khazan Singh (PW-4), both residents of same village.He claimed that he was going to drop these two persons, presumably near their residence, and when at about 7.00 PM his car reached near the house of Basant Ram s/o (who was sent up as accused No. 13, but discharged on 3.8.88), Bansi (A-22), Kripa Ram (A-4), Sunder (A-20), Roop Chand (A-3), Tej Ram @ Teja (A-1) and Ranbir (A-15) encircled the car and started attacking on the vehicle with lathis (wooden sticks) which they were holding and also pelting stones at it.The FIR alleged that as a result of this attack, Vishram s/o Roopa, an uncle of Ranjit, sustained number of blows on his head and other parts of the body with the help of wooden sticks at the hands of A1 Tej Ram, A2 Kalu Ram and A3 Roop Chand.Ranjit claimed he himself had sustained an injury in his middle finger of his right hand due to wooden stick blow by Het Ram A21 and had also sustained injury due to being hit by a stone in his chest.He claimed as a result of this attack, Ram Singh (PW2), Sukhbir (PW4), Ram Phool (not produced), Dharam Singh (not produced), Sat Prakash (PW5), Siri Chand ( not produced), Roomal (not produced), Bhrum Singh (PW3) and Chhattar Singh (PW6) had also sustained injuries and the car had been badly damaged.The FIR claimed public had intervened and on arrival of PCR vehicle, the assaulting party had withdrawn.He reported that Visram had sustained serious injuries.On the conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was laid before the ld.It appears Vishram died as a result of injuries sustained, 9 days after the occurrence.JUDGMENT R.S. Sodhi, J.Criminal Revision Petition 117/2001 is directed against the order dated 13.11.2000 of the Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi in Sessions Case No. 11/1988, whereby the learned Judge has returned a finding that the guilt of A2 and A3 (respondent nos. 2 and 3 herein), for offence under Section 304 (Part I) r/w Section 34 IPC has been brought home and A2 and A3 are held guilty under Section 304(1) IPC.The guilt of all other accused persons for remaining charges has not been proved, thus they are acquitted.Ranjit alleged that Teja exhorted others to the effect that on seeing this, he somehow managed to bring his car near the Bathak of his uncle Roomal, but was pursued by the aforesaid six persons up to the said place.In the meantime, the members of family of Ranjit also came on the scene on hearing the noise and pleaded with the aforesaid six not to do so, but at that time 15 other persons are stated to have joined the aforesaid 6, some of whom were holding wooden sticks and then attacked Ranjit, the two persons accompanying him and members of his family/brotherhood with lathis and stones.The prosecution sought trial of 22 persons mentioned as accused in the charge sheet for offences u/s 147/148/149/341/427/307/302/109 and 120B IPC.The ld.MM took cognizance and summoned all the accused and after supply of copies, the case was committed to the court of Sessions as per order dt.22.7.87."It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that he is aggrieved of the judgment and order of the trial court, inasmuch as the offence that has been committed should have been under Section 302 and not under Section 304 (Part I).He draws my attention to the statement of PW-4, Sukhbir, where PW-4 is stated to have said that the deceased had fallen on the ground and was assaulted and given injuries while he was on the ground.The witness was confronted with his previous statement in which the witness has not stated so.He has been left untouched.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
148,271,093 |
The applicant is an young boy of 19 year old and the only bread earner of his family.If he is kept in custody, his family members will face starvation.(Passed on 21st June, 2019) This first bail application for grant of regular bail under Section 439 of the Cr.
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', '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.
|
148,287,256 |
No child has been born out of the said wedlock.On a complaint instituted by respondent no.2 (wife), the subject FIR was registered against the petitioner no. 1 (husband) and his family members.The salient terms and conditions of the said Settlement Agreement dated 15th July, 2014 are as follows:-It has been agreed between the parties that they shall take divorce by way of mutual consent.It has been further agreed between the parties that the respondent no. 1/husband Sh.Pawan Chaddha shall pay a total sum of Rs. 9,00,000/- (Rs. Nine lac only) to the complainant/wife Renu Chaddha towards full and final settlement of all her claims arising out of their marriage which includes maintenance (present past and future), permanent alimony, jewellery, istridhan etc. Writ Petition (Crl.) 2526/2015 Page 2 of 6Writ Petition (Crl.) 2526/2015 Page 2 of 6It has been further agreed between the parties that the respondent no. 1/husband shall pay the above settled amount to the complainant/wife by way of cash/demand draft in the following manner:-(a) Rs.1,50,000/- on 12/08/14 before the court concerned at the time of withdrawal of present case U/s 12 D.V. Act.It is agreed that the parties shall remain bound by the aforesaid terms of settlement."In a nutshell, it has been agreed by and between the parties to the union that respondent no. 2/wife shall be paid a sum of Rs. 9 lakhs towards all her claims against the petitioners past, present and future.The agreement between the parties is lawful and the same is hereby accepted.Counsel for the parties further state that pursuant to the said Settlement Agreement dated a sum of Rs. 7 lakhs has already been received by respondent no.2(wife).The balance sum of Rs. 2 lakhs has been brought to the Court in the shape of Demand Draft dated 13.08.2015 bearing No. 188684 drawn on Syndicate Bank, Rani Jhansi Road, Delhi Branch, in Writ Petition (Crl.) 2526/2015 Page 4 of 6 favour of respondent no. 2(wife) herein.Respondent No.2 (wife) acknowledges receipt thereof subject to its encashment.Writ Petition (Crl.) 2526/2015 Page 4 of 6In the present case, it is observed that pursuant to the settlement arrived at between the parties, a decree of divorce by mutual consent has already been obtained by the parties from the concerned Family Court.Through Mr. Ashish Aggaral, ASC (Crl.) for State with Mr. Piyush Singhal, Adv.SI Neeraj Kumar, P.S. Mandawali Mr. Santosh Kumar and Shreenivas Sharma, Advs.for respondent no. 2 along with respondent no. 2 CORAM:HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL) W.P.(CRL) 2526/2015 and Crl.MA No. 16150/2015 (Exemption)The present is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of FIR No. 344/2014 under Sections 406/498A IPC registered at Police Station- Delhi and the proceedings arising therefrom.Writ Petition (Crl.) 2526/2015 Page 1 of 6Writ Petition (Crl.) 2526/2015 Page 1 of 6The facts in brief are that the petitioner No.1 (husband) was married to respondent No.2 (wife) according to Hindu rites and customs on 7th December, 2012 at Delhi.(b) Rs. 1,50,000/- before the court concerned on 04/09/14 at the time of withdrawal of case U/s 125 Cr.P.C. On the same day, the respondent no. 1/husband shall also handover the following articles i.e (1) one T.V (2) one bed of 6/4 inch with mattresses (3) one almirah (4) one dressing table (5) one blanket & (6) one fridge to the complainant/wife.(d) Rs. 2,00,000/- at the time of recording of the statements of the parties in the second motion.The second motion petition shall be filed by the parties within 15 days after expiry of statutory period of six months(e) Rs. 2,00,000/- before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at the time of statements of parties for quashing of FIR No. 344/13, P.S. Mandawali U/s 498A/406/34 IPC.The respondent no. 1/husband and his family members shall file a petition for quashing of this FIR within 15 days after obtaining decree of divorce by way of mutual consent.The complainant/wife shall cooperate with the respondent no. 1/husband and his family members in quashing of this FIR.It has been further agreed between the parties that they shall not file any case/complaint/litigation against each other and their family members in future arising out of their marriage.Writ Petition (Crl.) 2526/2015 Page 3 of 6Respondent No.2(wife)/complainant, who is present in Court and has been identified by her counsel as well as the Investigating Officer i.e. SI Neeraj Kumar, Police Station- Mandawali, Delhi, states that in pursuance to the settlement arrived at between the parties to the union, she is no longer keen to proceed with the subject FIR and the proceedings emanating therefrom.Since the dispute between the parties which arose out of a matrimonial discord between petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 and resulted in the registration of the subject FIR has been settled amicably by way of a Settlement Agreement dated 15th July, 2014 without any undue influence, pressure or coercion; as the parties have obtained decree of divorce by mutual consent; and since the agreement between the parties is lawful, no useful purpose will be served by proceeding with the subject FIR and the proceedings arising therefrom.Writ Petition (Crl.) 2526/2015 Page 5 of 6Writ Petition (Crl.) 2526/2015 Page 5 of 6Resultantly, the FIR No. 344/2014 under Sections 406/498A IPC registered at Police Station- Delhi and the proceedings arising therefrom are hereby set aside and quashed qua all the petitioners subject to each of the petitioners depositing a sum of Rs. 5,000/- with the Delhi High Court Staff Welfare Fund within a period of two weeks from today.Receipt thereof shall be provided to the Investigating Officer in the subject FIR.With the above said directions, the writ petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly.Pending application also stands disposed of.SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J NOVEMBER 03, 2015 sd Writ Petition (Crl.) 2526/2015 Page 6 of 6Writ Petition (Crl.) 2526/2015 Page 6 of 6
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,482,877 |
The sentenceswere directed to run concurrently.2(i).P.W.1, lodged a complaint under Ex.P1, who is the elder brother ofthe deceased Rambal Singh.He has stated that there was a proposal for themarriage of the accused with the daughter of one George P.W.11 and in connectionwith that, the said George on 18.09.2005 at about 04.00 p.m., came to the houseof one Rathinam and left his house at about 05.00 p.m., that the accused with awrong impression that the deceased might have conveyed false information abouthim to the said George and on the same day at about 07.15 p.m. the accused askedthe father of P.W.1 about Rambal Singh, for which, he replied that he wasstanding in front of R.B.R. Neelambal Marriage Hall.Immediately, the accusedrushed to the said place with fury, that on seeing him, P.W.1 took his fatherand followed him, that in front of the above said marriage hall, Rambal Singh,P.Ws.2 and 3 were coming and the accused restrained them and hurled obscenewords at the deceased stating that how could he pass false information to thefamily members of the bride and he suddenly took out a knife from his waist andstabbed on the left side arm-pit of the deceased, who fell down with profusebleeding, that P.W.1 and others raised alarm and the accused fled away from thescene of occurrence intimidating them that he would do away with them if theycame near him, that they stopped an auto, which was passing by at that time,driven by one Selvakumar and took the injured to Thittuvilai Subam Hospitalwhere the Doctor asked them to take him to the Medical College Hospital and healso provided a van in which he was taken to the Medical College Hospital wherethe Doctor after examining the injured stated that he was brought dead.2(ii).On receipt of the intimation, the Inspector of Police, by nameVeluchamy, proceeded to the hospital and scribed the statement from P.W.1 andcame to the police station at 01.00 a.m. on 19.09.2005 and registered a case incrime No.352/2005 under Sections 334, 294(b), 506(1) and 302 IPC, on the file ofthe Bhoothapandy Police Station.He also lodged First Information Report Ex.P16and deputed P.W.13 Head Constable to entrust the same to the Court and copies tosuperior officials.P.W.13 took the First Information Report and complaint tothe Judicial Magistrate Court No.III, Nagercoil.The said Veluchamy, Inspectorof Police, is no more as evident from his Death Certificate Ex.The presentInspector of Police of Bhoothapandy Police Station, P.W.19 deposed about theinvestigation taken up by the said Veluchamy.2(iii).The Investigation Officer proceeded to the scene of crime,prepared observation mahazar Ex.P2 and drew rough sketch Ex.Then, he went to the infirmary,conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and prepared Ex.P18 InquestReport.He also arranged P.W.8 lens-man who took photographs in the scene ofcrime.M.O.4 series are the three photographs and six negatives.S.PALANIVELU, J.This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the appellant against thejudgment passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Nagercoil, KanyakumariDistrict, in S.C.No.179 of 2007, dated 05.03.2010 finding the appellant guiltyunder Section 294(b) IPC, convicted and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonmentfor three months; finding guilty under Section 302 IPC convicted and sentencedto suffer life imprisonment and also imposed a fine of Rs.3,000/- in default toundergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and further finding himguilty under Section 506(i) IPC convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorousimprisonment for a period of 2 years and also imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/- indefault to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.He says that the dog went to the house of theaccused and then came to the back side of R.C. Church.His report is Ex.P11.The Investigator examined witnesses and recorded their statements.He gaverequisition Ex.P4 through P.W.14 Head Constable for conducting autopsy over thecorpse to the Medical Officer.Earlier, while the deceased was brought to thehospital, P.W.15 Doctor had examined him and pronounced the injured dead.P9is the death intimation and Ex.P10 is the Accident Register.P.W.5 theAssistant Professor of Forensic Medicine in Medical College Hospital, Nagercoil,held post mortem over the dead body and issued Ex.P5 Post-Mortem Certificatewith an opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of stab injury andits