id
int64 17
1.89B
| cases
stringlengths 8
539k
| labels
stringlengths 38
1.25k
| instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|
52,573,166 |
1 36 017 d C.R.M. 2178 of 2017 In the matter of an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 15.03.2017 in connection with Farakka Police Station Case No. 336 of 2016 dated 28.08.2016 under Section 147/148/149/325/326/307/186/353/ 332/333/338/427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 3/4 E.S.Act, 25/27 of the Arms Act and 8 BNH Act and 3 PDPP Act and 9 MPO Act.Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.(Patherya, J.) (Debi Prosad Dey, J.) 2
|
['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
52,578,725 |
Shri N. Jain, learned counsel for the Objector.Certified copy as per rules.(J.K. MAHESHWARI) JUDGE
|
['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
52,584,760 |
as per rules.Case Diary is perused.Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.T he applicants have filed first application under section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.Applicants apprehend arrest in connection with Crime No.308/2019 registered at Police Station Murar, District Gwalior, for the offence punishable under Section 452, 294, 323, 324, 506-B and 34 of the IPC.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that cross case has also b een registered u/Ss. 307, 323, 452, 147 and 148 of IPC against the complainant.In these circumstances, he prays for anticipatory bail.Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposed the application and prayed for its rejection by contending that on the basis of the allegations and material available on record, no case for grant of bail is made out.A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.
|
['Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
52,587,082 |
Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 23/04/2011, a report was lodged by Parmanans Kushwaha at police station Sohagpur that at 2.30 a.m., his elder brother Lakhanlal along with Mahendra, Mayaram & Pannalal had gone to lodge a report at police station Pipariya but did not return.Upon this, a missing person report No. 18/11 was registered.On 26/04/2011, upon a telephonic information, police recovered a sack from a Well in which dead body of Lakhanlal was found.After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed.After taking into consideration the evidence of Gangabai (PW1), Geetabai (PW5), Parmanand (PW6), Roshan (PW9), Ramsingh (PW14), Jhandulal (PW15), Kamlesh (PW7), Mushtaq (PW4), Rashid (PW3), it was held by the trial Court that prosecution had failed to prove the evidence of last seen against the respondents.Though, a pair of nylon Chappal and a mobile phone were allegedly seized at the instance of Pannalal, yet identification of Sandal instead of Chappal was got done by the prosecution and there was nothing on record to prove that diary and mobile phone belonged to deceased.In the aforesaid premises, the trial Court found that the chain of circumstantial evidence was not complete and the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.We agree with the findings recorded by the trial Court that prosecution has failed to prove it's case beyond reasonable doubt.It is well settled that the judgment of acquittal should not be disturbed unless the conclusions drawn on the basis of evidence brought on record are found to be grossly unreasonable or manifestly perverse or palpably unsustainable.Taking into consideration the reasons assigned on the face of evidence on record establishing the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the view taken by the learned trial Court was apparently a possible view.
|
['Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
525,935 |
2)The case of the prosecution in a nutshell is as follows:The accused had often raised loan by pawning the jewels of his wife Mohanarani and has also demanded more dowry from the parents of the deceased Mohanarani which had driven her to take an extreme step of committing suicide on 18.8.1998 at about 6.00p.m., in her house.Hence the accused has been charged under Section 304 (B) and 498 A IPC.3) The case was taken on file by the trial Court and on appearance of the accused on summons, copies under Section 207 Cr.P.C were furnished to the accused and when charges were framed under Section 304 (B) and 498 A IPC and questioned the accused pleaded not guilty.4) On the side of the prosecution P.Ws 1 to 12 were examined.Exs P1 to P7 were exhibited.No material objects were marked.5) P.W.1 is the private doctor who had seen the unfortunate girl Mohanarani brought to the hospital by her husband/accused herein on 15.8.1998 at about 8.00p.m alleging that she had consumed poison .On examination, he (P.W.1)found that the girl had already died and P.W.1 had advised the accused to take her to the Government Hospital.5a) P.W.2 is the father of the deceased,who would depose that the deceased Mohanarani is his youngest daughter and the marriage between the accused and Mohanarani took place on 15.9.1996 at a temple.At the time of marriage, he had presented 20 sovereigns of gold ornaments and also Susuki Motor cycle and that after the marriage, in order to discharge the hand loan borrowed by the accused, he used to pawn his wife's ornaments and also used to demand more money from him(P.W.2) to meet the agricultural expenses.P.W.2 would state that his daughter used to complain that the accused found fault with her since she is incapable of bearing a child and that he came to know on the occurrence date that his daughter Mohanarani had committed suicide by consuming poison and that he along with his other daughters, sons and other relatives went to the Government Hospital and saw the corpse of his daughter where he informed that the corpse was brought by the husband of Mohanarani/accused and left at the hospital and afterwards, he never turned to the hospital.Ex P1 is the complaint preferred by him(P.W.2).She has also corroborated the evidence of P.W.2 to the effect that very often the accused used to pawn the jewels of her daughter to raise loans.5c) P.W.4 is the sister of the deceased Mohanarani.P.W.4's evidence is also in the line of the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 to the effect that after the marriage the accused used to pawn the jewels of the deceased to raise loan and she came to know about this through her deceased sister.He would depose that the accused had pledged the jewels of the deceased in a bank and raised loan.5e) P.W.11 is the then Deputy Superintendent of Police of Avinashi Sub Division.According to him, P.W2 came to the police Station on 19.8.1998 and preferred Ex P1 complaint and on the basis of the said complaint, he had registered a case under Crime No.258/1998 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. After registering the case, he took up investigation and proceeded to the place of occurrence and had drawn Ex P6 rough sketch .5f)P.W.9 is the Head Constable , who had registered the case on the basis of Ex P1 complaint preferred by P.W.2 .Ex P4 is the first information report.On the basis of the inquest report of the Sub Collector,Tirupur P.W.11 had altered the Sections of law to 498A and 306 IPC.5h) P.W.6 is the Postmortem constable, who had taken the corpse of Mohanarani from the hospital at Avinashi to the Government Hospital at Tirupur.After the post mortem, he had handed over the clothes taken from the corpse to the Inspector of Police.5i)P.W.7 would admit that Ex P2 observation Mahazar contains his signature .Apart from this, he has not supported the case of the prosecution.Hence he was treated as a hostile witness.5j) P.W.8 is the doctor who had conducted postmortm on the corpse.Ex P3 is the post mortem report.The doctor has opined that due to consumption of pesticides, the deceased would have died 16 to 18 hours prior to the post mortem.5k)P.W.10 is the Revenue Divisional Officer who had conducted inquest on 19.8.1998 at about 10.00a .m., at the mortuary of the Government Hospital ,Tirupur.Ex P5 is the inquest report.In Ex P5, P.W.10 has stated that Mohanarani had died due to the consumption of poison.5l) P.W.13 had continued his investigation and examined the doctor as well as the Judicial Magistrate who has recorded the dying declaration and after completing the formalities, P.W.13 had filed the chargesheet against the accused on 31.3.1999 under Section 498A and 304 (B) IPC.When incriminating circumstances were put to the accused, the accused would totally deny his complicity with the crime.He had examined three witnesses on his side.Exs B1 to B3 were marked.7.After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Sessions Judge has come to a conclusion that the guilt against the accused under Sections 498A and 304(b) has not been proved beyond any reasonable doubt and consequently giving the benefit of doubt to the accused, the learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the accused of all the charges.Against the findings of the learned Sessions Judge, P.W.2 the father of the deceased Mohanarani had preferred this revision.Now the point for determination in this revision is whether the findings of the learned trial Judge is manifest of error of law or procedure or perverse in nature to warrant any interference from this Court.Heard Mr. N.S.Sivakumar,learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, Mr.V.R.Balsubramanian, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State-R1 and Mr.K.Goviganesan, learned counsel appearing for R2 and considered their rival submissions.10.The Point:ExP1 the complaint is bereft of any allegation of dowry harassment against the accused.On the basis of Ex P1 complaint a case under Section 174 Cr.P.C. alone was registered.Only in the evidence of P.Ws 2 to 5, the father, mother, sister and brother of the deceased respectively would depose that the accused had pawn the jewels of the deceased and raised loan .As rightly observed by the learned Sessions Judge, pawning the jewels of the wife and raising loan to discharge the subsisting debt is not an offence under any provisions of law.Only in the evidence of P.Ws 2 to 5 would say that the accused subjected the deceased for cruelty but the above said witnesses have not mentioned the exact date or time of the said alleged cruelty meeted at the hands of the accused by the deceased.No neighbours were examinend as the prosecution witnesses to prove that there were frequent quarrel between the deceased and the accused in connection with the demand of dowry.The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would contend that the marriage itself was not consummated and putting the blame on the deceased, the accused used to torture her.If it is so, then the remedy open to the deceased is to file a petition before the family Court for divorce on the ground of cruelty.Yet another flaw noted in the case of the prosecution is the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer(P.W.10) who had conducted the inquest.The Revenue Divisional Officier has conducted inquest on 19.9.1998 at about 10.00 a.m Ex P5 is his report.While deposing before the trial Court, the Revenue Divisional Officer has categorically stated that he has examined the father of the deceased, the brother and sisters of the deceased and also the accused and the mother of the deceased and recorded their statements.So it is clear from the evidence of P.W.10, itself that the statements were not recorded by him (P.W.10) on the date and time of inquest conducted by him ie., on 19.8.1998 at 10.00 a.m., So we cannot give much importance to the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer under Ex P5 .It is pertinent to note from the evidence of P.W.1, the doctor that the accused himself had brought the deceased Mohanarani after the occurrence at 8.00p.m., on 15.8.1998 .If the deceased would have consumed poison at the instigation of the accused, then the natural conduct of the accused would be to run away from the place of occurrence and not to take the victim to the hospital.In this regard, there is absolutely no satisfactory evidence let in by the prosecution to show that who brought the corpse of Mohanarani from the private hospital to the Government Hospital.14. P.W.6 the police constable says that he came to the private hospital and brought the corpse of Mohanarani to the Government Hospital.But P.W.1 the doctor of the private nursing Home had not mentioned in his evidence that he only intimated the police about the corpse brought by the accused.P.W.1 would say that he advised the accused to remove the body to the Government Hospital.But the accused who has examined himself as D.W.1 would depose that he brought his wife Mohanarani to the Private Hospital and after knowing that she is already dead had informed his uncle and also asked his brother in law to go to Seyur Police Station to prefer a complaint and thereafter only the police came there and he had narrated the incident which was reduced to writing by the police.But the statement of the accused has not seen the light of the day in this case.It is pertinent to note that P.W.2, the father of the deceased Mohanarani in the cross examination had admitted that he got back the jewels as well as the Susuki Motor cycle which were presented to the accused at the time of marriage.Further there is absoultely no evidence to show that the accused used to pawn the jewels of the deceased very often.No pawn Broker was examined and no Pawn chit was also produced.So only on the basis of the above said irregularities and discrepancies in the prosecution case, the learned trial Judge has come to a correct conclusion that the prosecution has faileld to prove the case beyond any reasonable doubt against the accused.Under such circumstances, I do not find any irregularity or infirmity or any perverseness in the findings of the learned trial Judge to warrant any interference from this court.In the result, the revision is dismissed ,confirming the Judgment in S.C.NO.229 of 2001 on the file of the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge(FTC No.5)Tirupur.The Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC No.5) Tirupur.The Public Prosecutor High Court Madras[PRV/10249]
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
52,594,998 |
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Gaurav Kakkar, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and the learned AGA for the State.By means of the instant revision, the revisionist Kusum mother/natural guardian wife of Jatanvir has sought bail of her minor son Ravi in Case Crime No.184 of 2013 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 302, 307 I.P.C. and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Dadari, District Gautam Budh Nagar, with the prayer that the impugned judgment and order dated 16.11.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar, in Criminal Appeal No.79 of 2013, Ravi Vs.State of U.P. affirming the order dated 11.10.2013 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Gautam Budh Nagar, be set aside and the application moved for bail of delinquent minor be allowed.The relevant facts of this case in a nutshell are that the first information report was lodged on 24.04.2013 at 19:30 hours, at Police Station Dadari, District Gautam Budh Nagar, at the instance of the Phuttan Singh-opposite party no.2 whereupon the allegations were made against the delinquent juvenile Ravi and others alleging the commission of crime under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 302, 307 I.P.C. and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act. The matter was investigated into and after completion of the investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the delinquent juvenile.Thereafter, an application for bail was moved by the revisionist before the Juvenile Justice Board in Case Crime No.184 of 2013 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 302, 307 I.P.C. and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act. The Juvenile Justice Board, after considering the case, rejected the bail application vide order dated 11.10.2013 on the ground that in case the juvenile is released on bail, his release would have adverse impact upon him on physical, moral and psychological side.Feeling aggrieved by the bail rejection order dated 11.10.2013, the revisionist filed Criminal Appeal No.79 of 2013 before the appellate court, whereupon, after consideration of the appeal, the appellate court dismissed the appeal vide judgment and order dated 16.11.2013 affirming the order dated 11.10.2013 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Gautam Budh Nagar.Hence this revision.The observation of the District Probation Officer in absence of any supporting material becomes bald and vague.Consequently, the same is to be ignored in a situation when mother of the delinquent juvenile promises to work for improvement of her son.
|
['Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
52,604,814 |
According to the prosecution story, on 23.10.2011 at about 3 p.m. the complainant Jagdish Prasad Sakalle was travelling in his loaded Truck with granite jelly from a mine situated at village Choukley.The petitioner, who is a Mining Inspector, stopped the vehicle and demanded the requisite permit and royalty proof.The respondent No. 2 is stated to have produced the royalty receipt, which the petitioner allegedly tore.(13.3.2018) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the proceedings pending against him in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hoshangabad, district Hoshangabad in Criminal Case No. 1003/12 (State of Madhya Pradesh through Police Station Anusuchit Jati Kalyan (AJK), Hoshangabad v. Rajkumar).The petitioner moved an application before the learned J.M.F.C for dropping of the proceedings on the ground that sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C was not taken and he was proceeded in 2 absence thereof.The learned Trial Court dismissed the said application on the ground that the nature of the offences for which the petitioner was charged, were such that it could not be linked with discharge of his official duties.The petitioner preferred a Criminal Revision against the said order before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad in Criminal Revision No. 131/2012 which was dismissed vide order dated 27.12.2014, thereby sustaining the order of the learned Trial Court.Additional documents have been brought on record vide I.A.For the reasons stated therein the said I.A's are allowed and the documents are taken on record and are being considered by this Court.The Petitioner is also alleged to have abused the respondent No. 2 and assaulted him for the refusal on the part of the Respondent No.2 to pay an illegal gratification of Rs.10,000/-.The petitioner is stated to have confiscated the vehicle.The respondent No. 2 is stated to be a member of Scheduled Caste and, therefore, he preferred a written complaint before the Station House Officer, Police Station, Seoni Malwa on 23.10.2011 alleging as herein above.On the basis of the said complaint the F.I.R and proceedings sought to be quashed was registered against the petitioner on 25.11.2011 for offences under Sections 294, 323, 342 IPC.The date of the incident was shown as 23.10.2011 and the time at which the incident occurred is shown as 3 p.m. The petitioner is the sole accused in the case.Annexure 6 to I.A. No. 23940/2016, is the charge-sheet filed by the police against the petitioner which is only under Sections 323, 294 and 506 I.P.C. From the charge sheet it appears that as regards the alleged act of tearing of royalty receipt by the petitioner, the same has been disbelieved by the Police as the petitioner is not being prosecuted for an offence under Section 201 I.P.C.According to the petitioner, the truck in which the complainant was sitting was carrying illegal mineral, being granite chips/jelly.The truck was stopped by the petitioner.The petitioner asked the respondent No. 1 to produce the royalty receipt, upon which, the respondent No. 2 is alleged to have informed the petitioner that he does not have a royalty receipt and also heckled the petitioner and said that the petitioner was trying to be "Harish Chand" and that respondent No. 2 would implicate him in a case.The petitioner preferred an F.I.R against the respondent through a written complaint to 4 the police on 23.10.2011 itself, which is at page 23 to the quash petition.In that FIR, the petitioner has stated that while placing the vehicle seized by him under the custody of Police Station, Dulariya, one Ritesh @ Rinku Jain came there in a green coloured Bolero Vehicle bearing number MP 05 PC 0193 with two other persons, caught hold of the petitioner's collar, beat him, abused him and threatened to kill him.The said complaint was preferred to the SHO of PS Dulariya, district Hoshangabad.On the basis of the said complaint the Police registered Crime No. 134/2011 on 23.10.2011 at 4.30 p.m. In the F.I.R by the Petitioner, along with Ritesh Jain the Respondent No.2 is also an accused.Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the F.I.R against the petitioner was filed two days after the F.I.R registered by the petitioner against the respondent No. 2, which itself clearly reveals that the same is a counter blast.That appeal was also dismissed by order dated 4.4.2013 on account of non- prosecution.Counsel for the petitioner has also brought to the notice of this Court a report of the Additional Superintendent of Police, Hoshangabad, upon a representation made by the petitioner.In the report, the Police has held that the allegation against the petitioner with regard to offences under the SC/ST Act do not appear to be made out as the petitioner and respondent No. 2 were not known to each other from before.Learned counsel for the petitioner has sought the quashment of the proceedings pending against him on the ground of malice and also on the ground of lack of sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C as the petitioner is a public servant.Per contra learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has argued that the complaint about the incident was given by the Respondent No.2 on 23.10.2011 itself at PS Seoni Malwa.As regards the contention put forward by learned counsel for the petitioner that there has been admission of guilt by the respondent, through his driver, during the proceedings before the Collector in the year 2012 itself, the same is stated to be incorrect.The learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has submitted that the finding of the Collector is based upon the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner in the proceedings before the Collector and not on account of any express admission to that effect.Learned counsel for the respondent has thereafter drawn attention of this Court to the report of Additional Superintendent of Police and has submitted that the report only goes to the extent of showing that offences under the SC/ST Act were not made out and that is why ultimately the charge sheet was filed against the petitioner for offences under Sections 323, 294 and 506 I.P.C.In order to counter the arguments on behalf of the petitioner that the sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C would be required before cognizance could have been taken, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has submitted that tearing of receipts and destroying evidence is not in the discharge of his official duties and neither is the act of beating the respondent No. 2, abusing him and threatening him of dire consequences, associated in any with the discharge of official functions of the petitioner.He has further submitted that this Court has to determine whether the allegations levelled against the petitioner, are actions attributable to him, purported to having 7 been done in the discharge of an official duty.He has also further stated that the requirement for a sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C can be looked into at the stage of trial itself.He has submitted that the Trial is at an incipient stage where the charges have also not been framed against the petitioner and as the torn receipt constitute a part of the charge sheet against the petitioner, the element of malice also does not lie as there is material on record to show that the petitioner has torn the royalty receipt.10. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.In Anjani Kumar v. State of Bihar and another - (2008) 5 SCC 248], the respondent No. 2 before the Supreme Court in that case, who was the complainant, filed an application for cancellation of Form 19 relating to the license of one M/s. Arun 8 Medical Hall.The appellant in that case, sent a report for cancellation of the application form for license.On the same date, upon the directions of the District Magistrate the appellant in that case, Anjani Kumar is stated to have conducted a raid at the Medical shop of the respondent No. 2/Complainant in the presence of two Executive Magistrates and certain medicines were seized.As a counter blast, the respondent No. 2 preferred a complaint alleging that the appellant Anjani Kumar had committed offences punishable under Sections 161, 167, 465, 466, 469 and 471 I.P.C. On the basis of that complaint an F.I.R was registered against Anjani Kumar.P.C for commission of the aforementioned offences.Anjani Kumar moved a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C, which was rejected by the High Court on the ground that no sanction was required.In this, the Supreme Court examined an incident related to the Pathribal encounter case.In village Chittisinghpura of District Anantnag in Jammu and Kashmir, thirty six Sikhs were killed by terrorists on 20.3.2000 and immediately thereafter, search commenced in the entire area five persons suspected to be terrorists were killed at Punchalthan in District Anantnag by 7 Rashtriya Rifles on 25.3.2000, in an encounter.The Army claimed that the five persons killed in encounter were responsible for the massacre at Chittisinghpura.Thereafter, on account of protest in the valley with regard to the killing of the five persons by the men of the 7 Rashtriya Rifles, the case was handed over to the CBI.After investigation, the charge sheet was filed in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate- cum-Special Magistrate, CBI, Srinagar, alleging that it was a fake encounter and an outcome of a criminal conspiracy hatched by one Colonel Ajay Saxena, Major Baldev Pratap Singh, Major Sourabh Sharma, Subedar Idrish Khan and some other of the 7 Rashtriya Rifles.It was also alleged that one Major Amit Saxena prepared a false seizure memo showing recovery of arms and ammunitions in the incident and also gave a false complaint to the Police Station for registration of a case against the five civilians showing some of them as foreign militants.The application was 10 dismissed by the Court of the Ld. CJM, against which the Army officers preferred a revision petition before the Court of Sessions at Srinagar, which was also dismissed.Appeal was filed before the Supreme Court.The Supreme Court gave another illustration whereupon a Police Officer in discharge of his duty, is stated to have used force resulting in an offence but held that for the prosecution of which, sanction would be necessary.However, where the same officer commits an act in the course of his service which is not in line with the discharge of his duty and without any justification, then the bar under section 197 of the Cr.The father of the deceased, one Kailash Pati Singh, filed a complaint in the Court of the Ld.CJM Jamshedpur being Complaint Case No.721/2004 against the petitioner Omprakash who was the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1491/2012 before the Supreme Court and Rajiv 14 Ranjan Singh and another, who were absconding, in Criminal Appeal No.1492/2012 filed by the father of the deceased Kailash Pati Singh, before the Supreme Court.The father of the deceased had alleged in the said complaint that his son Amit Pratap Singh was killed in a fake encounter by Rajiv Ranjan Singh and the other co-accused persons.As per the version of the Police Officers they had received an SOS from one Jeevan Prasad, a dealer in scrap that on 1.7.2004 at 9.50 pm that some miscreants had come to his house riding on motorcycles armed with firearms and that they fired at his office and ran away.The said act was done to threaten the dealer to force him to yield to their extortion demand.They were tracked down and the police asked them to surrender.However, instead of surrendering the deceased and the other co-accused persons are fired at the Police who retaliated in self-defence in which four persons were killed and the rest escaped.The son of the complainant was one of those killed.In this case also, the Police Officers had moved a petition before the High Court for quashing proceedings against them.The High Court allowed the petition filed by the DySP Rajeev Ranjan Singh on the ground that sanction was required under section 197 Cr.P.C and as the same was not obtained, the case against him was not maintainable.As regards the other police personnel, the High Court dismissed their petition on the ground that there was no notification under section 197(3) of the Code produced by them to show that they were also protected against the 15 prosecution in respect of any offence alleged to have been committed while acting in discharge of their official duties.Those police personnel were at the level of constabulary.They were aggrieved by the order of the High Court dismissing their petition.Omprakash filed an SLP before the Supreme Court.The learned counsel for respondent no.2 has emphasized on this judgment and has submitted that like the present case against the petitioner herein, in Pradeep Vs.Chandra Pratap Singh (supra) also, the petitioner was a public servant against whom offences under sections 323, 294 and 506 IPC were registered by the learned trial court wherein he had taken the plea of the prosecution being faulty due to lack of sanction which was rejected by the learned trial court and which was affirmed by the court of sessions in revision.In paragraph 15 this court held, "therefore, looking to the above facts and even otherwise on considering the allegations against the petitioner, the complaint under which offence which was registered does not come within the expression acting or purporting to act in discharge of his official duties.Hence, this objection cannot be accepted." Thereafter, the petition was dismissed. 20In this case, a first information report was lodged against the appellant of that case for the commission of offences punishable under sections 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC.The fact came to light when the audit was carried out.In paragraph 61, the Supreme Court held that proceedings could not have been quashed on the ground of want of sanction in that case as it had held that the element of mens rea can only be decided at the time of trial and not at the stage of issuing summons.It further held that the necessity of sanction can be taken during the conduct of trial or at any stage of the proceedings.On the basis of this judgment, the learned counsel for respondent no.2 has submitted that here also the trial court is empowered at any stage of the trial to look into the question whether sanction under section 197 Cr.P.C. was essential?(a) The factual matrix of the case reveals that on the same date of the incident i.e. 23.10.2011 two complaints were made to two different police stations by the petitioner and the respondent no.2 respectively.On the basis of the complaint 21 filed by the petitioner before Police Station Dolariya, the FIR was registered against the respondent no.1 on 23.10.2011 itself whereas the prima facie facts go to reveal that though the respondent no.1 appears to have made his complaint to Police Station Seoni Malwa on 23.10.2011 itself, the FIR was registered only on 25.10.2011 by the police.However, what is not disputed by both sides in their respective FIRs is that the petitioner was in the process of discharging his official duties as a Mining Inspector on 23.10.2011 and had stopped the truck carrying the granite chips/jelly in discharge of his official duty and had asked respondent no.2 to produce the royalty receipt which, according to the petitioner was not available with the respondent no.2 and that the respondent no.2 held out a threat stating that he would falsely implicate the petitioner in a case.(c) The respondent no.2 preferred an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Hoshangabad, against the order of the Collector dated 7.6.2012, which was also dismissed on account of non-appearance of the appellant/respondent no.2 herein on 4.4.2013, and 22(d) No revision was preferred against the said appeal before the Board of Revenue.
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
526,055 |
Admittedly, Jarina was legally married wife of accused/appellant Sheikh Vaheed.Accused/appellants Sheikh Raseed and Hamidan Bi respectively are brother and mother of accused/appellant Sheikh Vaheed.After marriage, late Jarina was living in the joint family of accused/appellants.Preparing Panchnama (Ex. P/7) the dead body was sent for post mortem.As per post mortem report (Ex. P/2) 3rd and 4th degree burns all over the body except scalp and distal part of feet were found.Due to 100% burn late Jarina died.From one of the rooms of the residential accommodation, a container of kerosene, match box and other articles were seized (Ex.P/1).While investigating the Merg 53/95, S.I. R.S. Parihar concluded that soon before the death late Jarina was subjected to harassment relating to demand of dowry.Accused/appellants Sheikh Rasheed and Hamidan Bi respectively are brother and mother of accused/appellant Sheikh Vaheed.In the joint family late Jarina Bi was living with the accused/appellants.She died on 3-5-95 of 100% burn.On her death information was given to the Police and Panchnama (Ex P/7) was recorded.The dead body of late Jarina was sent for post mortem.PW/4 Dr. D.K. Saklle performed the post mortem.As stated she died of 100% burn.At the time of death she was carrying five months pregnancy.Accordingly, report (E. P/2) was recorded.PW/2 Sukratdeen, PW/3 Subhratan Bi are father and mother of late Jarina.PW/2 Sukratdeen and PW/3 Subhratan Bi also have stated that on return from family of accused/appellants, late Jarina narrated the demand made by the accused/appellants and consequential harassment-torture.These witnesses have further stated that 15 days before the death of the Jarina their son PW/9 Sheikh Imam had been to the house of accused/appellants.He wanted late Jarina to take her to the parents.On refusal late Jarina wept bitterly and further narrated to PW/9 Sheikh Imam that accused/appellants are demanding golden ring and sofa set.Since their demand has not been fulfilled, they were harassing.As stated, by PW/9 Sheikh Imam late Jarina narrated the incident of harassment by saying that if the demand aforesaid of accused/appellants is not fulfilled, they would kill her.PW/9 Sheikh Imam has further stated that a few days after he received the information that late Jarina died of burn.JUDGMENT S.K. Pande, J.The A.S.J., Sehora in S.T. No. 662/95 vide impugned judgment dated 11-10-2001 recording conviction of accused/appellants under Sections 498A, 304B of IPC sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of 3 years and 7 years respectively and to pay fine Rs. one thousand, three thousand, in default to suffer further imprisonment for a period of three months, six months.Being aggrieved, the accused/appellants have preferred this appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C.On information the Merg 53/95 was registered by the Police.She was not even permitted to visit her parents.Consequently, recording F.I.R. (Ex.P/1) Crime No. 176/95 under Section 304B of IPC was registered.Completing the investigation the accused/appellants were charge-sheeted.They abjured the guilt.However, the A.S.J. vide impugned judgment recording their conviction under Section 498A and 304B, IPC sentenced them accordingly.It is contended that late Jarina was never subjected to any harassment relating to demand of dowry and simpliciter committed suicide.It is submitted that late Jarina was wife of accused/appellant Sheikh Vaheed.These witnesses have stated that soon after the marriage, accused/appellants started demanding golden ring and sofa set.Since these articles were not given, late Jarina was harassed and tortured.However, accused/appellants demanding golden ring and sofa set refused to permit late Jarina to go with brother PW/9 Sheikh Imam.Thereafter they received information that late Jarina died of burns.The aforesaid statements of PW/2 Sukratdeen and PW/3 Subhratan Bi are amply corroborated by PW/9 Sheikh Imam.This witness PW/9 Shekh Imam has stated that accused/appellants were demanding golden ring and sofa set.Due to financial inability, the demand of accused/appellants was not fulfilled.Therefore, they were harassing and torturing late Jarina.Late Jarina told to PW/2 Sukratdeen, PW/3 Subhratan Bi and PW/9 Sheikh Imam that she was being harassed by accused/appellant and at times was also beaten.PW/9 Sheikh Imam has further stated that 15 days before the death of late Jarina, he had been to accused/appellants for permission to take late Jarina to her parents.There also the accused/appellants demanded golden ring and sofa set.For not fulfilling the demand aforesaid accused/appellants did not permit late Jarina to go to parents with PW/9 Sheikh Imam.The aforesaid statements of PW/2 Sukratdeen, PW/3 Subhratan Bi and PW/9 Sheikh Imam clearly demonstrate that from the side of accused/appellants there was a demand of golden ring and sofa set in dowry.The accused/appellants were persisting their demand.However, it was not fulfilled due to financial inability of PW/2 Sukratdeen.PW/9 Sheikh Imam had been to the house of accused/appellants only 15 days before the death of Jarina.At that time also accused/appellants directed PW/9 Sheikh Imam to fulfil the demand then only late Jarina to be permitted to visit her parents.Late Jarina on that occassion also stated to her brother PW/9 Sheikh Imam that if the demand of accused/appellants aforesaid is not fulfilled they shall kill her.As against aforesaid, there is no evidence to suggest how witnesses are falsely implicating the accused/appellants.DW/1 Indrapal Mahobiya in cross-examination has admitted that he never had any talk with late Jarina.Another witness DW/2 Sheikh Sadiq is related to accused/appellants.
|
['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
52,609,935 |
rkd Ct.No.28 C.R.M. 2031 of 2020 In Re: - An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 20/02/2020 in connection with Harwood Point Coastal P.S. Case No. 270 of 2017 dated 09/12/2017 under Sections 363 /366 /376 /370 /370A(2) /120B of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of: - Faruk Hossen Shekh ....petitioner.Mr. P. S. Mondal ...for the petitioner.The application for bail is, thus, rejected.Trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same at an early date without granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.(Suvra Ghosh, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
526,111 |
THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 1997Present:Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.N. Ray Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.B. PattanaikK.T.S. Tulsi, Som Raj Dutta, Sr.Advs., Uma Dutta,M.S. Dahiya, Advs.with them for the appellantsAjay Siwach, Adv, for Prem Malhotra, Adv.for the Respondent O R D E R The following Order of the Court was delivered: O R D E R In this appeal the conviction and sentence passedagainst the appellant by the learned Designated CourtBhiwani at Hissar on 6.2.88 in Sessions Trial No. 49.87 areunder challenge.Mrs. KTS Tulsi, learned senior counsel has appeared forappellant No. 1 Sukhbir Singh and Mr. Som Raj Dutt, learnedsenior counsel has appeared for the remaining appellants.The appellant Sukhbir Singh has been convicted by thelearned Designated Court under Section 302 and Section 307read with Section 149 Indian Penal Code.The otherappellants have also been convicted under Section 302 andSection 307 read with Section 149 IPC.Although the saidappellants have been convicted under the Arms Act. but noseparate sentence has been passed for such offence.Mr. Tulsi has submitted that initially the appellantswere also charged for the offence under Terrorist andDisruptive Activities Prevention Act, 1985 (hereinafterreferred to as TADA).The learned Designated Courtthereafter assumed jurisdiction and proceeded with thetrial.Considering he materials on record, the learnedDesignated Judge inter alia came to the finding that no casefor an offence under TADA had been made out.Therefore, anorder was passed by the learned Designated Judge on 19.12.87that the case should be transferred to the appropriatecriminal court for the trial of the said criminal case.Inbasing the said order of 19th December, 1987, the learnedJudge, Designated Court had relied on a Full Bench decisionof the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Bimal Kaur Khalsa'scase (AIR 1988 Punjab and Haryana page 95) It appears thatan appeal was taken to this Court against the said FullBench Decisions of the Punjab and Haryana High Court inBimal Khalsa's case and it appears that an interim order ofstay was granted by this Court.In view of the said order ofstay, the case was again referred back before the learnedDesignated Judge for trial on merits.