sequelae.He found only one following external injury: "4 x 2+ x 7 c.m.incised punctured wound seen over the left axilla.It isdirected inwards and to the right through the 3rd intercosfal space and piercedthe left upper lobe of the lung and ends as a point.Both the edged were sharp.There was a rent in the outer aspect of left upper lobe of the lung measuring5x1x2 cms."2(iv).After the post-mortem was over, P.W.14 entrusted the mortal remainsto the relatives after taking the bloodstained clothes M.Os.5 to 7 and handedover them to the Investigation Officer with a special report.2(v).The Investigation Officer arrested the accused on 19.10.2005 atabout 17.00 hours, at Kurathiyarai Madavilagam junction and recorded aconfession statement voluntarily given by him, in the presence of witnesses andthe admissible portion in the confession statement is Ex.P6, in pursuance ofwhich, the accused took the Investigation Officer and witnesses and producedM.O.1 knife which was seized under cover of mahazar Ex.He also requestedthe Court to send the case properties for analysis under Exs.P13is the Biology Department report in which it is mentioned that blood was notdetected in the knife.In Ex.P12, report it is stated that the bloodstainedearth and clothes contained blood.P14 is the Serology Department reportwhich shows that the blood found in bloodstained earth and dresses are human inorigin belonging to 'O' group.On completion of the investigation, on17.01.2006, the said Veluchamy laid charge-sheet against the accused.2(vi).After the trial, when the accused was examined by the SessionsCourt under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating materials availableagainst him in the prosecution evidence, he denied the complicity in theoffence.He has stated that this is a false case foisted against him.He didnot examine any witnesses nor he marked any document.The following are the points for consideration:-(i) Whether the charges framed against the accused have been establishedbeyond reasonable doubt?Points 1 and 2: P.W.1 is the elder brother of the deceased.It isavailable in the evidence that P.Ws.1 to 3, the deceased and the accused arefriends.There was a proposal to give the daughter of P.W.11 in marriage to theaccused.P.W.11 says that, he told the family members of the accused that he(P.W.11) has got relatives in Ettamadai, who are George (father of the deceased)and sister Rathna Bai and that the family members of the accused told him thatthe said George and Rathna Bai are presently in inimical terms with them.Healso says that the accused told him that if anybody were enquired, he would saythat the accused was not a good man.In the cross-examination, he says thatRambal Singh is his sister's son.This piece of evidence shows that there hadbeen love lost between the families of the deceased and the accused.Adverting to the contents in Ex.P1, it is a graphical narration byP.W.1 as to the occurrence and the events aftermath.The oral evidence ofP.Ws.1 to 3 are identical while they say about the perpetration of the crimeagainst the accused on the deceased.During the cross-examination, a suggestionwas put to them to the effect that there was a fisticuffs between the accused,deceased and P.Ws.1 to 3 that the accused escaped by entering into the marriagehall and he was chased by the deceased, who attempted to jump over the grillgate but failed resulting in sustaining of piercing injury on his left arm-pitby the spikes in the iron gate.The suggestion was denied by the witnesses.Nomotive was attributed to P.Ws.2 and 3 to depose against the accused.They arealso stated to be friends of the accused.After the occurrence, an auto driver P.W.7 happened to cross the sceneof crime which was intercepted by the prosecution witnesses and he took theinjured and others in his auto to Subam Hospital.In his cross-examination, hesays that two persons stopped his vehicle but in the complaint it is stated thatthree witnesses, father of the deceased stopped the auto.P9 and Ex.P10 thedeath intimation and Accident Register issued by the hospital show that George,father of the deceased brought him to the hospital.But the said George was notexamined before the Court.P.W.11 has taken up the assignment of employing the sniffer dog fromthe scene of crime to the places where the suspect proceeded.He has given areport Ex.The Doctor P.W.5 is of the opinion that the death was sequelaeof stab injury.V.Kathirvelu, learned counsel appearing for the accused wouldindicate various discrepancies in the evidence adduced on the side of theprosecution before us besides the veracity of the witnesses.His first attackon the prosecution case is on the point of delay in the First Information Reportreaching the Court.There are certain materials in the oralevidence to show that the First Information Report was registered at 01.00 a.m.Even if the delay of five hours is there, there is nothing to smell a rat on theprosecution case.P.W.13 was deputed with the job of entrusting the First InformationReport to the Judicial Magistrate Court.He says that on 19.09.2005 at about02.00 a.m. he took the First Information Report and proceeded to JudicialMagistrate No.In this case, certain materials are available to see that theinvestigation has started immediately after lodging of First Information Report.P.W.4 is attesting witness to the observation mahazar Ex.P2 and seizure mahazarEx.P3, which was for recovery of the bloodstained earth and sample earth.Hesays that on 19.09.2005 at about 04.00 a.m. the Inspector of Police came to thescene of occurrence and inspected the place.P.W.17 Head Constable would deposein his cross examination that at about 03.00 or 03.30 a.m. on 19.09.2005, hereached the occurrence place with sniffer dog.The lens-man P.W.8 says that atabout 2.15 a.m. or 2.30 a.m. on 19.09.2005, he received a phone call from theInspector of Police and came to the scene of crime at 3.30 a.m. Even though theabove said evidence were denied in the cross-examination, the evidence comingout from the above said prosecution witnesses would candidly portray that theinvestigation started immediately after lodging of First Information Report andproceeded.As already stated it is in the evidence ofP.W.11 that there was bad-blood existing between the family members of theaccused and the deceased.Apart from that, from Ex.P1 and the oral accounts ofP.Ws.1 to 3, it transpires that the accused got enraged with the manner in whichthe deceased acted.Theyare negligible discrepancies.They are not at great variance with otherprosecution evidence.Admittedly, dog squad was taken to the place of occurrence at about 01.00p.m.on 11.04.1991, and dogs were taken to various houses in the village to knowabout the assailants.In the said case, there is an observation in para 9 of the judgmentthat though P.W.1 knew the names of the accused persons prior to givinginformation, he did not name them specifically.P.W.24 in that case was the SubInspector of Police who recorded the complaint who had also stated that theassailants are not known.In that case, the number of accused persons were 39.In this context, the Hon'ble Supreme Court took up the discussion and the abovesaid observation as to the calling of dog squad was rendered.It has been vividly spoken by the prosecution witnesses in theevidence that even though there had been motive between the family members ofthe accused and the deceased, when P.W.11 came to his sister's house, that is tosay the house of the accused and left the house, the accused entertained a wrongimpression in his mind that the deceased might have spoiled his (P.W.11) mind bystating bad about him, he got enraged, rushed to the scene of occurrence andmade knife assault on the deceased.Only one injury was received by thedeceased which was fatal.The evidence on record does not lead the Court todiscern that there was a premeditation nor predetermination in the mind of theaccused to do away with the deceased.We are also of the opinion that imposing ofRigorous Imprisonment for five years for the offence under Section 304 part IIIPC upon the accused will meet the ends of justice.We answer these pointsaccordingly.In the result, the appeal is allowed in part setting aside theconviction and sentence imposed under Section 302 IPC.The accused is convictedunder Section 304 part II IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment forfive years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
148,292,527 |
These criminal appeals have been preferred on behalf of the accused-appellants against the impugned judgment and order dated 8/9-7-2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 10 Muzaffar Nagar whereby the accused-appellants have been convicted and sentenced to serve out life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 25,000/- in Sessions Trial No. 382 of 1982 (State vs. Sheela @ Sushila and others) under Sections 302 read with section 34 IPC, Police Station Hastinapur District Meerut .In default of payment of fine, they have to undergo imprisonment for a period of three months.The emanation of facts giving rise to the prosecution in a short conspectus is that a first information report was lodged on 22.6.1982 at about 6.20 a.m. with respect to the incident occurred at night on 21/22-6-1982 with the allegation that the complainant heard shrill and shriek of his brother's wife in the morning on 22nd June 1982 at about 5.00 a.m. Being thunder-struck and panicky the complainant, his elder brother Mahesh and other family members rushed towards the room of Ramesh where they saw the dead body of his brother Ramesh lying on the cot.The blood was oozing from his mouth.There were marks of a number of injuries on the person of Ramesh.Ramesh was done to death at any time in the night.On the basis of tip off of the complainant (Ashok Kumar Singhal), an FIR was registered against unknown persons at police station Medical District Meerut vide Case Crime No. 170 of 1982 under section 302 IPC.After lodging of the FIR, the investigating officer S.I. Sudarashan Chandra Katoch (P.W.12) swung into action and recorded the statement of the complainant and the witnesses.He got the copy of the FIR entered in the case diary.He reached at the place of incident i.e. residence of deceased Ramesh, Mohalla Madho Nagar, Meerut.After conducting the requisite formalities, Panchayatnama of corpse was prepared on the same day in accordance with the procedure prescribed which was marked as Ext.Thereafter, the copy of chik, copy of report, photo lash, challan lash, report R.I., report C.M.O. and sample seal along with sealed dead body was sent to the mortuary for the autopsy.The aforesaid papers were marked as Ext.The investigating officer prepared the questions to be asked from the Medical Officer which was marked as Ext.At the instance of accused Haroon he prepared the recovery memo of blood stained Pant and towel from the shop which was marked as Ext.On 23.6.1982, arrested accused Sheela from her house and was interrogated.Site plan with regard to recovery of Screw Driver was marked as Ext.One piece of blood stained rod recovered at the instance of accused Rahimuddin exhibited as Ka.4 of which memo was prepared as Ext.The site plan of recovery of iron rod was prepared which was marked as Ext.Constable CP 710 Rameshwar Singh associated with S.I.Suresh Chandra were present at the place of occurrence.After Panchayatnama ,the corpse of Ramesh Chand was handed over to them with relevant papers for autopsy.Autopsy of deceased Ramesh was conducted on 23.6.1982 by P.W.10 Dr.S.K.Tyagi, Medical Officer, P.S.Sharma Hospital Meerut.The investigating officer after completing all the necessary formalities and collecting the credible and clinching evidence against the accused appellants Sheela and Irfran, and co-accused Rahimuddin and Haroon submitted the charge sheet under sections 302/120B IPC.Ramesh is the elder brother of the complainant.The house of the complainant (P.W.1) and Mahesh are adjoining .The main gate of the house of Ramesh was opening towards road in the western side.A door of that house was opening in the back side towards lane.He had seen his Bhabhi Sheela reading and writing.He can easily identify her writings.It was crucial day of 22.6.1982 at about 5.00 a.m. in the morning, he was sleeping in the Verandah of his house .He heard panic-stricken voice of lamentation & bemonaning of Sheela (appellant).The complainant,his brother Mahesh and other family members reached there at the place of occurrence.The complainant (P.W.1) saw the corpse of his brother lying on the cot.The deceased Ramesh had sustained fatal injuries.The fan was moving.The deceased Ramesh had worn blue linear underwear which was soaked with blood.Rigor mortis was present on the corpse and there was blue mark around the neck.A number of persons of the locality namely Natthoo Lal, Mahinder Giri , Baboo Ram , Satya Prakash and other arrived there.The accused Sheela had strained and acrimonious relation with her husband (Ramesh deceased).The brother of the compainant namely Ramesh used to thrash his wife (Sheela) occasionally on account of illicit corporal relation with Irfan.Just after half or quarter to half hour Irfan appeared and uttered that he would not spare any person who would try to put spokes on their relations whosoever may be inclusive of her husband.The paper written by Sheela which was marked as Ext.Ka.1 and the paper which was written by accused Irfan were proved by the complainant (P.W.1).The report of the murder was given by the complainant (P.W.1) which was in his writing and signature.The paper written by the complainant marked as Ex.Ka.3 was duly proved.The accused Sheela used to sleep with his brother (Ramesh) in the room.The cot on which dead body was lying had a blank sheet, two pillows.Both the pillows were saturated with blood.He did neither disclose the factum of sleeping in room with Sheela (accused) in the FIR nor to the station officer concerned.The marriage of Irfan (co-accused) was solemnized prior to 8 to 10 days.The complainant (P.W.1) had relation with Irfan (co-accused) as tenant.The complainant (P.W.1) and his brother Mahesh had attended his marriage.The marriage of Irfan (co-accused) was performed at Unchauli.The complainant was doing the work of Munshi prior to 1 & 1'1/2 years but he denied that he was doing the work of Munshi with Gajendra Singh Dhama.Mahesh (P.W.5) was doing the work at Kutcheri (civil court).His father and uncle were also doing the work at Kutcheri (civil court).The complainant (P.W.1) had come back prior to reciting the Nikah at about 11/12 "O"clock.He did not have any information as to whether the girl with whom marriage of Irfan was performed was within the access of Sheela.He proved similarity between Ext.In Ext.Ka.3 Irfan and Sheela were shown side by side.Irfan was wearing the cloths of groom.In that invitation card, the name of Ramesh (deceased) was elucidated.There is no member of his family in Ext.He disowned that he had falsely implicated them on account of litigation.At the crucial period of murder of Ramesh, some glasses and clothes were lying inside the room of which photo was taken by the station officer concerned.The complainant asserted with respect to presence of Irfan in that room.The complainant was associated with his brother Mahesh (P.W.5) upto coming back from the police station concerned.The dead body was sent at about 10.15 a.m. on rickshaw.Sheela had illicit corporal relation with Ramesh.There is no intention of implicating Irfan with an oblique design of getting the room vacated.In his statement on 24.9,86 averred that his house is in the adjoining of Ashok (P.W.1) and Mahesh (P.W.5).Sheela is the widow of Ramesh (deceased).Haroon and Rahimuddin used to work with Irfan.His shop was situated in the vicinity of his house.Haroon and Rahimuddin did not stay at the shop in night.It was the incident prior to four to four and half years, he came to know in the morning about murder.The miscreants Irfan and Haroon were coming back from the house of Sheela at about 12.15 in the night.The accused persons were not present at the shop on the fateful day of occurrence.He had seen the dead body of Ramesh to whom a number of injuries were inflicted.In his cross examination he deposed that he was sleeping outside the house.He had seen from the distance of 5 to 7 paces that the miscreants were going.The distance from the shop of Irfan was about 8 to 10 paces.His shop was adjacent to the shop of Irfan .Irfan had small shop.The door of the shop of Mahendra Giri (P.W.2) and Irfan was opening towards east.He (P.W.2) was taking rest after urination.He had shown the place of his sleeping and the place of departing of miscreants.He could not put forth any reason as to why it has not been demonstrated in the map.He was well aware about the miscreants.Their names were disclosed to the station officer concerned.He could not advance any reason why it was omitted.When he reached near the dead body of Ramesh at about 5.30 a.m., Ashok (P.W.1) Mahesh (P.W.5) and Banwari were present.He had gone at the house of Ramesh at about 4.30 p.m. at the call of Station Officer concerned.At that moment, police personnel were present there.It was also divulged by him that Rahimuddin is servant at the shop of Irfan (accused).He stated on oath that on 23.6.82 at about 1.30 p.m. he was sitting at the outer portion of house of his Tau.Yogesh, Ashok (P.W.1) ,Bhagat, Banwari Lal and Babu Ram were also sitting there.Haroon and Rahimuddin were brought there in the custody of police personnel.Both the miscreants were interrogated by him (P.W.3), they answered in affirmative.The miscreant Haroon went ahead, P.W.3 Suresh Chandra and others proceeded behind the police personnel.The lock of the shop of Irfan (accused) was opened by Haroon.He took out a dirty Khaki pant from the plywood makeshift roof which was saturated with blood.A torn towel was taken out from the cannister filled with black oil.Both the articles were sealed by the station officer concerned in different bundle.He (Suresh Chandra Singhal-P.W.3) and Yogesh had put their signatures on the Fard which was marked as Ext.The accused Rahimuddin went ahead and entered in the shop.He took out an iron axle from the rack of table.The fard of the recovered article was prepared and was duly signed by him and Yogesh which was marked as Ext.The recovered rod was put under seal cover and was also signed by him.Haroon was the servant of Irfan.Both were present in the court.On 21.6.1982, the P.W.3 Suresh Chandra Singhal and the son of his Tau,Mahesh were coming back after looking picture.They saw Irfan and Haroon coming from their shop.When they were at the distance of 5 to 7 paces, Mahesh said to Irfan to have a cup of tea.Irfan did not show his willingness on the pretext of going to village.Iran and Haroon were highly disturbed.They proceeded towards the Hapur stand.After some time Haroon came back and proceeded towards the shop of Irfan.He (P.W.3) and Mahesh returned to their house.Next day at about 5.30 a.m. He (P.W.3) was sleeping inside his house.His father shouted that someone had done to death to Ramesh in the night .He (P.W.3) immediately rushed towards the house of Kailash Narain.Sheela (accused appellant) was lamenting and bemoaning outside of the house.The corpse of Ramesh was lying on the cot in the room.There were multiple injuries on his person.There was blue mark on the neck.On that crucial date, Irfan, Rahimuddin and Haroon did not come at the shop.The shop was closed.He (P.W.3) remained present there upto 6'1/2 'O' clock till then neither they (accused persons) came nor the shop was opened.He reached near to the deceased Ramesh at about 5.00 a.m. and remained there till 6.30 a.m. When he (Suresh Chandra Singhal-P.W.3) reached at the place of occurrence, Mahesh ,Ashok, Natthoo were present there.Mahesh s/o Lakhpat was also present there.The shop of Mahesh s/o Lakhpat was opened on the fateful day.The key of lock which was opened by Haroon was closed by police personnel and was given to Haroon.They remained present at the shop of Irfan about one hour.The panchayatnama of Ramesh was done before him.The house of Ramesh is at a distance of 400 yards from the tea shop of Bhure and 100 yards from his house.He proved the presence of Irfan and Haroon.He had gone at the place of occurrence.The dead body of Ramesh was lying on the cot.The police personnel had come and had taken into custody the pillow etc. The articles taken by the police were marked as Ext.He had proved his signature on Ext.Next day, Sheela (accused) had supplied screw driver which was marked as Ext.The screw driver recovered by the police personnel was saturated with blood.It was affirmed that the said screw driver was used in the commission of murder.Sheela went ahead.She opened the lock and door.The screw driver was wrapped in the cloth and the fard of which was prepared and marked as Ext.Ka.7.He had proved his signature on Fard Ext.Next day, the children of Sheela had left the house.In his cross examination he deposed that he had reached at the place of occurrence at about 5.30 a.m.The police personnel were not present there.Mahesh, Ashok, Banwari and Suresh were present there.He could not mind as to whether Mahendra was present there or not.Sheela (accused appellant) was present there.,He came back after 2 to 4 minutes.He again went at about 8.30 a.m.The dead body of Ramesh was lying on the cot.The dead body was not sealed.He had again gone at 10.30 a.m.The dead body of Ramesh was sent at that time.He came back at about 6 to 6.30 p.m.Next day, police was not present there.Recovery was made at about 11.30 a.m. There was gathering on 23.6.1982 then he was also present there.One police constable called him by indication.Sheela is the wife of his brother, Ramesh.In one portion Ramesh used to live, one portion of that house was given on rent to Irfan.Sheela and Irfan had illicit physical relation.He heard shriek and scream of wife of Ramesh (Sheela) on 22.6.82 at about 5.00 a.m. He in the company of his wife, Ashok Kumar (P.W.1) and mother went inside the room of Ramesh (deceased).Sheela was lamenting on the door step of the room of Irfan.The dead body of Ramesh who was wearing linear half pant was lying on the cot in the room.Blood was clotted on the face.There were multiple injuries.One pillow was placed below the head and one beneath the leg.Both the pillows were saturated with blood.The children of Ramesh were not present there.They came out seeing the deceased Ramesh.The condition of his mother deteriorated.She was consoled.At about 5.30 a.m. he (P.W.5), Ashok and Rajkumar went at the police station concerned for lodging the first information report.Ashok (P.W.1) handed over the report of the incident to the Moharrir.On 21.6.82, he (P.W.5) and Suresh went to see picture, while returning they were taking tea and saw Haroon and Irfan were coming back from their shop.When they came near to them, they offered to have a cup of tea.Irfan was confounded and perplexed.He showed his hurriness.After sometime Haroon came there and moved towards his shop.There was illicit corporal relation between Irfan and Sheela.Irfan had thrashed to Ramesh many times on this pretext.Irfan had given overt challenge to eliminate to anyone who would dare to intervene in their relation.Ramesh had beaten to his wife Sheela.Sheela had attended the marriage of Irfan against the wish of Ramesh.Ka.1 was written by Sheela.On thrashing of Sheela by Ramesh, Irfan came and warned that whosoever would muster courage to interdict in his matter, would be eliminated for ever.Ka. 2 was recovered from the room of Ramesh in the newspaper.He (P.W.5) had seen to Sheela reading and writting the letter.He had seen her reading and writing .He was well aware about her hand writing.The same was signed by her.The fateful date when Ramesh was liquidated, the shop of Irfan was closed.On 23.6.1982, the wife of Ramesh had come at about 3'1/2 'O' clock.When the wife of Irfan opted to open the door, in the meantime police arrived and took her into custody.He (P.W.5) and Babu Lal were called outside by the police personnel.It was disclosed by the Police personnel that the accused Sheela wanted to get the screw driver recovered.On being interrogated, Sheela evinced her willingness to get the recovery of screw driver used in the murder of Ramesh.It was about 11.30 a.m. Two sub-inspectors, P.W.5 Mahesh Chand and Babu Lal went forward behind Sheela.Sheela opened the door after unfastening the lock and entered inside the house.The name of son of Sheela is Manoj.Ka.2 and negative were made available to him in December 1982 which were handed over to Government Counsel.Jalaluddin who is the brother of Irfan, is owner of the shop in question.He could not disclose the whereabouts of Jalaluddin.He (P.W.5) did not make complain to Banwari Lal.Nobody had disclosed to him with relation to her relation with Irfan.The shop was rented at Rs. 50/-.The bus was plying from Mawana station.The Mawana station was at a distance of three kilometres from the place of occurrence.He did not interrogate from Irfan as to why he was going at his room at 12'1/2"O' clock at night.He (P.W.5) was sipping tea prior to 3-4 minutes.Thereafter 4 to 5 minutes were passed away.Haroon had come back after one and one & half minutes.Bhoora and his servant were present there.Sheela is the wife of Ramesh (deceased).The accused persons namely Irfan, Haroo and Rahimuddin are well to known to him.He divulged for closing his tea shop at about 7.30 to 8.00 p.m.He disowned closing of his shop at about 1.30 a.m. at night.He disowned his meeting with those miscreants on that night.He also stated that he had not seen those accused persons entering and departing from the house of Ramesh.The station officer concerned had not recorded his statement.He turned hostile.He was cross examined by the prosecution to have given any statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. to the investigating officer.He had proved Ext.He admitted that affidavit paper no.35 Kha was given by him.On the production of report Ext.Ka.3 at about 6.20 a.m. by Ashok Kumar (P.W.1) ,he prepared Chik Report Ext.He proved Ext.Ka.3,written FIR, Ext.He also proved the Report No.31 dated 22.6.82 written by H.C. Dharmpal and Report No.17 dated 23.6.82 written by H.C.Dharmpal.He also proved Ext.Ka.11 and Ext.He (P.W.8) was not cross examined by the defence.The prosecution has examined Prakash Chand as P.W.9 who was posted as C.C.Malkhana Sadar Meerut.He stated on oath that he recognized the hand writing & signature of Malkhana incharge Sheesh Ram.He has brought with him the Malkhana register.On 27.7.1982 he sent the case property for chemical examination to Agra.Pursuant to the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 9.7.1982, those incriminating articles were sent through Constable Subhash Chand.The articles remained intact till it was preserved in the Malkhana.The order of Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 9.7.82 was received in Malkhana Sadar on 27.7.1982 and on that date it was sent to Agra for chemical examination but no report was received with regard to its return.On that day at about 12.00 (noon), he conducted the post mortem of Ramesh Chandra Gupta son of Kailash Chandra r/o 62, Madho Nagar Meerut.The dead body of Ramesh was brought by constable Rameshwar Singh and Constable Harendra Singh under seal cover.The deceased Ramesh was about 32 years old with average body built.Rigor mortis was present on lower extremities only and had passed from upper extremities.Decomposition had started.The nails were deeply cyanosed.Traumatic swelling around both the scrotum sachs.Internal Examination On internal examination, the doctor found that membrances were congested .The brain was also congested.Ribs from 2 to 8 were found fractured on oath side.Pleura was lacerated and congested .There was fracture of hyoid bone and cartilages.Trachea rings were lacerated and contained blood.Both the lungs were lacerated and congested.Big vessels were contused.In the soft tissues and chest cavity there was large collection of blood about 250 ml.Penitorium was congested.Spleen & kidneys were congested.Teeth were 16 x 16,pharynx and larynx were congested.He started the investigation of this case on 22.6.1982 after visiting the place of occurrence at Mohalla Madhonagar Meerut.The corpse of Ramesh was lying at the place of occurrence.The corpse of Ramesh was taken into custody and made inspection of the place of occurrence.The photographer took the photo of the place of occurrence.The investigating officer also prepared the site plan of the place of occurrence.The site plan prepared by the investigating officer was marked as Ext.Ka.14 and the same was duly proved.He got the Panchnama prepared which was marked as Ext.The photo lash, letter to Chief Medical Officer and the Challan Lash were prepared and marked as Ext.Ka.16,17 and 18 respectively.The investigating officer further sent a letter to Chief Medical Officer raising some questions which was marked as Ext.The dead body of Ramesh was wrapped in a cloth and was sealed.After completing requisite formalities, the dead body was sent to the mortuary under the supervision of constable Harendra Singh and