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
526,195 |
S.B. SINHA, J.1. Leave granted.Appellant (Accused No.3) along with Suresh (Accused No.1) andRanganatha (Accused No. 2) was charged with for commission of offencepunishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code(for short, `IPC') on the accusation that they had due to previous ill-will, infurtherance of their common intention, caused the death of one Venkatesh(`the deceased').Accused No. 1 assaulted the deceased with an iron rod onhis head and other parts of the body and accused Nos. 2 and 3 assaulted him 2with fists and kicks and, thus, caused hurt and voluntarily caused his deathand thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 read withSection 34 of the IPC.A wine shop commonly known as `Nandi Wines' is situated at Nandivillage behind Yoganandeshwara Temple.Appellant was an employee ofthe said shop.Accused No.2 was supplier of wine to the said shop andaccused No. 1 was a customer thereof.Deceased was an agriculturist.He ordinarily used to return home at7:00 p.m. However, on the date of incident, i.e., on 13.10.2000, he did notreturn to his house.P.W.1- Munegowda, the brother of the deceased, on being asked byhis mother at about 8.30 p.m. went out to search for him and after findinghim sitting in the `circle', returned home.But the deceased did not comeback.Again at about 10'O clock in the night, P.W. 1 went in search forhim.When he reached near `Nandi wines', he found the accused personswere quarrelling with the deceased.Accused No. 1 assaulted the deceasedwith an iron rod on the back of his head; accused no. 3 - appellant herein,kicked him and accused no. 2 gave fist blows on his face.Deceased was 3found to have sustained injuries.He was taken to Government Hospital ofChickballapur.He returned to the police station andregistered the said complaint in Crime No. 230/2000, for the offencepunishable under Sections 323, 324 and 307 of the IPC; he prepared FIRand sent the same to the jurisdictional court.Thereafter, as advised by theDoctor, deceased was taken to NIMHANS at Bangalore.He expired on thenext day.The First information Report was lodged by the P.W.1, the brother ofthe deceased.Manjunatha (P.W. 3) and K.Srinivas (P.W. 7) were also present at the time of the incident.A generalallegation was made that there was some previous ill-will between theparties.Indisputably, the deceased used to take drink occasionally.He(P.W.1) could not state the reason as to whether the accused persons had 4any animosity with the deceased.He admitted that he had not lodged anycomplaint with regard to the earlier incident.The learned trial judge convicted all the accused persons forcommission of an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section34 of the IPC.They preferred an appeal before the High Court.By reason of theimpugned judgment, the same has been dismissed.This Court issued a limited notice only in respect of the presentappellant with regard to the nature of offence.Mr. Basava Prabhu S. Patil, learned Counsel in support of this appealraised the following contentions:i. The learned single judge as also the High Court failed to consider that the prosecution witnesses did not make any statement as regards the formation of any common intention amongst the accused so as to hold them guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC.All the witnesses merely stated that the appellant had only kicked the deceased and he was wholly unarmed.The recovery of an iron rod is said to have been made only from accused No. 1 and not from the other accused.Prosecution has failed to prove any tangible motive and only a general statement was made that there was some previous ill-will between the parties.v. The accused persons being not related, cannot be said to have any common intention to cause the said offence.Itwas furthermore submitted that they came together and ran away togetherwhich demonstrates that they had a common intention to kill the deceased.The High Court in its impugned judgment proceeded on the basis thatall the accused persons were employees of Nandi Wine Stores.However,the prosecution itself in support of its case examined Bachegowda (P.W. 4), 6the owner of Nandi Wine Stores, who in his deposition had stated that onlyappellant was working with him as a cashier, whereas accused No.1 was acustomer and the accused No. 2 was a supplier.He was not present at the place of occurrence on the said date.Hewas not a witness to the occurrence.Prosecution has not brought on recordsany evidence to show that the accused persons had a common intention tocommit the murder of deceased.It has not been shown that even otherwisethey were bearing any common grudge against the deceased.Evidently,both the accused No. 1 and the deceased were customers of the said Wineshop.They might have picked up some quarrel.At the time when theoccurrence took place, appellant being an employee of the said shop thequestion of his coming to the place of occurrence together with the otheraccused did not arise.The evidence of prosecution witnesses, particularlyP.Ws. 1 and 2, on which both the courts below have relied upon, even iftaken at their face value, would merely show that it was the accused No. 1who had assaulted the deceased with an iron rod; appellant was said to haveonly kicked the deceased.A general statement was made that about a month prior to theincident, when the deceased had gone to Nandi Wine shop, a quarrelbetween him and the accused persons took place.According to P.W. 1, at 7that point of time, accused persons had threatened the deceased.Fromwhom he had heard thereabout has not been disclosed.Indisputably, P.W.1's his house was situated at about one furlongfrom the place of occurrence.He came to the place of occurrence in searchof his brother.He failed to bring any material on record as to on what basishe arrived at the conclusion that accused persons had formed a commonintention.Ms. Shenoy may also not be correct in contending that all the accusedpersons ran way together.P.W. 2 deposed that they went in differentdirections.Appellant, according to P.W.1, ran towards the Wine shop.Thus, it is not a case where all the accused came together and ran awaytogether.A bald statement said to have been made by him that the accusedNo.1 while assaulting the deceased had exhorted that they would not leavehim till he died, cannot be a ground to hold that the same by itself isdemonstrative of the fact that appellant - accused No. 3 also had a similarintention.Admittedly, no weapon was recovered at the instance ofappellant.He was wholly unarmed.Having regard to the quality of evidence that the 8prosecution had led, in our opinion, it is difficult to come to the conclusionthat all the accused persons had a common intention to commit the murderof the deceased.For invoking the provisions of Section 34 of the IPC, at least twofactors must be established; (1) common intention, and (2) participation ofthe accused in the commission of an offence.Accused persons werenot related to each other; they did not have any family connection; they havedifferent vocations.It has not been established that they held any commonanimosity towards the deceased.A general and vague statement made by one of the prosecutionwitnesses would not prove motive.It may be true that the commonintention may develop suddenly at the spot but for the said purpose, thegenesis of the occurrence should have been proved.The prosecution hasfailed to establish why and how a quarrel has started.His presence at the spot, therefore,has sufficiently been explained.The very fact that the appellant wasunarmed and must be presumed to have been performing his duties at hisplace of employment, it cannot be said that he had formed any kind ofcommon intention at the spot to murder the deceased.Some incident mighthave taken place and he might have formed a common intention to teach alesson to the deceased.He might be guilty for commission of offencepunishable under Section 323 of the IPC and not for commission of offencepunishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC.He issentenced to the period already undergone.The appeal is allowed accordingly.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
52,628,612 |
Another co- accused Chandra Prakash Tiwari @ Pappu Tiwari has already been enlarged on bail.The court passed the following order :-"Shri Vijay Shrivastava, counsel for the applicant.Shri A.N. Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the State.This is first application under Section 438 of Cr. P. C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant, as he is under apprehension of his arrest in connection of Crime No.84/2016, registered at Police Station Majhouli, District Jabalpur for commission of offences punishable under Sections 323 and 506 of IPC and under Section 3(1) (r) of SC/ST Act. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that except Section 3 (1) (x) of SC/ST Act., other offences are bailable.Copy of the affidavit sworn by the complainant has been filed along with the application.The complainant deposed as under:- ^^;g fd] eq>s ;g ugha ekywe Fkk fd esjs yM+ds us esjk ik;y fdlh vU; O;fDr ds ikl fxjoh j[kk gSA tSls eSaus iIiw HkS;k ls viuk ik;y ekxk mUgksaus tkudkjh ds vHkko esa bUdkj dj fn;kA rks eSaus xqLls esa vkdj Fkkuk ea>kSyh ,Q-vkbZ-vkj- ntZ djok nhA esjs yM+ds us eq>s ugha crk;k Fkk fd mlus ik;y fdlds ikl fxjoh j[kh FkhA eSaus iqfyl dks ;g ugha crk;k Fkk fd iIiw us esjs lkFk xkyh] xykSp o ekjihV dh gSA u gh eq>s tkfrxr :i ls viekfur fd;k gSA u gh iqfyl ls dksbZ yM+kbZ >xM+k dh ckr dh FkhA eSa ;g 'kiFk i= fcuk fdlh tksj tcjnLrh ,oa ncko ds ns jgh gw] tks lgh ckr gS og crk jgh gwA** In view of the affidavit filed by the complainant and other facts of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits of the matter, application is allowed.It is directed that at the event of arrest of the applicant in respect of the aforesaid crime, on furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty thousand) along with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating officer, applicant Chandra Prakash Tiwari @ Pappu Tiwari be released on anticipatory bail.The applicant is directed to cooperate with the investigating agency.He will further abide by the conditions enumerated in sub-Section 2 of Section 438 of Cr. P. C. C. C. as per rules."Prima facie there is parity between the present applicant and the co- accused, Prakash Tiwari @ Pappu Tiwari, who has been granted bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. hence without expressing any opinion on merits of the matter, the application is allowed.It is directed that at the event of arrest of the applicants in respect of the aforesaid case, on furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty thousand) along with one solvent surety in the like amount by each of the applicants to the satisfaction of the trial Court, applicants, Laxmi Narayan and Aarti Tiwari be released on anticipatory bail.This order shall remain in force for a period of sixty days from today.They will further abide by the conditions enumerated in sub- Section 2 of Section 438 of Cr. P. C.C. C. as per rules.(S.K. GANGELE) JUDGE bks
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
52,633,168 |
The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;The applicant will cooperate in the trial;As per the prosecution story the allegation against the applicant is that he has committed rape upon the minor prosecutrix while she was alone in the house.It is further submitted that father and mother of the prosecutrix have entered into compromise with the applicant and sworn an affidavit alleging that earlier a property dispute was between them and now their relations are cordial.Charge-sheet has been filed and trial will take time to conclude.Certified Copy on payment of usual charges.(AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) JUDGE Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAGDEVE Date: 31/01/2020 01:01:51 3 MCRC-52736-2019 navin Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAGDEVE Date: 31/01/2020 01:01:51
|
['Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
52,634,905 |
As per prosecution case, the appellants Washim and Anwar accompanied by co- accused Sanno, Foziya and Sana entered the house of victims and assaulted them with a small sword.As a result Sabiya, Fauziya and Faizal sustained lacerated wound to their respective heads.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellants have been convicted under Section 452 and 323/34 of the IPC.They have been in custody since 10.09.2018, i.e., the date of judgment of appellate Court.It is directed that on depositing the fine amount, if not already deposited, and furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.60,000/- with one solvent surety in the same amount each to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance before the Registry of this Court on 15.03.2019 and all other subsequent dates fixed by the Registry in this regard, the remaining part of the substantive jail sentence imposed upon the appellant shall stand suspended and they shall be released on bail.
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
42,327,634 |
04 md.In the matter of:Rejabul Mir and another ... Applicants/Petitioners Mr. B. Tiwari Sk.Salim .. for the applicants/petitioners Mr. Gautam Banerjee .. for the State Re: C.R.A.N. 69 of 2019 Sufficient grounds have been made out as to why the petitioners were not represented on January 02, 2019 when CRM 9051 of 2018 was dismissed for default.The order dated January 02, 2019 is recalled and C.R.M. 9051 of 2018 is restored to the file.The restoration application, C.R.A.N. 69 of 2019, is allowed as above.The petition is taken up for immediate consideration.1 2 The petitioners seek anticipatory bail in connection with Bagnan Police Station Case No. 422/2017 dated 29.07.2017 under Sections 323/325/379/354B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 8/12 of the POCSO Act.The State produces the case diary and refers to the statement of the minor victim recorded under Section 164 of the Code.The petitioners will not enter any place within the jurisdiction of Bagnan Police Station till such time.In addition, the petitioners will also report to the Investigating Officer at such time and place as may be specified by the concerned police officer, till the investigation is completed.C.R.M. 9051 of 2018 is allowed as above.2 3 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.) 3
|
['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 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.
|
423,290 |
In the said complaint it was stated that the complainant was the Managing Director of the said company and one of its offices was being run at premises No. WZ-2108, A-1, Block, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi.It was further stated that co-accused Pankaj Sikka was in charge of the office and he was working as a Manager.Since the complainant had some doubt, he checked the account register at the office and found that the said cheque was missing from the cheque book and there was also no corresponding entry of the cheque in the cheque issue register.It was also alleged that this register was maintained in the writing of Ms Archana Kumari and Sh Pankaj Sikka.The petitioner stands discharged.JUDGMENT Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.The charge framed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 12.07.2005 in respect of the petitioner and co-accused Pankaj Sikka reads as under:That both of you in furtherance of your common intention on or about April 1997, you Archna being Clerk and you accused Pankaj Sikka being in charge of Office of M/s Una Himancha finance and Investment Company Ltd and in such capacity entrusted with the property namely the cheque book of CC account No. 5525 maintained by the complainant with Canara Bank, Uttam Nagar in furtherance of your common intention committed criminal breach of trust with respect to the cheque bearing No. 492337 dated 7.4.1997 amounting to Rs. 45,000/- and that you have thereby committed an offence punishable Under Section 408/34 IPC within the cognizance of this Court.And I hereby direct that both of you be tried for the said offence by this Court.The facts necessary for disposal of this petition are that an FIR No. 550/97 was registered with Police Station Vikas Puri.The said FIR was registered on the basis of a written complaint dated 30.04.1997 made by Shri Kuldeep Sharma, Managing Director of Una Himancha Finance and Investment Company Ltd (hereinafter referred to as "the said Company").The person who wrote the red enclosed signatures stamps and marked Section 53 to 56 did not write the red enclosed signatures similarly stamped and marked Q1 to Q3....With regard to the comparison made with the hand writing of the accused, the report indicated as under:This makes it clear that the questioned hand writing on the cheques did not belong to either of the accused.Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate came to the conclusion that the complainant had placed on record the acknowledgment whereby Pankaj Sikka returned the cheque books and other registers to the complainant and that this, prima facie, supported the allegation of the complainant that the accused used to have the custody of the cheque books and the other documents.The learned Metropolitan Magistrate thereupon concluded that there are documents on record to, prima facie, show that the accused were in custody of the registers and the cheque books.This is evident from the following statement appearing in the said letter addressed to Shri Pankaj Sikka:Short reasons must be given by the trial Court so that on the reading of the order one can discern as to on what basis the trial Court came to the conclusion that a prima facie case was made out against the accused.Thus, on the basis of material produced by the prosecution, there is no link between the alleged misappropriation of the sum of Rs. 45,000/- from the bank account of the said company and the petitioner.Even the signatures / hand writing of the petitioner have not been established on the questioned documents even as per the prosecution case.Therefore, examining the material on record for the limited purpose of finding out as to whether the facts emerging there from taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence, I find that there are no grounds for presuming that the petitioner committed the offence.The suspicion that may be there is also of a very weak kind and not of the degree and strength or gravity that is necessary for enabling the court to frame a charge under Section 408/34 IPC against the petitioner.In this view of the matter, the impugned order on charge and the charge itself against the petitioner is liable to be set aside.This revision petition is allowed.The impugned order dated 08.07.2005 and the charge framed against the petitioner are set aside.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 228 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
42,332,655 |
This is fourth application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.Third application was dismissed by order dated 17/7/2018 passed in M.Cr.The applicant has been arrested on 25/9/2017 in connection with Crime No.480/2017 registered by Police Station Civil Line, District Vidisha for offence punishable under Sections 370, 376, 354, 34, 120-B, 366 and 370-A of IPC.It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the prosecutrix has turned hostile and she has not supported the prosecution case.(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE Arun* ARUN KUMAR MISHRA 2018.11.30 19:15:54 +05'30'
|
['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
42,354,566 |
None for remaining respondents in both appeals.MP06 AA/5382 from behind, as a result of which, Ku.Priti Parmar, Ku.Ritu Parmar, Gambhir Singh, Bhairosingh, Ramdeen Singh, Sangita Parmar and Bhagirath Singh lost their life, whereas Rajabeti and Smt. Manju Parmar sustained injuries.Shri R.P. Gupta, Advocate for respondent no.1 in both appeals.Since both these appeals arise out of the common award dated 23/1/2017, therefore, this order shall govern the disposal of both these appeals.These appeals have been filed by the New India Assurance Company Limited and the Oriental Insurance Company Limited.Since notices of the appeal filed by the claimants (MA No.515/2017) were not issued, therefore, today hearing of the said Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Date: 13/01/2020 09:51:53 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MA No.530/2017 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs.Smt. Manju Parmar and others MA No.417/2017 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.Smt. Manju Parmar and others appeal has been deferred and the counsel for the respective Insurance Companies have accepted the notice on behalf of their Insurance Company.In these appeals filed by the Insurance Companies they have also challenged the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimants under the miscellaneous head.Since hearing of the appeal filed by the claimants has been deferred and the question of quantum is yet to be decided in that appeal, therefore, in order to avoid any conflicting judgments with regard to the amount of compensation, the grounds with regard to the quantum of compensation raised by the Insurance Company in these appeals is kept open and shall be decided while deciding the appeal filed by the claimants.The necessary facts for disposal of the present appeal in short are that the deceased/injured persons were travelling in a jeep bearing registration No.On 5/3/2013 at about 8 PM the said jeep collided with a tractor trolley bearing registration No.Accordingly, the claimants filed an Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Date: 13/01/2020 09:51:53 3 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MA No.530/2017 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs.Smt. Manju Parmar and others MA No.417/2017 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.Smt. Manju Parmar and others application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for grant of compensation.The respondents no.2 and 3 (defendants no.1 and 2), who are the driver and owner of the tractor, filed their written statement and conceded that the respondent no.2 was the driver of the tractor and the respondent no.3 was the owner of the tractor and it was pleaded that the said tractor was insured by the Oriental Insurance Company.The owner of the jeep/respondent no.5/defendant no.5 contended that he was the owner of the said jeep and Late Ramkrishna Singh was the driver and it was further pleaded that the jeep was insured by the respondent no.6/defendant no.6/New India Assurance Company Limited.It was the case of the claimants that the tractor was parked in the middle of the road without any sign or obstruction / any warning, as a result of which the offending jeep, which was being driven by Late Ramkrishna Singh @ Kallu (who also lost his life in the said accident), collided with the said tractor, as a result of which, seven persons lost their life and two persons sustained grievous injuries.Accordingly, the police also registered Crime No.41/2013 for offence under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Date: 13/01/2020 09:51:53 4 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MA No.530/2017 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs.Smt. Manju Parmar and others MA No.417/2017 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.Smt. Manju Parmar and others A of IPC against the driver of the jeep and since he had also lost his life, therefore, the closure report was filed.The case of the respondent no.1 was that in the accident she has suffered grievous injuries on her head and different part of her body.Consequently, she remained admitted in the hospital.As a result of the injuries sustained by her in the accident, she has suffered permanent disability.The Claims Tribunal after framing the issues and recording the evidence, allowed the claim petition and awarded the compensation amount and also held that since the tractor was parked dangerously on the road and as the driver of the jeep had also not taken sufficient precaution, therefore, it was held that the driver and owner of both the vehicles were equally responsible and accordingly, the principle of contributory negligence was applied and it was held that the owner/driver/Insurance Company of the said vehicles are responsible to pay 50% of the compensation amount.Challenging the liability fixed by the Claims Tribunal, it is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that since the jeep in question was a private vehicle and as it was being used as a taxi, Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Date: 13/01/2020 09:51:53 5 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MA No.530/2017 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs.Smt. Manju Parmar and others MA No.417/2017 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.Smt. Manju Parmar and others therefore, the Insurance Company (New Indian Assurance Company Limited) is not liable to make payment of compensation amount on the ground of violation of conditions of insurance.It is further submitted that in fact the tractor and trolley was parked dangerously on the road, therefore, the Claims Tribunal has wrongly held that the driver of the offending jeep was also negligent.Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the respondent no.1 as well as respondent no.6 that the Claims Tribunal after considering the evidence of the witnesses has come to a conclusion that the tractor was parked on the road without any warning, as a result of which, the offending jeep collided from behind and thus, the driver of the tractor was also negligent.So far as the question of violation of condition of insurance policy is concerned, it is submitted by the counsel for the respondent no.1 that it is well established principle of law that the claim petitions are to be decided on the preponderance of probabilities and any document of criminal case cannot be taken into consideration and in the present case the witnesses have specifically denied that the deceased or injured were travelling in the jeep after making payment of fare.Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Date: 13/01/2020 09:51:53 6 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MA No.530/2017 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs.Smt. Manju Parmar and others MA No.417/2017 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.Smt. Manju Parmar and othersHeard learned counsel for the parties.He has specifically stated that the tractor and trolley were parked on the road.Thus, it is clear that Munnalal Chandoriya (DW-1), who reached on the spot and investigated the matter, had found that the tractor and trolley were parked on the road.The driver and owner of the tractor and trolley have not entered in the witness-box.It was for the owner and driver of the tractor and trolley to prove that the tractor and trolley were not parked on the road or any precautionary warning in the form of distress light or any other form were put on the spot to give an indication to the oncoming vehicles with regard to the parking of the tractor and trolley on the road.The incident has taken place at about 8 in the night, therefore, it cannot be said that the driver of the jeep had every occasion to notice the parked tractor and trolley from a reasonable distance.It is not the case of the owner/driver of the tractor and trolley that the parking lights of the tractor and trolley were on.Thus, it is clear that the respondents no.2 and 3 have failed to prove that the tractor and trolley was either not parked on the road or every precautionary Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Date: 13/01/2020 09:51:53 7 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MA No.530/2017 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs.Smt. Manju Parmar and others MA No.417/2017 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.Smt. Manju Parmar and others measures were taken to give a warning to the oncoming vehicles.Further, Sandeep Parmar (PW-7), Manju Parmar (PW-8) and Smt. Rambeti (PW-9) have clearly stated that the offending tractor and trolley was parked in the middle of the road and the driver of the jeep was also driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner.The driver of the jeep also did not take any precaution to avoid accident in such a condition.He should have driven the jeep cautiously.Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court the Claims Tribunal has rightly held that both the drivers and owners of the offending vehicles were equally negligent and their contributory negligence was assessed at 50%.So far as the question of violation of conditions of insurance policy is concerned, the counsel for the appellant has relied upon the Dehati Nalish (Ex.D/1) to indicate that the passengers in the offending vehicles were travelling after making payment of fare and accordingly, it was submitted that since the offending jeep was being Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Date: 13/01/2020 09:51:53 8 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MA No.530/2017 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs.Smt. Manju Parmar and others MA No.417/2017 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.Smt. Manju Parmar and others used as a taxi, therefore, the New India Assurance Company Limited is not responsible for making payment of compensation amount.Considered the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant.Smt. Manju Parmar and others MA No.417/2017 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.Smt. Manju Parmar and others P-2 was duly evaluated.The Tribunal, however, observed thus:On the other hand as already stated above it is clear from the statement of petitioner on oath and eyewitness and from the supplementary statement of petitioner at Ext. P-2 and police statement of witnesses at Ext. P-3 and charge-sheet at Ext. P-6 it is clear that due to rash and negligent driving of said tractor by Respondent 1 the said tractor turtled down and fell over the petitioner who was about to board the tractor and as a result of which the petitioner has Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Date: 13/01/2020 09:51:53 13 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MA No.530/2017 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs.Smt. Manju Parmar and others MA No.417/2017 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.Smt. Manju Parmar and others sustained grievous injuries.Accordingly, the both the appeals are hereby finally disposed of.
|
['Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
42,358,437 |
1 High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench at Indore Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.34563/2020 (Rambharos @ Bharos s/o Kanwarlal Sen Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh) Indore, Dated 18.09.2020 Mr. Nilesh J. Dave, learned counsel for the applicant.After arguing for some time on the merits of the matter, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the bail application with liberty to the applicant to renew his prayer after completion of three months of custody period of the applicant from today.Prayer allowed.With the aforesaid liberty, Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.34563/2020 is dismissed as withdrawn.
|
['Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
42,358,975 |
Viscera was preserved, stomach and its contents, part of liver, kidney sent for chemical examination."He did not find any mark or violence on the dead-body.P.W.11 is the Executive Magistrate.He also performed inquest over the dead-body of Sulekha.He stated in the evidence that the father of the victim complained that his daughter had been subjected to physical torture by her matrimonial relations.P.W. 12 is the I.O. After investigation he submitted charge-sheet.at about 5 a.m. two people namely Susanta Kundu and Ashoke Ghosh informed Rabindranath Kundu that Sulekha had committed suicide on the last night.On hearing of both sides the learned trial judge framed charge against the accused persons under Section 304B/498(A) of the Indian Penal Code.The contents of the charges were read over and explained to the accused persons, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.To context this case, the prosecution examined twelve witnesses while none was examined on the side of the defence.However, the accused persons were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The defence case as appeared from the trend of cross-examination of the witnesses as well as the replies given by the accused persons at the time of examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was denial of offence with the plea of innocence.On trial, the learned court below convicted the present appellants by the impugned judgement.It has to be seen if the impugned judgement suffers from any material irregularity and calls for any interference or not.Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and 304B of the Indian Penal Code reads as follows :-"498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.""304B. Dowry death.- (1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.- For the purpose of this sub-section, "dowry" shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961).(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life."To appreciate the case from a better angle some relevant pieces of evidences are required to be taken out for consideration.Exhibit 1 is the F.I.R. It appears from the contents of the F.I.R. that on 22nd Agrahayan 1400 the marriage was solemnised between the victim with Haradhan Piri according to Hindu rites and it was decided that at the time of marriage Rs.15,000/- in cash was to be paid but out of it, only Rs.10,500/- was paid along with gold ornaments.Since after the marriage the member of the in-laws' place used to ill treat the victim for non-fulfillment of the remaining dowry as the victim's father could not fulfill their demand the accused persons.Thus unleashed torture on this score.Thereafter on 17.2.1995 at about 5 a.m. one Sushanta Kundu and Ashok Ghosh came to Kamarpukur and informed him that about 1 a.m. last night his daughter committed suicide by hanging with a rope in the house of in-laws' place.Exhibit '6' is the inquest report prepared under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.It shows that police personnel learnt that the husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law used to torture Sulekha for due amount of Rs.4,500/- as Rs.15,000/- was agreed to be given as dowry cash but Rs.10,500/- only was paid at the time of marriage ceremony and further it appears that husband used to torture, misbehave with the deceased off and on and on the date of incident i.e. on 16.2.1995 her husband slapped her and she might have committed suicide out of frustration and unhappiness and mental disturbance.P.W. 1 is the father of the victim Sulekha.It is his categorical evidence that during his visit to matrimonial home of his daughter she often disclosed to him that the parents-in-law used to torture for bringing further cash dowry.They also threatened to punish her by denying food etc. in case her parents failed to meet their demand.The victim also repeated this complaint whenever she used to visit the P.W.1's house.P.W.1 stated that he failed to meet their demand and they also told her to kill herself so that their son might marry again.His cross-examination shows that he did not inform the villagers or Panchayat Pradhan about the torture of his daughter.P.W.2 is the brother of the victim.He said that Sulekha told him that the accused persons tortured her due to non-fulfillment of their demand to bring further dowry from her parents.His cross-examination shows that the accused Haradhan visited their place for about eight times.But he did not recount a single date when he was told by Sulekha about the torture inflicted on her.P.W.3 is the mother of the victim.She had corroborated the evidence of P.W.1, her husband and P.W.2, her son.She stated that Sulekha reported to her that members of her in-law's used to demand more cash.Her daughter used to be subjected to physical assault.She further stated that the accused 7 persons instigated the victim to commit suicide.She was told by P.W.1 that Biswanath sent a letter demanding money.But no such letter has been proved here.P.W. 4 was declared hostile.He was Prodhan of Hazipur Gram Panchayat.Compared with Investigating Officer's evidence, the P.W.4 does not appear to be a dependable witness.P.W.5 is the constable who carried challan exhibit '7'.He escorted dead-body and identified before post-mortem examination.P.W. 6 is the Jettuto dada of Rabindranath Nath Kundu, He stated that as reported by Rabi Kundu, Sulekha has been subjected to torture by her matrimonial relations.P.W.9 is a police inspector.He received the written complaint on 17.2.1995 from one Rabindranath Kundu.He filled up the F.I.R.P.W.10 is the doctor.He held post mortem examination over the dead- body of the deceased and found the following :-"Body-decomposed, oblique ligature mark present on the neck non- continuous, gap on the right side, gap about 3 inches; ecchymosis on the face; hyoid bone fractured, brain matter slightly decomposed; plearae healthy; right lung and left lung congested, paricadium healthy; heart-healthy; vescels- healthy; peritoneum healthy; mursle, phar nlmmmmyns and oesophagus, 8 healthy stomach contained rice; Small intestines-slightly decomposed; large intestines slightly decomposed; kidneys-congested; bladder empty; uterus- empty.Confrontations were taken from him with reference to evidence of hostile witnesses.To attract Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, the following conditions must be fulfilled :" The handwriting appearing in the document was put by the husband or not should have been examined by the expert.The exhibit '2' shows that both parties agreed that Rs.15,000/- was to be paid.Further it was mentioned that on account of biana Rs.101/- was paid on 25.7.1400 and rest money was stated to be paid by Agrahayan 10/12 and within Falgun.The document itself does not show that on the demand of the appellant such agreement was prepared or such money was talked to be paid.Moreover, the role played by the other accused has not been soundly proved to show their culpability.In the present case there is no clear-cut evidence that soon before her death, the victim was subjected to harassment over the question of dowry.Simply the statement of near and dear specially the parents that they heard 12 from the deceased that she was subjected to torture by the members of her in- laws' place will not be the sufficient to attract Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code.The findings of the learned Trial Judge cannot be sustained.The appeal stands allowed.