Rameshwar.He collected one pillow,one bed sheet and one bed cover saturated with blood which were collectively marked as Ex.The investigating officer recorded the statement of Ashok Kumar (complainant P.W.1) Mahesh Chandra (P.W.5), Banwari Lal, Suresh Chandra Sanghal (P.W.3), Karmvari, Babu s/o Ram Karan and Yakub s/o Pyare Mian and other witnesses.On the same night, the accused Irfan was arrested from his shop.On his pointing some incriminating articles were recovered which were deposited in the Malkhana under seal cover.On 23.6.1982, the investigating officer arrested the accused Sheela from her house.On the pointing of Sheela, a screw driver used in the said crime was recovered in the presence of witnesses namely Mahesh Chandra Sanghal and Babu Lal Sharma.The said screw driver was marked as Ext.The site plan of recovery of screw driver was prepared and marked as Ext.The statement of Mahesh Chandra Saghal and Babu Lal Sharma was recorded.Thereafter the accused Haroon and Rahimuddin were arrested.On the pointing of Haroon, blood saturated pant and towel were recovered which was marked as Ext.The recovered articles were duly sealed in the presence of Suresh Chandra Sanghal and Yogesh Bansal.On the pointing of accused Rahimuddin a blood saturated iron rod (Ext.Ka.4) was recovered which was marked as Ext.The recovered rod was put under seal in the presence of Yogesh Chandra Sanghal and Suresh Chandra Sanghal.He had proved the Ext.Ka.22 relating to site plan of recovery of piece of iron and recovery of pant and Ext.The door of shop of Irfan and place of occurrence was towards Hapur road.The accused Irfan was interrogated at his shop.There was electric light at the shop and Irfan was all alone.The statement of accused Irfan was recorded in the electric light inside the shop.After putting lock in the shop, the accused Irfan proceeded with him.The accused Irfan was put in lock up after search.The key of the shop was not taken from the accused Irfan as it was not related with case property.On 23.6.1982 at about 11.30 a.m.He (P.W.12) had gone at the house of accused Sheela.After taking into custody to accused Sheela, the screw driver used in the crime was recovered at her pointing.It was entered in the case diary.The accused Haroon and Rahimuddin were arrested from the bridge of foul smelling culvert.After taking into custody to Haroon and Rahimuddin, the investigating officer came at the shop of accused Irfan from where Irfan was arrested.The shop was closed and the key of which was with Haroon.The almirah from which iron rod was recovered was kept at the open place.Suresh and Yogesh were the witness of fard recovery.Sudarshan Chandra (P.W.12) stood lengthy cross examination.He had gone at the place of occurrence with S.I. Katoch (P.W.12) and Harendra constable.After completing all the necessary formalties, the corpse of Ramesh was handed over to him and constable Harendra.The dead body of Ramesh was taken at the mortuary by them with requisite papers.After completing the formalities of post mortem, Rameshwar Singh (P.W.13) and Harendra reported at the police station concerned and submitted the post mortem report.It is also corroborated from the record that prosecution had examined the complainant Ashok Kumar as PW-1 who in his statement on oath proved Ext.Ka.1,Photo Ext.Ka.2 and written information Ext.The occurrence took place in the night of 21/22nd June 1982 at about 12.15 a.m. In the morning the wife of deceased Ramesh namely Sheela was bemoaning and lamenting.On hearing the shriek and shrill of Sheela ,the complainant (P.W.1) and his elder brother Mahesh (P.W.5 ) and other family members rushed towards the room of Ramesh where he saw dead body of Ramesh lying on the cot.J) Since both the accused appellants have been convicted and sentenced vide order dated 8.7.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Court No.10 Muzaffar Nagar,hence these appeals have been heard together and are being decided by a common order.The case was initially committed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Meerut but was later on transferred to the VIth Additional Sessions Judge Meerut for trial.The learned trial judge after hearing the prosecution as well as the defence and also after providing the necessary documents to the accused appellant and the co-accused persons framed charges against them under Section 302/34/120B IPC.The charges framed against the appellants and the co-accused persons were read over and explained to them.All the accused persons adjured the charges and claimed to be tried hence the prosecution was called upon to lead the evidence.In order to prove guilt of the accused persons, the prosecution had examined the complainant Ashok Kumar (PW-1), Mahendra Giri (PW-2), Suresh Chandra Singhal (PW-3), Babu Lal Sharma (PW-4), Mahesh Chandra (PW-5), Pradeep Kumar (PW-6), Ram Karan (PW-7) Constable Kanhaiya Lal (P.W.8), Prakash Chand (P.W.9), Dr.S.K.Tyagi (P.W.10), Constable Subhash Chand (P.W.11), S.I. Sudarshan Chandra (P.W.12) and Constable Rameshwar Singh (PW-13) All the prosecution witnesses had supported the prosecution case.After examining the prosecution evidence, the accused appellants namely Sheela and Irfan and the co-accused Rahimuddin and Haroon were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. and in their statement, they denied all the charges levelled against them and pleaded for innocence.The accused persons pleaded that they have been falsely implicated in the present case on account of suspicion and personal vengeance.The learned trial Judge, Muzaffar Nagar upon appreciation and appraisal of material evidence on record held that the prosecution has failed to prove evidence against Rahim Uddin under section 302 read with section 34 and section 120B IPC.The learned Addl.Additional Sessions Judge, (Court No.10) held the appellants Sheela and Irfan guilty for the murder of Ramesh whereby they were convicted and sentenced under Section 302/34 IPC to serve out life imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 25,000/-.In case of default, they were directed to serve out additional sentence of three months.Both the accused appellants were acquitted of the charge of section 120B IPC.Since the prosecution had not provided any evidence against accused Rahimuddin, he was acquitted from the charge under section 302/34/120B IPC.His bonds and sureties were discharged.In his testimony, Ashok Kumar deposed that he is well aware about the miscreants present in Court namely Mohd. Irfan, Rahimuddin ,Haroon and Sheela.Accused Sheela is the wife of his brother Ramesh (deceased).Accused Haroon and Rahimuddin were doing the work of mechanic with accused Irfan.Irfan has developed illicit carnal relation with accused Sheela.Accused Irfan was running a shop in contiguous to his house.Accused Irfan had taken on rent on rent a shop in the house of the complainant (P.W.1).He had also taken a room on rent in the house of Ramesh.On 19.6.1982, Ramesh had thrashed Sheela (accused) for attending the marriage of Irfan.On the persuation of his mother, the complainant had gone at the residence of Irfan but looking the presence of Sheela ,he came back.The place where dead body was lying was in the tenancy of Irfan (co-accused).Since Ramesh was the owner of that room hence it was mentioned in the first information report.When the complainant came back after lodging the first information report, Babu Lal Sharma (P.W.4) met him outside the room.The name of father of Mahendra Giri (P.W.2) is Lakhpat.His house is adjoining to the shop of Irfan (accused appellant).The father of the complainant (P.W.1) had got published in the news paper prior to murder of Ramesh that the demeanour and conduct of Ramesh was not fair.This fact was disclosed by his mother.His father had written will deed in favour of his mother.It was incorporated in the will deed by his father that after his death, the property left by his will be inherited by the complainant and his brother Mahesh (P.W.5).The portion in which Ramesh (deceased) and Sheela (accused) used to live was taken into possession by the complainant's mother.The accused appellant Sheela used to work in Manjula Nursing Home adjoining to the home during the course of that period.The complainant (P.W.1) showed his ignorance as to whether Sheela (accused) used to work in that nursing home at night.The complainant used to meet Ramesh (deceased) frequently.The complainant went to lodge the report with his brother Mahesh (P.W.5) and Raj Kumar.He reached at the police station ast 6.15 a.m. and the police personnel came at the spot at about 7.00 a.m.Satya Prakash Tyagi and Mahendra were tenant in the house of the complainant.The portion of the house where the complainant was sleeping,its door was opening towards west.The door of the house of complainant was not opening towards the house of Ramesh.There was a window in between the house of the complainant and Ramesh but that window was not being used for ventilation.The tenant had also reached there.The police personnel remained present near the dead body of Ramesh upto 11.15 a.m. It was asserted by the complainant that there was illicit carnal relation between Sheela and Irfan.The complainant deposed that Ext.Ka.1 was not written before him.He had not seen that letter earlier.Nobody had come to collect money from Sheela borrowed by Ramesh.There was cordial and congenial relation between Ramesh and the complainant.Irfan used to repair light of the motor and charge battery.Shop is in the name of Jalaluddin on rent of Rs.50/- who is tenant since childhood.There was no dispute between Irfan and Jalal Uddin for getting the shop vacated.Rahim Uddin was doing the repairing of the tractor.He also used to work as electrician at the shop of Irfan.When threat was extended by Irfan to eliminate Ramesh, his mother ,Mahendra ,Natthoo and other persons of the locality were present.At that moment about 10-15 persons were there.The complainant showed his ignorance with respect to Ext.portraying second of wife of Irfan.He did not certify the photo taken at the marriage of Irfan.In Ext.Kha.4, the picture of Irfan has been delineated.Probably, the lady was the same which was delineated in Ex.The invitation card which was printed for the marriage of his sister was proved as Ext.Mahesh (P.W.5) went on motor cycle.Irfan was tenant in the room of Ramesh.He was well aware about the identity of accused persons namely Haroon, Rahimuddin, Irfan and Sheela.The station officer concerned was present in front of room of Sheela (accused appellant).p.m. It was disclosed by him that Dhama Advocate, had been looking after his cases for the last 5 to 7 years.Ashok (P.W.1) had been clerk of Mr. Dhama Advocate.The Station officer concerned, P.W.4 Babu Lal Sharma and Sheela entered inside the room.The station officer concerned came back taking the screw driver.The entire process was completed at the place of occurrence.The house of P.W.4 Babu Lal Sharma and Mahesh was in front of each other.The house of the deceased Ramesh is situated at Hapur road.He stated on oath that he is well aware about the identity of the accused persons.Haroon and Rahimuddin used to come to Irfan.Both the sub-inspectors in association with P.W.5 Mahesh Chand and Babu Lal entered inside the house.The cannister was placed towards north window.The screw driver used in the commission of said crime was taken out from that cannister.The said screw driver was saturated with blood at a number of places.He was posted in the court of Munsif Magistrate.The report was written at about 5.30 a.m. in the frontal portion of room of Ramesh.At that moment, Suresh, Banwari Lal, Babu Lal, Nattho etc. came.He did not mention with regard to envision of Haroon and Irfan in the night.There has been no disclosure with regard to illicit relation between Irfan and Sheela.He has also not discussed any inkling for thrashing to Sheela and any threats extended by Irfan.This fact was also not unravelled that the condition of mother was deteriorated.He (P.W.5) stayed at the police station concerned about 10 minutes.The police had come after 5 to 7 minutes after his departure.It was intimated by him to the Station Officer concerned that Rahimuddin was doing work at Irfan but this was not reduced in writing.It was not divulged by him that Sheela was weeping at the threshold of room of Irfan.It was also not unfolded that the children of Ramesh were not there.This matter was brought in the notice of Irfan which caused him infuriation and extended threats.This fact was intimated to the Station officer concerned.He could not expose any reason as to why it was not reduced in writing.Irfan had taken on rent the said room prior to one & half or two years.He could not inform the amount of rent.This fact was not mentioned while lodging the report.The relationship with Irfan was merely of a tenant.Irfan had thrashed to Ramesh about month back to the incident.He (Irfan) used to beat to Ramesh earlier also.Ashok Kumar (P.W.1) was also associated to him.They remained at the house of Irfan about one and half hour.It was not remembered to him that photo was clicked or not.He could not identify to Ext.Ka.2 (photo) which was clicked in red Sari whether she was the wife of Irfan as he (P.W.5) had never seen the wife of Irfan.In Ext.Ka.2 green dhoti of Sheela has been depicted.Second lady is the same who has been portrayed in Ext.That lady was seen in the marital function.In Ext.In Ext.Kha 3 groom Irfan was evinced.He showed his ignorance as to whether it was pertaining to the marriage.In Ext.the photo of Mahesh Chand (P.W.5) and Sheela was displayed.He could not ascertain as to whether this photo was clicked at the time of marriage of Irfan.The letter was also given to him.He could not disclose the name of government counsel.The government advocate was hailing to Meerut District.He was engaged when the case was transferred.No letter or application was presented to the Superintendent of Police.He did not disclose the distance of Uchauli from Meerut but divulged that this path can be covered within half hour.He (P.W.5) was annoyed hearing about the extra marital relation of Sheela with Irfan anterior to one year.He (P.W.5) had tried to convince Irfan but he did not agree.He admitted that Irfan was tenant of Ramesh.He also ratified with regard to illicit relation of Irfan with Sheela.He also authenticated with regard to beating of Sheela by Ramesh.On 19.6.1982, Ramesh had thrashed to Sheela .After half an hour Irfan appeared then he vented his ire & irate that Ramesh will be decimated.He (P.W.5) did not move any application with regard to that episode.The rent of the shop was taken by mother.The mother was living with him.His mother is in possesion of the room rented to Irfan.Irfan did not live in Uchauli at the time of marriage as well as on the crucial day of murder of Ramesh.Irfan used to live in the room of Ramesh.He (P.W.5) was not aware as to whether bus was running to Uchauli or not.He had been looking to Bhoora running the shop for the last 8 to10 years.He was not aware as to Bhoora was conversant to Irfan.He (P.W.5) did not have any conversation with Bhoora after liquidation of Ramesh.After murder of Irfan, the shop of Natthoo was rented at Rs. 250/- per month.Mahendra did not have any shop.The room adjoining to the road was not in the tenancy of Mahendra.He (P.W.5) did not recollect as to whether this fact was narrated to the Station Officer concerned that the shop of Irfan was closed.He (P.W.5) rebutted this fact that this story was fabricated so as to get the shop vacated.He confronted this fact that the photo was taken from the album of Irfan and was got prepared deceitfully.The roon was rented to Irfan.He could not recollect the exact period of departure of Sheela to attend the marriage of Irfan.On paying a glance on the wife of Ramesh, he declined to have meal.Ramesh did not interrogate from him as to why he had attended the marriage of Irfan.His father had executed a will in favour of his mother in which the place which was in possession of Ramesh and Sheela was not portrayed.He was not aware when this share was demarcated.There was no partition from Ramesh.Since Ramesh was divested from the property of his father thus the question of partition did not crop up.His mother had staked her right over that property.His mother had produced the copy of Prabhat in the suit.He could not confirm as to whether Ext.Ka.7 is the same document.This fact was divulged by Sheela to the station officer concerned and thereafter she opened the door removing the lock.The cannister was not taken into possession.After recovery of screw driver at the pointing of Sheela from the room, she put lock in the room.The Station officer concerned visited the room where the corpse of Ramesh was lying.He could not recollect as to whether the second room was opened or not.The lock which was put in the door by Sheela was not in his presence.The fard was prepared by the same Station Officer who had recorded his statement.The process of recovery was completed at about 11.45 a.m. Sheela used to read and write and was teaching to the children.He refuted that this story has been cooked up so as to take possession over the house in question.He stated on oath that he has a shop of photography at Meerut.He proved to have taken some photos of dead body.He proved Ext.The photo was clicked at about 2.30 to 3.00 p.m. but he had neither put his signature nor had kept the negative.He stated on oath that he was running tea shop in June 1982 in Madhavnagar near Hapur stand.The house of deceased Ramesh was situated in front of his tea shop.Eyes were open and bulging.There was bleeding from mouth and stool was coming out of anus.His genital on examination were found with smegma behind corona glandis.Following ante-mortem injuries were found on the person of deceased Ramesh.Incised wound 2 cm x 1 cm x bone deep on the lateral aspect of right eye brow.Incised wound 2.5 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep on the left angle of lower jaw.Bruise 21 cm x 8 cm on the front of neck more on left sid side.Multiple abrasion in area of 12 cm x 4 cm on top of left shoulder.Linear abrasion of 1 cm long, 2 cm below the left elbow.Bruise 18 cm x 9 cm on front, chest and lower part of neck.Bruise 18 cm x 10 cm x 12 cm below the left nipple.Multiple abrasion 8 cm x 5 cm on the dorsom of right hand.According to the opinion of the doctor, the deceased Ramesh died about a day and half back because of asphyxia, syncope and ante-mortem injuries.The doctor has proved the post mortem report exhibit Ka.13.opining that injuries were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death.He stated on oath that he was posted as constable at Police Station Medical College District Meerut.He had taken the case property from Malakhana Sadar to Agra for chemical examination.The seal of the case property was intact.There was seal of Chief Judicial Magistrate Meerut on the said case property.He stated on oath that he was posted as constable at Police Station Medical College District Meerut.He had taken the case property from Malakhana Sadar to Agra for chemical examination.The seal of the case property was intact.There was seal of Chief Judicial Magistrate Meerut on the said property.The prosecution has examined S.I. Sudarshan Chandra Katoch as P.W. 12 .He was entrusted the investigation of this case.Ka 23 charge sheet dated 2.8.82 submitted by Mahavir Singh posted at Police Station Medical College as Station Officer.He confirmed the arrest of Sheela on 23.6.1982 at about 11.30 a.m. Accused Sheela was detained at the police station up 3.35 p.m.The articles which were recovered on personal search were entered in G.D. Mahendra had neither disclosed the place where he had slept in the night nor unfolded the place where he had seen the accused Irfan in the night.Mahendra had only disclosed the name of Irfan.It was also not disclosed by Mahesh Chandra that Rahim is the servant of Irfan.The children of Ramesh were not present at the place of occurrence.The accused Irfan was arrested at 7.30 p.m. at Sun Battery Charging Works.There is distance of about 14-15 yards from the place of occurrence and the said shop.He stated on oath that he was posted as constable at Police Station Medical College District Meerut.He had taken the case property from Malakhana Sadar to Agra for chemical examination.The seal of the case property was intact.There was seal of Chief Judicial Magistrate Meerut on the said case property.After conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the accused-appellants namely Sheela, Irfan, Rahim Uddin and Haroon were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and in their statement they denied all the charges levelled against them and pleaded for innocence.They stated that they have falsely been implicated in the present case at the inkling and connivance of interested and partisan persons.The room in which the accused Sheela and her husband (Ramesh) used to live was got constructed by her after execution of the will deed.The complainant (P.W.1) and her mother in law wanted to grab the room on account of which they were annoyed and exasperated from her.In connection to this a civil suit was also instituted.She used to work in the nursing home at the night.In the morning when she came, she began to bemoan and lament looking to the pitiable and pathetic condition of her husband.Subsequently in connivance with police, the complainant (P.W.1) and the witnesses got her challaned fraudulently .The witnesses and the complainant (P.W.1) had been working in civil court Meerut.They are hands in glove with the police personnel.In the statement recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C of Haroon (who has been later on declared juvenile vide order dated 5.4.2014 and his trial was separated), it has come out that all the witnesses are hailing to the same genealogy and have come forward to implicate them on account of personal animosity taking the comauflage of getting the shop vacated.Further in the statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. it has been unravelled by Irfan that he used to go to his village per day at evening after closing the shop and after coming back at morning he was opening his shop.He also proved Ex.Kha.1 the photo of his marriage in which the son of Sheela (accused) ,Mahesh (P.W.5) and other persons are dancing .He also proved Ext.Kha.2 the photo of his marriage in which his wife and Sheela are present.He proved Ext.Kha.3 photo with his wreath in which a number of persons are clicked.It was also unfolded by accused Irfan that after the sad demise of Kailash Narain, on the issue of enhancing the rent, some dispute had taken place with Mahesh, Ashok (P.W.1) and Mahendra but the persons present in the market got it pacified.They wanted to get the shop vacated from him.They had also filed suit in civil court Meerut for the purpose of getting the shop vacated.He has been falsely implicated on account of putting undue pressure upon him.Accused Rahimuddin in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. deposed that he has been implicated as he had taken the side of Haroon ,when quarrel of Haroon with Mahesh took place.He has been implicated due to animosity.In 1982, Naresh Chand Jain was holding the post of Manager in the said Cinema Hall and Khalil Ahmad Khan used to prepare the B.Form.On 21.6.1982, he (D.W.1), Naresh Chandra Jain and Khalil Ahmad were in service at Nandan Cinema.Naresh Chandra Jain & Khalil Ahmad Khan had died.On 21.6.1982, there were three classes in Nandan Cinema i.e. Balcony, Special and First Class.The defence witness after looking the attested copy of B.Form submitted that on the said photo sets signatures were made by Naresh Chandra Jain.That B.Form was pertaining to night show of 21.6.1982 in respect to Nandan Cinema.B.Form is distinct for different show.B.Form is sent to Amusement Tax Department after filling cost of ticket, rent, tax etc. The cost of the ticket for Balcony was Rs. 6.00, Special Class Rs. 5.00, First Class Rs. 3.00 According to B.Form there was no ticket for Rs. 4.00 in Nandan Cinema.Naresh Chand Jain had joined in service at Nandan Cinema after 5-6 years.In the absence of Jain, other person of the staffs were doing the work.Who had filled the form was not confirmed by him.He had proved the signature of Naresh Chandra Jain.He confirmed that there was no ticket of Rs. 4/- in Nandan Cinema.He denied that the ticket was sold at Rs. 4/- in the case of mass gathering.The learned trial judge upon appreciation and appraisal of evidence on record convicted and sentenced the accused appellants Irfan & Sheela to undergo life imprisonment under section 302/34 IPC with fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further three months imprisonment and acquitted accused Rahimuddin under section 302 read with section 34 IPC and 120B IPC .We have heard Sri N.I.Jafri Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Khalid Mohmood learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Ashwani Prakash Tripathi, learned AGA appearing on behalf of State and perused the entire material on record.Learned counsel for the accused-appellants contended that the judgment and order passed by the learned trial judge is per se illegal and erroneous whereby the appellants have been awarded life imprisonment merely on suspicion while there are serious irregularities and lapses on the part of the prosecution.The prosecution case is based entirely on circumstantial evidence.All the witnesses produced by the prosecution are highly interested and inimical who succeeded in accomplishing their evil design.All the witnesses had developed the story of illicit relationship between accused Sheela and accused Irfan being the strong motive behind the murder of Ramesh.The prosecution witnesses namely Ashok Kumar (P.W.1), Mahesh (P.W.5) have concoted a false story who in their examination unfolded that there was illicit corporal relation between Sheela and Irfan .Ramesh (deceased) was highly irritated and disturbed on account of easy virtue of his wife Sheela hence the relations between Ramesh and Sheela (accused) were highly ruptured and frayed.Ramesh used to thrash Sheela because of her illicit relations with Irfan.It has also come into light that in the morning of 19.6.1982, some verbal duel took place between Sheela and Ramesh (decease).After one and half hour accused Irfan came and unleashed reign of terror threatening to the husband of Sheela to be liquidated in case he caused hindrance or obstacle in their courtship.It has also come in the evidence that Ramesh had thrashed Sheela for attending the marriage of Irfan but this entire story does not stand on sound footing.There are material inconsistency in the prosecution version and the statement of the witnesses which itself creates suspicion about the incriminating circumstances framed against them.The first information report had been lodged without disclosing the name of any accused persons.'\No strong motive has been attributed for committing the said incident.The motive assigned to the appellants for committing the gruesome and barbarous murder of Ramesh does not inspire any confidence corroborating its truthfulness and probity.The accused-appellants are absolutely innocent and had been made scape goat on account of conspiracy of the complainant and other witnesses.There was property dispute among the brothers of deceased Ramesh.There is no evidence that Sheela was staying along with her husband on the fateful night.There is no evidence to show that applicant Sheela and Irfan were last seen together inside the room with deceased Ramesh.There is no evidence to show that Irfan was seen going inside the room asnd coming out of the house of Ramesh.The P.W.1 Ashok kumar, P.W.5 Mahesh Chanda are the brother of the deceased Ramesh.There is vivid demonstration of photograph (Ext.Kha.1) showing dance and revel by the son of Sheela (accused) and Mahesh Kumar (P.W.5).There is material (Ext.Ka.2) showing Sheela sitting with Irfan and his wife of which photo clicked by Ramesh himself negative of which has been produced from the room of Ramesh.In the first information report the complainant after hearing the shriek and shrill of Sheela, he in association with his brother Mahesh (P.W.5) and other family members reached at the room of Ramesh and saw the dead body of Ramesh lying on the cot.So far as the corporal relation between Irfan and Sheela is concerned, it was natural on the part of the family members of Ramesh (deceased) not to allow Sheela to attend the marriage of Irfan and make rejoincing there.Mahesh (P.W.5) and Ashok Kumar (P.W.1) were jubilant and exhilirated and were dancing in the marriage of Irfan has vital impact.The sitting of Sheela with accused Irfan and his newly wedded wife itself demonstrates their cordial and affable relations.There was nothing to show that the appellants were party to any conspiracy.There is no evidence to show that appellants Sheela and Irfan were last seen together inside the room with deceased Ramesh.There is no evidence to show that Irfan was seen going inside the room and for coming out of the house of Ramesh.The alleged confessional statement of Sheela regarding recovery