|
['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
423,598 |
Special leave was granted to them to appeal to this Courtand these three special leave appeals have now come on forhearing and final disposal before us.The prosecution alleged that the Lloyds Bank Ltd. had abranch situated at Hornby Road and had three entrances, themain one on Hornby Road and two others on Outram Road andBastion Road.It was customary for the Bank to send cashfrom time to time to the Reserve Bank whenever the HeadCashier thought that there was a surplus.On a day previousto the day when cash was to be sent, the Head Cashier wouldgive the currency notes to the Assistant Cashiers.As atoken of having checked up the notes each of the Assistant:Cashiers would put their signatures on the top and thebottom notes in a bundle containing 100 notes of Rs. 100each, and would affix thereon the rubber stamp of the Bank.These notes then would be tied up in what are known as"thappis" each "thappi" consisting of 10 bundles of 100notes each.On the day that the cash was to be sent anescort party would go to the908Reserve Bank with the cash consisting of two AssistantCashiers, one European Officer and a peon.The AssistantCashiers would then put the cash into a leather bag whichbag would be attached by an iron chain to the person of thepeon.In the morning of the 20th April, the escort party consistedof Brightling, Sarkari and Doctor and the peon Rama Maduraand taxi No. BMT 1829 was summoned to carry the party to theReserve Bank.The escort party emerged from the rear doorof the Bank and went up to the taxi.Bala Gopal Kadam, awatchman, was on duty on Bastion Road.When the escortparty came out, the taxi's bonnet was in the direction ofthe Empire Cinema and the driver Lawrence Quardros was atthe driver's seat.Brightling got into the taxi first andtook his seat on the rear seat and was followed by RamaMadura.Sarkari went round in front and took his seat nextto the taxi driver.Rama Madura after entering the taxiplaced the bag on the taxi's floor and was about to take hisseat.Doctor was standing with his left hand on the reardoor of the taxi on the Bank side waiting for Rama Madura totake his seat.It was at this juncture that accused 1, 2and 4, Rubidas and Bankelal attacked the taxi and the escortparty.One of these persons first wrenched open the door tothe taxi driver's seat, leaned inside and fired twice with arevolver.One of these shots caused an injury to LawrenceQuadros near the collar bone, which almost instantaneouslycaused his death and his body came out with the head first.The man who so shot after leaning into the taxi went roundthe front of the taxi and took his seat next to the driver'sseat.There was another man behind this one when the driverwas shot, and he pulled out Lawrence Quadros from the taxiand took his seat at the steering wheel.That man wasRubidas-one time a motor driver in the employ of the PanAmerican Airways at Delhi.Accused I also Armed with arevolver stood on the road side of the909taxi and fired twice at the taxi from that side and accused2 and 4 were, either at the back or on the Bank side andwere also armed with revolvers.Sarkari first thought thatthese shots were tyre-bursts and naturally got out of hisseat to inspect the tyres but hearing further shots herealised that an attempt was being made to loot the cash.He got frightened and went in the direction of Outram Road.Brightling got out of the taxi, first went a little towardsthe back of the taxi and then seeing that the taxi wassurrounded, zigzagged and went towards the junction ofOutram and Bastion Roads where he tried unsuccessfully tostop a passing car.Accused 1 who was firing at the taxicame near it, opened the back door of the taxi on the roadside with his shoulder and got into the taxi.Accused 2came towards the rear door of the taxi on the Bank side andfired at Doctor injuring him on the dorsum of his left palm.Kadam at about this time raised his baton, realising thatDoctor was in danger whereupon accused 2 shouted "Khabardar,chhod do chale jao, bhago" or words to that effect and shotat him injuring him in his right eye.Rama Madura became unconscious andaccused 2 and another dragged him out from the taxi.Thetaxi was then started whereupon Brightling, who was still.on Bastion Road, after making signals to the Cash Departmentto show as to what was taking place picked up a motor cycleparked near the corner of the Parsi Lying-in-Hospital andthrew it in the way of the taxi but Rubidas, who was drivingthat taxi, managed to drive it away.The taxi however hadto be first driven at a slow speed and one Major Casey, whowas standing at the corner of the foot-path saw the whole ofthe incident and also those inside the taxi when it was910driven past him.The prosecution alleged that accused 1, 2and 4, Rubidas and Bankelal surrounded and ,attacked thetaxi and its inmates and after snatching away the bag tiedto Rama Madura's belt with the cash containing Rs. 12 lakhsdrove away in that taxi.Brightling and some otheremployees of the Bank after some time secured a car whichwas parked nearby and went round in search of the taxi butto no purpose.Brightling then reported the matter to theEsplanade Police Station but before that the telephoneoperator of the Bank, Mrs. Paterson who with Miss VidaPalmer, a clerk, had seen the incident from the window onthe mezzanine floor had telephoned to the police and severalpolice officers arrived at the Bank soon after.The Judgment of Bhagwati and VenkataramaAyyar JJ.was delivered by Bhagwati J. Jagannadhadas J.delivered a separate Judgment.BHAGWATI J.-Anokhelal Ranjit Singh, original accused I andappellant in Criminal Appeal No. 28 of 1954, HarnarainNanakchand, original accused 2 and appellant in CriminalAppeal No. 23 of 1954 and Ramkishan Mithanlal Sharma,original accused 4 and appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 4 of1954, along with- one Rubidas Radhelal, original accused 3since deceased and one Bankelal Devisingh still abscondingwere charged under section 397 read with section 395 of theIndian Penal Code with having committed dacoity and useddeadly weapons at the time of committing the same and werealso charged under section 396 of the Indian Penal Code withhaving committed the murder of Lawrence Quadros at the sametime and place and in the course of the same transactionwhile committing the said dacoity.The trial was heldbefore the Sessions Joe for Greater Bombay with the aid of aspecial jury.The jury returned unanimous verdicts ofguilty against each of the accused and the learned SessionsJudge convicted them and sentenced each of them totransportation for life.An appeal filed by them to theHigh Court of Judicature at Bombay was summarily dismissed.Both the accused 2 and4 were armed with revolvers.A driver by name Sarvarkhan,was sitting on the foot-path near the taxi and seeing :thebody of Lawrence Quadros falling out of the taxi 'he triedto go up to him but the accused 4 prevented him from doingso shouting at him "khabardar" and threatened him with hisrevolver." During the course of the attack someone of thesemen shot at Rama Madura.LawrenceQuadros was already dead and his body was sent to the'morgue.Doctor, Kadam and Rama Madura, who had all beeninjured, were sent to St. George's Hospital.The taxi whichwas driven away by Rubidas with the accused and Bankelalseated therein was found abandoned at about 1-30 P.m., onthat very day by the police not far from the Kashmir Hotel.The police made various efforts to trace accused 4 andBankelal but were unable to find them and they thereforecharge-sheeted accused 1, 2 and Rubidas (who was originalaccused 3) and they were all committed to stand their trialin the Sessions Court.After those proceedings were overthe accused 4 was arrested on the 25th December, at BareliStation, and he too was charge-sheeted and was committed toSessions.Rubidas, the original accused 3, died on the 3rdAugust, 1952, with the result that accused 1, 2 and 4 stoodtheir trial on the charges under section, 395, 397 and 396of the Indian Penal Code.Though concedingthat they had been in Bombay, accused 1 and 4 contended thataccused I had left Bombay on the night of the 18th April,and accused 4 had left Bombay either on the 16th or 17thApril, for Allahabad, that they were not in Bombay 'on theday in question but were in Allahabad where they had filed911two affidavits before one Tondon, the first class Magistrateat Allahabad.Accused 2 also conceded that he had stayed inAstoria Hotel with the accused 4 but, he had left that hotelon the 18th April, and had gone to stay in Kashmir Hotel onthat day and had stayed there until the night of the 20thApril, when he left Bombay for Delhi.His case was that hehad come to Bombay to make purchases for his wedding and hisbusiness and that he had nothing to do with the incident inquestion.Before the learned Sessions Judge the prosecution led theevidence of various witnesses.That evidence may be groupedinto three heads.The trial took considerable time.The counsel addressed the special jury at considerablelength and the learned Sessions Judge summed up the wholecase to the special jury in a charge which took well-nighthree days.It was a very exhaustive and a fair charge andin several respects was favorable to the accused.The admission of inadmissible evidence was attacked on twocounts: ----Thecommunication was of course a statement, but theidentification by the identifier could not possibly-be astatement.The Court however proceeded to observe that nodistinction could be legitimately made between an actualverbal statement and some action on the part of theidentifier disclosing the fact of his identification."We started from Delhi at about 6 'A.M., and reached Bagwasiat about 2 or 3 P.m., on the 19th of May. The 1st accusedtook us to a certain house where he pointed out witnessKamala (wife of the first accused).At the instance of the1st accused witness Kamala brought from somewhere outsidethat house a steel box........... When it was opened I foundtherein six big bundles and five smaller bundles of hundredrupee G. C. Notes. "Appeals dismissed.
|
['Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
42,379,121 |
1 020 1 CRM 4613 of 2020 CRAN 2759 of 2020 (via video conference) In re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in connection with Ratua Police Station Case No.173 of 2020 dated 27th March, 2020 under Sections 143/188/ 269/271/325/307/353/333/427 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3 of the PDPP Act.In re: Habibur Rahaman & Ors........Petitioners and The State of West Bengal Ms. Sonali Das ......for the petitioners.Mr. Swapan Banerjee, Ms. Purnima Ghosh.......for the State.Let the matter come up in the list after ten days.(Tirthankar Ghosh , J.) (Sahidullah Munshi, J.) 2
|
['Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
42,465,069 |
None present for the Objector.This is the first bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 filed for grant of bail to the applicant who has been arrested on 27/10/2016 in connection with Crime No.425/2016 for offences registered under Sections 294, 353, 333, 307 of the IPC, police station Sohagpur District Hoshangabad.Allegation against the applicant/accused is that he assaulted the victim with the iron rod with a view to kill him.Charge sheet has been filed and trial will take time to conclude.It is further submitted that the injury sustained to complainant is not grievous and there is no criminal antecedent of the applicant and there is no likelihood of applicant absconding or tampering with the evidence.On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel for the applicant has prayed that the applicant/accused be released on bail.Learned P.L. for the respondent/State has opposed the application and prayed for its rejection.Having considered the contentions of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, this application is allowed without commenting anything on the merits of the case.It is ordered that the applicant Doulatram be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs.Fifty Thousand only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court for securing his presence before the said Court on all the dates of hearing fixed in this regard during trial and for complying with the conditions enumerated in sub- section (3) of Section 437 of Cr.P.C.Certified copy as per rules.(J. P. GUPTA) JUDGE tarun
|
['Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
42,469,282 |
The said complaint contained the allegation that way back on 27.06.2010, the petitioner no.1 Durgesh Mishra got married with complainant's daughter Ms. Jyotsna.The complaint contains usual allegation of dowry, harassment and maltreatment on account of less dowry etc. by her in-laws.It is further alleged in the complaint, that cruel behavior of the family member was apparent when there was no medical assistance to her ailing daughter in the hours of need by her husband or in-laws.Heard Sri Pulak Ganguly, Sri Vikas Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Khurshed Alam, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 at great length and perused the record.Since the pleadings have been exchanged between the parties and the issue has ripe for final submissions/arguments on merits.Pursuant to the earlier orders of this Court, parties are present before the Court.By means of the instant proceeding the legality and propriety of the order dated 18.01.2019 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Deoria in Criminal Revision No. 223 of 2017(Durgesh Mishra & others Vs.State of U.P. and another) as well as order dated 04.07.2016 passed by Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/ Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 24, Deoria in Complaint Case No. 1387 of 2016 under Sections 494, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Kotwali Sadar, Deoria, P.S. Kotwali Sadar, District Deoria as well as entire proceeding of aforementioned complaint case is before this Court for its judicial scrutiny.Before coming to the legal aspect of the issue, it is imperative to give bare skeleton facts of the case, as canvassed by Sri Pulak Gaguly, learned counsel for the petitioners.The instant complaint under Sections 494, 504, 506 IPC was moved by Sri Harish Chandra Tiwari on behalf of her daughter against the petitioner no.1 Sri Durgesh Mishra, who is the ex-husband of complainant's daughter.Resultantly there were volley of criminal prosecution was initiated on behalf of either by Ms. Jyotsna herself or by her father, under various sections of IPC, Domestic Violence Act, and Cr.P.C.. Not only this, it has come to the knowledge of complainant (Harish Chandra) from the sources, that petitioner no.1 Durgesh Kumar got married second time with one Ms. Sudha Mishra on 22.01.2014 in a temple without divorcing her wife.This marriage was witnessed by rest of petitioners.Not only this about two months back, a baby was born to new couple.It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner, that opposite party no.2 who is practising Advocate of Deoria used all his legal acumen spoil the marital life of her own daughter.The opposite party no.2 was not ready to send her daughter with her husband to Delhi.Her daughter Ms. Jyotsna on 17.12.2011 moved an application under Section 12 Domestic Violence Act before Judicial Magistrate, Court No.11, Deoria, which was numbered as case no. 3047 of 2011 within 1-1/2 years of marriage.Soon thereafter, yet another criminal case was filed on 21.12.2011 seeking maintenance from her husband to the tune of Rs. 30,000/- per month, though, in fact, she herself has deserted her husband since 11.05.2011 and lastly on 05.02.2012 with a malicious intention, the opposite party no.2 Harish Chandra Tiwari has lodged an FIR against the petitioners as case crime no.250 of 2012, under Sections 498A IPC and Section 3/4 D.P.Act at Police Station Kotwali, Deoria after knitting frivolous story and demanding cash amount and Alto Car as additional dowry and on account of non fulfilment of these articles, the petitioner has forcibly left her daughter and never came back to take her away.It was contended that within the span of almost one year three criminal cases fasten against the petitioner no.1 and his family members.The timeline, whereby three cases were pumped within a short span of less then three months is self evident.It was submitted that father Harish Chandra has never given an opportunity to the new couple to sit together and clear off the misgivings, misunderstanding and address the bottle necks in the inter-se relationship.While proceeds of claim of maintenance pending during 2011-2014, a Lok Adalat was convened and with the aid and assistance of Counsellors and Advocate, compromise was arrived at between the contesting parties.The covenants of the alleged compromise is annexed as Annexure No.5 to the petition.For ready reference, these covenants are spell out hereinbelow:-"lqygukek dh 'krsZ%& 1& ;g fd mHk;i{k us vkil esa lqyg djrs gq, ;g LosPN;k ls r; ik;k fd mHk;i{k vyx & vyx Lora= thou thus ,oa Lora= :i ls jgus gsrq Lora= gSA dksbZ ,d nwljs ds thou esa vc gLr{ksi ugh djsxkA 2& ;g fd oknh i{k dks izfroknh i{k vFkkZr T;ksrluk dks nqxsZ'k U;k;ky; ds le{k eq0 400000@& :i;k ¼pkj yk[k :i;k½ uxn nsxs mls thou i;ZUr ds Hkj.k&iks"k.k gsrq ,oa T;ksrluk vkbUnk fQj dHkh Hkfo"; esa u rks dksbZ eqdnek djsxh uk gh fdlh vU; Hkj.k & iks"k.k dh ekax Hkfo"; es djsxh ,oa miyC/k lkeku ns fn;k tk;sxkA 3& ;g fd mHk;i{kksa esa ;g Hkh r; gqvk fd lHkh eqdnesa nhokuh@QkStnkjh esa mHk;i{k lqygukek nkf[ky djsxs ,oa oknh i{k lHkh eqdneksa dks tfj;s lqygukek lekIr djk;sxk rFkk izfroknh i{k mlesa lg;ksx djsaA 4& ;g fd mHk;i{kkaas esa ;g Hkh r; gqvk fd orZeku esa py jgs lHkh eqdneksa dks oknh i{k lekIr djk;sxkA izfroknhx.k lg;ksx djsxs ,oa Hkfo"; eaas mHk;i{kksa esa ls dksbZ Hkh i{k fdlh ij dksbZ eqdnek ugha djasxkA vr% izkFkZuk gS fd mHk;i{k dk lqygukek Lohdkj dj ekeys dks lqygukesa ds vk/kkj ij lekIr djus dh d`ik fd;k tkosaA"Learned counsel for the petitioner stressfully argued that the aggeed amount of Rs 4 lakhs in cash were paid by petitioner no.1 to Ms. Jyotsna as a full and final amount of alimony and permanent settlement.The rest of terms of settlement is self explanatory which needs no elaboration.It was also settled that after the agreed amount is paid, the nuptial tie between them would dissolved automatically.All the pending civil & criminal cases against each other would be withdrawn with the help and aid of other party.This compromise would be filed by the parties so that all the pending cases may be dismissed as withdrawn.This compromise was filed and jotted on 25.09.2016 and accordingly, the Principal Judge, Family Court, Deoria has decided, the maintenance case no. 51 of 2014 in the light of the compromise.
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 494 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
42,470,367 |
The marriage of the appellant-wife and respondent- husband was solemnized on 30.04.2013 as per Hindu rituals at Jabalpur.The appellant lived with the respondent for a brief period.It is pleaded by the respondent in the plaint that he had tried his best to pursue the appellant to live with him.However, she did not come back.(10/05/2018) Per : S.K.Gangele, J :-By the aforesaid judgment, the trial Court allowed the application filed by the respondent and granted a decree of divorce.After receiving notice of the aforesaid application, the appellant-wife lodged FIR on 01.05.2014 against the respondent, his father Ramesh, mother Asha, sister Deepika and uncle Hiralal Chourasiya.On the basis of the aforesaid FIR, offence under Section 498-A, 506-B, 406 and 34 of Indian Penal Code was registered against the respondent and his family.They were arrested and thereafter, respondent-husband was released on bail.Criminal Case No. 6115/2014 is pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class.2 FA No. 605/2017The Family Court in Civil Suit No. 2-A/2015 vide judgment dated 15.05.2015 decreed the suit for restitution of conjugal rights and directed the appellant to live with the respondent.Inspite of that, the appellant did not go to live with the respondent.She filed a suit for grant of maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. which is pending.The respondent-husband filed a suit for grant of decree of divorce.The respondent- husband pleaded that the appellant practiced cruelty with her.The trial Court issued notice on the suit filed by the respondent.The notice was served on the appellant-wife.Her counsel appeared before the Trial Court on 09.08.2016 and the Court granted time to the appellant to file reply.On the said date also, time was granted to the appellant.On 03.10.2016, nobody appeared before the trial Court on behalf of the appellant.The Trial Court directed the appellant to appear on the next date and file written statement.On the aforesaid date, nobody appeared before the trial Court on behalf of the appellant, hence, the case was proceeded ex- parte.3 FA No. 605/2017Respondent filed his affidavit before the trial Court in support of the plaint and pleaded the same facts as pleaded in the plaint.He filed documents before the trial Court.After considering the aforesaid, the trial Court awarded the decree of divorce in favour of the respondent- husband.4 FA No. 605/2017In the present case, the appellant pleaded that the respondent had given assurance that he would compromise the matter and withdraw the suit, hence, she did not appear before the trial Court.It is further submitted by the appellant that she came to know about the ex-parte judgment and decree from the news published in the local newspaper at Sagar.Learned counsel for the appellant has prayed that the ex-parte judgment and decree be set aside.Appellant be given opportunity to contest the case and the non-appearance of the appellant before the Trial Court is bonafide.9. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the appellant did not appear before the trial Court deliberately.She did not obey the decree of restitution of conjugal rights.She lodged FIR against the respondent and his family members.Hence, the trial Court has rightly granted the decree of divorce in favour of the respondent.Admitted facts of the case are that after service of notice, the appellant did not appear before the Trial Court.She was proceeded ex-parte.Thereafter, case was listed on various dates as mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs of this judgment.After seven months of ex-parte order, the trial Court pronounced the judgment.Contention of the appellant that the respondent 5 FA No. 605/2017 made an assurance that he would withdraw the suit for divorce has no basis because the appellant did not file any application before the Court or any other Authority that the respondent had given her assurance for compromise.The appeal was referred to mediation by this Court.The appellant did not appear in the mediation proceedings also.5 FA No. 605/2017It is significant to note that unlike a decree of 7 FA No. 605/2017 specific performance of contract, for restitution of conjugal rights the sanction is provided by court where the disobedience to such a decree is willful i.e. is deliberate, in spite of the opportunities and there are no other impediments, might be enforced by attachment of property.So the only sanction is by attachment of property against disobedience of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights where the disobedience follows as a result of a willful conduct i.e. where conditions are there for a wife or a husband to obey the decree for restitution of conjugal rights but disobeys the same in spite of such conditions, then only financial sanction, provided he or she has properties to be attached, is provided for.This is so as an inducement by the court in appropriate case when the court has decreed restitution for conjugal rights and that the court can only decree if there is no just reason for not passing decree for restitution of conjugal rights to offer inducement for the husband or wife to live together in order to give them an opportunity to settle up the matter amicably.It serves a social purpose as an aid to the prevention of break-up of marriage.7 FA No. 605/20178 FA No. 605/2017The appellant-husband and his parents had to apply for anticipatory bail, which was granted to them.Later, the respondent-wife withdrew the complaint.Pursuant to the withdrawal, the police filed a closure report.Thereafter, the respondent-wife filed a protest petition.The trial court took cognizance of the case against the appellant-husband and his parents (CC No. 62/2002).When the criminal appeal filed by the appellant-husband challenging his conviction for the offence under Section 498-A of the IPC was allowed and he was acquitted, the respondent-wife filed criminal appeal in the High Court challenging the said acquittal.During this period respondent-wife and members of her family have also filed complaints in the High Court complaining about the appellant-husband so that he would be removed from the job.The conduct of the respondent- wife in filing a complaint making unfounded, indecent and defamatory allegation against her mother-in- law, in filing revision seeking enhancement of the sentence awarded to the appellant-husband, in filing appeal questioning the acquittal of the appellant-husband and acquittal of his parents indicates that she made all attempts to ensure that he and his parents are put in jail and he is removed from his job.We have no manner of doubt that this conduct has caused mental 9 FA No. 605/2017 cruelty to the appellant- husband."9 FA No. 605/2017On the basis of principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in our opinion, the trial Court has rightly held that the appellant practiced cruelty with the respondent because she did not live with the respondent after passing of decree of restitution of conjugal rights and has prevented the respondent from cohabitation without any sufficient cause.She lodged criminal complaint against the family members of the respondent.Apart from this, without any reason, she did not appear before the trial Court.No order as to cost.
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
424,728 |
During trial, the prosecution, whose burden it is to prove thecase beyond all reasonable doubts, has examined 5 witnesses as P.Ws. 1 to 5,P.W.1 being the eye-witness to the occurrence, mahazar, arrest, seizure etc.,P.W.2 being the court witness relating to the correspondence had between thecourt and scientific lab and marking through her Exs.P5 to P7; P.W.3, the HeadConstable who carried the counterfeit notes to Nasic, P.Ws.4 and 5 theInvestigating Officers of the crime.Both the above Criminal Appeals under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C asstated therein.!For Appellant inC.A.No.462/2002 : Mr.N.S.Sivam for Mr.V.SankaranarayananFor Appellant inC.A.No.722/2002 : Mr.N.Senthilkumar for Mr.B.Pugalendhi.^For Respondent inboth appeals: : Mr.A.N.Thambidurai, Govt. Advocate (Crl.side):COMMON JUDGMENT Both the above Criminal Appeals have arisen from and out of one andsame judgment dated 27.03.2002 rendered in S.C.No.59 of 2001 by the Court ofAdditional Sessions Judge (III Fast Track Court), Chennai, thereby convictingand sentencing the first accused the appellant in C.A.No.722 of 2002 toundergo R.I. for 9 years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default toundergo further R.I. for three months for the offences committed underSection 120B r/w 489 -B of the IPC and to undergo R.I. for 2 years for theoffences committed under Section 120B r/w 489-C of the IPC and a sentence ofR.I. for 9 years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default R.I. for threemonths for the offences committed under Section 489-B of the IPC and asentence of R.I. for 6 years for the offence committed under Section 489-C ofthe IPC.Likewise, so far as it is concerned with the second accused, theappellant in C.A.No.722 of 2002, the trial Court has convicted and sentencedhim to undergo R.I. for 9 years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in defaultto undergo further R.I. for three months for the offences committed undersection 120B r/w 489-B of IPC and conviction and sentence of R.I. for 6 yearsfor the offences committed under Section 120B r/.w Section 489-C of IPC andfurther sentence of R.I. for 6 years for the offence committed under Section489-C of IPC further ordering the sentences against both the appellants to runconcurrently.The appellant in C.A.No.462 of 2002 is the second accused and theappellant in C.A.No.722 of 2002 is the first accused and since, both the aboveappeals have been preferred against the above conviction and sentencerespectively they are heard and are decided by this common judgment.The first charge against both the appellants in the above SessionsCase is that on 17.11.1998 at about 11.00 a.m. at E.V.R.Road, Moore MarketBus Stop, on suspicion, the first accused was searched and found that he wasin possession of six Counterfeit notes each of the denomination of Rs.100/-and on his examination it came to be known that he had paid one Veeriah ofRajapalayam a sum of Rs.10,000/- and had obtained the counterfeit notes to theextent of Rs.50,000/- in five bundles, which he handed over to the secondaccused on receipt of a sum of Rs.25,000/-; that the first accused alsofurther obtained counterfeit notes for Rs.50,000/- from an elderly person atSivakasi on payment of Rs.10,000/- and gave those counterfeit notes also tothe second accused and on commission of such offences both the first and thesecond accused became liable to be prosecuted for an offence punishable underSection 120-B r/w Sec.489-B of I.P.C.Secondly the first accused having distributed the counterfeitnotes of 100 Rupees denomination with the second accused and the secondaccused having received the same they have both become liable to be prosecutedfor an offence punishable under Sec.120-B r/w 489-C of I.P.C.The prosecution would also mark 12 documents as Exs.Among the exhibits marked, Exs.P1 and P2respectively dated 17.11.1998 and 18.11.1998 being the mahazars in whichP.W.1's signatures are found, Exs.P3 and P4 being Form No.95, Ex.P5 being therequisition of the Inspector of Police dated 5.5 .2000, Ex.P6 being the letterdated 13.6.2000, Ex.P7 being the report dated 1.8.2000 obtained from Nasic,Ex.P8 being the letter from the Nasic dated 10.7.2000, Ex.P11 being the seizure mahazar dated 18.11.1998 and Ex.Among the material objects marked M.O.1 series are the Rs.100/-counterfeit notes numbering 6, M.O.2 series are the genuine currency ofRs.100/- denomination and 10 denomination, M.O.3 series are the visiting cardsand these , three items have been recovered from the first accused and theitems recovered from the second accused are M. Os.4 to 8 series allrespectively the counterfeit notes of the denomination of Rs.100/- and M.O.9is the newspaper.On the part of the accused the witnesses examined, the exhibitsand material objects marked are nil.In appreciation of these evidence placed on record and uponhearing the learned counsel for both, the trial Court has ultimately arrivedat the conclusion to convict and sentence both the accused in the mannerextracted supra, against which both the accused No.2 and 1 have respectivelycome forward to prefer the above Criminal Appeals on certain grounds asbrought-forth in the grounds of appeals.1 to 5, 12 documents have been markedas Exs.P1 to P12 and 9 Material Objects have been marked as M.Os.The witness would also account for the counterfeitnotes being kept in 5 bundles and on the top of those bundles which has beenwritten as 8 CV; that he identified all the 5 bundles when they were shown tohim in the Court to be the same bundles which were recovered from the secondaccused by the police; that the recoveries effected from the first accusedwould be marked as M.O.1 series, the recoveries effected from the secondaccused would be marked as M.O.2 series, the visiting cards marked as M.O.3series, the signature of P.W.1 in the mahazar would be marked as Ex.This witness would also withstand the vigorous crossexaminationby both the first and second accused and the defence does not seem to havegained anything from this witness excepting ultimately to put suggestionswhich would be conveniently denied by P.W.1 thus the defence ending up withoutany major impact made with this witness.29. P.W.2 the Assistant of the Magistrates Court would depose to theeffect that since there was no safety locker facility to kept the counterfeitnotes,she entrusted them with the police asking them to keep them in theircustody and later keep them in the safety locker.M.Os. 3 to 8 would bemarked through this witness.P.9, A1 was brought to the police stationand case in their Crime No.10/1998 under Section 489-B and 489-C wasregistered and thereafter on information they came to understand that thesecond accused having been arrested in P.E.W. Crime No.83/1998 under Section4(1)(A) was released on bail on condition that he should appear before the PEWPolice and on enquiries made with the PEW Police, the next day at 10.00 a.m.on being identified that evening by 4.45 p.m. he caused the arrest of thesecond accused and when examined in the presence of the witnesses he too gavea confession statement; that he admitted the receipt of the counterfeit notesof 5 bundles from the first accused Raju of Madurai and that he entrusted thesame with the police and recording the confession statement along with thesecond accused and the witnesses, they went to his house in door No.69, VasalVaradappa Street and took out the counterfeit notes of Rs.100/- denominationcontained in 5 bundles covered in a newspaper and recovered the same undermahazar prepared at 5.30 p.m. attested by the witnesses which would be markedas Ex.P11 and the FIR would also be marked as Ex.P12 through this witness;that the recovered articles were all kept at Triplicane Police Station andremanding the first accused on 17.11.1998 to judicial custody, the secondaccused was remanded on 18.11.1998; that on retirement entrusting the casediary with the officer who succeeded him, he retired from service.Thiswitness would also fairly withstand the cross-examination without allowing anymajor contradiction or inconsistency to occur.and having framed properpoint for consideration and appreciating the case of the prosecution inevidence particularly having regard to the evidence of P.W.1 through which itcomes to be known that on reliable information the police party had gone tothe spot and the first accused on being identified by the informant theyintercepted him and in the presence of the witnesses caused the recovery ofM.O. series Nos. 1 to 3 further himself having confessed to the crime ofhaving obtained the M.O series 4 to 8 wrapped with M.O.9 news paper consistingof 5 bundles of counterfeit notes each of which was of the denomination ofRs.10 0/- for a sum of Rs.10,000/- from one Veeraiah of Rajapalayam andpursuant to the admissible portion of the Ex.P9 confession statement,proceeded to the place of the second accused the next day that was on18.11.1998 along with P.W.1 himself being identified by the informant andcausing his arrest under the cover of the arrest memo and on recording hisconfession statement in Ex.P10 pursuant to which he recovered M.Os.Further more, from M.Os.1 to 8 and Ex.In result,The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
42,474,414 |
petitioners which are said to be pending before him and copies of which have been brought on record vide Annexure-P8 and to take a decision thereon strictly in accordance with law and communicate the same to the petitioners within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of."In view of that order the Director General & Commandant General, Home Guards, West Bengal, passed the following order:"In accordance with the Order of Hon'ble Justice Mr. Tapen Sen of the High Court, Calcutta, in connection with WP No.19679 (W) of 2006 relating to the matter of Sri Nemai Chandra Halder S?O MoniKanta Halder and Sri Aniruddha Kantha S/O Bhabotosh Kantha -Vs- State of West Bengal, the petitions for remobilisation, as filed by them to this end, have duly been perused and considered.But on account of absence of vital witnesses during the trial, they were acquitted by the Ld. A.C.J.M., Diamond Harbour.The case failed against them because of failure of the prosecution to produce vital witnesses and marshall the evidence properly.The Government has every right to expect good conduct from its volunteers (Home Guards are volunteers and not a permanent Govt. servant) and any breach of such good conduct will permanently render such volunteers unfit for engagement/re-engagement as such volunteers of the Government, specially as "the protection of persons, the security of property or the public safety" U/S 3 of the W B H G Act, 1962, cannot be assigned with persons of doubtful integrity and reputation.In view of the above circumstances and after perusal of the connected records, and after applying my mind I am not satisfied with the prayer of the concerned petitioners and hence the prayer of Sri Nemai Chandra Halder and Sri Aniruddha Kantha are here by rejected and disposed of."Therefore, the respondents should reinstate the petitioners.He further submits that no disciplinary proceeding was ever started nor any action was taken by the respondent authorities.Therefore, they cannot discharge the writ petitioners in a summary manner without 3 holding any disciplinary proceedings and/or giving any opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioners.Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned Counsel for the respondents, vehemently opposed the prayers of the writ petitioners.Heard learned Counsel for the parties and considered the order impugned dated 12th February, 2007, passed by the Director General & Commandant General, Home Guards, West Bengal.It appears that pursuant to the order of this Hon'ble Court, the concerned Director General had considered and decided the matter.However, it appears from that order that no disciplinary proceeding was ever initiated against the writ petitioners.It also appears that they have been acquitted by the Sub-Divisional Executive Magistrate, Diamond Harbour, South 24 Parganas.Therefore, in my view, the respondents cannot remove them in a summary manner without initiating a disciplinary proceeding.Accordingly, I direct the concerned respondents to reinstate the writ petitioners within two weeks from date, without any back wages, and I also grant leave to the respondent authorities to initiate proper disciplinary proceedings against the writ petitioners in accordance with law.(Ashoke Kumar Dasadhikari, J.)