of screw driver cannot be used against her which is inadmissible under section 27 of Evidence Act. Moreover, the screw driver cannot be a weapon of crime to commit murder .There are significant contradictions with regard to the recovery of articles recovered by investigating officer.It was not established from the prosecution evidence on record that accused-appellants had committed the murder of Ramesh thus the conviction and sentence awarded under 302/34 IPC is highly cryptic and cannot sustain.The prosecution has failed to establish any criminal conspiracy between Sheela and Irfan thus it could not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against them therefore, the appeal against the impugned judgment and order stands on justifiable grounds and may be allowed.The main thrust of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants is that all the witnesses produced by the prosecution were highly partisan and interested who wanted to satiate their lust of grudge .The investigation has also been done in a very perfunctory and casual manner.There are material inconsistency in the prosecution version and the statement of the witnesses which itself creates great suspicion about the manner of assault at the alleged time of occurrence.The first information report has been lodged against unknown persons while the accused appellant are well known to the complainant.The medical evidence also does not corroborate the prosecution version.The witnesses had come at the place of occurrence after hearing the shriek and shrill of accused Sheela as such it cannot be said that they had witnessed the killing and have roped the appellants on account of suspicion so as to wreak their personal vengeance.No strong motive has been attributed for committing the said incident.The motive assigned to the appellants for committing the gruesome and hellish murder of Ramesh does not inspire any confidence corroborating its verity and truthfulness.The name of the accused appellant came during investigation at the statement of complainant Ashok Kumar (PW.1) and Mahesh Chand (P.W.5) It is conspicuously explicit from the site plan prepared by the investigating officer that nobody had seen the manner of assault inflicted upon Ramesh .The statement of the investigating officer, who had prepared the site plan, recovery memo and sent the corpse to mortuary is a bundle of contradictions.The falsehood and contradictions are so evident that it would obliterate the verity and probity of the entire prosecution version.It is trite fact that Ramesh had met to unnatural death which is corroborated from the medical report but who were the real assailants cannot be deduced by implicating the innocent persons merely in the guise of suspicion.The learned trial judge has erroneously passed the impugned judgment and order attaching pivotal significance to the statement of Ashok Kumar (P.W.1) and prosecution witnesses without vetting and weighing the material inconsistency in the prosecution version, medical evidence and the statement of the witnesses.The prosecution has failed to corroborate that the accused appellants were the actual perpetrator of the crime.The conviction of the appellants placing reliance on the feeble eye witness account Ashok Kumar (P.W.1) and Mahesh Chand (P.W.5) is not proper for want of independent corroboration as the presence of the prosecution witnesses on the spot at the time occurrence has not been proved.The accused appellants have been subjected to scapegoat on account of evil design and revengeful sentiments of the Ashok Kumar (P.W.1) and Mahesh Chand (P.W.5).The investigating officer had submitted charge sheet against the accused appellants relying upon the statement of partisan and interested witneses .The fair and impartial investigation has not been done rather the investigation has been done in a tainted and prejudicial manner so as to circumvent the accused appellants in the present case.The accused appellants were not arrested at the place of occurrence.The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt as the evidence adduced in support thereof were not found to constitute a firm basis upon which life imprisonment has been awarded to the accused appellants.The learned trial court has framed the charges against them merely on suspicion putting at shelf all the material evidence which itself stumbles the prosecution version.The entire prosecution story is rested on uncorroborated facts and evidence and the guilt of the accused-appellants not having been proved to the hilt by the prosecution, the appellants are entitled to the benefit of doubt.The absence of apparent motive on the part of the accused-appellants who did not have any criminal history has a material bearing on the question of sentence hence the judgment and order passed by the trial court may be reversed by exercising extraordinary power of appellate jurisdiction.To buttress his argument, learned counsel for the appellants have placed reliance on the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as Hon'ble High Court enunciated in the following judgments :Reena Hazarika versus State of Assam AIR 2018 Sc.5361Vikram Jit Singh versus State of Punjab 2006 (9) Supreme Court Page 338Dr.(Smt.)Nupur Talwar versus State of U.P. 2018 (102) ACC Page 524Joydeb Patra & others versus State of West Bengal AIR 2013Shanker Lal & another Versus State of Chhattisgarh (Criminal Appeal No. 497 of 2008) decided on 6.10.2017Sukhjeet versus State of Punjab , 2015 (3) S.C. 670Ranvir Yadav versus State of Bihar 2009 (4) SC 205,Shaikh Maqsood versus State of Maharastra 2009 (4) S.C. 429,Navaneetha Krishan versus State through Inspector of Police (Criminal Appeal No. 1134 of 2013).Per contra learned AGA appearing on behalf of the State contended that from the prosecution evidence, available on record, the case of prosecution is proved beyond reasonable doubt against the accused-appellants The impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court is based upon proper appreciation of evidence available on record.The finding recorded by the trial court does not suffer from any legal, procedural or factual infirmity or vulnerability.It has further been contended by learned AGA that the prosecution is not bound to prove motive of any offence in a criminal case, inasmuch as motive is known only to the perpetrator of the crime and may not be known to others if the motive is proved by the prosecution,the court has to consider it and see whether it is adequate.The blood was coming out from the mouth of deceased Ramesh.There was numerous marks of injuries on the body of Ramesh which demonstrates that Ramesh was liquidated at falling hours of night.The prosecution has fully proved the presence of accused Sheela in the night of 21/22.6.1982 with deceased Ramesh.The argument of learned counsel for the appellants that Sheela was working as Nurse and was on her duty in the nursing home.When she came in the morning on 22.6.1982, she found her husband (Ramesh) laying on the cot.The accused Sheela cannot get away by simply keeping quiet and silent on the premise that the prosecution has to prove its case .There is nothing on record to substantiate that accused Sheela was not present in the night on 21/22.6.1982 with her husband deceased Ramesh in the house and she was at Nursing Home.The recovery of screw driver has been made at the pointing of Sheela.The recovery of iron rod was madfe on the pointing of Rahimudddin.The recovered screw driver was duly marked as Ext.The recovered screw driver was saturated with blood stains.The person who is supposed to give such information could be so physically impaired that he could hardly narrate the factum of incident, knowing the conditions of the informant's mother who was highly saddened person to rush to the police station immediately after the occurrence.At times being grief-stricken because of the calamity it may not immediately occur to the informant that he may give a report in detail.It is not in dispute that place of occurrence is inside the house of Ramesh .The prosecution witnesses are natural witnesses and they have no motive to make false statements against the accused-appellant.The testimony of the aforesaid prosecution witnesses cannot be discarded merely on the ground of being closely related to the deceased.The P.W.1 Ashok Kumar and P.W.5 Mahesh Chandra were put to lengthy cross-examination, but nothing could be elicited by way of cross-examination so as to create doubt about their stand.Their testimonies have been well supported by the medical evidence.There is complete consistency and coherence in the examination-in-chief and cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses, There is nothing on record to show if the prosecution witnesses had any animus against the accused appellants so as to implicate falsely in the present case.The testimony of prosecution witnesses are cogent, credible and trustworthy and have a ring of truth.There is nothing on record to disbelieve the statements of the prosecution witnesses.The appellant Sheela wife of deceased Ramesh is duty bound to explain as to how her husband died.It all depends on how the screw driver is being used.Ka.24 and Ext.The deceased Ramesh was 32 years old hence the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants will not have any force as it depends on the health and body of the person.The evidence must be weighed and not counted.The statement of the witnesses cannot be doubted or suspected merely they are related to the deceased or on account of minor variation or aberration in their statement.The utterances have consistently and umpteen times been repeated by the witnesses who had narrated and unfolded the incident in a very natural and articulatory manner that Sheela & accused Irfan have committed murder of Ramesh The overt act of the accused appellants at the relevant moment is fully established and is unimpeachable beyond a shadow of doubt consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused appellants within all human probability.In the course of cross examination, the defence side has tried to evolve a story of false implication in order to overshadow the testimony of the posecution witnesses.From the appraisal of the ocular testimony of the prosecution witnesses , the chain of circumstances explicitly proves to the hilt about the illicit relation between the accused appellants Sheela and Irfan which was going on between them.It may not be known to others about their illicit corporal relation.The motive being a state of mind of the accused persons may not be known to others as to what was the motive for a particular offence.The mere fact that the prosecution failed to translate mental disposition of the accused appellants into evidence does not mean that no such mental condition existed in their mind.The accused appellants had perpetuated the crime in a very relentless and devilish manner as the prosecution has successfully proved the recovery of screw driver and iron piece from the possession of the accused persons which were used in the murder of Ramesh.The Trial Court has appreciated the evidence in the right perspective.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,482,991 |
In spite of the said intimation regarding the case pending in the Court, A-1 had resorted to the above act against P.W. 1. A-3 abused the son of P.W. 1 and also beat him. A-4 and A-5 abused P.W. 2 and beat her with hand.They also dragged her by catching hold of her tuft and also trampling her with their legs.This is a Criminal Revision Case filed by P.W. 1 Vellaiammal in C.C. No. 635 of 1982 on the file of the Court of the learned Judicial Second Class Magistrate-III, Madurai, against the judgment delivered by the said Court in the said case on 22-7-1983, acquitting A-1 to A-5/respondents 1 to 5 herein under S. 248(1) Cr.P.C., finding that they are not guilty under Ss. 143, 323 and 325 I.P.C. The sixth respondent in this Criminal Revision Case is the State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, C-2 Oomachikulam Police Station.The Sub-Inspector of Police, C-2 Oomachikulam Police Station filed a charge-sheet against A-1 Thirumal Asari, A-2 Karunanidhi, A-3 Veerabathiram alias Nallan, A-4 Alagammal and A-5 Lakshmi under S. 143, S. 323 and S. 325, I.P.C. alleging that on 5-10-1981 at about 6 p.m. at Kancharampettai near the house of P.W. 1 Vellaiammal, A-1 to A-5 with a common object, gathered as an unlawful assembly and that A-1 Thirumal Asari abused P.W. 1 and beat her on her left cheek with the handle of an umbrella, as a result of which one of her teeth fell down.At that time, P.W. 1 told the accused that with respect to the place, they should not dig any pit because there has been a case pending with respect to that place in a civil Court.The lowers Court had framed charged against A-1 under S. 325, I.P.C. and under S. 143, I.P.C. The lower Court had also framed charges against A-2 to A-5 under S. 341 and under S. 143, I.P.C.On behalf of the prosecution, P.W. 1 Vellaiammal, P.W. 2 Vellathayee, P.W. 3 Rasu, P.W. 4 Sundaram, P.W. 5 Dr. Mohideen, Medical Officer and P.W. 6 Arumugham, Head Constable were examined.Ex. P. 1 complaint and Ex. P-2 wound certificate were filed on behalf of the prosecution.On the consideration of the evidence available on record, the lower Court held that the prosecution has not proved its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and acquitted them under S. 248(1), Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by the above decision of the lower Court, P.W. 1 Vellaiammal has come forward with this Criminal Revision Case.The individual testimony of the eye-witnesses has not been discussed and their reliable testimony has been ignored, from which it follows that material evidence has not been considered and it has been overlooked.The court below has misquoted the evidence at some places, for example, while dealing with the copy of statement (Ex. Ka-18).P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 sustained injuries during the occurrence.He had also recovered the fallen tooth of P.W. 1 and prepared the rough sketch of the place of the occurrence, Ex. P-4 about two months subsequent to the date of the occurrence.No explanation had been offered on behalf of the prosecution regarding this inordinate delay.This decision had been arrived at by the lower Court, after discussing the evidence available on record, both oral and documentary.Since no medical treatment had been given to P.W. 2, it is seen that she was also not attacked by anyone of the accused/respondents 1 to 5 herein.Revision dismissed.