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
42,475,767 |
(Passed on 28th day of February, 2012) The applicants Jagannath Prajapati, Parasram @ Gudda and Gajraj Prajapati were convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 325 or 325 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 323 or 323 read with Section 34 of I.P.C and sentenced for six months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.300/- and with fine of Rs.200/- vide judgment dated 29.12.2009 passed by JMFC Sehore (Shri Upendra Pratap Singh) in Criminal Case No.1441/2006 whereas in Criminal Appeal No.8/2010 Sessions Judge, Sehore vide judgment dated 21.8.2010 dismissed the appeal in toto.Being aggrieved by the judgments passed by both the Courts below the applicants have preferred the present revision.The prosecution's case in short is that there was a dispute between the parties about metes and bounds of a land in Village Kulans, P.S. Bilkisganj, District Sehore.On 19.5.2006 Patel & Sarpanch directed that a trench be dug between the lands of both the parties.At about 5.30 p.m victim Ashok was taking the mud from that trench then accused Jagannath Prajapati and Parasram called the victim Ashok and abused him because he was taking the mud from 2 Criminal Revision No.1331/2010 that trench.Parasram assaulted the victim Ashok by a tangia.Ashok started running towards his house then he was detained by accused Gajraj.Thereafter, Jagannath assaulted Ashok by back of a farsa.Gajraj also assaulted the witness Santosh by sticks, who came to save the victim Ashok.Victims were taken to District Hospital, Sehore for their treatment.An investigation officer went to the District Hospital, Sehore and recorded Dehati Nalishi Ex.P/1 from complainant Ashok and case was registered.It was found that victim Santosh sustained some simple injuries but, a fracture in right radius bone whereas Ashok sustained only simple injuries.After due investigation charge sheet was filed before the concerned Magistrate.The applicants abjured their guilt.They they did not take any specific plea in the matter but, they stated that they were falsely implicated.Dr. Rajesh Kumar Gupta (D.W.1) and Balram Singh (D.W.2) were examined from the side of the victim to prove the injury of one Ramcharan, father of accused Jagannath and Gajraj to show that initially the victims had assaulted Ramcharan and therefore, to save Ramcharan, applicants assaulted the victims.Learned JMFC, Sehore vide judgment 29.12.2009 after considering the evidence adduced by both the parties convicted the applicant Gajraj for offence punishable under Section 325 of I.P.C and Jagannath and Parasram for offence punishable under Section 325 read with Section 34 of I.P.C whereas all the applicants were convicted for offence punishable under section 323 of I.P.C and sentenced them as mentioned above.The appeal filed by the applicants was dismissed in toto.Heard learned counsel for the parties.3 Criminal Revision No.1331/2010Looking to the assault done by the applicants to Ashok it appears that there was no intention of the applicants to assault the victims in such a bad manner.However, Santosh sustained a fracture.On the basis of the aforesaid discussion the revision filed by the applicants is hereby partly allowed.Convicton directed under Section 325 or 325 read with Section 34 of 4 Criminal Revision No.1331/2010 I.P.C and Section 323 of I.P.C is hereby maintained but, sentence for offence punishable under Section 325 or 325 read with Section 34 of I.P.C is reduced to the period which they have already under gone in the custody but, fine amount is increased from Rs.300/- to Rs.2000/- for each of the applicant.
|
['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
42,481,005 |
"As per the case of prosecution on 18.11.2012 an information regarding a quarrel at H.No. 152, Tilak Nagar near Kali Mata Mandir was received from PCR at PP Tilak Vihar vide DD No.39PP.The same was entrusted to ASI Babu Lal, who rushed to the spot at H. No.152, Double Storey, Harijan Colony, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi, where on enquiry it was found that the injured has been taken to DDU Hospital, New Delhi.Meanwhile information regarding the admission of injured Vijay was received.Statement of brother of injured namely Sh.In his statement said Mahender alleged that one Monnu has stabbed his brother Vijay over the enmity on account of his illicit relation with the wife of accused Mannu.On 19.11.2012, accused Mannu s/o Late Hukam Chand, R/o Jhuggi No.82, Double Storey, Harijan Colony, Tilag Nagar, New Delhi was arrested and at his instance the weapon of offence i.e. blood stained chhuri (knife) was recovered.Site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared at the instance of accused.Scene of crime was got inspected through Crime Team.Photographer took the photographs of the place of occurrence from different angles.Then sketch of the knife was also prepared.The same was taken into police possession CRL.A. 701/2017 Page 2 of 17 vide a pulanda sealed with the seal of BL through a seizure memo.On 19.11.2012 at 11.50 PM, an information was received from Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi that injured Vijay expired during treatment.Section 302 IPC was added in this case.Postmortem on the dead body of deceased was got conducted at Mortuary, Safdarjung Hospital and thereafter, dead body was handed over to his brother.Subsequent opinion about the weapon of offence was taken.PM report of the deceased was collected whereupon doctor mentioned "death is due to shock as a result of penetrating sharp injuries to the chest.Mahinder Singh/brother of the deceased) and PW-5 (Sunny) and PW-8 (Smt. Sunita).PW-2 (Mahinder Singh/brother of the deceased) during his examination-in- Chief deposed as under:-"On 18.11.2012 at about 08:00/08:15 PM I along with my younger brother Vijay were sitting on plastic chairs in front of my house in a jhuggi.We have built a jhuggi outside out abovesaid house.We were talking with each other.At that time accused Mannu present today in the court (correctly identified) came there carrying a Chhuri in his hand.Accused Mannu told to my brother Vijay that Vijay had destroyed his family and snatched his wife and children.Mannu also told my brother that because of Vijay, Mannu had been defamed in the society and unable to show his face in the society and on that day he would not let him alive.Accused Mannu stabbed my brother Vijay with the Chhuri in his chest twice.I raised alarm.My son Sunny and the wife of Vijay came there.Vijay tried to catch accused Mannu but at the same time Mannu again stabbed in his chest with chhuri repeatedly.Accused Mannu ran away from the spot before we could realise as to what had happened all of a sudden.Vijay fell down on the ground and was bleeding from the wound.We took Vijay to police post Tilak Vihar where we were advised to take Vijay to DDU Hospital firstly.We took Vijay to DDU hospital and got him admitted.Thereafter, police also reached the hospital.Doctor had handed over the blood stained clothes of Vijay to the police and police seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/B bearing my thumb impression at point A. Accused Munna was caught by the police from the DDU Hospital.I identified Munna in the hospital.My father Mahender was trying to save my uncle Vijay.Due to injuries caused by accused my uncle fell down.In this context, we find from the record that the knife was recovered from behind Peer Baba Mazar, an open park at the instance of the accused.The weapon of offence i.e. knife was recovered vide Ex.-PW-2/H in presence of PW-19 (Ct. Sandeep) and PW-2 (Mahender/brother of the deceased).HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, JThe present Appeal is instituted on behalf of the appellant under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C.") against the impugned judgment of conviction dated 25.03.2017 and order on sentence dated 03.04.2017 passed by the Court of Special Judge (NDPS-01), West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, in Session Case No.56203/2016 in FIR No.455/2012, registered at Police Station Tilak Nagar under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (hereinafter referred to as "IPC") whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life alongwith a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.CRL.A. 701/2017 Page 1 of 17Accordingly, said ASI alongwith Ct.Sandeep reached at DDU Hospital and collected MLC No.2444512 of Vijay S/o Kailash Chand, R/o H.No.152, Double Storey, Harijan Colony, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi, whereupon doctor mentioned "alleged H/O Physical assault, stab injury.Nature of injuries UO/Stab and Patient was unfit for statement".Injuries No.1, 2, 3 & 4 are singularly and collectively fatal and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature".Exhibits of the case were sent to FSL for expert opinion.Statement of witnesses recorded.Then, after completion of investigation charge sheet was filed in the court of concerned Ld. MM.Charge was framed against the accused u/s 302 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.CRL.A. 701/2017 Page 2 of 17In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined 32 witnesses in all.Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C wherein he stated that he has been falsely implicated as there was some past enmity between him and the witnesses and pleaded innocence.The accused chose not to lead any evidence in his defence.Ms. Inderjeet Sidhu, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the impugned judgment dated 25.03.2017 is based on conjectures and surmises and the same is against the facts and the settled proposition of law and that the case of the prosecution is based upon the testimonies of PW-2 (brother of the deceased), PW-5 (Sunny), PW-8 CRL.A. 701/2017 Page 3 of 17 (Smt. Sunita), but there are material contradictions and inconsistencies in their testimonies which renders the entire case of the prosecution unreliable.The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that all the star witnesses are interested witnesses, hence their evidence cannot be exclusively relied upon as trustworthy and reliable because there is a very strong possibility of the prosecution witnesses being tutored and influenced.CRL.A. 701/2017 Page 3 of 17The learned counsel further contended that recovery of the alleged weapon cannot be relied as an incriminating piece of evidence against the appellant as the same was affected from the place which was easily accessible to the public, and no efforts were made to associate any independent witness to the recovery proceedings.State of Gujarat: (2011) 10 SCC 604, State of Rajasthan Vs.Per contra, Mr. Ravi Nayak, learned APP for the State contended that the testimonies of PW-2 (brother of the deceased), PW-5 (Sunny) and PW-8 (Smt. Sunita) are consistent and trustworthy and the minor contradictions and discrepancies in the testimonies do not go to the root of the matter.It is a settled proposition of law that even if there CRL.A. 701/2017 Page 4 of 17 are some omissions, contradictions and discrepancies in the testimonies of the witnesses, the entire evidence cannot be completely disregarded.The learned APP further contended that the testimonies of the eye witnesses cannot be rejected on the mere ground of their relationship because it is not a sufficient ground to discard the evidence of the witnesses.CRL.A. 701/2017 Page 4 of 17For the same he relied on the cases Ashok Kumar Magabhai Vankar Vs.State of Gujarat: (2011) 10 SCC 604, State of Rajasthan Vs.Dhool Singh: (2004) 12 SCC 546, Mohd. Imran Vs.Lastly, the learned APP contended that, it is amply clear that the ocular evidence, medical evidence and more particularly, testimony of the eye witnesses, which is eloquent and self-explicit, connects the appellant with the crime, considering this the impugned order should be upheld.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the material placed on record.CRL.A. 701/2017 Page 5 of 17At the outset, we deem it appropriate to peruse the testimonies of star prosecution witnesses i.e. PW-2 (Sh.I was called at the police post.Police CRL.A. 701/2017 Page 6 of 17 recorded my statement Ex.PW2/B bearing my thumb impression at point A.CRL.A. 701/2017 Page 6 of 17xxxx xxxx xxxx Accused told the police that he could got recover the Chhuri by which he had stabbed Vijay.I along with police and accused went to one park behind Peer Baba Majaar from where the accused produced a Chhuri from near a wall.Police prepared the sketch of the Chhuri which is Ex.PW2/H bearing my thumb impression at point A.My relatives who were with Vijay in DDU Hospital informed me that vijay was shifted to Safdarjung Hospital.On 19.11.2012 my brother Vijay was died in Safdarjung Hospital.It is wrong to suggest that accused Mannu has not attacked Vijay with knife.Vijay sustained injury in abdominal region.It is wrong to suggest that I had not witnessed the incident.It is wrong to suggest that I was not present at the spot of incident.It is wrong to suggest that my son Sunny and wife of Vijay have not taken Vijay to the hospital."12. PW-5 (Sunny) during his examination-in-Chief deposed as under:-"PW-5 deposed that on 18.11.2012, I was present at my house.At about 7.00/8.00 pm, I heard a noise.I came outside my house and saw accused Mannu present in court today (correctly identified by the witness) was causing stab injuries on the person of my uncle (CHACHA) namely Vijay.Accused Mannu had ran away from the spot with the knife.I and my father Mahender took Vijay to DDU Hospital in a TSR."CRL.A. 701/2017 Page 7 of 17During the cross examination of PW-5 (Sunny), he deposed as under:"I saw the accused while inflicting the injuries on the person of my paternal uncle from the first floor.I had told to the IO about my position from where I saw the incident.It is wrong to suggest that I did not witness the incident or that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present case to settle the grudge as there was previous enmity between my paternal uncle and accused or that I am deposing falsely."13. PW-8 (Smt. Sunita) during his examination-in-Chief deposed as under:-"PW-8 deposed that my younger brother-in-law (DEVAR) Vijay was on visiting terms with Pooja, the wife of accused Mannu present today in the court (correctly identified).We were not aware about any relationship between accused Mannu and Pooja.I do not remember the date but about three years ago, it was month of November, I was cooking food in the house.At about 07.00/08.00 PM, I heard a noise of quarrel from the gali.I went downstairs.I saw that my brother-in-law Vijay was lying in injured condition.I along with my son Sunny and sister-in-law (DEVRANI) namely Rani took Vijay to DDU Hospital from where he was referred to Safdarjung Hospital.On 19 th November Vijay had expired in hospital.I came to know that accused Mannu had given the stab injury to Vijay.During the cross examination, PW-8 (Smt. Sunita) deposed as under:I had also stated to the police that on 18.11.2012, I was present at my house.At about 08.15 PM I had heard a noise of quarrel from outside my house in the CRL.A. 701/2017 Page 8 of 17 street on which me, my son Sunny and my sister-in- law/DEVRANI went downstairs.CRL.A. 701/2017 Page 8 of 17I had stated to the police that on going downstairs, I saw that my brother-in-law Vijay was lying in pool of blood and accused Mannu was giving knife blows to Vijay whereas my husband was trying to save Vijay.I had also stated to the police that on seeing us coming near, accused Mannu ran away from there and I started crying."I was working as Senior Resident, Casualty department in DDU Hospital.On that day at about 08.45 PM one injured Vijay S/o Kailash, 45 years, Male was brought to the casualty with alleged history of stab injury.The history was given by injured as well as nephew Sunny, who brought him.I medically examined the injured and found the following injuries: -Stab wound of size 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm over right side of chest medially to right nipple.Stab wound of size 3.5 cm x 0.8 cm over right side of chest over right axillary region.Stab wound of size 3.5 cm x 0.8 cm over left lower chest.Stab wound on back of chest 2.5 cm x 0.5 cm.Superficial CLW of 2 cm x .1 over anterior aspect of abdomen laterally superficial."CRL.A. 701/2017 Page 11 of 17Dr. Md. Shadab Raheel (PW-20) Sr.Resident, Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, Safdarjung Hospital, Delhi conducted the post- mortem of the deceased Vijay and proved the report as Ex.PW20/A wherein he opined that "the death was due to shock as a result of penetrating sharp injuries to the chest of the deceased.All injuries were antemortem and injury no. 1, 2, 3, & 4 mentioned in my report were singularly and collectively fatal and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature" The relevant portion from his statement is reproduced below-"I was posted at Department of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, Vardhman Mahavir Medical College and Safdarjung Hospital as Senior Resident.On that day at 02.30 PM vide post-mortem report no.1931/12 I had conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of a male aged about 45 years namely Vijay son of Sh.Kailash Chand.As per hospital record the said deceased Vijay was admitted in the hospital on 19.11.2012 at 05.00 AM vide MLC No.24445 of DDU Hospital and he had expired on 19.11.2012 at 09.10 PM.I prepared the post-mortem report on the basis of the external and internal examination of the deceased and reached to the opinion that time since death was about seventeen hours which corresponded to the hospital records and the death was due to shock as a result of penetrating sharp injuries to the chest of the deceased.All the injuries were antemortem in nature and injury no. 1, 2, 3 & 4 mentioned in my report were singularly and collectively fatal and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.The post-mortem report is Ex.PW-20/A bearing my signatures on each page at point A comprising of four pages.CRL.A. 701/2017 Page 12 of 17On 27.12.2012 on application from Inspector Kishore Kumar, SHO P.S. Tilak Nagar with a pullanda in a green colour polythene bag having no. 455/12, I had given the subsequent opinion in this case.I had mentioned the contents of the pullanda in the memo of subsequent opinion.I examined the sharp-edged weapon sent into the said pullanda and gave the opinion after going through the post-mortem report that injuries no. 1, 2, 3 & 4 mentioned in the above stated post-mortem report could be possible with the said or other similar weapon."During his cross examination PW-20 (Dr. Md. Shadab Raheel) deposed as under:"It is correct that injuries mentioned in the post-mortem report are possible if person falls on sharp object.It is possible that even if width of the blade of the knife is more, similar injuries are possible."As per the FSL report (Ex. PW29/B) and the serological examination, blood of human origin of group 'O' was detected on Baniyan (Ex. 1), Shirt (Ex. 2) and Blood-Stained Gauze (Ex. 6).Moreover, relying upon the above testimony of PW-20 (Dr. Md. Shadab Raheel), who had opined that "It is possible that even if width of the blade of the knife is more, similar injuries are possible", it can authoritatively be said that, the evidence produced by the ocular witnesses co-relates with the medical evidence.Thus prosecution has been able to discharge its onus to prove the commission of the crime by the appellant.Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the recovery of the knife is doubtful as the same had been recovered from an open space CRL.A. 701/2017 Page 13 of 17 which is accessible to all.PW-19 (Ct. Sandeep) during his examination-in-Chief deposed that 'After that, accused took us to the park situated behind Peer Baba Mazar and from near the wall of the park, accused took out a knife which was lying there and told us that by the said knife he had caused injuries to Vijay.'.PW-2 (Mahinder/ brother of the deceased) during his examination-in- Chief, confirmed the recovery of the weapon of offence at the instance of the accused and deposed that 'I along with police and accused went to one park behind Per Baba Majar from where the accused produce a Chhuri from near a wall.' Admittedly, the incident occurred on 18.11.2012 at around 08:00/08:15 PM and the weapon of offence was recovered from Peer Baba Mazar, an open park on 19.11.2012, there is nothing on record to doubt the recovery of weapon of offence.Moreover, the testimonies of PW-19 (Ct. Sandeep) and PW-2 (Mahinder/brother of the deceased) are clear and unambiguous which proves the recovery of weapon of offence.Hence, the argument raised by counsel for the appellant with regard to recovery of weapon from an open space holds no ground.CRL.A. 701/2017 Page 13 of 17The testimonies of PW-23 (Smt. Pooja) wife of the accused as well as testimony of PW-2 (Mahinder/brother of the deceased) establish that the accused with a predetermined mind had every intention to CRL.A. 701/2017 Page 14 of 17 kill the deceased, as the deceased was suspected by the accused of having extra martial relations with his wife.The testimony of PW-23 (Pooja) reads as under:-CRL.A. 701/2017 Page 14 of 17"Vijay (deceased) was one of the friends of my husband and he used to visit my house.As and when accused Manny used to quarrel with me in presence of Vijay, he used to pacify between us.Vijay also used to help me financially.As my husband had sold his house due to bad habit of consuming liquor, Vijay had purchased a Jhuggi for me and my children near his house with his own money.Thereafter, I started residing in that Jhhggi with my four children.However, the perusal of the aforementioned testimony clearly demonstrates that the prosecution has been able to establish that there was motive for the commission of crime as quarrel took place between the appellant and the deceased prior to the incident.As far as the final argument addressed by the counsel, regarding conversion of sentence from Section 302 IPC to Section 304-II is concerned, a bare perusal of the evidence on record reflects, that the CRL.A. 701/2017 Page 15 of 17 incident was premeditated and well thought of in advance, as the appellant was carrying the weapon of offence with him at the time of commission of crime.The multiple knife injuries inflicted by the appellant were on the vital part (chest) of the deceased body.As per post-mortem report (Ex.PW-20/A) there were more than five cut marks on the body of the deceased which were caused from a sharp object.PW-2 (Mahinder/brother of the deceased) deposed in his examination-in-Chief that before inflicting injuries on the person of the deceased, the accused has said that 'Vijay had destroyed his family and snatched his wife and children.CRL.A. 701/2017 Page 15 of 17After elucidating the law laid down by the Apex Court as well as this Court and after considering the entire material placed on record, we hold that the prosecution evidence is completely reliable and trustworthy.A copy of this order be also sent to Superintendent, Tihar Jail Delhi.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
424,823 |
From the Judgment and Order dated 24-8-1974 of the MadhyaPradesh High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 693 of 1969.D. Mukherjee and B. P. Singh for the Appellants.I. N. Shroff and H. S. Parihar for the Respondent.The Judgment of the Court was delivered byGOSWAMI, J.-This appeal on certificate under Article 134(1)(a) has on appeal reversed an order of acquittal of an accused person and sentenced him to imprisonment for life or to imprisonment for a period of not less than ten years;(b) has withdrawn for trial before itself any case from any court subordinate to its authority and has in such trial convicted the accused person and sentenced him to imprisonment for life or to imprisonment for a period of not less than ten years."It is clear that if on appeal against an order of acquittalthe High Court sets aside the acquittal and convicts anaccused and sentences him to imprisonment for life or to aperiod of not less than ten years, the accused is entitled,as of right, to, appeal to this Court under section 2 (a) ofthe Act.In this particular case the appellants were tried undersection 302/ 34 IPC for the murder of Jawahar and undersection 307/34 IPC for attempt to murder Pooran Singh.Weare not concerned with the sentence of five years undersection 307/34 IPC in his appeal which runs concurrentlywith the other sentence.The Sessions Judge acquitted themof the charge of murder of Jawahar but convicted them undersection 325 read with section 34 IPC.Indeed the SessionJudge clearly stated that-"Raghubir Singh and Kishore Singh are acquitted of the charge under section 302 r.w. section 34 Indian Penal Code but they are convicted under section 325 r.w. section 34 Indian Penal Code] for their acts of violence against Jawahar and are sentenced to 4(four) years rigorous imprisonment."The State appealed to the High Court againstthe acquittal of the murder charge under section 417(1) ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (briefly the old Code)which governs this case.The short question that arises for consideration is as towhether the appeal before the High Court under section417(1) of the old Code was competent since the appellantswere not entirely acquitted in the trial but convicted of aminor offence after having been charged for a major offencewhich is permissible under section 238 of the old Code.Being still a conviction.albeit under a minor charge.willit be a case of acquittal for the purpose of section 417 (1) of the old Code and under section6382(a) of the Act ? That is the question.The same questionwill also arise under section 2 (a) of the Act since theHigh Court set aside the acquittal and altered theconviction under section 325/34 IPC to one under section302/34 IPC and sentenced them to imprisonment for life.Having given our anxious consideration to the languageemployed both in section 417(1) of the old Code and Section2(a) of the Act we are of opinion that when an accused isacquitted of a major charge but convicted under a minorcharge, it is still an acquittal under the major chargewhich can be challenged by the State before the High Courtin an appeal under section 417 (1) of the old Code.Thesame principle will apply in the case of section 2(a) ofthe, Act if a person had been acquitted sets aside theacquittal under the major charge and the High Court onappeal sets aside the acquittal under the major charge andsentences the person to imprisonment for life or to asentence of not less then ten years.The accused will thenbe entitled, as of right, to appeal to this Court undersection 2(a) of the Act. In this view of the matter thecertificate was unnecessary in this case and we will treatthis appeal as one under section2 (a) of the Act.Mr.D. Mookherjee appearing on behalf of the appellants hasaddressedus only on the question of untenability of theconviction under section302/34 IPC.We may very briefly advert to the material facts necessaryto appreciate this submission.Appellant Kishore Singh wasarmed with a 'sabbal' and Raghubir Singh with an axe.Weare not concerned with their father Bhaiyalal who was saidto be in their company with a stick but has since beenacquitted.On the date of occurrence which was on July 28,1968, at 3.30 P.M.,, both the appellants attacked Jawaharand caused grievous injuries on his person using the'sabbal' and the blunt side of the axe.Jawahar died in thehospital on August 27, 1968, after recovering from asurgical operation for his head injuries.Dr. D. N. Malviya(PW 6) who first examined the deceased could not sty whetherthe injuries were such as were likely to cause death in theordinary course of nature.Dr. P. K. Jain (PW 12) performedthe operation on Jawahar on July 30, 1968, on the third dayof the occurrence.He found depressed fracture of thetemporal bone.Four pieces of bone were removed during theoperation as these were causing compression to the brain.Heopined that the injuries to the skull were likely to causedeath in the ordinary course of nature without anytreatment.The deceasedrecovered from the operation butunfortunately died after a month ofthe occurrence onAugust 27, 1968, as stated earlier.Dr. C.N. Dafal (PW 13)who held the post mortem examination was of opinion thatdeath was due to injury to scalp and chest and its complica-tions which were due to the same.He also opened that theinjuries found on the dead body were sufficient in hisopinion to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
4,248,256 |
Heard, case-diary perused.This is first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.381/2017, Police Station Pithampur, District Dhar, concerning offence under Section 363, 366, 376, 376(2)(I-N), 506 part-2 of IPC and under Section 3/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences.As per prosecution case, on 29.9.2017 missing report of the prosecutorix was lodged by grand-mother and on the basis of the report police has registered an offence under Section 363 of IPC.During investigation police recovered the prosecutrix and her statement was recorded in which she has deposed that applicant has kidnapped and committed rape with her against her will.Accordingly, the case has been registered against the present applicant.THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 2 M.Cr.C. No.6969/2018 (Dinesh vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh) Therefore no offence is made out against the applicant.Conclusion of trial will take considerable time.Under these circumstances, learned counsel for the applicant prays for grant of bail to the applicant.Learned Public Prosecutor submits that no sufficient ground is made out for releasing the applicant on bail, hence the application filed by the applicant be dismissed.Certified copy as per rules.(S. K. AWASTHI) JUDGE Vibha Digitally signed by Vibha Pachori Date: 2018.03.08 15:43:30 +05'30'
|
['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
424,859 |
The First Information Report was given by one NingappaMudakappa Kamari complaining therein that the complainant's sister'shusband was involved in a murder case and was in jail.The complainanthad put up a hut in the land of Kariyappa Alakanur situated at Yaragattiand started cultivating it.It was further alleged that Kariyappa had threesons and the eldest was Malakari Sidda.The father of Kariyappa wasinvolved in the murder of one Maruti Alakanur and on this account theaccused persons who were the relatives of the said Maruti nurtured agrudge against Kariyappa Alakanur.It is stated that on 22.06.1996 thedeceased and the son of complainant were attending to the work ofpreparing jaggery from sugarcane.When the work was over, his sonMahadev Ningappa Kamari and deceased Malakari Sidda went to have abath in the canal by the side of the land of Dattapant Kulkarni.Since theydid not return early the complainant went towards the said canal and sawall the accused persons near the canal who were armed with variousweapons.They lifted the said Malakari Sidda and carried him for somedistance and committed his murder.This was seen by his son Mahadevand he being a friend ran towards their garden hut and, thereafter, thiswitness came on a bicycle along with Arjun Ishwar Honamore and Sanjeev 3Mahadev Honamore.He also mentioned that the accused persons hadgone away along with blood stained sickles in their hands towardsYaragatti village.He had found that Malakari Sidda was dead and hishead was almost completely severed from the trunk.The police reachedthe spot and found the body and conducted the necessary investigation.V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.Three appellants who were original accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 havecome up against the conviction for the offences under Section 302 readwith Section 149, Indian Penal Code.They were acquitted by theSessions Judge.However, the High Court allowed the appeal against theiracquittal.As many as six accused persons were tried before the PrincipalSessions Judge, Bijapur on the basis of the charge-sheet filed by thepolice on the allegation that on 22.06.1996 at about 5 p.m. they were themembers of unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common objectthereof and committed murder of one Malakari Sidda S/o Kariyappa 2Alakanur.They were also named in the charge-sheet for the offencesunder Sections 148, 302, 504 read with 149, IPC.The dead body was sent for post-mortem where 10 serious wounds werefound in it.On the basis of the investigation the charge-sheet followed andthe accused persons were charged as aforesaid.At the stage of evidence, the complainant turned hostile.However,his son Mahadev Ningappa Kamari, PW-7 stood firmly and deposedagainst the accused, though he was about 13-14 years old.PWs-5 and 6were also examined in support of the prosecution.The Sessions Judgeaccepted the evidence of PW-5, the complainant, in part.However,commented that the evidence of PW-7 who was the star witness, wasunnatural.The Trial Court commented that his evidence did not matchwith the medical evidence regarding the time of death of the deceased asaccording to this witness the deceased had not eaten anything during theday.However, the reminiscences of food were found which suggestedthat his time of death would be about 11 O'clock or 12 O' clock in the noonand not at 5 p.m. as deposed by the witness.Again the learned Sessions 4Judge also found favour with the fact that though this witness wasavailable on the night when police visited the spot, his statement was notrecorded under Section 161 Cr.Insofar as PW-6, Ningappa is concerned, he had seen theaccused persons proceeding towards the garden land at about 4:30 p.m.and at that time the accused having blood stained sickles in their handsand the sickles of the accused were also blood stained.The Sessions Judge alsodiscussed the evidence of PWs-3 and 4, Arjuna Iswhara and Muttapparespectively, who had turned hostile.After discussing the evidence of theinvestigating officers the Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that theprosecution had failed to prove the evidence and, therefore, awarded thebenefit of doubt to all the accused persons.In appeal against the acquittal filed by State of Karnataka against allsix accused persons, the High Court allowed the same only in case of A-1,A-2, A-3 and A-4, namely, Pradhani Siddappa Alakanur, Mallappa 5Siddappa Alakanur, Dundappa Yamanappa Kabbur and SiddappaYamanappa Kabbur, respectively.Since A-1 Pradhani Siddappa Alakanur died during the criminalproceedings before the High Court this appeal abated against him.Thepresent appeal, therefore, has been filed only by A-2, Mallappa SiddappaAlakanur, A-3, Dundappa Yamanappa Kabbur and A-4, SiddappaYamanappa Kabbur.It was suggested that the evidence of PW-5was of no use because he was declared hostile and the evidence of PW-7was that of a child witness who could be influenced by the prosecution.6Further, it was suggested that the High Court had not given anyexplanation for the inherent weakness of a child's testimony and even onmerits the evidence of PW-7 could not be accepted.It was pointed outthat the fact that, though available, the statement of this witness was notrecorded immediately, was left unconsidered by the High Court.The highcourt has correctly proceeded to consider the evidence.PW-7 is a star witness in this case.He was all through with thedeceased on that fateful day, since they were working together on jaggeryplant.He had also, as usual, gone for taking bath along with the deceasedand when they finished bath, he suddenly found A-3 and A-4, calling thedeceased and whisking him away to the distance of about 100 yards.Thethird accused held the legs of the deceased, while the fourth accused heldthe hands and thus, completely overpowered him and in that state, A-1and A-2 assaulted at the neck of the accused.The other accused personswere provoking not to leave the deceased.All this time, the deceased wasmaking hue and cry, which was most natural.The witness being a boy of13 or 14 years, obviously got frightened and ran away from that spot and 9where he met his father PW-5 and told him what had happened.Thiswitness has graphically described the shirt worn by the deceased, histowel and identified the clothes in the Court.He even identified the pant ofthe deceased.The waist thread of the deceased was also identified, whichwas blood stained.He had further identified the clothes worn by A-3, asalso the sickles used by A-1 and A-2, who committed the murder.Thegreen shirt of A-3 (M.O. 7) and sickles used by A-1 and A-2 (M.Os. 8 and10 respectively) were also identified by the witness.He was mostly crossexamined on persons present on the spot, which was of no consequence,because the incident did not take place at the jaggery land.He also reiterated that his father 10again came to the spot at about 9 p.m. alongwith PSI.However, he wasinterrogated at 12 pm next day.From this, the Sessions Judge came tothe conclusion that the boy must have been influenced and that there wasno explanation for not recording his statement at night itself.Both thecircumstances about the food, as well as, late recording are mostinsignificant circumstances and the High Court has correctly rejected thesame.Insofar as the medical aspect about the food is concerned, the HighCourt has considered the same while considering the medical aspect.Similarly, the High Court has discussed the number of injuries whichdid not tally with the eye-witness' account, holding that it may be that thewitness might not have seen the other injuries being inflicted and further ina conflict between the ocular evidence and the medical evidence, if thetestimony is acceptable, trustworthy and reliable, the same should bepreferred to the medical evidence.We feel the approach of the High Courton these aspects was absolutely correct and the Trial Court was totallywrong in recording the finding of acquittal on such insignificantcircumstances.A doubtregarding the veracity of the evidence of the witness should be areasonable doubt and the evidence cannot be simply brushed aside onsuch minor aspects, as has been done by the Sessions Judge.Samething can be said about the other circumstance that his submission wasnot recorded on the same day.The Trial Court has led stress on thisinsignificant aspect.True it is that the statement should have beenrecorded in the same night, however, one can imagine a situation of ayoung boy, who had seen a ghastly murder having been committed andthen his being subjected to an ordeal of giving the statement in the dead ofthe night.We have, ourselves, seen the cross examination and very strangely,the witness was asked the questions about the actual assaults in his crossexamination, thereby actually admitting his presence at the spot.Heexplained in his cross examination that A-3 and A-4 attacked the boy andthrew him down on the ground and he identified the accused even at thattime.His not shouting can also be explained that he was feeling extremelyapprehensive on account of such dastardly attack on the deceased, whowas his friend.Graphic description as to how the attack was made by A-1and A-2 with the help of A-3 and A-4 has come in para 7, in his crossexamination.The omissions brought out in para 9 are also of minisculenature.His story that A-3 and A-4 whisked away the deceased andthereafter, overpowered him and A-1 and A-2 committed the dastardly 13attack on the helpless boy, however remained unshaken throughout thecross examination.The reasons given by the Sessions Judge to reject theevidence appear to be non-existent.In fact, the Trial Court started with anexpression of doubt, holding that the evidence appears to be unnatural.There was nothing unnatural in the evidence.His presence at the spotwas well explained.The story that he went alongwith the deceased to takebath after the work at the jaggery plant, also remained unshaken andultimately his story as to how the attack occurred has also remainedunshaken in his cross examination.Very strangely, the Sessions Judgecalls him an interested witness.In our opinion, his evidence could not berejected on that ground.If he was actually the cousin of the deceased, hecould not change that situation.There is neither evidence nor anysuggestion that this boy was tried to be influenced either by his father orthe relations of the deceased.We have already stated that the omissionsproved at Exhibits D1(A) and D1(B) are most insignificant and, therefore,we are quite satisfied with the finding of the High court that the evidence ofthis witness was credible.We completely fail to understand as to why PW-5 was declaredhostile.He was perhaps declared hostile because he refused to state thathe had seen the murder and stuck to the story that he was told by his son 14about it.In his evidence, he reiterated that his son, i.e., PW-7 and thedeceased left for taking the bath after the completion of work as per theirpractice and since they did not turn up for a long time, he went and sawthat his son was running at a distance of 150-250 ft. from the saidchamber.He had stated that he had not seen the accused persons cuttingthe neck, however, he had actually seen all the accused persons, who ranaway towards the Yaragatti.Great stress was led on the fact that inExhibit P-8 FIR, he had stated that when he went near the land, the sixaccused persons attacked the boy and committed his murder.During hisevidence, however, he had stated that the accused persons had alreadyassaulted and murdered the deceased before he and his son reached thespot.He had also very specifically stated that he had not seen theaccused persons cutting the neck of the deceased.In our opinion, thiswas no reason to declare him hostile.It may be that during his narration,the person taking down the report may have committed this mistake.That,however, will not be fatal to his evidence.In his cross examination, hereiterated that he had stated that his son had seen the whole incident.That sentence is:-"seeing this situation, my son Mahadev apprehended and ran towards our crushing house and immediately I made hue and cry."Therefore, it is clear that the witness has referred and corroboratedthe testimony of PW-7 that he ran towards his father and thereafter, thefather and son, PW-5 and PW-7 respectively, went towards the spot,where the deceased was lying, and at that time, the accused persons fledaway from the spot.After all, he is a villager and there is everypossibility of the person who took down the report on his dictation,committing the mistake.Otherwise, the evidence of this witness hasremained unshaken.Much was said of the fact that in para 8 of hisevidence, he said that his son was near the dead body and on that day,the police interrogated his son Mahadev at night, whereas PW-7 had saidthat his submission was recorded on the next day at 12' O clock.Both thethings can be true.It may be that though PW-7 was interrogated at night,his statement came to be recorded on the next day.On the other hand, all thepoints argued before us seem to have been considered by the High Courtwith great care.He wasthe one, who had seen the accused persons running away with the sicklesand the clothes of A-1 to A-4 being blood stained.He had also identifiedthe blood stained weapons and the clothes.Theevidence of Investigating Officer supports the evidence of PWs 1 and 2,who are the panch witnesses.In his 17evidence, the Investigating Officer has also said about the articles beingsent to the Chemical Examiner at Bangalore and had also referred to thequeries seeking the opinion of the Doctor as to whether the externalinjuries could be caused by the aforementioned weapons seized by him.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
42,490,042 |
Including these appellants, totally, there were five accused.Accused No. 12 to 5 Section 147 IPC3Charge No.3Accused No. 1 Section 302 IPC 4Charge No.4Accused Nos.Accused No. 12 to 5 Section 302 r/w.149 IPC5Charge No.5Accused No.1 Section 307 IPC (2 counts) 6Charge No.6Accused Nos.2 to 5 Section 307 r/w.149 IPC (2 counts) 7Charge No.7Accused No.1 Section 324 IPC8Charge No.8Accused Nos.2, 4 and 5Section 352 IPC (3 counts)The Trial Court, by judgment, dated 30.10.2012, acquitted the accused Nos.3 to 5 from all the charges levelled against them.The Trial Court convicted the accused Nos.1 and 2 under the following charges and accordingly, punished them as detailed below:-Accused Nos.2, 4 and 5Charge No.Rank of Accused Convicted under the Penal Provision Sentenced to undergo the following imprisonment 1Charge No.3Accused No.1 Section 302 IPCTo undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.The 5th accused is the wife of the 1st accused.The 2nd accused had married P.W.9-Selvi.The 2nd accused was demanding P.W.9 to encash the deposit and to give the money to him.Later on, the 2nd accused demanded a sum of Rs.50,000/- from P.W.9 and wanted her to go and get the same from her parents.In the mean while, P.W.9 gave birth to two children.Because of the above quarrels, leaving behind the children at the house of the 2nd accused, P.W.9 had gone to her parental home.It is alleged that when they were nearing the house of the accused, all these five accused suddenly emerged there and quarreled with them, as to why they had come to their house.In the said quarrel, it is alleged that the 1st accused stabbed the deceased Chinnathambi, with soori-knife at his chest once.In the same transaction, the 1st accused stabbed P.W.6, the father of the deceased, on the left side of his hip.Then, the 1st accused stabbed P.W.8, who is the brother of the deceased, on his left shoulder with soori-knife.The 1st accused stabbed P.W.8 with soori-knife near her nose.So far as the accused Nos.2, 4 and 5 are concerned, it is alleged that they attacked P.Ws.1 and 7 with hands and sticks.It is further alleged that they attacked P.W.9 with hands and legs.After attacking the prosecution party as detailed above, the accused Nos.1 to 5 ran away from the scene of occurrence.(iii) Immediately, P.W.1-Sarasu and her husband P.W.6-Subramani, took the deceased Chinnathambi in an auto to the Government Hospital at Tiruchengode.But, the Doctor declared him dead.Thereafter, P.W.1 proceeded to Tiruchengode Police Station and made a complaint to the police.On 24.11.2010, he proceeded to the place of occurrence and prepared Ex.P.2-Observation Mahazar and Ex.P.17-Rough Sketch in the presence of P.W.10-Selvam and another witness at the place of occurrence.He then collected the bloodstained earth (vide M.O.6) and the sample earth (vide M.O.7) under a Mahazar-Ex.P.3, from the place of occurrence.Stomach consists of 100 ml of semisolid food particles.Bladder empty.Intestines intact."P.9 is the Post-Mortem Certificate.The Doctor opined that the said single stab injury found on the deceased would have been caused by a weapon like knife.He further opined that the deceased would appear to have died due to shock and haemorrhage, due to the stab injury to the vital organ.(vii) In the course of investigation, P.W.16 arrested the accused Nos.1 to 4 at 6.15 p.m., near Erode bus stand, in the presence of P.W.12-Arasu and another witness, by name, Suresh.On such arrest, the 1st accused gave a voluntary confession, in which, he disclosed the place where he had hidden the soori-knife.In pursuance of the same, he took the police to the said place and produced the soori-knife (M.O.1), which was recovered under a Mahazar-Ex.Then, he recovered the blood-stained clothes (M.O. Nos. 3 to 5), which were found on the dead body of the deceased.The sentences are directed to run concurrently.The Trial Court had framed as many as 8 charges against the accused Nos.1 to 5, as detailed below :-Charge NumberRank of Accused Penal Provision1Charge No.1Accused No. 1 Section 148 IPC2Charge No.2Accused Nos.Charge No.4Accused No.2Section 302 r/w.149 IPCTo undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.Charge No.5Accused No.1 Section 307 IPC(2 counts)To undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment for each count and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.Charge No.6Accused No.2Section 307 r/w.149 IPC(2 counts)To undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years for each count and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.Charge No.7Accused No.1 Section 324 IPCTo pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.(iv) P.W.16-Karunanidhi, the then Inspector of Police, on receipt of the complaint-Ex.P.1, registered a case in Crime No.1357 of 2010 under Sections 147, 302, 307, 324, 323 IPC, against all the five accused on 24.11.2010, at 10.00 a.m. Ex.P.16 is the First Information Report.(v) P.W.16 took up the case for investigation.Then, he went to the hospital and conducted inquest on the body of the deceased, prepared Ex.P.18- Inquest Report.Then, he forwarded the dead body for post-mortem.(vi) P.W.13-Dr.Thenmozhi of Governent General Hospital, Erode, conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased on 24.11.2010 at 3.10 p.m. According to her, the approximate age of the deceased would have been 25 years.She found the following injuries on the body of the deceased :-"External Examination:-Incised wound 3/2 cm depth, 10 cm over left side of chest.Skull intact.Brain weight - 1400 grams.Skull bones intact.Right lung weight -450 grams, intact.Left lung weight 400 grams.Punctured wound over left lung with contusion is seen.Heart weight 350 grams.Punctured wound seen over chambers of heart.(ventricular portion)Blood clots are seen inheart chambers Thoracic cavity.Right side ribs intact.Left side fracture of 3rd and 4th rib.About 1500 ml of blood is seen in thoracic cavity.Liver weight -1350 grams, intact.Kidneys-intact, each weighing 150 grams.Spleen weight 200 grams, intact.Cut section of all organs pale.Hyoid bone intact.On returning to the Police Station, he forwarded the accused to the Court for judicial remand.(viii) Based on the above materials, the Trial Court framed charges as detailed in the paragraph No.1 of this judgment.The accused Nos.1 to 5 denied the same.During the trial, in order to prove the case of the prosecution, on the side of the prosecution as many as 16 witnesses were examined and 21 documents and 7 material objects were exhibited.Out of the said witnesses, P.Ws. 6 to 9 are the injured witnesses, who have elaborately spoken about the occurrence.P.W.1-Sarasu, who is the mother of the deceased, has also spoken about the entire occurrence.P.W.2-Eswaran and P.W.5-Sekar have turned hostile and they have not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner.P.Ws. 3 and 4-Onkali and Sekar respectively have spoken about the entire occurrence.P.W.10-Selvam has spoken about the preparation of Observation Mahazar (Ex.P.2) and Rough Sketch (Ex.P.17).He has also spoken about the recovery of blood-stained earth and sample earth from the place of occurrence.P.W.11-Suresh has turned hostile and he has not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner.P.W.12-Arasu has spoken about the arrest of accused Nos.1 to 4, the disclosure statement made by accused Nos.1 to 4, and the consequential recovery of soori-knife.Thenmozhi has spoken about the post-mortem conducted by her and her final opinion regarding the cause of death.Muthusamy of Narayani Hospital, Erode, has spoken about the treatment given to P.W.6-Subramani.P.W.15-Hasan, the then Head Constable, has stated that he carried the requisiton letter and the dead body of the deceased to the Hospital and handed over the dead body to the Doctor for the purpose of post-mortem.P.W.16-Karunanidhi, the then Inspector of Police, has spoken about the registration of the case and the investigation done by him and the filing of the final report.(ix) When the accused Nos.1 to 5 were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, they denied them as false.But, they have not chosen to examine any witness nor to mark any document.Their defence was a total denial.Having considered all the above, the Trial Court acquitted the accused Nos.3 to 5 from all the charges levelled against them and convicted the appellants/ accused Nos.1 and 2 alone, as detailed in paragraph No.1 of this judgment.That is how, the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 are now before this Court with this appeal.We have heard Mr.N.Manokaran, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr.M.Maharaja, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and we have also perused the records carefully.As we have already pointed out, P.Ws.1 to 9 are the eye witnesses to the occurrence.Some of them are the injured eye witnesses.Their presence cannot be doubted.We have carefully gone through the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 9, who are the eye witnesses to the occurrence.Of course, the accused No.2 happens to be the husband of P.W.9-Selvi.There is no other evidence against him.Though, it is stated that the 2nd accused harassed and demanded dowry from P.W.9, there is no charge against him for the said allegations.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State is not in a position to show any evidence against the 2nd accused.Therefore, in our considered view, the 2nd accused is entitled for acquittal.The Trial Court has convicted the 2nd accused only on surmises.The Trial Court has acquitted the accused Nos.3 to 5 on finding that there was no unlawful assembly.149 IPC (2 counts).Now, coming to the case against the 1st accused, all the eye witnesses including the injured eye witnesses have stated that it was this accused, who have caused a single stab on the chest of the deceased, which resulted in the death of the deceased.The occurrence had taken place near the house of the accused, where according to the prosecution party, they had come only to pacify the 2nd accused to take back P.W.9 into the matrimonial fold.The eye witnesses account is corroborated by the medical evidence also.We do not find any reason at all to reject the eye witnesses account, who have categorically stated that it was this accused, who caused the death of the deceased, by causing a single stab on the chest of the deceased.Even the deceased had only a cardial relationship with all the accused.All of them had come to the house only to persuade the 2nd accused to take back P.W.9 into the matrimonial fold.It is in evidence that there was quarrel between two families and the quarrel went on for a considerable time.Only in that quarrel, it is stated that the 1st accused took the soori-knife and caused single stab on the chest of the deceased.The 1st accused had taken the soori-knife and caused single stab on the deceased.It was only in the above quarrel, due to sudden provocation, the 1st accused had caused simple hurt on these two witnesses, for which, he can be punished only Section 324 IPC.The Trial Court already convicted the 1st accused under Section 324 IPC for having caused simple hurt on P.W.7, which is liable to be confirmed.Now, turning to the quantum of punishment, the 1st accused is a young man, the occurrence was not pre-meditated one and it was only out of a sudden quarrel, in a heat of passion, the occurrence has taken place, and there are lot of chances for reformation; he had no bad antecedents; even after this occurrence, he has not shown any deviance from law.Having regard to these mitigating circumstances as well as the aggravating circumstances, we are of the view that convicting the 1st accused for the offence under Section 304 (i) IPC, instead of Section 302 IPC, and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight weeks, would meet the ends of justice.Similarly, for having caused hurt voluntarily on P.Ws. 6 and 8, we are of the considered view that convicting the 1st accused under Section 324 IPC (2 counts), instead of Section 307 IPC (2 counts) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for each count and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for each count, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four weeks, would meet the ends of justice.In our considered view, for having caused hurt voluntarily on P.W.7, the conviction of the 1st accused for the offence under Section 324 IPC and sentence to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months, imposed by the Trial Court is liable to be confirmed.In the result, i.this Appeal is partly allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the 2nd appellant/2nd accused by the Trial Court in S.C.No.4 of 2012, dated 30.10.2012, are set aside and the 2nd appellant is acquitted of all the charges levelled against him;The fine amount, if any paid by the 2nd accused, shall be refunded to him.The bail bond, if any executed by the 2nd appellant/2nd accused, shall stand discharged.The conviction of the 1st accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC is set aside, instead, he is convicted for the offence under Section 304(i) IPC, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight weeks.Similarly, for having caused hurt voluntarily on P.Ws. 6 and 8, the conviction and sentence imposed on the 1st accused under Section 307 IPC (2 counts) are set aside and instead, he is convicted under Section 324 IPC (2 counts) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for each count and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for each count, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four weeks.For having caused hurt voluntarily on P.W.7, the conviction of the 1st accused for the offence under Section 324 IPC and sentence to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months, imposed by the Trial Court are confirmed.Since, the 1st appellant/1st accused is on bail, the Sessions Court is directed to take steps to secure his custody to commit him to prison to undergo the remaining period of sentence.The period of imprisonment already undergone by the 1st appellant/1st accused shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.
|
['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
45,565,966 |
Twenty Lacs and further convicted under Section 467 of IPC and sentenced to undergo seven years RI with fine of Rs.1,000/- and further convicted under Section 468 of IPC and sentenced to undergo three years FI with fine of Rs.1,000/-.In default of payment of fine, three months' additional imprisonment on each count.Prosecution case in brief was that the agricultural land bearing survey Nos.277, 275, 276, 278, 274 situated at village Charat Rehat, Pargana and District Gwalior recorded in favour of Santoli, Ramhet, Parmal, Kedar Singh.(25/07/2014) This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by 4th Addl.Sessions Judge, Gwalior in S.T.No.65/2013 on 24.10.2013, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 419 read with Section 109 of IPC and sentenced to undergo two years RI, further convicted under Section 420 of IPC and sentenced to undergo three years RI with fine of Rs.The appellant Piyush Vyas represented some dummy persons for Santoli, Ramhet, Parmal, Kedar Singh and prepared their forged identity cards and forged sale deed in the office of the Registrar and received Rs.16,69,000/- and 2% brokerage from the complainant.After enquiry the crime No.131/2012 has registered and after due investigation the charge sheet was filed against the appellant and three others.The case was committed for trial to the Sessions 2 Cr.A.No.980/2013 Court, which was transferred for trial to 4th Addl.Sessions Judge, Gwalior.Charges were framed and after recording the evidence the appellant was convicted and sentenced as mentioned hereinabove.Feeling aggrieved this appeal has been preferred.2 Cr.A.No.980/2013During pend-ency of the appeal the appellant and complainant settled their dispute and filed an application under Section 320(2) of Cr.P.C., which has been affirmed by the Principal Registrar of this Court.As per the report of the Principal registrar the compromise has been arrived at voluntarily without any fear and force.The offences u/s 419 and 420 of the I.P.C. Are compoundable with the permission of the court hence permission is granted.However, the offence under Sections 467 and 468 of IPC are not compoundable.Learned counsel for the appellant does not wish to challenge the conviction of the appellant under Sections 467 and 468 of IPC.Learned counsel for the appellant prays that in view of the nature of the accusation against the appellant and the fact that the case is having civil flavour, the parties have amicably settled their dispute, hence a lenient view be adopted regarding sentence.Reliance has been placed on the following decisions.:-(iii) Gulab Das & others Vs.Considering the fact that the complainant and the appellant have amicably settled their dispute.The appellant is hereby acquitted of charges under Section 419/109 and 420 of IPC.The conviction and sentence imposed by the learned trial court is set aside.The amount of fine under these offences be returned to the appellant.So far as the conviction of the appellant under Sections 467 and 468 of IPC is concerned, the same is affirmed .The appellant be released, if not required in any other case.3 Cr.A.No.980/2013
|
['Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 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.
|
45,567,504 |
The appellant and others were identified in Court as well as in T. I. Parade.Stolen cash money, arms which were used in the dacoity and the motor bikes which were also used by the miscreants were seized and identified in Court.Then another miscreant entered inside the cash counter and took away the brief case containing Rs.2,53,900/- and odd.He was brandishing one revolver at that time.They put the employees and 4/5 customers in one corner of the bank and thereafter left the place by riding on motor cycles waiting outside.He identified one of the miscreants in the T. I. Parade that is the appellant, Md. Abdul.There was no alibi from the side of the defence that they were falsely implicated for any reason whatsoever.She contended further that a careful reading of the F.I.R. discloses that there were more than four miscreants who had taken part in the alleged bank daoity.Four members of the gang entered inside the bank while the others were guarding the gate of the bank and sitting on the motor bikes in order to escape immediately after commission of the dacoity.Therefore, she contended that it was a group of more than four miscreants and naturally Trial Court did not make any mistake in framing charge under Sections 395 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code.She contended that this kind of offence has serious impact in society and, as such, no lenient view should be taken.I have gone through the evidence of 28 prosecution witnesses.The P.W. - 1 is the lodger of the F.I.R. who happened to be the Manager of Polgustia Anchal Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Limited.He was on the bank on that date and stated that four young persons came inside the bank and obstructed Dilip Hait, the bank accountant, from going out of the bank.One of them fired twice from his revolver and Mr. Hait was narrowly escaped.One of the bullets hit the counter and another bullet did not blast.The P.W. - 1 stated that he came forward and asked the boy about the happenings but he was hit with the butt of a revolver.He identified the brief case (material Exhibit - 1) which was taken away by the miscreants from the cash counter containing Rs.2,53,568.70/-.He denied in his cross-examination that photograph of Md. Abdul, i.e. the appellant, was shown to him before he identified the appellant in the T. I. Parade.He identified the appellant as the man who hit him on his head with the butt of the revolver.- 2 is Dilip Hait, the bank accountant of the bank who had given vivid description of the entire incident.He stated that he was about to go out of the bank to have his tiffin.He found four miscreants to enter into the bank and one of them forced him to enter inside the bank at the point of a pistol.P.W. - 2 stated that he tried to get himself free but the man fired twice and one of the bullets hit the cash counter while other one did not blast.There was a scuffling and the Manager of the bank (P.W. -1) tried to rescue me but he received a blow on his head with a butt of the revolver.The P.W. - 2 stated that the land phone connection was cut off by the miscreants and one of them entered into the cash section and took away the brief case wherein cash was kept.They also took away mobile phones.The P.W. - 2 identified the bullet which was seized on the place of occurrence.He identified the appellant and two other miscreants in the T. I. Parade as well as in Court.He identified the brief case which was containing money.The P.W. -3 is the another employee of the bank.He also identified one miscreant, i.e. the appellant in T. I. Parade as well as in Court.He stated that Sisir Samanta told him that he was employee of Co- operative bank and received injury on his head as the miscreants hit him with the butt of revolver.The another injured Dilip Hait also stated the same fact.He found cut injury and both the persons were given medical treatment by him.P.W. - 6 also identified the appellant, Md. Abdul and another miscreant Mannan Mallick in T. I. Parade as well as in Court.P.W. - 9, P.W. - 10 and P.W. - 11 are customers who came to the bank on that fateful date and time.They witnessed the incident and supported the prosecution case.I have carefully gone through the report of the T. I. Parade which was marked Exhibit - 25 collectively.It shows that the appellant was identified in T. I. Parade by some of the witnesses who also identified him in the trial.I have gone through the oral testimonies of other witnesses including the arms experts and the investigating officer of the case and found nothing which would go in favour of the appellant.If their evidence and other evidence are taken together, it only indicates that the appellant was a member of the gang who not only committed dacoity but used fire arms and assaulted bank employees in course of the dacoity.Some of the stolen money was recovered and placed before the Court.The motor bikes as well as the arms, ammunitions used in the dacoity were also admitted into evidence as material Exhibit identified and proved by the witnesses.I find also that the appellant and his companions did not cover their faces at the time they entered into the bank premises, committed dacoity and escaped.Naturally, the witnesses to the incident were able to identify them even after 17 days in the T. I. Parade and long thereafter in the Court in course of trial.Accordingly, the order of conviction is upheld.However, it appears to me that the appellant is in custody of about four years and few odd months.One of the four miscreants who faced the trial was acquitted.Some miscreants are yet to be apprehended.The appellant is a family man having kids.Therefore, while upholding the order of conviction, I reduce the sentence to the extent that the appellant is to suffer rigorous imprisonment for the period already undergone by him but he has to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years.The appeal is disposed of with the above observation.The L.C.R. be returned to the Trial Court together with a copy of this order.The appellant be given a copy of the order.(Kanchan Chakraborty, J.) Srimanta.