|
['Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
14,829,975 |
Discordant in relationship having arisen between the petitioner and respondent no.8 her husband and family members has led the petitioner to lodge a complaint against her husband and his family members.
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
52,639,416 |
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.The present bail application has been filed by the applicant-Nanku @ Satguru Prasad in Case Crime No. 367 of 2019, under Sections- 380, 457, 411 IPC, Police Station- Masauli, District- Barabanki.In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.(vi) The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.(vii) The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.Order Date :- 6.8.2020 Arun/-
|
['Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
5,265,363 |
The case of the prosecution as per the complaint given by one James is that, on 17.05.1998 around 3.30 p.m., while he was going along with his wife to his relatives house Via., Park Road in Mogappair East, two unknown person who names he came to know later as Selvam S/o.Raj and Thulasiram S/o.Umaram had followed them behind and that Selvam attempted to snatch the chain worn out by his wife and his wife had raised hue and cry and had prevented him from snatching the chain and when the de-facto complainant had attempted to get hold of him, Thulasiram/A-2 had taken out a knife and threatened him by saying that, if he attempts to catch him he would stab and kill him.Since Selvam was unable to snatch the chain, he had snatched the (hmt) ladies watch worn by his wife and thereafter, started running away.When the de-facto complainant and his wife have raised alarm and ran behind them, the other public, who were near by joined along with them and the persons who were going along the road side had also joined with them and attempted to catch the culprits and the public caught the culprits near the Junction of the North Main Road.The said Selvam had taken stones from the road and indiscriminately pelted against the public.The further allegation is that the second accused Thulasiram had brandished the knife and threatened all of them saying if anybody comes near him, that person will be done to death and raised a loud noise, thereby, the nearby shop keepers downed the shutters and the entire traffic was paralyzed and the public fearing their life, ran helter and skelter.At that time two Auto drivers who had come along that side namely Sundaresan and Devakumar along with the others have caught hold of the accused persons and they had overpowered them and taken away the watch and knife from the accused and thereafter, produced them before the police.The appellant / A-2 has preferred the appeal against the order of conviction made in S.C.No.434 of 2001, on the file of the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai.The learned trial Judge had convicted the appellant/A-2 under Sections 392 r/w 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three months.When the matter had been listed for hearing on 28.07.2018, since the learned counsel for the appellant was absent, this Court had cancelled the bail and directed the respondent to secure the appellant/A-2 and to produce him before the Court.No steps had been taken by the respondent, however, today the appellant/A-2 along with his counsel are present before this Court.The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that he is prepared to get along with the appeal today.He would further submit that he has got good grounds on appeal.A.No.192 of 2004 for final hearing.The respondent after investigation, had filed a final report against the accused person for offences under Sections 392, 397, 506 (ii), 336 of IPC and r/w 34 of IPC and copies were furnished to the accused under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C and thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and made over to the trial Court.The trial Court after affording opportunity to the accused framed charges and when the accused were questioned they denied the charges and sought to be tried.On the side of the prosecution witnesses PW1 to PW4 were examined and Exhibits 1 to 4 were marked and MOs 1 and 2 were marked.On the side of the defence wife of the appellant/A-2 was examined and Ex.PW1 is Mariyadass, PW2 is Sudaresan, PW3 is Devakumar, and PW4 is Russal Samraj.In her evidence PW1 had stated that on 17.05.1998 around 3.30 p.m., while, she was going along with her husband to her relatives house via., Park Road, the two accused were coming behind her and that A-1 had attempted to snatch the chain worn by her and that she had raised alarm and had prevented A-1 to snatch the chain.At that time the appellant/ A-2 had threatened them saying that, if he attempts to catch him he would stab and kill him and thereafter, A-1 had snatched the ladies (hmt) ladies watch worn by her and thereafter, the accused had started running away.The further evidence is that, when she had raised an alarm the people around had ran behind the accused had attempted to catch them.At that time the first accused had hurled stones against them and the appellant/A-2 had threatened them to stab them with a knife and the further allegation is that, he had with a loud noise shouted that anybody comes near him he will be done to death and thereafter, Auto Drivers A-2 and A-3 had over power the accused had handed over them to the police station.PW2 had stated that, on 17.05.1998 while he was going in his Auto Rickshaw he had seen a mob near the Park Road East Main Road Junction and that the accused were creating a ruckus and that he had over powered them and taken them to the police station.He had not corroborated PW1 in any other aspects.PW3 had stated that he is an Auto Driver and that before four or five years he had seen a crowd near Park Road and that there was a crowd and that people in the crowd were speaking that some jewels were missing and some persons were fighting and that he is not aware of any other thing and that he had not identified the accused.PW4 is the Inspector of Police and as per in his evidence on 17.05.1998 at 4.15 p.m., one James along with PW2 and PW3 produced the accused and gave a complaint register the case in Crime No.109 of 1998 for offences under Sections 392, 336 and 506(ii) of IPC and that he had recovered (hmt) ladies watch and a small knife which was recovered by James from the accused and that took up the case for investigation and recorded the confession of A-1 in the presence of one Ganesan and Mani and thereafter, recorded the confession of the appellant/A-2 and that he had deposed that the confession statement the appellant/A-2 had admitted to have snatched the Thali chain from several others.Thereafter, he had prepared the observation mahazar Ex.P2 and rough sketch Ex.The cross examination a suggestion had been put to him PW1 as a stab witness and it was denied.The appellant/A-2 when questioned under Section 313 Cr.Thereafter, the appellant/A-2 wife Sumithra was examined as PW1 and in the evidence of the defence witness has stated that her husband with the second accused and that on 12.05.1998 certain police men had taken her husband for enquiry and thereafter, had compelled her husband to accept that he had received stolen property.Since, her husband refused to obliged the police it was taken under an illegal custody and that she had also sent a telegram to the higher officials to the Police Department.Though, she had produced the xerox copy of the telegram the trial Court had refused to accept this xerox copy and denied permission to mark (xerox copy of the telegram).Thereafter, her husband had been detained under Act 14 and that she had filed the appeal against the detention order and that the detention order has been set aside, this Court order has been marked as Ex.She had been cross examined was nothing worthwhile had been elicited by the respondent police.He would also submit that though it has been alleged the complaint that due to the act of the appellant there was violation of law and order and public order and that the allegations traffic was paralysed and that the near by shop keepers downed the shutter and the public ran helter and skelter.The seizure and recovery have not been proved and that though several persons were stated to be available at the scene of occurrence the respondent had examined only the stock witnesses available.He would also submit that PW2 and PW3 have not supported the evidence of PW1 and thereby, the trial Court erred in convicting the appellant/accused.The learned trial Judge failed to take into consideration the improbability in this case and also failed to take into consideration the material contradictions in the evidence of PW4 regarding confession, mahazar, identification of accused, place of occurrence and the seizors.Further, the learned trial Judge also failed to take into consideration the evidence put-forth by the defence and also failed to take into consideration Exhibits marked by the defence.The learned trial Judge had failed to appreciate and thereby, erred in convicting the appellant.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that the prosecution has been proved the case by letting in cogent evidence.I have carefully and consciously gone through the evidence of the witnesses and the materials on record.As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant/A-2, the independent witnesses PW2 and PW3 have not supported the case of the prosecution.The appellants wife has been examined as defence witness and she had stated about the circumstances under which her husband was illegally detained by the respondent and that she had sent telegrams to the higher officials and thereafter, her husband was detained under Act 14 and she had filed a writ petition and the detention order was quashed and she had marked the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court as Ex.Further, taking into consideration the evidence in totality, it is seen that PW1 along with her husband (the first informant) was on the way to their relatives house and that the incident happen while they were proceeding near on the North Park Road.The complaint had been given by the husband of PW1 and unfortunately he had died and thereby, PW1 was examined and the complaint was marked through her and there is glaring contradictions between the complaint given by the husband of PW1 and the evidence let in by PW1 before the Court.Further, several things had been stated as if, the appellant/A-2 and the other accused had followed them from behind and the other accused had been attempted to snatch the chain worn by PW1 and PW1 had raised hue and cry and had prevented him from snatching the chain and thereafter, when the husband of PW1 had attempted to get hold of him, the appellant/A-2 is stated to have taken out a knife and threatened them by saying that, if he attempted to get hold of them he would stab and kill him and though further it had been stated that when the PW1 and her husband had raised alarm and the public in the near by area joined them and attempted to nab the appellant/A-2 and the other accused and that the appellant/A-2 and the other accused hurled stones against the public and also threatened the public by brandishing the knife and thereby, created disturbance to public order and the public out of fear ran helter and skelter.Further, no evidence had been let in to prove arrest and recovery.For the above reasons, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai in S.C.No.434 of 2001 dated 27.01.2004 is here by set aside and the appellant/A-2 is acquitted.It is stated that the appellant/A-2 is on bail.25.08.2018kvSpeaking Order/Non Speaking OrderIndex : Yes/No Internet : Yes/NoToThe IV Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai.The Inspector of Police, V-5 Thirumangalam Police Station, Chennai.The Public prosecutor, High Court of Madras.A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA,J.A.No.192 of 200425.08.2018
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
52,657,183 |
According to the complainant, on 11.12.2019, near about 6.00 p.m., she was standing in front of her house situated at Chetanpura, Nagda.Appellants and five others were causing a nuisance by selling liquor.When she objected, they threatened to rape her.Thereafter she went inside her house.Sunil, THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.2303/2020 Vinod S/o Kishore @ Nandkishore V/s.State of M.P. and another -: 2 :- Yunus, Lakhan and Sharif came inside her house.Jeetu was armed with a sword and Sunil was carrying a stick and told her to come outside the house.Vinod was standing outside her house.Sunil and Sharif were carrying sticks and after the complainant coming out of her house then Jeetu caused injury by the sword below the knee of the left leg.Vinod gave repeated blows on her leg as well as on hand by the iron rod.Lakhan, Sharif and Yunus assaulted her by kicks and fists, thereafter another accused Chandni W/o Jeetu also came there and assaulted her by kicks and fists and someone out of them touched her private parts.Thereafter her son Aditya and sister Chandni came to rescue her.This is a repeat (Second) application filed under Section 14-A (2) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act by the appellant - Vinod S/o Kishore @ Nandkishore, who has been arrested by Police on 12.12.2019 in Crime No.599/2019, Police Station Nagda Mandi, District Dhar concerning offence under Sections 452, 147, 148, 324, 323 read with 149 and 506 of the IPC, 25 of the Arms Act and Section 3(1)(r)s) & 3(2)(5A) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the order dated 08.01.2020; whereby learned Special Judge, Ujjain has rejected an application for release on bail.Hence, the present appellant has filed this Second repeat bail application.2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing and perused the case diary.As per prosecution story, complainant Pinki Jatav lodged an FIR in the Police Station Nagda on 11.11.2019, at 21.54, against the present appellants and 5 others.All the accused left the spot threatening her see dire consequences.Police registered an FIR under Sections 452, 147, 148, 324, 323 read with 149 and 506 of the IPC, 25 of the Arms Act and Section 3(1)(r)s) & 3(2)(5A) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and arrested all the accused.-: 2 :-Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant did not enter inside the house of the complainant, therefore, no offence said to have been committed under Section 452 of the IPC by him.He further submits that the appellant also belongs to the scheduled caste, therefore, there can't be any charge under Sections 3(1)(r)s) & 3(2)(5A) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. As per the allegation, the appellant said to have caused the injuries by an iron rod which are simple in nature and not on the vital part of the body, THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.2303/2020 Vinod S/o Kishore @ Nandkishore V/s.State of M.P. and another -: 3 :- therefore, at the most case under Section 323 of IPC is made out.The trial is held up because of the lock-down due to corona epidemic.Hence, the appellant is entitled to bail.-: 3 :-On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer opposes the prayer for grant of bail by submitting that the appellant is a habitual criminal and as many as six criminal cases have been registered against him from the year 2007 to 2019 and if he is released on bail, he will commit another offence or influence the evidence and further submits that the PW-1 has fully supported the case of the prosecution and she sustained the injury on her leg and hand by hard and blunt object.So far the present case is concerned the appellant said to have assaulted the complainant outside her house by an iron rod.The injuries are simple and not on the vital part of the body.The Appellant is in jail since 12.12.2019 and the trial is held up because of the lock-down due to the Corona epidemic.The Appellant also belongs to the reserved category.Hence, without further commenting on the merits of the case, it would be appropriate to enlarge the appellant on bail.Accordingly, the application is hereby allowed.It is directed that on furnishing a personal bond by the appellant in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only), with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of concerned trial Court, he shall be released on bail, subject to the condition that he shall make himself available to the Police, as and when required THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.2303/2020 Vinod S/o Kishore @ Nandkishore V/s.State of M.P. and another -: 4 :- during the investigation and will also remain present before the trial Court as and when directed in that behalf.It is also directed that the appellant shall abide by all the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of the Cr.P.C.-: 4 :-as per rules.