|
['Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
455,679 |
JUDGMENT V.K. Agarwal, J.Counsel for the appellants contended that appellant No. 5 Dev Singh has expired during the pendency of this appeal.The appeal, therefore, abates against appellant No. 5 Dev Singh.The prosecution case, as set out in the FIR (Ex. P. 1), lodged by complainant Munnalal (P.W. 1), son of Motilal (since deceased) at Police Chouki Jhoteshwar, on 17-6-1987 at 18.20 hours, in presence of his brother Shyamlal (P.W. 11) and Dashrath (not examined), is that on that day in the afternoon at about 3.00 O'clock, while he was going in his field, along with his brother Shyamlal (P.W. 11) and Dashrath, he saw his father, Motilal, coming on the road from Nagawara on his bicycle, who had gone to Jhoteshwar, in the morning for some urgent work.When his father reached near Jhiriyawala Mango Tree, appellant Dhannu Singh armed with Farsi, appellant Amera Sigh armed with Tabbal, appellant Dev Singh armed with Sang, appellant Hori Singh armed with Parena and appellant Bhupat Singh armed with Kulhari suddenly emerged there by the side of the mango tree and they assaulted his father Motilal with their respective weapons.His father fell on the ground, after sustaining injuries and blood started oozing out from his injuries.He raised alarm which attracted the attention of Nanhelal and Nathuram who were working in their field and Ram Singh, who was guarding fruits of the mango tree and Jirelal (P.W. 2), who was coming behind them, saw the incident and came there.In the meanwhile, appellants took to their heels towards Nandwara.He rushed to his home on the bicycle of his father and brought a ballock-cart and while he was taking his father to Shrinagar Hospital, appellants intercepted his bullock cart at village Talwara, but he sped the bullock cart, in the meanwhile, appellant Hori Singh assaulted his brother Shyamlal (PW. 11), on his back by means of a Lathi.On reaching Shrinagar his father Motilal died.Then he went to Jhoteshwar Police Outpost and lodged the report.The motive for the incident was previous grudge and enmity.On the basis of the report lodged by the complainant Munnalal (PW. 1), Marg intimation (Ex, P. 3) was recorded by A.S.I., U. R. Sharma (P. W. 8) at 18.15 hours.Thereafter at 18.20 hours First Information Report (Ex. P. 1) was drawn up.Incised wound 6" x 2 1/2" between both scapular region.Incised wound A 1/2" in length both incised wounds were crossing each other in middle between both scapular region.In response to the query of A.S. Ansari (P.W. 12) with reference to the wounds of the deceased and the weapons recovered from the appellants sent to Dr. Lalwani (P.W. 3) he opined that injury Nos. 1, 3,7 and 8 were possible by Kulhari (Article G. 1), injury Nos. 5 and 6 could be caused by Kulhari (Article N. 1), as also by the Farsi.The appellants were prosecuted in Sessions Trial No. 104 of 1987 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Narasinghpur, for committing murder of Motilal and for other minor offences and they have been convicted, under Section 302 read with Sections 149 and 147 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and R.L for one year respectively.The appellant Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 have been further convicted under Sections 148 and 323/149 of the Penal Code and sentenced to R.I. for one year, under each section.Appellant No. 4, Hori Singh has been convicted under Section 323 of the Penal Code for causing injury to Shyamlal (P.W. 11) and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year.At 6.00 P.M., A.S.I. A.S. Ansari (P.W. 12) received a Radio message about the incident at Gotegaon Police Station and went to the Shrinagar Bus Stand.On 18-6-1987, A, S. Ansari (P.W. 12) prepared Panchnama (Ex. P. 5) of the dead body of the deceased, in presence of Barai (P.W. 4), vShyamlal (P.W. 11) and others and recorded the statement of the witnesses and sent the dead body to Shrinagar Hospital for post mortem examination.Dr. Chetan Lalwani (PW. 3) conducted autopsy on the dead body on 18-6-1987 and found following injuries on the person of.the deceased :-Injury Nos. 1,5 and 6 could be caused by Parana and injury Nos. 2 to 4 could be caused by Lathi.On Police requisition, Dr. Lalwani (P.W. 3) also examined Shyamlal (P.W. 11) and found one abrasion on his back right side parallel to the spinal cord, 12 cm x Vi cm caused by hard and blunt object, as per injury report Ex. P. 2A.After the Panchanama, seizure of blood stained and plain earth and clothes of the deceased were made vide Exs.P. 7 and P. 15 and a map of the place of incident Ex. P. 14 was prepared.On the memorandum of the appellant Saheb Singh, a Parena and a Sang were recovered and on the memorandum of appellants Dhannu Singh, Hori Singh, Ajmer Singh and Bhupat Singh, Farsi, Clothes, Lathi, Tabbal and Kulhari were recovered and seized vide Exs.After the completion of the necessary formalities and the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellants and after the cognizance and the commitment the case came up for trial before the Additional Sessions Judge, Narasinghpur.The defence of the appellants was that Onkar Singh (D.W. 1) had for the first time seen the deceased lying injured in a pool of blood near the mango tree while he was going to Nagawara and he informed complainant and his brothers that their father was lying injured in a pool of blood.Then the complainant Munnalal (P.W. 1) and his brothers came to know about the incident and the appellants have been falsely implicated on account of the criminal case pending between them and the dispute over the passage in the field which the deceased had blocked.There was also alibi defence of Bhupat Singh that on the date and time of incident, he was at Chandan Kheda, a place 10 to 12 kilometres away from village Nagwara.The learned trial Court, on consideration of the evidence, convicted and sentenced the appellants in the manner mentioned aforesaid.Shri S.L. Kochar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, has contended that complainant Munnalal (P.W. 1) and Shyamlal (P.W. 11) who have deposed as eye-witness to the incident are interested, partisan and chance witnesses.The prosecution case primarily rests on the evidence of complainant Munnalal (P.W. 1) Jirelal (P.W. 2) and Shyamlal (P.W. 11).Once that approach is made and the Court is satisfied that the evidence of interested witnesses have a ring of truth such evidence could be relied upon even without corroboration.Admittedly, Munnalal (P.W. 1) and Shyamlal (P.W. 1) were on inimical terms with the appellant on account of a criminal case Under Section.324, I.P.C., pending between them and a dispute over the passage, which the deceased had blocked.Jirelal (P.W. 2) belonged to the factioin of complainant party.Therefore, their evidence needs to be scrutinised with care and caution.The complainant Munnalal (P.W. 1), Jirelal (P.W. 2) and Shyamlal (P.W. 11) claimed to have seen the appellants assaulting the deceased Motilal with their respective weapon on the road while the deceased was coming on his bicycle from Jhoteshwar.But strangely enough no blood marks were found on the road where the deceased is alleged to have been assaulted.The blood marks were found under the Mango tree, which was about 15 feet away from the place of incident, as per seizure memo Ex. P. 7 and the evidence of the Investigating Officer A. S. Ansari (P.W. 12), Jirelal (P.W. 2) in his Court statement has tried to cover up the infirmity by stating that the deceased had been dragged from the road to the Mahgo tree, but his evidence in this regard is not consistent with his case diary statement (Ex. D. 2).The evidence of complainant Munnalal (P.W. 1) Jirelal (P.W. 2) and Shyamlal (P.W. 11) that all the appellants assaulted the deceased with the irrespective weapons and appellant Dev Singh (since deceased) was armed with a Sang is corroborated by medical evidence of Dr. Lalwani (P.W. 3), in his report sent to the Investigating Officer with reference to his query about the wound and weapons.A perusal of Panchnama (Ex. P. 5) of the dead body of the deceased reveals that the Panchnama was prepared in presence of the complainant Munnalal (P.W. 1) and his brother Shyamlal (P.W. 11), but name of the assailants of the deceased is not mentioned in the Panchnama.Moreover, the possibility of the incident being seen by Munnalal (P.W. 1), Jirelal (P.W. 2) and Shyamlal (P.W. 11) at the mango tree from quite some distance is highly doubtful in view of the fact that there was 8 feet high Menhdi plants on both sides of road.Moreso by Jirelal (P.W. 2), who was going much behind the complainant Munnalal (P.W. 1) and Shyamlal (P.W. 11) to Shrinagar to purchase sugar for the first time on that day, and had never gone to Shrinagar, prior and subsequent to the date of incident.It is evident from the FIR (Ex. P. 1) that Nanhelal, Nathram and Ramsingh had seen incident, who are independent and material witnesses for unfolding the truth of the prosecution story, but their evidence has been withheld by the prosecution and has not offered any explanation for their non-examination.In Bir Singh v. State of U.P. , the Apex Court observed (at page 181) (of Cri LJ) :-Where all the eye-witnesses examined by the prosecution had serious animu's against the accused and were interested in implicating the accused and neither independent witnesses were examined nor any reasonable explanation was given by the prosecution, the Court would be justified in drawing an adverse inference against the prosecution.An adverse inference has to be drawn against the prosecution for withholding the evidence of independent witnesses.The testimony of Mannalal (P.W. 1), Jirelal (P.W. 2) and Shyamlal (P.W. 11), as eye-witnesses to the incident, cannot be relied upon for want of corroboration by any independent witness.Abrasion found on the person of Shyamlal (P.W. 11) was parallel to the spinal cord, which could not have been caused while he was taking his father to Shrinagar.Besides this, it is evident from the evidence of complainant Munnalal (P.W. 1) that he had lodged information about the incident at Jhoteshwar Police Outpost on 17-6-1967 at about 18.15 hours and had disclosed the name of the assailants of the deceased, but no FIR was drawn up on the basis of his report.Instead a Merg intimation Ex. P. 3 was recorded.The FIR Ex. P. 1 is subsequent to the Merg intimation.It is evident from the evidence of A. S. Ansari (P.W. 12) that he had already received a Radio message about the incident at the police station at 16.00 hours, but Rojnamcha has not seen the light of the day and same appears to have been withheld by the prosecution with oblique motive.
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 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.
|
45,568,422 |
(19th day of July, 2018) The appellant has preferred the present appeal being aggrieved by the judgment dated 23.7.2016 passed by IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Balaghat in S.T.No.46/2015 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 363 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years along with fine of Rs.2,000/-; in default of payment of fine, additional 21 months R.I., under Section 366 (A) of the I.P.C. and sentenced to 2 Cr.Appeal.No.3181/2016 undergo R.I. for 5 years along with fine of Rs.2,000/-; in default of payment of fine, additional 30 months R.I., under Section 376 (2) (N) of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years along with fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional 30 months R.I., under Section 506 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year along with fine of Rs.2,000/-; in default of payment of fine, additional 3 months R.I. and under Section 4 of POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years along with fine of Rs.2,000/-; in default of payment of fine, additional 30 months R.I.In brief, the facts of the case are that on 10.11.2014, the appellant committed repeated rape with the prosecutrix who was aged nearabout 16 years and also threatened her to life.Accordingly, at that point of time, the appellant was below 18 years of age.During the pendency of this appeal, the question with regard to the age of the appellant was raised with a view to dispose of the application with regard to suspension of sentence.Therefore, no further inquiry is required in this case.Thus, on the date of incident, the appellant was juvenile.Digitally signed by VINAY KUMAR VERMA Date: 2018.07.20 06:24:43 -07'00'
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
45,571,821 |
Heard on point of admission.Appeal is admitted for final hearing.Heard on I.A. No.6607/2017, which is first application under Section 389 (1) Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of appellant Sultan Singh S/o Devisingh The appellant suffered conviction and sentence as under:-Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he was on bail during the trial.The disposal of the appeal would take time.Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposes the application.After going to the record of the lower Court and the impugned judgment, the application is allowed.It is directed that, if the appellant furnish personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty Thousand Rupees) and one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, and also on payment of fine amount, the remaining portion of the jail sentence of the appellant shall be suspended and he be released on bail for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 20/12/2017 and thereafter on all subsequent dates, as may be fixed by the Registry in this behalf.Certified copy as per rules.(ALOK VERMA)
|
['Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
45,573,128 |
Heard on admission.Heard on I.A. No. 213/2017 under Section 389 (1) of the Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the appellants Nimaide, Babulal, Ramprasad, Shambhu and Gopal for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.A perusal of the record reveals that the appellants stand convicted and sentenced as hereunder:-R I For 1 year Rs.2,000/- S.I. for 60 354 rws each deposited days each IPC 149 on 20.12.2016 323 rws 1,000/- each Rs.1,000/- S.I. for 60 IPC 149 each days each All sentences have been directed to run concurrently.Learned counsel for the appellants submit that the jail sentence of the appellants have been suspended by the Appellate Court till 20.01.2017 and during that period, they have not misused the liberty granted to them.Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the fine amount has already been deposited; therefore, it has been prayed that the jail sentence of the appellants be suspended.Learned panel lawyer for the respondent State has opposed the application.However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, and the quantum of sentence imposed upon the appellant, in the opinion of this Court, the substantive jail sentence of the appellants deserve to be suspended and they are entitled to be released on bail.Consequently, this application for suspension of sentence filed on behalf of the appellants is allowed.It is directed that on depositing the fine amount if not already deposited, and furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- with one solvent surety in the same amount each to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance before the Registry of this Court on 03.07.2017 and all other subsequent dates fixed in this regard, the remaining part of the substantive jail sentence imposed upon them shall stand suspended and they shall be released on bail.Certified copy as per rules.(C V SIRPURKAR) JUDGE sh
|
['Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
455,748 |
D. 1's father-in-law is one Natesan.The said Natesan owned a lorry bearing registration No. MSN.458 (M.O.I.).The accused had been employed as the driver of the said lorry.as his pangali.The lorry had two cleaners.as respects the earnings of the lorry.required the services of the lorry M.O.I. in connection with rig operation at Bangalore.for such operation the driver - accused was unable to spare the services of the lorry inasmuch as he had engaged the lorry for carrying loads otherwise.A day later, ie., to say on 4-12-1985, P.W. 1. received an information over phone requiring him to go over to Tiruchengode.On receipt of such information, he returned to the village by engaging a taxi.had been murdered and their bodies were lying at Veppankadu in Pillanatham Village, adjacent to Tiruchengode - Ariyanur Road.c. In the meantime, i.e., to say on 2-12-1985 the accused transported cement bags from Sankagiri factory to Salem Junction.and P.W. 6. were then functioning as cleaners of the said lorry.was the then Watchman.After parking the lorry, the accused and D. 2. went to answer the calls of nature.The time was then 8.15 P.M. After answering the calls of nature, both of them returned to the lorry and the driver-accused attempted to start the lorry, but he was unable to do so.Apparently, there was some mechanical defect.went to the theatre for witnessing the film running at that time.however, stayed and slept in the lorry itself.The time was then 11.00 A.M. At that time, D. 1. came there and questioned the propriety of the accused-driver in not sparing the lorry for its being utilised in connection with the rig operation, carried on at Bangalore but utilising the same for transport of goods unauthorisedly.that the lorry M.O. 1. was being taken to Salem for the purpose of effecting repairs.D. 1 mandated the accused-driver not to take the lorry to Salem for the purpose of effecting repairs and instead, he directed him to go to Salem in a bus and purchase necessary spare parts for repairing the lorry.cleaner went to Salem in a bus.after taking Rs. 100/- from the accused, went to his village saying that he would get himself engaged in another lorry, in view of the fact that the lorry M.O. 1. was to be sent to Bangalore in connection with the rig operation.e. The driver alone, it appears, returned with the spare parts to Attayampatti.P.W. 8 found the brake system of the said lorry failed and he effected the necessary repairs and restored the brake system.g. The lorry M.O. 1, it appears, got parked at Pillanatham Veppankadu, some distance away from the cinema talkies located at Morepalayam.At about 9 P.M. one K.A.S. bus bearing Registration No. TNQ 9763 passed that way.P.Ws. 9 and 10 were respectively the then conductor and driver of the said bus.The accused-driver, however, stopped the said bus and requested P.Ws. 9 and 10 to give him a helping hand in pushing the lorry so as to see the said lorry got started.P.Ws. 9 and 10 obliged the accused-driver in giving a push to the said lorry.At that time, the accused-Driver was found in a perturbed state of mind.P.Ws. 9 and 10 did not however, know the accused lorry driver previously, but however, identified him subsequently at the identification parade held within the premises of Judicial Second Class Magistrate's Court, Sankagiri.standing near the Police Station.The time was then 10.00 P.M. On sighting P.W. 11, the driver-accused stopped the lorry and met P.W. 11. and told him that he was proceeding towards Mettupatti to go to his sister's house and in the road proceeding towards Mettupatti, there were lot of wild pigs and therefore, requested him to accompany him and he readily did so and the apart, he also gave five cartridges he had to the accused-driver.to be in the lorry itself, then went to his sister's house and returned to the lorry after half an hour.At that time, P.W. 11, to his dismay found some injury on the right hand of the accused, beside his dhothi also being found stained with blood.Then the accused drove the lorry towards Vennandhur.i. P.W. 20 was the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Tiruchengode Police Station.On 4-12-85 at 10.00 A.M. he was in charge of the Police Station.At that time, P.W. 3. was bodily present there.The statement so recorded had been read over to the accused-driver and got his signature.is the printed First Information Report.He prepared express reports and sent the same to the concerned officials.Since the place of occurrence fell within the jurisdictional limits of Mallasamudram Police Station.The said constable handed over the transferred F.I.R. to P.W. 21, the then Grade I Constable attached to Mallasamudram Police Station.in turn registered the case in Crime No. 229/85 on the file of Mallasamudram Police Station.is the Printed F.I.R. He prepared express reports and sent the same to the concerned officials.j. P.W. 24 was the then Inspector of Police, Tiruchengode.On receipt of the copy of the express F.I.R., he took up further investigation of this case.He rushed and reached Tiruchengode Police Station at 12.00 Noon.He arrested the accused who was present there then.Exhibit P. 1. is the admissible portion of the confession-statement.and another.Since the accused was found injured on his right hand, he had been sent to the Government Hospital, Tiruchengode for the purpose of treatment.k. P.W. 19 the then Assistant Surgeon attached to Government Hospital, Tiruchengode treated the accused at 1.30 P.M. and also noted down the injuries, he found on his person.is the wound certificate he issued, for the injuries he found on the person of the accused.After the accused being treated as an out-patient, the accused had been taken to the Police Station at 1.45 P.M.l. At 2.00 P.M., the accused took P.W. 24 to Pillanathan, Veppankadu and showed the place where the bodies of deceased 1 and 2 were lying.During inquest, he examined P.Ws. 1, 2, and others.is the requisition sent by him to Judicial Second Class Magistrate No. 4, Salem, for sending the same to the Chemical Examiner for examination.and others at Attayampatti.He brought the accused to Mallasamudram Police Station at 12.30 AM, (O. 30 A.M.).and others.On 5-12-1985, he sent the accused to Court for remand.He also examined P.Ws.is the Post Mortem Certificate he issued.He would further opine that all the injuries were antemortem and that all the injuries were necessarily fatal.waist cord and handed over the same at the Police Station.is the Post Mortem Certificate he issued.and that all those injuries were necessarily fatal.The Accused was the driver of the lorry M.O. 1 at the relevant point of time.JUDGMENT Janarthanam, J.The appellant was accused in S.C. No. 68 of 1986 on the file of the Court of Session, Salem.Aggrieved by the connviction and sentences, the present action had been resorted to.Brief facts are :-(a) One Sivashanmugham (since deceased-first deceased - for short D1) was the eldest son of P.W. 1, a resident of Kulakkadu at Pallipalayamm.d. On the morning of 3-12-1985, at about 8.00 A.M., the accused-driver again made an attempt to start the lorry and the attempt so made ended in dismal failure.so as to start the same.for a consideration of Rs. 30/-.After a push having been given with the aid of the said tractor, the lorry started and the accused-driver drove the lorry to Attayampatti and got it parked there near the road side for the purpose of taking tea.At that time, D. 1. abused the accused lorry driver for his delayed return from Salem.is the employee and fuelled the lorry with 80 litres of diesel.(diesel).is the carbon copy of the bill for the supply of 80 litres of diesel.The accused-driver appeared before him, along with lorry M.O. 1. and gave a statement.The statement so made by the accused-driver had been recorded by him.requisition for the purpose of autopsy.requisition for the purpose of autopsy.and another.P.W. 24 then took the accused to Vazhappadi Police Station.near the dead body of one Sengoda Gounder in Crime No. 361/85 of Vazhappadi Police Station.seized from the body M.O. 20, Lungi, M.O. 21, Shirt, M.O. 22, banian, M.O. 23, underwear and M.O. 24, Waist Cord and handed over the same at the Police Station.On 14-12-1985 he gave a requisition to the Judicial II Class Magistrate's Court, Sankagiri for conducting test identification parade so as to enable P.Ws. 9 and 10 to identify the accused.On 23-12-1985 he sent Exhibit P. 11, requisition to the Judicial Second Class Magistrate's Court.Tiruchengode to send the incriminating material objects for chemical analysis.s. P.W. 17 was the then Head Clerk attached to Judicial II Class Magistrate's Court Tiruchengode.office copy of the letter.and P. 14. are the reports of the Chemical Examiner and Serologist respectively.was the then Head Clerk attahced to Judicial II Class Magistrate's Court No. 4, Salem.Office copy of the letter.After completing the formalities of the investigation, he laid the final report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. on 24-3-1986, against the accused before the Judicial II Class Magistrate, Tiruchengode under Section 302(2) counts I.P.C.On committal, learned Sessions Judge, Salem framed a charge against the accused under Section 302 two counts I.P.C. and the accused, when questioned as respects the charge to framed, denied the same and claimed to be tried.The prosecution in proof of the charge so framed, examined P.Ws. 1 to 24, filed Exhibits P. 1 to P. 26 and marked M.Os.The accused when questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as respects the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him, denied his complicity in the Crime.He did not, however, choose to examine any witness on his side.and on the date of occurrence viz., 3-12-1985, D. 2. and P.W. 6. were found in the company of the accused in discharge of their duties as cleaners of the said lorry.at Bangalore on 3-12-1985 and the said lorry being utilised by the accused for loading and unloading operation unauthorisedly.The arrest of the accused by P.W. 24 at 12 Noon on 4-12-1985 at Tiruchengode Police Station and the so-called version under Section 27 of the Evidence Act made by him and consequent recovery effected pursuant to the so-called version made by him and the seizure of the blood stained clothes from the person of the accused at the time of his arrest.in the rig-operation he was engaged at Bangalore, besides the said lorry being utilised unauthorisedly by the accused for loading, and unloading purposes, even assuming for arguments sake had been established beyond any shadow of doubt by the prosecution, even then, those circumstances either individually or cumulatively will have no effect in clinchingly pointing out that the accused and him alone was responsible for causing the murder of the deceased 1 and 2 at the relevant point of time.Such a rationale or reasoning cannot be expected to command any in acceptance at our hands on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.It is not as if there was no quarrel or kirmishes between the accused and deceased 1, at any time prior to the day of occurrence.such a skirmish or quarrel between them was an usual routine, inasmuch as the accused was not rendering proper accounts of the earnings from the lorry of which he happened to be the driver.Further, the quarrel or skirnish that took place on the day of occurrence between the accused and deceased 1. was a normal routine quarrel without any special significance.Such being the case, such quarrel or skirmish happened on the day of occurrence between them cannot be the motivating or igniting factor for the accused to rise in revolt against the deceased 1 to go to the extent of murdering him.When especially there is noting on record to point out that there was any sort of animosity or embittered relationship between them.No doubt, his earlier version before the Police had been brought on record in the manner allowed by law.In the absence of any evidence aliunde on this aspect of the matter, the proved version of the hostile witness P.W. 11. cannot at all be relied upon to any extent whatever by the prosecution in support of its case.Consequently, the evidence of P.W. 11. has to be eschewed out of consideration out and out.would certificate he issued for the injuries he found on the person of the accused reveals that the accused had three lacerated injuries on his right hand and one abrasion on his left hand.Of course, the said Doctor would opine that the three lacerated injuries on his right hand could have been sustained by the accused in the process of wielding a weapon like Koduval in mounting an attack on the victim.The opinion of the said Doctor as such, in the absence of any evidence aliunde as to the involvement of the accused in the commission of the murder either of the deceased 1 or D. 2, cannot at all be stated to advance or improve the case of the prosecution to any extent whatever.As such, this sort of so-called incrimination circumstance pales into insignificance.They had been cited to depose to the fact that when they took the bus TNQ 9763 for a trip from Tiruchengode bus stand at 8.40 P.M. 3-12-1985 towards Attayampatti, they happened to pass the Cinema theatre at Morepalayam, where the accused showed some sign to stop the bus and in fact, the bus got stopped and when enquired.the accused requested their assistance to give a push to his lorry.MSN 458 which got parked on the road side due to some starting trouble.They also obliged the accused in giving a push to the said lorry and in such process, they were able to find that the accused was in a perturbed state of mind.This sort of a version, though they projected during the course of the investigation, yet during the course of trial they resiled from such version.They denied any knowledge of any such incident or event, consequently, they were treated as hostile.On this aspect of the matter, there is no other evidence emerging from any independent quarters.In such state of affairs, though the resiled version of P.Ws. 9 and 10 had been brought on record in the manner allowed by law, they cannot at all be safely relied upon for any purpose whatever and in that view of the matter we eschew their evidence out of consideration.This circumstance also, we rather feel, bristles next to nothing.The last of the incriminating circumstance on which so much of implicit reliance had been placed by the prosecution, revolves on the arrest of the accused, and his version under Section 27 of the Evidence Act leading to certain recoveries, besides the recovery of the blood stained clothes owned by the accused.along with M.O. 1 lorry.It is only on the strength of the statement given by him, P.W. 20 registered the case in Crime No. 743 of 1985 for offences under Sections 302 and 307 I.P.C. After the registration of the case, he sent express F.I.Rs.to the concerned officials and informed P.W. 24, the Inspector of Police as respects the case over phone, after detaining the accused in the police station.P.W. 24, rushed and reached Tiruchengode Police Station at 12.00 noon, and arrested the accused.The accused also took P.W. 24, to Veppankadu at Pillanatham Village at about 2.00 P.M. and pointed out deceased 1 and 2 lying dead.Inspector of Police, Vahapadi Circle in Crime No. 361/85 in the scene where the body of deceased Sengoda Gounder was lying.Koduval said to have been recovered pursuant to the Section 27 confession made by the accused contained human blood of 'B' group origin.It is also equally not possible to infer by way of any inductive analysis, that the accused could have been present and participated in the commission of the murder of deceased 1 and 2, since his clothes were found stained with human blood of the origin of 'B' Group alone.For the reasons as above, the accused deserves to be acquitted by giving him the benefit of reasonable doubt by finding him not guilty of the offences with which he stood charged and consequently setting aside the conviction and sentence, as had been imposed upon him by the Court below.In fine, the appeal is allowed.The conviction and sentence as had been imposed upon the accused-appellant under section 302 (2 counts) I.P.C. are set aside and he is acquitted thereof, by giving him the benefit of reasonable doubt.Appeal allowed.
|
['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.
|
4,557,613 |
Case diary is not available.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that looking to the nature of case, it may be considered with the help of copy of impugned order.Heard the learned counsel for the parties.The applicant has an apprehension of his arrest in connection with Crime No.200/15 registered at Police Station Rampur Naikin, District Sidhi for the offences punishable under Sections 306/34 of the IPC.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an old person of 58 years of age, who has no criminal past alleged against her.The deceased was daughter- in-law of the applicant, who died after 12 years of her marriage.She left two children.The applicant was not residing with the deceased or her husband.After death of the deceased, the parents and relatives have falsely implicated the applicant.However, looking to the allegation made against the applicant, they do not fall within the purview of Section 107 or 109 of the IPC and therefore, prima facie, no offence under Section 306 of the IPC is made out against the applicant.The police is unnecessarily harassing the applicant.Consequently, she prays for anticipatory bail.Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposes the application.Keeping in view the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicants have a good case for grant of bail of anticipatory nature.
|
['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
45,577,836 |
2018 in S.T. No. 313/20122012 at 11:00 am in village Reonja present respondent no. 2 Tulsiram and no. 3 Ramveer were cultivating agricultural land called " Nariyaoo Wala Khet" at that time complainant Ramsnehi (PW-3), Santram (PW-6) and Suneel (PW-9) were grazing their buffaloes.As the above mentioned field was belonging to complainant, respondents Tulsiram and Ramveer were denied from cultivating the relating field, then co-accused Tulsiram gave abuses to complainant Ramsnehi and each of the present respondents Tulsiram and Ramveer inflicted injuries by their separate axe (kulhadi) on head of Dheer Singh ( PW-6).Suneel and Keshwati (PW-8) tried to intervene then respondent Ramveer assaulted by fists which caused injury nearer to eye of Keswati.Incident was witnessed by Lakhan Sing and 3 M.Cr.C. No. 16593/2018 Dheer Singh v. State of M.P and Ors.On the date of incident at 5 pm complainant Ramsnehi gave oral intimation at Police Station Raun which was recorded as FIR (Ex. P-7) by Head constable Deena Nath.Present petitioner injured Dheer Singh and other injured were sent to hospital for medical examination.On 24.8.2012 at Samudaik Swasth Kendra, Dr. R.K. Sharma (PW-1) medically examined Dheer Singh and found a incised wound on his right parietal region of his skull appearing to be caused by sharp cutting object and three other contusions appearing to be caused by hard and blunt object were found at Dheer Singh's both hand and Dr. advised for radio-logical examination of Dheer Singh's head injury.In Dheer Singh's radio-logical examination conducted at District Hospital, Bhind radiologist Dr. R.K. Singh found fracture of right of skull region of parieto temporal region.( 05.10.2018) Per Ashok Kumar Joshi, j:-Applicant has filed an application u/s. 378 (3) of the Cr.P.C for grant of leave to appeal against judgment of acquittal of present respondents no. 2 Tulsiram and no. 3 Ranveer for offences punishable u/s. 326 and 324 of the IPC for causing grievous and simple injury by sharp cutting object to present applicant, passed by the Additional Judge to the Court of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind dated 4 th of April, 2 M.Cr.C. No. 16593/2018 Dheer Singh v. State of M.P and Ors.It would be significant to mention here that the trial court has convicted respondent no. 2 Tulsiram u/s. 323 of the IPC for causing simple injury to Dheer Singh and sentenced him to undergo one year RI with fine of Rs. 1,000/- and trial court has also convicted present respondent no. 3 Ramveer u/s. 323 of the IPC for causing injury to Dheer Singh and sentenced him to one year RI with fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default stipulation and has also convicted and sentenced Ramveer u/s. 323 of the IPC for causing simple injury to another injured Keshwati.After completing formal investigation, charge-sheet was filed before JMFC, Lahar who committed arisen criminal case to Sessions Court, Bhind.The trial court framed charges initially u/s. 307, 323, 324, 506 and 504 r/w Sec. 34 of the IPC, but later on, during trial by amendment charge for offence punishable u/s. 307 was dropped and instead of it, charge for offence punishable u/s. 326 of the IPC was framed.Present respondents and other tried co-accused persons denied charges framed against them in trial.Ten prosecution witnesses were examined .It was the defence of the present respondents and other co-accused persons that actually relating field was belonging to accused persons, and complainant party wanted to dispossess them and actually beating was 4 M.Cr.C. No. 16593/2018 Dheer Singh v. State of M.P and Ors.given by the complainant party to present respondents and their companions and they have been falsely implicated in this case.No any defence witness was examined before trial court.The trial court after hearing recorded its conclusions in impugned judgment that it was the case of free-fight between two groups, wherein persons of both parties received injuries and in the light of the referred citations and established legal position, in the case of free-fight any accused could be convicted and sentenced only for his individual act and no accused could be convicted with the help of Sec. 34 or Sec. 149 of the IPC and in the case of free-fight right of private of defence was not available to any party and as according to Dheer Singh's evidence and prosecution's case each of the present respondents Tulsiram and Ramveer inflicted separate incised wound over head of Dheer Singh, but actually sole incised wound was found on the skull of the injured Dheer Singh, therefore, it could not be ascertained that out of two persons, namely, respondents Tulsiram and Ramveer, who inflicted the sole incised wound and relating fracture to Dheer Singh, therefore, none of the present respondents Tulsiram and Ramveer could be convicted under framed charge punishable u/s. 326 of the IPC in relation to present applicant's grievous injury and hence each of the present respondents no. 2 and 3 were acquitted from the charge of Sec. 326 and each of the present respondents was convicted only u/s. 323 of the IPC in relation to injured Dheer Singh as under investigation, no axe was seized from any 5 M.Cr.C. No. 16593/2018 Dheer Singh v. State of M.P and Ors.The acquittal of respondents no. 2 and 3 from charge of Sec. 326 is challenged by injured witness Dheer Singh in this M.Cr.Appearing counsel for the petitioner Dheer Singh contends that from medical evidence, it was proved beyond reasonable doubt that applicant Dheer Singh has received an incised wound on his skull caused by sharp cutting object and in radio-logical examination, fracture of relating bone was also found, therefore, the trial court erred in acquitting each of the present respondents Tulsiram and Ramveer from the cahrge of Sec. 326 and 324 of the IPC in relation to present applicant/injured prosecution witnesses Dheer Singh.Therefore, it is prayed that it is a fit a case for grant of leave to appeal against judgment of above mentioned acquittal of respondent Tulsiram and Ramveer.From perusal of record of the trial court, it is clear that from evidence of Dr. R.L. Sharma (PW-5) that on the same day 24.8.2012, he also examined the relating accused persons Harish Chandra, Kamlesh, Arjun, Tulsiram and Ramveer also found an incised wound on the body of Harish Chandra and a lacerated wound on head of respondent Tulsiram and swelling over head of the respondent Ramveer and a contusion on back side of left elbow of Ramveer.Dr. R.L. Sharma (PW-5) proved the relating MLC report (Ex. D-6) in relation to present respondent Tulsiram and MLC (Ex. D-8) recorded in regard to present respondent Ramveer and none of injuries of Tulsiram and Ramveer were of grievous nature and co- 6C. No. 16593/2018 Dheer Singh v. State of M.P and Ors.C. No. 16593/2018 Dheer Singh v. State of M.P and Ors.In such a situation, in view of the evidence of Dheer Singh (PW-6) and other eye witnesses, it could not be ascertained that out of two respondents, namely, Ranveer and Tulsiram who actually inflicted the sole incised wound found on skull of the injured Dheer Singh.In such a situation, both the present respondents Ranveer and Tulsiram were entitled for getting benefit of reasonable doubt as it was totally doubtful and could not be ascertained that actually who caused sole incised wound or fracture of skull of Dheer Singh.It is true that in the light of evidence of radiologist doctor R.K. Singh (PW-2) and his X-ray report (Ex. P-6) in radio-logical examination of Dheer Singh conducted on 25.8.2012, fracture of right side bones of his skull was found, but in view of the total evidence of the relating injured Dheer Singh (PW-6) it was not established that out of two respondents, namely, Ramveer and Tulsiram, who was author of this fracture, therefore, 8 M.Cr.C. No. 16593/2018 Dheer Singh v. State of M.P and Ors.
|
['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
455,823 |
JUDGMENT R.P. Gupta, J.Sharda Prasad P.W. 10 was working as Head Constable at Police Station Hoshangabad on 16-12-1985 at 11 p.m. Suresh P.W. I had informed him about the incident that night and he recorded that information in Rojnamcha Sanha No. 1695 (Ex.P-16).On 18- 12-1985, at about 7 p.m., he returned from Hoshangabad and on information received from his Bhanji Prembai, he went to his field and noted that his mother was bringing his father Bonder on a cot.Bonder was put at the house of Kotwar Jhagdu.There, he asked his father as to who had hurt him.His father had told him that Radhey Shyam and Munna had given injuries to him in the field.Even Jhagdu was told the same fact by the father of Suresh.The witness confirmed the report.Then he came back to his house by about 3 a.m. and his father had already died by that time.The report Ex.P-16 was recorded at about 11 P.M. It is to the effect that some distance from the village on the field, his father Bonder was lying injured, Radhey Shyam and Munna had beaten him there (MAAR PEET KI) resulting in injuries to his arms, legs and head and that Bonder was, unable to move or was unable to be brought in absence of any conveyance.The report contained a note by the police officer that he along with a number of police staff was proceeding to the site of incident.So in this report, there was given time and place of assault, names of persons, who assaulted, name of the victim and some description of injuries were also given and the police proceeded to the spot for enquiry.This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 2nd March, 1985, passed by the Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad, convicting the appellants for having committed an offence under Section 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to R.I. for 4 years each.The appellants were tried for an offence under Section 302, Indian Penal Code but were found guilty of offence under Section 325 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code only.They were found to have caused grievous injuries to Bonder-deceased on 18-12-1985 some time in the afternoon in a field in village Mohari.Bonder died that very evening as a result of his injuries.The trial Court has based its finding on the guilt of the accused on the basis of oral dying declarations made by the deceased before his wife Phulia Bai, daughter Resham Bai, Jhagdu Kotwar, Imrat Kotwar and then to Suresh, his son.These dying declarations are in the form of oral information, as to who had hit him (Bonder), made by Bonder at the same moment one after the other.Bonder succumbed to his injuries within 11/2 hours thereafter.The trial Court found that there was some civil litigation about land between the deceased and the accused persons.Postmortem examination of the deceased on 19-12-1985 at 8 P.M. by Dr. Akbar Ali had revealed the following injuries :-(i) Lacerated wound 6" x 4" x 2", situated at its middle on the left hand.Ulna and radius fractured at its middle and both the bones seen through the wound.(ii) Fracture of lower end of humerous.Fracture line is absent between two condyles.Fracture of olecranon process and ulner knotch.These fractures caused the dislocation of elbow joint.(iii) Fracture of 7th and 8th ribs left side at mid auxiliary line.(iv) Lacerated wound l1/2" x I" x 1/2" situated just above tibial tuberosity of right leg.(vi) Lacerated wound 3/5" x 1/2 x '/2" situated over right thigh at its middle.The doctor opined that the cause of death was irreversible shock due to injuries and fractures.Argument of the learned counsel for the appellants is that there is no corroboration to the dying declaration, nor corroboration to the fact that Bonder made such a dying declaration, that the important witness like Jhagdu, to whom the dying declaration was made initially has not been examined as a witness, that narration of the dying declaration by Phulia Bai, Resham Bai and Suresh is only by the close relatives of the deceased who are interested in the deceased and against accused due to civil litigation between the parties, that even Suresh while giving the first report to the police at police station along with Jhagdu, did not disclose that the dying declaration has been made by his father and only said that these two accused appellants had caused injuries to his father.He simply named the accused-appellants as the assailants of his father, but did not say as to how he learnt about this fact.So at the first instance, he did not disclose of the dying declaration.He might have been speaking on suspicion .It is urged that initially Radhey Shyam had informed Phulia Bai that Bonder was lying in an injured condition under a banyan tree and Bonder had informed him to ask Phulia Bai to take him home.Radhey Shyam has not stated that Bonder had informed him as to who had caused injuries.Similarly Phulia Bai does not say, if Bonder had told Radhey Shyam who had caused injury.It is argued that the information given by Suresh at Police Station has to be treated as the first information report in this case, as he had stated that these two appellants had caused injuries to Bonder who was lying injured in a field under the tree.The later narration of event in Dehati Nalishi, - report by Phulia Bai to police officer, in which she disclosed about the dying declaration made by Bonder, cannot be treated as the first information report, as it was later in time.Thus, the argument is that important witnesses have not been examined and so the presumption should be that, if examined, they would not have supported the prosecution case, that the dying declaration was not referred to at the first available opportunity by Suresh, that the testimony of these relatives is totally uncorroborated and further that they cannot be said to be sufficiently reliable witnesses to base conviction on their testimony.The argument is that these appellants have been named by the witnesses merely because there was an enmity between them arising out of a litigation about the agricultural land.That litigation was long drawn and there was an injunction in favour of the accused and against Bonder.It may be noticed here that one Tej Ram P.W. 6 was examined as an eye witness of the incident, but he was disbelieved by the trial Court for various reasons given in the judgment.Some other witnesses, who were projected as eye-witnesses to the occurrence became hostile to the prosecution in the witness-box and only claimed that they had not seen the incident.First point to be considered is whether the report made by Suresh to police, recorded as Rojnamcha Sanha No. 1695 (Ex.P.-16), was the first information report or the Dehati Nalishi recorded on the statement of Phulia Bai, later on.Bonder died by the time the police reached there-with Suresh.That was the consequence of the injury.For a report to be first information report, it is not necessary that every details of incident should be mentioned in it.Information of the incident given first is time in sufficient to call it the first information report.So this report (Ex.P-16) was the first information report and the police started for enquiry on this report.Recording of detailed statement of Phulia Bai later by the police is only her statement under Section 161, Criminal Procedure Code irrespective of the fact that it is treated in the form of F.I.R. by the police.P.W. 15 is Narsingh Pal Singh Rathor Sub-Inspector of Police.He says that he proceeded to make investigation on the report made by Suresh on 18-12-1985 in the night at Police Station, Hoshangabad.He reached village Mohari at about 3 a.m. and there Phulia Bai gave statement Ex.P-1 which he recorded.This was recorded at 3.30 a.m. She narrated how son of Komal (Shyam Sundar) had come at about 6 p.m. and informed that her husband was lying injured below the banyan tree and had asked him (Shyam Sunder) to inform his wife to take him home.She and her daughter Resham Bai went there and found her husband lying with injuries and bleeding.So on a cot, they took him to the house of Jhagdu, Kotwar.Jhagdu asked him as to who assaulted and he named that Radhey Shyam and Munna had assaulted him in the field.She narrated the subsequent events also regarding how her son came and her son and Jhagdu went to the police station.This was transformed into formal F.I.R. by the police officer.Apparently, this subsequent information by Phulia Bai cannot be treated as the F.I.R. F.I.R. means the information first given, first in time about the crime.In the present case, information given by Suresh was sufficiently clear and was first in time.It contained most of the particulars, which were material, death had not taken place by the time.The trial Court has observed that since this report by Suresh only referred to MARR PEET it cannot be treated as the first information report of murder.The trial Court has erred on the point of law in not understanding the true import of the first information report under Section 154 of Criminal Procedure Code.It is that information which moved the police to investigate the matter and it is sufficiently clear as to what happened.It need not have all the details.All the consequences may not have taken place by that time.So the report Ex.P-I6 given by Suresh was the first information report and the statement of Phulia Bai Ex.P-1 cannot be treated as the first information report.It is relegated to the status of statement to police under Section 161, Criminal Procedure Code.Now we come to the question whether Bonder, before his death, told all these witnesses that he had been assaulted by the two appellants.One criticism raised is that Suresh son of Bonder did not tell the police in the F.I.R. (Sanha Report) Ex.P-16 that Bonder told him so.To understand this criticism, it is essential to understand that at the time Suresh made his report to police, Bonder had not died, Bonder was alive when Suresh started for police station along with Jhagdu.He had injuries mainly on extremities and chest.He was speaking.So Suresh could not expect that his father would have died by the time he reached back, nor the police expected this.Suresh named the two appellants as the assailants of his father in this report.On what basis he named, he did not disclose.He does not claim that he had seen the incident.Then how he named the appellants.His explanation that he learnt it because his father told him so, has to be accepted as true.If his father was alive, then information by father to son could not be proved as the relevant factor under Section 32(1), Evidence Act and father would have to give evidence.If father was dead, when Suresh started for police station, it would have been an important factor which the police was bound to take on record in the first information report.But when the father was alive, even if Suresh had stated to the police that his source of information was what was told to him by his father, the police would not have recorded it, ordinarily, considering that it was irrelevant factor of evidence, as there was no intimation whatsoever that there was likelihood of dying of Bonder.An F.I.R. is statement of first informer to police about the incident.It is not expected to record what other witnesses have to say about the incident.At the time when Bonder was alive whatever he said, would be statement of a witness, if death had not taken place.So, at that time it need not have been included in the F.I.R. Suresh appearing as P.W. 2 stated that his father told him that these two appellants had hit him with lathis.Suresh had stated in the cross-examination that he did not know why it was not recorded in the Sanha report as to what his father told him about the assailants.It appears clear that even if he told this fact to the police, they might have omitted it as unnecessary details.Their own decision in this respect, even if it is made by mistake or blunder, could not militate against the reliability of witness Suresh.It would have certainly affected the reliability adversely, if Bonder was dead, when Suresh started for police station for lodging information.But since there was hardly any apprehension of death of Bonder, it could happen that the source of information of Suresh might not have been considered so material by the police officer, while recording the Sanha report.The Sanha reports are not detailed reports.They are only substances of the events.One pronouncement of Kerala High Court also appears pertinent on this question.That brother did not mention about the declaration in his statement to the police.But at the inquest, he had said that his brother told him that he was stabbed by the accused.The court said that a non-mention of the declaration in his statement to police can only be taken as omission.It was found that the evidence with regard to dying declaration did not suffer from an infirmity.In our case, the police officer who recorded the Sanha report was not purporting to have recorded it as F.I.R., formal as such.It has been illegally not treated as the F.I.R. All these factors would go to suggest that certain facts, which were detailed at that time, may not have been recorded by the police officer concerned.After all he was a police officer of the Head Constable level.For all these reasons, the evidence of Suresh or other witnesses about what was told to them by Bonder cannot be discarded as improvement.In fact, the mention of the names of these two appellants in the F.I.R. shows that Suresh had come to know of their names.So nonproduction of Jhagdu as witness can raise no presumption against the prosecution.There is one more criticism on behalf of the appellants.Shyam Sunder P.W. 8, a lad of 18 years, was the first person with whom Bonder had talked when he was lying injured near the Banyan tree.If he was merely a villager passing-by and Bonder asked him as passer-by from a distance to inform his wife to take him home and the witness did not care to come near Bonder, it would hardly be expected that Bonder would tell him how he reached the condition in which he was.In fact, the evidence of Shyam Sunder suggests clearly that Bonder was in a condition to speak at that time and was conscious.It is not a case where the witness must have asked Bonder as to who attacked him.He did not come near him and the distance was 6 yards nearly while it was already dark.So there is no inference against the truth of the dying declaration made to the other witnesses, because it was not made to Shyam Sunder.Now we may go through the evidence of Phulia Bai, Resham Bai, Suresh and Imrat, about what Bonder informed them about the assailants.Imrat is Kotwar and an independent witness.He had no enmity against the accused.So he went to the house of Jhagdu, Kotwar, where there is a Panchayat Bhavan.Bonder was lying on a cot.He asked Bonder as to who had beaten him.Bonder told him that Radhey Shyam and Munna had assaulted him.So he asked Jhagdu and Suresh to go to the police station to make a report.They went away.Bonder was taken to his (Bonder's) house.Then police had reached there by 3 a.m., but Bonder had died by that time.Cross-examination of this witness does not bring out anything to suggest any infirmity in the evidence or interested ness in the parties.Of course, in previous statement to police, there was no mention that Resham Bai had told him the names of the assailants.She simply told that her father had been assaulted.It was natural for the Kotwar to have asked the injured as to who assaulted him.He has simply stated that Bonder informed him that the assailants were Radhey Shyam and Munna.There appears no reason to doubt the truth of his statement.Now we turn to the evidence of wife, daughter and son of the deceased regarding the reliability of the dying declaration made to them.Phulia Bai, on being informed that Bonder was lying injured near Banyan tree, rushed to the spot along with her daughter Resham Bai.She noted that Bonder was lying under the Banyan tree about 50 paces from the house of Komal.It was natural for her to ask Bonder who had hit him.Bonder's reply was that Radhey Shyam and Munna had assaulted him with Kulhadi and Danda.Then she narrated about taking Bonder on a cot to the house of Jhagdu Kotwar whom also Bonder told the names of his assailants and then Suresh came and learnt from Bonder and Jhagdu about the incident and then Suresh went to the Police Station to report the matter.This later part, that Phulia Bai brought Bonder on a cot to the house of Jhagdu and there Suresh also came and Bonder named the accused as their assailants and also they went to the police station, is fully established by their evidence and the evidence of Sanha report as has already been discussed.So in this part of narration, Phulia Bai is corroborated.Bonder was in a state to talk, there is no doubt about it.This has not been challenged in the medical evidence also.First his close family members had asked Bonder who had caused injuries, so it was natural for Bonder to have named his assailants.There is no reason for him to give false names or conceal the names of his real assailants.So, as it was natural conduct of the injured, the truth of what Bonder told to his wife and daughter, has to be accepted.Similarly, it has to be accepted that Bonder did tell the names of his assailants to his wife and daughter.No infirmity arises therefrom.Her conduct in carrying Bonder to the house of Jhagdu Kotwar was also natural and is supported by the evidence of Imrat.Suresh appearing as P.W. 2 had learned about the fact that his father was lying outside the house of Jhagdu in an injured condition and he went there and enquired from his father about the assailants and then Bonder gave the names of his assailants as Radheyshyam and Munna.Then he went with Jhagdu Kotwar to police station.His statement is fully corroborated by the fact that he lodged a report.Evidence of this witness appears to be acceptable that Bonder told him that he was assaulted by Radhey Shyam and Munna who are the present accused-appellants.14-A. Recently in case of Sunil Kumar etc. v. State of M. P., 1997(1) JLJ 192, the Apex Court has occasion to consider a situation whether statement of a mother was believable regarding what her injured son told her about how and who caused injuries to him and to his brother, who was lying dead.The mother had rushed to the spot where her sons were lying on hearing about incident.She narrated in court what her injured son told her about who caused hurt to him and to his brother who died.Their Lordships of the Apex Court observed that it was expected of a mother, who gets information about assault on her sons, to immediately rush to their help and ascertain the details of their assaults.She would naturally ask her son what happened and who did it and there is no reason to disbelieve her about it.The Apex Court said that such a mother could not be disbelieved even if the police recorded her statement 11/2 months later, as she cannot be disbelieved for dereliction of duty by the police.This case is Sunil Kumar and Ors.In that case, the particular son who told the fact to her mother lived to state facts before the court and evidence of mother was held to be corroborative of him.In our case, the narration by Phulia Bai, Resham, Suresh and Imrat as to how they rushed to Bonder who was lying injured and what Bonder told them, is of similar nature, as was before the Supreme Court in above cited case.In our case, the narration of Bonder has weight of dying declaration orally made to these witnesses.The narration is acceptable as natural.One criticism raised against their evidence by the learned counsel is that there was a land dispute between Bonder and these appellants and a litigation was going on.Phulia Bai admits this.The two accused are brothers and sons of Banshilal.It is argued that Banshilal had obtained an injunction order from civil court against Bonder.Injunction as revealed by certified copy of the order was that Bonder is restrained from prosecuting the partition proceedings in revenue court during the pendency of the civil suit.Argument is that in view of this injunction, there was suspicion in the mind of Bonder as also his family members that these accused must be the assailants, due to enmity.In fact, enmity could be motive for these accused to attack Bonder.Bonder, throughout and to all, named these accused as actual assailants.Another argument is that Bonder was in fact residing in village Kandra Khora with Rukmani, his other wife.Phulia Bai admits this fact in her cross-examination, but she said that she had good relation with Rukmani Bai.These factors hardly militate against the narration of Phulia Bai.One more argument of the learned counsel for the appellants is that, according to Phulia Bai, Bonder had told him that he was hit by lathi and axe and there is no sharp edged injury found on the person of Bonder.However, this medical evidence cannot be said to be inconsistent with the dying declaration regarding weapon.Kulhari can be used from sharp side as well as from the blunt side.It causes great disaster when used from the head side also, for hitting.So the conviction of the appellants for offence punishable under Section 325 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code is confirmed.Sentence of R.I. for 4 years on each of the appellant is proper in this case as the acts of the accused had resulted in the death of the victim.I confirm the sentence.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
45,584,781 |
This application is rejected as infructuous as during the pendency of this application, the petitioner has been arrested.Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected as infructuous.Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.( Patherya, J.) ( Amitabha Chatterjee, J. ) 2
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
120,237,654 |
That company deals in import and export of peas and pulses and various other commodities.Opposite party no. 2 is proprietor of Abhishek Food Products.In 2008, business transaction between that company and the opposite party no. 2 started and it was continuing through several transactions.In course of such continuous usual business transactions the opposite party no. 2 approached the said company through one broker Ramanlal Sirsawa, who has also been made accused in the criminal proceeding, for purchasing 100 metric tons of yellow peas @ Rs.19,500/- per metric ton and the company agreed to sell upon making entire payment.Lastly as per ledger balance in the year ended on 31st March, 2012 it revealed that outstanding dues stands as Rs.3,67,931/- payable by the company of the accused persons viz. R Piyarelall Import and Export Limited (Said company is not accused in the complaint).Complainant made several requests to the accused persons for supply of yellow peas in respect of the dues of Rs.3,67,931/- for adjustment and the accused persons hatching conspiracy took time giving assurance for compliance of their commitment as soon as possible.Subsequently, on negotiation accused persons agreed to refund that amount of Rs.3,67,931/- as early as possible.But they did not take any action from which the complainant/opposite party no. 2 presumed that no fruitful result may come from the accused persons.There were many business transactions.This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short Cr.P.C.) has been filed by two petitioners Ramesh Kumar Agarwal and Siddharth Agarwal @ Siddartha Agarwal as accused/petitioner in connection with ACGR Case No. 3737/2014 arising out of Behala Police Station (in short P.S.) Case No. 2332 dated 14.06.2014 under Sections 420/406/120 B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short I.P.C.) pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (in short A.C.J.M.), Alipore, 24 Parganas (South).Petitioners have prayed for quashing of that proceeding.The opposite party no. 2 made default in keeping the promise and the company was compelled to sell out the yellow peas at a lower rate and sustained huge loss.After receiving notice of that suit suppressing all material facts the opposite party no. 2 lodged a complaint against the petitioners and aforesaid broker Ramanlal Sirsawa as three accused persons under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. which was treated a FIR of the criminal proceeding in question.Filing a copy of the plaint of the Money Suit and certified copy of the FIR of the criminal proceeding with the application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. the petitioners have alleged that the criminal proceeding has been initiated by the opposite party no. 2 as counterblast to the civil suit filed by the company against him.Petitioners have claimed in substance that in the petition of complaint which has been treated as FIR the essential requirements of the offences of criminal conspiracy, criminal breach of trust and cheating are absent stating inter alia, that mere mention of the Sections and the language of those sections is not the be all and end all of the matter and it is required to be brought to the notice of the Court the particulars of the alleged offence committed by each and every accused and the role played by each and every accused in committing the offence.The averments of the complaint, treated as FIR under Section 156 (3), Cr.P.C. speak in substance that there is no mention of any particular event or transaction or particular date of any incident of any transaction.Inter alia, it has been stated in complaint that there were many business transactions and good relation between complainant and accused persons in respect of business of yellow peas.Complainant/opposite party no. 2 used to issue advance cheques in respect of supply of yellow peas and the accused persons (including the petitioners of this case) used to supply yellow peas to petitioner as per invoice.Said transactions were done on the basis of convincing power and upon good belief and trust for the purpose of business transaction and by inducement of the accused persons.From the attitude of accused persons the complainant found that all accused persons making a conspiracy intentionally did not pay the dues.Therefore, the accused persons committed offence punishable under Sections 420/406/120 B of the Indian Penal Code.Interim orders for stay of further proceedings of ACGR Case NO. 3737 of 2014 were passed on 21.07.2014, 11.09.2014 (CRAN 3531 of 2014), 20.11.2014 (CRAN 3990 of 2014), 04.02.2015 (CRAN 133 of 2015).Thereafter, petitioners filed CRAN 974 of 2015 for extension of the interim order of stay.At the time of hearing it was detected that the opposite party no. 2 filed CRAN 3232 of 2014 for vacating the stay order but said application was not heard and disposed of.At the time of hearing learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that admittedly there was prolonged commercial transaction between R. Piyarelall Import and Export Ltd. and the opposite party.I have gone through the materials on record.The principles of law discussed in the decisions cited before me on behalf of both the contesting parties are being followed by this Court according to the facts and circumstances of this case.At the very outset I like to follow the golden principle that each case should be decided on its own merits.
|
['Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', '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.