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
52,657,895 |
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.
|
['Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
52,663,428 |
Shri Mukesh Sinjonia, learned Counsel for the appellant.There is no likelihood of the appeal being taken for final hearing in near future, therefore, in view of the fact that substantial part of the sentence has already been suffered by the appellant Bhagwansingh, he may be released on bail.Attention has also been invited to decision of this Court in Raghuwar Singh vs. State of M.P. reported in 2015 (2) JLJ page 218, wherein suspension of custodial sentence has been permitted primarily on the ground that the appellant has suffered substantial part of the imprisonment ie.about 12 years.Learned Counsel for the State has not disputed the factual position that the present appellant has suffered 12 years of sentence till now and that there is no likelihood of this appeal being heard finally in near future because appeals filed in 2000-2001 are still pending for final hearing.Therefore, in view of the fact that the appellant Bhagwansingh has already suffered substantial part of the custodial sentence and there is no likelihood of this appeal being heard in the near future, it would be appropriate to suspend the execution of remaining part of the custodial sentence awarded against the appellant till the final disposal of this appeal.Accordingly, IA No.11096/2016 is allowed and it is directed that on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lac) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, for his regular appearance before this Court, the execution of the custodial part of the sentence imposed against the appellant Rekhabai, shall remain suspended, till the final disposal of this appeal.The appellant, after being enlarged on bail shall mark his presence before the Registry of this Court on 27.2.2017 and on all such subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the Registry.Certified copy as per rules.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
52,664,094 |
Case diary perused.As per prosecution case, the prosecutrix lodged an FIR against the applicants and other co-accused persons alleging that they have forcefully kidnapped her and when she raised alarm, they fled away.On that basis police registered the aforesaid offence against the applicants.Learned counsel for the applicants have submitted that applicants are youth aged about 22 years and 24 years respectively and they have not committed any offence.It is alleged that applicants are accompanied with the co- accused Anil who abducted the prosecutrix and when she raised the alarm they fled away from the spot.In these circumstances, at the most offence under Section 363 or 366 of I.P.C. is made out against the applicants.Conclusion of trial will take sufficient long time.Under these circumstances, learned counsel for the applicants prays for grant of bail to the applicant.Certified copy as per rules.(S.K. Awasthi) Judge praveen PRAVEEN Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR NAYAK DN: c=IN, o=DISTRICT AND SESSION COURT INDOR, postalCode=452005, KUMAR st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=e98f729464903facdd39c454 715d6eccc5a350c9111fb019b34dace NAYAK 6d05b8fd5, cn=PRAVEEN KUMAR NAYAK Date: 2020.08.25 10:41:26 +05'30'
|
['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
52,664,778 |
Hon'ble Mrs. Rekha Dixit,J.Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Mathur, Advocate assisted by Sri Sanjay Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Akhilesh Singh, Advocate assisted by Sri Vikash Sahai learned A. G.A for the State and perused the record.This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with the prayer to quash the F. I. R. Dated 12.10.2016 which has been registered as Case Crime No. 373 of 2016, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 332, 336, 353, 504, 427,295A I.P.C., and section 31(A) Criminal.Law Amendment Act and Section 2/3 Lok Sampati Kshati Niwaran Adhiniyam , Police Station Karari, District Allahabad.On 21.10.2016 another Bench of this Court had passed the following order which is quoted below :-" Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A.This petition has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer to quash the impugned FIR which has been registered as case crime no. 373 of 2016, under Sections-147, 148, 149, 307, 332, 336, 353, 504, 427, 295A IPC and Section-31 (A) of Criminal Law Amendment Act and Sections-2/3 of Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, at P.S.-Karari, District-Kaushambi.It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned f. I. R. has been lodged by the respondent no. 4 who is a Sub-Inspector in U. P. Police against the petitioners who belong to a particular community falsely alleging commission of offences by them under Sections-147, 148, 149, 307, 332, 336, 353, 504, 427, 295A IPC and Section-31 (A) of Criminal Law Amendment Act and Sections-2/3 of Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act. In the impugned F. I. R. it has been alleged that occurrence which is the subject matter of the impugned F. I. R. was fall out of a clash which had taken place between the two rival communities during Durga Murti Visarjan at Rakswara trisection of village Katra and the members of the community, to which the petitioners belong, were trying to block the road, through which the members of the other community were going to take out Tazia procession and when the aforesaid information reached the police station, the members of the police force reached the place of incident and tried to pacify the petitioners but the petitioners who were armed with lathis and spades, did not stop and shouted slogans outraging the religious feelings of a particular community by insulting their religion and started pelting stones on the members of the police force, although, in the incident no-one had received injury.He next submitted that from the fact that the impugned F. I. R. has been lodged by the respondent no. 4 mentioning full particulars of 88 petitioners, complete with their parentage and full addresses, it is very much clear that the same was scribed in the police station after due deliberation and consultation and under political influence targeting the members of a particular community alone although the incident was an outcome of a mob frenzy in which the members of both the communities had clashed with each other.List this matter on 16.11.2016 before appropriate Bench.On that date, respondent No. 4 Sub-Inspector, Awanish Kumar Pathak shall appear in person before this Court.Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be against the petitioners pursuant to the impugned FIR, which has been registered as case crime no. 373 of 2016, under Sections-147, 148, 149, 307, 332, 336, 353, 504, 427, 295A IPC and Section-31 (A) of Criminal Law Amendment Act and Sections-2/3 of Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, at P.S.-Karari, District-Kaushambi.'' An affidavit of compliance has been filed by the Superintendent of Police, Kaushambi is taken on record.
|
['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
52,664,995 |
A Senior Lawyer of repute rendering professional service across the country is the appellant.The relevant Clause 15 is furnished hereunder.The appellant is stated to have been paid Rs.1 crore by Mr.Sudipto Sen through his company.It was done after deducting TDS.(iii)M/S PUSMA INVESTMENT PVT.Section 50 empowers them on the matters touching upon the issuance of summons, production of documents and to give evidence etc. For better appreciation, the aforesaid provision is extracted below.50.Powers of authorities regarding summons, production of documents and to give evidence, etc.-(l) The Director shall, for the purposes of section 13, have the same powers as are vested in a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) while trying a suit in respect of the following matters, namely:-(a)discovery and inspection;Challenge is made to the summons issued under Sections 50(2) and 3 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 seeking umbrage under Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, among other grounds.Incidentally she has also sought for other prayers.On the dismissal of the writ petitions, the present writ appeals are before us.Since the core facts required for the disposal of the writ appeals are undisputed, narration at length by the learned single Judge does not require to be reiterated except to the extent required.Thus, the primary facts are taken as such from the recording made in the orders under challenge.Heard Shri K.T.S.Tulsi, learned Senior Counsel for Ms.C.Uma and Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Shri G.Rajagopal, learned Additional Solicitor General for the respondents.The appellant was engaged by one Ms.Manoranjana Sinh through her counsel to act as a Senior Lawyer on two occasions before the Company Law Board and the Delhi High Court.A Memorandum of Understanding(MOU) was signed between M/s GNN Pvt. Ltd., a media company owned by Ms.It was followed by another Agreement signed by one Ms.Manoranjana Sinh on behalf of GNN Pvt. Ltd., and Mr.Sudipto Sen on behalf of M/s Bengal Media Pvt. Ltd., in which, clause 5.2 is apposite.The company shall issue fresh shares to the Investor which is valued at Rs.30 crore.The Promoters shall transfer a portion of the shares from their 5,74,000 Equity shares for which the Investor shall pay an additional Rs.12.5 crores directly to the Promotors such that after the about to transactions the investor and the promotor shall hold 50% each in the total share capital of the company.The appellant disclosed the income in her return of income and accordingly paid the tax.Sudipto Sen failed to honour his commitment to the depositors, a case was registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation.The appellant was asked to produce certain documents.In the supplementary charge sheet filed, the appellant was not even arrayed as a witness.The Investigation Agency also found the factum of payment made to the appellant for the professional service rendered.In the proceedings initiated under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, summons were issued from 03.02.2016 onwards by the second respondent to the appellant.The appellant engaged her authorised representative to appear and produce the documents.Having found that there are discrepancies between the statement of Ms.Manoranjana Sinh and the appellant, she was directed to appear in person through the impugned summons.This is sought to be challenged on the premise that the protective discrimination, which is otherwise available to a woman under Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, will have to be extended to the appellant.While alleging mala fides, a contention has been raised on the privilege available to a Lawyer qua a professional service to a client.As the third respondent had not chosen to file a counter affidavit denying the allegations made, they should be taken as admitted and thus true.On a query, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that both malice in fact and law are available.THE ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE AND OTHERS ((2002) Criminal Law Journal 819);LTD., AND OTHERS VS.STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND OTHERS ((2010) Criminal Law Journal 56);(iv)FOZIYA SAMIR GODIL VS.UNION OF INDIA AND TWO OTHERS (Spl.Application (Direction) No.1725 of 2014 with Spl.No.1748 of 2014 dated 09.05.2014);(v)VIJAY MADANLAL CHOUDHARY VS.UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.(W.P.Nos.4336, 4341, 4344, 4347, 4350, 5089, 5091 and 5625 of 2015 dated 20.10.2015);(vi)ASHOK MUNILAL JAIN AND ANOTHER VS.ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT (Crl.Appeal No.566 of 2017 dated 22.03.2017);(b)enforcing the attendance of any person, including any officer of a reporting entity and examining him on oath;(c) compelling the production of records;Case on Hand:-
|
['Section 228 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.