|
120,239,399 |
The deceased Pandit Fulsing Gaikwad was a resident of village Lavanje, Tahsil Chalisgaon.The appellants are also residents of same village.Appellant Nos. 1 to 3 are real brothers inter-se.The deceased was a labour contractor and he was supplying labour to the person from Gujrat State.Appellant Amin is also a labour contractor and he was also supplying labour to the persons from Gujrat State.Due to the competition in this business, the relations between the appellants and deceased were strained.The incident took place on 16.8.1998 at about 7.30 p.m. near S.T. stand of village Lavanje.The deceased had just alighted from bus at the stand and he was returning to home.The appellants and two more persons intercepted the deceased and Amin picked up quarrel with the deceased.During quarrel the deceased was assaulted by using iron bar, chain and sticks.Bleeding injuries were caused to the deceased on his head, abdomen and legs.The incident took place near the house of one Tarabai Wagh and she shouted for help.Within no time, the relatives of deceased, who include Walmik Wagh came to the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:42:11 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 149/2000 3 spot.The assailants then ran away.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:42:11 :::Deelip and Walmik, two sons of deceased took the deceased first to police station for giving report.Police advised Deelip and Walmik to shift their father for treatment and so, he was shifted to Municipal Hospital, Chalisgaon.The Municipal Hospital advised the relatives of Pandit to shift him to Civil Hospital and so Pandit was shifted to Civil Hospital, Dhule.On the basis of the statement recorded by Rathod in Municipal Hospital the crime came to be registered in Chalisgaon Police Station at C.R. No. 177/1998 against the appellants.In Civil Hopsital, Dhule the police from Dhule got the statement of Pandit recorded through Executive Magistrate.The appellants are convicted and ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:42:11 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 149/2000 2 sentenced for offence punishable under section 325 r/w. 34 of I.P.C. Both the sides are heard.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:42:11 :::In the statement, Pandit took the names of appellant Nos. 1 to 3 and two more persons like Umar Babu and Isha Babu.P.M. was conducted on the dead body of Pandit after preparing enquest.During the course of investigation, panchanama of the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:42:11 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 149/2000 4 spot, where the incident took place, was prepared in the presence of panch witnesses.The appellants came to be arrested.Police could not trace out Umer Babu and Isha Babu.On the basis of statements given by the appellants, weapons came to be recovered.The clothes of appellant Nos. 1 to 3 were also taken over.They were having blood stains.Statements of Walmik and other eye witnesses came to be recorded.The clothes of the deceased, clothes of the accused and weapons came to be forwarded to C.A. Office.After completion of investigation, chargesheet came to be filed for offence punishable under sections 302, 307, 326 r/w. 34 of I.P.C. In due course, the Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions.The charge came to be framed for offence under section 302 r/w. 34 of I.P.C. On the basis of the evidence given by the prosecution, the Trial Court has held the appellants guilty for offence punishable under section 325 r/w. 34 of I.P.C. The Trial Court has acquitted the appellants of the offence punishable under section 302 of I.P.C., by holding that the death took place due to medical negligence, though there were injuries caused to the deceased by the appellants.The points raised by both the sides are being discussed at proper place.Revision filed for complainant to challenge the decision, is dismissed by this Court, ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:42:11 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 149/2000 5 as the objections were not removed.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:42:11 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:42:11 :::In the case based on both dying declarations and the direct evidence, it is always desirable to first see the allegations made in the dying declarations.There are more circumstances for such approach in the present case.When the incident took place after 7.00 p.m. of 16.8.1998, the crime at C.R. No. 177/1998 came to be registered in Chalisgaon Police Station on 17.8.1998 at about 1.45 hours and that too on the basis of dying declaration of Pandit recorded by Police Officer Rathod (PW No. 10).No record is produced to show that the two eye witnesses had given report to the police prior to this dying declaration.No record like entry made in station diary in respect of such information is also there.Both the eye witnesses Yuvraj (PW No. 5) and Walmik (PW No. 6) are interested witnesses as the deceased was their close relative.Walmik (PW No. 6) is a son of deceased and he has admitted that Yuvraj is his distant cousin.Both of them have given evidence that they were present in their respective houses and when a son of Tarabai came to there houses to inform about the incident, they left for the spot of offence.Though they were come with such a case in substantive evidence, they had not stated before the police officer that after receiving the news from the son of Tarabai they had rushed to the spot.This omission in relation to ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:42:11 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 149/2000 6 previous statement is material and this omission is duly proved by the defence.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:42:11 :::It was recorded on 17.8.1998 at 1.45 hours and Pandit died on 21.8.1998 i.e. after about 4 days of recording of dying declaration.The second dying declaration was recorded by Executive Magistrate after some time though on 17.8.1998 itself.The evidence of two witnesses, who recorded the dying declarations shows that Pandit was conscious and fit when the dying declarations were recorded.The doctors, who conducted the P.M.examination and who had examined Pandit in Chalisgaon Hospital, are examined in the Court.Nothing is brought on record by defence to create probability that Pandit was not fit or conscious when the statements were recorded.No circumstances are brought on the record in the evidence of Executive Magistrate (PW No. 9) and Rathod (PW No. 10) to create doubt about the two recorded dying declarations.The first dying declaration, Exh. 79, shows that the deceased disclosed that the incident had taken place near S.T.stand after 7.30 p.m. when he was returning to home, after ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:42:11 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 149/2000 7 alighting from a bus at S.T. stand.The dying declaration shows that only after assault made on him, Tarabai Wagh raised shouts and she called for help.No name of son of Tarabai is mentioned in Exh. 79, as a person who was called by Tarabai or who was present on the spot.In the second dying declaration which was recorded at 4.15 a.m. the deceased disclosed that the attack on him was made when he was alone and some villagers intervened to save him.In the second dying declaration Pandit disclosed that his relatives like Tarabai, his son Walmik and others came to the spot subsequently and then he was shifted to the hospital.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:42:11 :::The prosecution has not examined Tarabai and also her son Dinesh, who had allegedly given the news of incident to the relatives of Pandit.Thus, there is inconsistency in the two dying declarations and the subsequent dying declaration shows that Walmik and others had reached the spot of offence when the incident was over.Nothing is brought on the record about the distance between the spot of offence and houses of these two eye witnesses.The Trial Court has not considered these circumstances and the Trial Court has believed both the eye witnesses.This Court holds that due the aforesaid inconsistencies in the dying declarations and the other circumstances, the two eye witnesses cannot be believed.Only during the cross examination of Walmik ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:42:11 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 149/2000 8 (PW No. 6), it is brought on the record that the name of Amin was taken by deceased and motive was told to him by deceased on the spot.Thus, it is not the case of both the eye witnesses that to them, any disclosure was made by Pandit before shifting him to the hospital.On the other hand, the evidence in cross examination of the two witnesses and the contents of spot panchanama, show that many other persons must have witnessed the incident as there are shops and houses in the vicinity of the spot.The prosecution has not examined such witnesses and only the aforesaid two interested witnesses are examined.So, this Court holds that it would not be safe to rely on the evidence of aforesaid two so called eye witnesses.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:42:11 :::If the evidence of the two eye witnesses is excluded, then there remains the evidence of two dying declarations.There is also some circumstantial evidence as against the appellant Nos.1 to 3, who are brothers inter-se.In the first dying declaration, Exh. 79, the deceased disclosed that he had dispute with Amin Shah.The deceased also disclosed that present four appellants had come to him near S.T. stand and Amin had picked up a quarrel with him.The deceased disclosed that Amin gave blow of iron Asari on his head, Rashid gave blow of cycle chain on his abdomen and the remaining two accused gave stick blows on his ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:42:11 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 149/2000 9 legs.As against the disclosures made in first dying declaration at Exh. 79, in the second dying declaration which is at Exh. 75 and which was recorded by the Executive Magistrate, Pandit did not take the name of appellant No. 4 Pandurang, as one of the assailants.In the second dying declaration, Pandit disclosed that on one motorcycle appellant Nos. 1 to 3 had came there and intercepted him and on other motorcycle two more persons like Umer Babu and Isha Babu had came there.Pandit disclosed that all these five persons assaulted him.He disclosed before Executive Magistrate that only after the arrival of his relatives, he realized that he was assaulted on his head by knife, he was assaulted on the other parts of the body with cycle chain, fists and kicks.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:42:11 :::The evidence of Dr. Deosing (PW No. 11), who examined Pandit in Chalisgaon Hospital shows that before giving treatment to Pandit, three injuries were noticed on his body.There was one C.L.W. over head, one contusion over calf muscle and there was tenderness over left iliac region.The injury certificate at Exh. 81 prepared by Dr. Deosing is duly proved.The doctor has given evidence that the injury found on the head can be caused by iron rod and the other injuries can be caused by weapons like stick.Pandit was referred to Dhule Civil Hospital ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:42:11 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 149/2000 10 from Chalisgaon Hospital.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:42:11 :::Dr. Avinash (PW No. 4) conducted P.M. examination on the dead body of Pandit.Treatment was given in Dhule Civil Hospital to Pandit for 3-4 days before his death and so most of the injuries are described as sutured injuries etc. The evidence of Dr. Avinash shows that Pandit was treated for head injuries, injuries received at abdomen and also fracture injuries to left tibia upper 1/3rd.The doctor has deposed that brain was congested and oedematous, there was patch of penumonia over right lung and peritoneum and ileum were found sutured.Doctor has deposed that the cause of death was due to complication following tear of intestine and such tear can be caused due to forceful blow on abdomen.Doctor has deposed that due to injury to intestine, puss was formed in peritoneal cavity and due to that septicemia was developed.In the cross examination, the doctor has admitted that there is possibility that death took place due to negligence shown in medical treatment i.e. not giving proper treatment in respect of puss which was found in peritoneum.The medical evidence shows that hardly three injuries were caused to Pandit.The Injury to abdomen was caused by blunt weapon and that injury proved to be fatal.The evidence of ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:42:11 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 149/2000 11 two dying declarations, which can be considered under section 32 of the Evidence Act, is not consistent with each other, so far as the involvement of accused Pandurang in the offence is concerned.When there are more dying declarations, each dying declaration need to be considered separately and it becomes duty of the Court to find out, whether the other evidence is consistent with the dying declarations.If the other evidence is consistent with one dying declaration, that dying declaration can be safely accepted and relied upon and other dying declaration can be discarded.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:42:11 :::The facts and circumstances of this case show that there is a possibility that not many persons were involved in the assault made on Pandit.The circumstances like absence of name of Pandurang in second dying declaration, which was recorded by Executive Magistrate, needs to be given due weight.Though one injury was found on the person of Pandurang, it is not the case of prosecution that the injury was sustained during incident.He sustained a fracture injury and his leg from foot portion to thigh portion was in plaster caste.In view of the inconsistencies in the two dying declarations and aforesaid circumstances, this Court holds that reasonable doubt is created about the case of the prosecution that Pandurang was also ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:42:11 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 149/2000 12 involved in that act.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:42:11 :::Tarachand (PW No. 1) is examined to prove the recovery of a stick, which was done on the basis of statements given by Pandurang.This evidence shows that one leg of Pandurang was in plaster caste and considerable portion of this leg was under plaster caste.This circumstance cannot be called as incriminating circumstance.Thus, there is no circumstantial check to the disclosure made in the first dying declaration that Pandurang had also assaulted the deceased.In the evidence of Tarachand (PW No. 1), the spot panchanama dated 17.8.1998 is proved.Blood was present on the spot.The spot is described in both the dying declarations and the panchanama is consistent with the spot described in the dying declarations.The panch witness examined on the seizure of clothes of accused Nos. 1 to 3 has turned hostile, but the panchanamas of seizure of clothes of accused Nos. 1 to 3 are duly proved in evidence of P.S.I. Kshirsagar (PW No. 8).The panchanama of seizure of clothes of Anwar Shah is at Exh. 69, the panchanama of seizure of clothes of Amin Shan is at Exh. 71 and ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:42:11 ::: Cri.The evidence shows that these clothes were sent to C.A. Office.They were arrested immediately after the incident.Further, there was motive for accused Nos. 1 to 3 to commit such offence.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:42:11 :::In view of these circumstances, this Court holds that the evidence is sufficient as against accused Nos. 1 to 3 to prove that in furtherance of their common intention, they assaulted Pandit and they inflicted injuries on Pandit, which caused death.The Trial Court has held that the evidence of doctor, who conducted the P.M. examination, has created probability that the death took place due to medical negligence.Appeal No. 149/2000 14 bodily injury, the person who causes such bodily injury shall be deemed to have caused the death, although by resorting to proper remedies and skilful treatment the death might have been prevented."::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:42:11 :::Thus, for the accused, in such a case, defence is not available that if the proper treatment was given, the life of Pandit could have been saved.It is not open to them to show that there was negligence, there was no proper treatment and so they are not responsible for the death of Pandit.Though it can be said that the reasoning given by the Trial Court for holding that the accused are not guilty of the offence of homicide is not correct, it was necessary for prosecution to prove that the ingredients of offence of culpable homicide or murder are made out.Even if both the dying declarations are accepted as they are, only one thing can be made out from the two dying declarations that rival of the deceased and the two brothers of the rival had intention to teach lesson by giving beating to Pandit.The evidence shows that hard and blunt objects were used and the injuries inflicted by such ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:42:11 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 149/2000 15 weapons caused the death.The injury caused to the intestine endangered life and further, fracture of left tibia was caused.This Court holds that the evidence shows that accused Nos. 1 to 3 had voluntarily caused hurt to Pandit.As grievous hurt was caused, they are liable to be dealt with under section 325 r/w. 34 of I.P.C.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:42:11 :::The ingredients of offence described in section 299 or the offence described in section 300 of I.P.C. are absent in this case.So this Court holds that prosecution has proved the case as against the accused Nos. 1 to 3 for offence punishable under section 325 r/w.34 of I.P.C.Hearing was given to the advocate of the appellants on the point of sentence also.Only one year of imprisonment is given and it is not on higher side.In view of this circumstance, this Court holds that no interference is possible in the order of the Trial Court on the point of quantum of sentence also.For the appellants three reported cases were cited.(i) AIR 1987 SC 2023 (Amar Sing and Ors.State of Punjab),(ii) 1993 Cri.L.J. 1053 (Pashora Singh and Anr.State of Punjab), and(iii) 1995 Cri.L.J. 1445 (E.K.Chandrasenan Vs.State of Kerala).::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:42:11 :::Appeal No. 149/2000 16 The cases are on the point of power of the Appellate Court.The other points discussed in the reported cases are not involved in the present case.So the following order.2] Appeal of appellant nos. 1 to 3 Anwar, Amin and Rashid stands dismissed.3] Appellants 1 to 3 are to surrender to their bail bonds.[ T. V. NALAWADE, J. ] ssc/ ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:42:11 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:42:11 :::
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
120,241,062 |
The Petitioner / A1 has preferred the present Miscellaneous petition praying for issuance of an order by this Court to suspend the sentence imposed on him as per judgment dated 24.11.2011 in S.C.No.365 of 2011 passed by the Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, (FTC III), Chennai.The Petitioner / A1 was found guilty under Sections 341 and 307 of Indian Penal Code by the Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, (FTC- III), Chennai, after due trial in S.C.No.365 of 2011 by Judgment dated 24.11.2011 and sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years under Section 307 of IPC and was also directed to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine was ordered to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment.In respect of an offence under Sections 341 of IPC, the Petitioner / A1 was imposed with the fine of Rs.100/- and in default of payment of the said fine amount, he was directed to further undergo one week simple imprisonment.The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/A1 submits that before the judgment was delivered in S.C.No.365 of 2011 (against which the present appeal is filed), the Petitioner / A1 was already detained under the Goondas Act and therefore, the Petitioner/A1 is in jail for more than 2 years.Further, it is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/A1 that witnesses P.W.2 and P.W.3 in S.C.No.365 of 2011 on the file of the trial Court are close relatives viz., wife and sister of P.W.1 and in fact, P.W.9 doctor had deposed that the injured / victim before coming to the hospital had consumed liquor.Yet another contention of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/A1 is that out of 28 cases against the Petitioner/A1, 19 cases ended in acquittal and in only S.C.No.365 of 2011, he was convicted and other 307 IPC cases are pending trial.Inasmuch as the Petitioner/A1 is inside the jail for more than 2 years.The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/A1 prays for allowing M.P.No.1 of 2013 (filed by the Petitioner) to suspend the sentence imposed in S.C.No.365 of 2011 by the trial Court.Viewed from that angle, the M.P.NO.1 of 2013 fails.In the result, M.P.No.1 of 2013 filed by the Petitioner/A1 is dismissed.
|
['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
120,243,626 |
1 In The High Court At Calcutta Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction Present : The Hon'ble Mr Justice Ishan Chandra Das C.R.A. No.235 of 2015 Tapan Das & Anr.Ishan Chandra Das, J : This criminal appeal has been directed against the judgment and order of a conviction dated March 18, 2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-1, Krishnanagar in Sessions Case No.71(12)/2006 wherein the learned trial court found the appellants guilty of the offence punishable under sections 325/34 IPC and 323/34 IPC and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for one year and three years respectively and again to pay a fine of Rs.1,000 and Rs.2,000 each for both the offences, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days and one month respectively.Brief facts of this case is that on the 15th day of June 2006 at about 5.30 p.m. at village Mahakhola, P.S. Chapra, Nadia the appellants and another demanded a sum of Rs.1,500 as subscription from the husband of one Renuka Biswas, de fact complainant, but when her husband expressed his inability to give such subscription, the appellants began to hit him all on a sudden with fists, blows and with belt causing severe bleeding injuries.One of them (i.e. accused 2 Golak Bairagi) hit the victim, Sudhin Biswas, with iron rod causing serious injuries.The local people like Nitish Sikdar, Fatik Sarkar and Gyanendra Nath Naskar of their village while rushed to the place of occurrence to save the victim, they were also beaten up by the appellants and another over the said incident.Stating the above noted allegations a written complaint was lodged before the officer in charge of Chapra police station with a request to take legal steps against the miscreants.Accordingly, Chapra P.S. Case No.147 of 2006 dated June 16, 2006 was started; and on conclusion of investigation, the appellants herein were brought before the learned trial court to stand trial for committing the offence punishable under sections 325/34 IPC, 308/34 IPC and 323/34 IPC.The learned trial court on examination of twelve witnesses altogether found the appellants guilty of the offence punishable under sections 325/34 IPC and 323/34 IPC and convicted and sentenced them as noted earlier, though they were exonerated from the charge under sections 308/34 IPC.Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of conviction passed by the learned court below, this appeal has been preferred mainly on the following grounds: -1) The learned trial court failed to appreciate the various infirmities in the prosecution case and disposed of resulting conviction of the appellants on the basis of surmise and conjecture.2) The said judgment passed by the learned trial court has been vitiated by reason of non-consideration of the materials, elicited in the cross- examination.3) The involvement of the appellants herein not being established beyond reasonable doubt, the conviction of the appellants is not sustainable in law.4) Learned trial court found the appellants guilty of the offence as complained of on the strength of the evidence of "hearsay witnesses" without searching for any corroboration of the same.5) The learned trial Judge failed to take into account the fact that the medical evidence did not support the version of the eyewitnesses.6) The learned trial Judge has committed mistake in holding that the appellants assaulted the victim in furtherance of their common intention, though they were convicted accordingly.7) The learned trial Judge caused miscourage of justice by discarding the defence version that the so-called victim was a cattle smuggler and used to run 'gambling boards' in the local market.8) The learned court below did not consider the evidence of hostile witnesses, who, in a round about way, falsified the prosecution's case.9) That the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned trial court, not being based on sound reasoning, should be set aside resulting acquittal of the appellants, since the prosecution hopelessly failed to establish the allegations far to speak of beyond reasonable doubt.Initially three persons - Rakesh Rai, Tapan Das and Golak Bairagi - were brought before learned trial court to stand trial.But in course of trial one of them, i.e. accused Golak Bairagi, absconded and the case was filed against him for the time being.Two other appellants who stood trial before the trial court were convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment and fine, as quoted earlier.Now the point for consideration left before this court is whether learned trial court was justified in convicting the appellants herein and sentencing to suffer imprisonment and to pay a fine as noted above.The de fact complainant, while examining herself as PW1, stated that on the date of incident (i.e. June 15, 2006) at about 5.30 p.m. the two appellants and one Golak Bairagi demanded a sum of 1,500 as subscription for organising a 'sports meet' in the village and on being refused by the said victim to pay such subscription, they became furious and assaulted her husband.She claimed that she was not an ocular witness; but hearing the news of beating on her husband, 4 she rushed to the place of occurrence and found him with bleeding coming out of his nose, mouth and he was lying senseless.From the statement of the PW1 it also transpired that she came to know from the persons present at the place of such occurrence namely Fatik, Ashoke and Nitish Sikdar that one of the appellants, Tapan, assaulted her husband with belt, Rakesh assaulted with fists and blows and Golak assaulted him with 'Sabal' (an iron rod) on his head.Immediately thereafter, the de facto complainant with the assistance of Fatik and Nitish took the victim to Krishnaganj hospital for medical aid.In this context, the evidence of Dr. Joydip Roy (PW8), the attending doctor, should be looked into with proper circumspection.He stated that Sudhin Biswas, the victim, aged about thirty years was admitted to the Krishnanagar District Hospital via Chapra Rural Hospital on June 15, 2006 at about 11 p.m. with the history of physical assault and on examination he found the patient conscious with tenderness over the nasal bridge and left parietal region of scalp.He also stated that there was a question mark (?) in the report in respect of the head injury of the victim and the patient was treated accordingly.It is also elicited from his evidence that the CT Scan of brain of the patient was advised, but in the report of the CT Scan, no abnormality was detected.The patient was given proper treatment and was discharged after three days from the date of his admission/incident.The medical report and the other allied documents (Ext.2 series) coupled with the oral testimony of the medical officer (PW8) clearly pointed out that the victim suffered injuries by physical assault with head injury and the nasal injury on the date of the incident and he was treated at the District Hospital, Nadia.Such injury report and the allied treatment papers clearly and unmistakably pointed out that the victim was assaulted over the incident and the trend of cross-examination of the said witness suggested that such injuries were likely to be caused if one is hit with belt, fists and blows and hit by any hard substance.If the nature of injuries is considered, taking into account the statement of the wife of the victim given in 5 the written complaint, a proximate connection between the two - i.e. the history of assault and the nature of injuries - is clearly established.So far as the involvement of the appellants with the alleged offence was concerned, the statement of the victim (PW3) should be scrutinized with due care and caution.The victim (PW3) while narrating the incident stated on solemn affirmation that on the date of the incident at about 5 p.m. none but these appellants, Tapan, Rakesh, and one Golak (against whom the case has been filed for the present) hit the victim while he expressed his inability to give the demanded subscription to which Rakesh delivered a blow on his nose and face and accused Tapan hit him with a belt.Such statement of the victim finds corroboration in the statement of the local witnesses like Fatik Srdar (PW2), Gyanendra Nath Naskar (PW4) and Ashoke Sarkar (PW6) against whom no inimical relation with the appellants were established in their cross-examination.Learned advocate appearing for the State has expressed a contrary view in the matter.Drawing my attention to the oral testimony of the local independent witnesses (PWs2, 4 and 6) he pointed out that these three witnesses corroborated the statement of the victim and the evidence of all the witnesses clearly pointed out the fact that 'extortion of money' was the reason behind the crime on the plea that the victim was engaged in committing the offence of gambling and cattle smuggling.Having regard to the facts of the case I firmly conclude that the learned trial court was not justified in holding the appellants guilty of the offence punishable under sections 325/34 IPC and such finding of the learned trial court coupled with the order of conviction passed against the appellants for the offence punishable under sections 325/34 IPC is liable to be set aside.It was observed in the earlier part of the judgment that none but the appellants voluntarily caused hurt to the victim, Sudhin Biswas, on the 15th day of June 2006, and that he sustained injuries were not grievous in nature.Hence it can safely be concluded that they committed the offence of voluntarily causing hurt to the victim within the meaning of section 321 IPC and punishable under section 323 IPC, in furtherance of their common intention and their conviction for such offence by the learned trial court should not be interfered with in the present appeal.So far as the punishment imposed upon the appellants for the said offence is concerned, the learned trial court imposed sentence to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000 each, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days subject to set off in terms of section 428 CrPC.But in my considered opinion since no criminal background of the appellants has been shown, their case should not be harshly dealt with, but at the same time if any lenient view is taken for imposing proper punishment, a wrong message will reach the society that no punishment is presented for such 8 offence.Hence, taking into consideration the gravity of the offence, the manner in which it was committed, I am of the opinion that imposing fine of a sum of Rs.1,000/- upon both the appellants, instead of asking them to suffer imprisonment, would be appropriate to meet the ends of justice.The appeal is thus allowed in part.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
120,247,680 |
Shri G.S. Kulshreth, learned counsel for respondent No.2- complainant.Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the FIR registered vide Crime No.547/2009 at Police Station Hazira, Gwalior against them on the complaint of respondent No.2 Smt. Upasna Rajput under Sections 498-A, 294, 323 r/w Sections 34 and 506 of IPC as well as subsequent proceedings of the trial Court whereby charge of Section 498-A has been framed against the petitioners.Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners and the complainant/respondent No. 2-Smt.Therefore, petitioners are before this Court.Petitioners as well as respondent No.2 moved I.A. No.7256/2018, an application for compromise.Learned counsel for the petitioners as well as respondent No. 2 submits that they moved an application before the Court below for compounding the offence, however, learned Court below and by the impugned order decline to compound the offence under Section 498- A of IPC being not compoundable.Learned counsel for the parties moved application duly signed by the petitioners as well as respondent No.2 and submitted that they are ready to compromise the matter.The parties have appeared before the Principal Registrar of this Court for verification of the factum of compromise and the Principal Registrar has given report dated 17/09/2018 regarding compromise, which is perused.Counsel 2 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.Now she will live peacefully with her husband and other family members.
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498 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.
|
120,251,911 |
The applicants have an apprehension of their arrest in connection with Crime No.223 /2014 registered at Police Station Deori District Sagar (M.P.) for offence punishable under Sections 498- A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicants have falsely been implicated in this case.Applicant No.2 is suffering from mental ailment and is old and infirm lady.The applicants are a reputed citizen of the locality, having no past criminal antecedents, in the event of arrest their reputation will be tarnished, therefore, they be released on anticipatory bail.Learned Panel Lawyer vehemently opposed the application for anticipatory bail on the ground that it is case of under Section 498- A of IPC and the deceased died within seven years of her marriage.Keeping in view the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of offence, I am of the view that this is not a fit case for grant anticipatory bail to the applicants.Consequently, their application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. is hereby rejected.(SUBHASH KAKADE) JUDGE M.Cr.C.No.8860 of 2014 SJ/-
|
['Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
12,025,563 |
Heard Sri Shailesh Kumar holding brief of Sri Vinod Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the order dated 10.6.2019 passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar as well as entire proceedings of Case No. 2255 of 2019 (State Vs.
|
['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 384 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
120,276,313 |
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. representing the State.Perused the records.This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicants Ankit Prasad and Shashi Bala against State of U.P. and Amita Jagdamba Prasad with prayer to quash summoning order dated 29.4.2019 passed by Additional Civil Judge (S.D.)-5/ Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad, in Complaint Case No. 768 of 2019, Amita Jagdamba Prasad Vs.Ankit Prasad and another, under Sections 323, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Shahibabad, district Ghaziabad, pending in court of Additional Civil Judge (S.D.)-5/ Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad.The alleged assault said to be given to injured Sumeru Chakraborty is not in consonance with report.The offence u/s 452 I.P.C. is not made out because it has been admitted by complainant that the disputed house belongs to both sides.Civil Suit with regard to above disputed Flat is pending and this proceeding is with a view to create pressure and is an abuse of process of law.Hence this application with above prayer.Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for complainant have vehemently opposed the above argument with this contention that the complainant, who is an unmarried daughter of her father Jgdamba Prasad, is residing in the Flat owned by Jagdamba Prasad.Accused Ankit Prasad by making false statement by way of an affidavit in the office of electricity department mentioned himself to be the sole successor of Late Jagdamba Prasad.It was a misstatement under fraudulent intention.The accused-applicants are trying to evict the complainant for which they made assault on 11.4.2018 when Sumeru Chakraborty tried to intervene, he too was badly beaten.There is medical report of Sumeru Chakraborty.The complainant in her statement recorded u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and the statements of witnesses recorded u/s 202 Cr.P.C. the contention of complaint has been corroborated.Hence this application be dismissed.5. Having heard learned counsel for both parties and gone through material placed on record, it is apparent that a complaint was filed by complainant Amita Jagdamba Prasad against Ankit Prasad and Shashi Bala in the Court of C.J.M., Ghaziabad, for offences punishable u/s 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 387, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Sahibabad, District Ghaziabad, by way of an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. It was treated to be a complaint, wherein statements of complainant Amita Jagdamba Prasad was recorded u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and of her witnesses were also got recorded u/s 202 Cr.P.C. The contention made in complaint with regard to criminal trespass on the alleged date of occurrence and thereafter making assault has been corroborated by complainant as well as her witnesses and on the basis of this enquiry made by Magistrate, impugned summoning order dated 29.4.2019 has been passed, wherein the applicants have been summoned for the offences punishable u/s 323, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C. At the time of summoning u/s 204 Cr.P.C. the Magistrate is not to make analytical analysis of evidence.It is said that on 11.4.2018 Patwari Shahzad had come at the spot for investigation when those accused persons along with 3-4 others did criminal trespass, made assault and abused the complainant.For this occurrence, the complaint was made and the complainant and her witnesses were examined.They have corroborated the contention of complaint.The very argument that this Patwari Shahzad was not examined, is of no relevance because the complainant and injured have been examined and they have corroborated the contention of complaint.Accordingly, there remains nothing for any indulgence in this proceeding.The prayer for quashing summoning order as well as proceeding of the aforesaid complaint case is refused and the application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.Order Date :- 21.9.2020 Pcl
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
130,609,716 |
It has 2 CRA No.24/2006 also been directed by the Trial Court that out of the total fine amount, an amount of Rs.10,000/- be paid to the prosecutrix by way of compensation and all the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.2 CRA No.24/2006The necessary facts for the disposal of the present appeal in short are that on 1.4.2004, the complainant Atar Singh Jatav lodged a Gum Insan report alleging that his 13 years of old daughter had gone to Chinor on 24.3.2004 for appearing in the examination of Class 8th and has not returned back and inspite of the best efforts, her whereabouts could not be ascertained.A Gum Insan case was registered as 3/2004 and the matter was investigated by Head Constable Pancham Singh.The statements of the witnesses were recorded who stated that the appellant Ramkishan @ Raja has taken away the prosecutrix.Accordingly, the FIR in Crime No.53/2004 was registered for offence under Sections 363, 366 of IPC.The prosecutrix was recovered from the possession of the appellant along with three months old boy.The prosecutrix was got medically examined, her statement was recorded and she made specific allegations of commission of rape by the appellant and it was also stated by her that the co-accused Kamlesh had assisted the appellant Ramkishan @ Raja.3 CRA No.24/2006The appellant and the co-accused Kamlesh, abjured their guilt and pleaded not guilty.The prosecution in order to prove its case, examined the prosecutrix (PW-1), Atar Singh (PW-2), Sohan Singh (PW-3), Jogendra (PW-4), Pancham Singh (PW-5), Ramvaran Singh (PW-6), Ramsharan Barua (PW-7), Dr. Shobha Chaturvedi (PW-8), Dr. J.S. Sikarwar (PW-9), Mohar Singh (PW-10), Bhawar Singh Jadon (PW-11), S.K. Saxena (PW-12), Naresh Dubey (PW-13) and Chandrabhan Singh (PW-14).The appellant and the co-accused did not examine any witness in their defence.The prosecutrix was undoubtedly minor below 16 years of age and the prosecutrix has specifically stated that during her stay with the appellant for a period of one year the appellant used to beat her mercilessly and she was not allowed to go back to her home.Thus, the prosecutrix has specifically stated that during this period of one year, she was raped by the appellant.The prosecutrix (PW-1) has stated that her date of birth is 2.1.1991 and on 24.3.2004 she had gone to fill up her Examination form for appearing in the examination of Class 8th.She was followed by the appellant who threatened her to accompany her to Gwalior, otherwise she and her brother would be killed.It is further stated that in Gwalior, the appellant took her to hostel where one Sardar Jatav was studying and in the evening of the same day, the appellant 5 CRA No.24/2006 took her to Indore and they reached Indore in the morning of the next day.The appellant took her to the house of his relative and stayed there for three days and during these three days, the appellant had committed rape on her.Her marksheet is Ex.The appellant kept her like his wife but he never allowed her to speak.This witness had brought the register of Gurudwara Nanaksar, Hamidiya Road, Bhopal of the period 10.12.2003 to 18.11.2004 in which the details of the name of the persons staying in Gurudwara, total number of persons, time, place from where they come as well as the place to which they would go and the reasons for staying in the Gurudwara are mentioned.The amount deposited by said persons as well as the number of the room allotted to them is also mentioned in the register.The relevant entry is Ex.P/4 and its photocopy is Ex.P/4C. The register was seized by the police vide seizure memo Ex.P/5 and it contains the signatures of President of the Managing Committee of Gurudwara.This witness was cross-examined and it was admitted by him that Langar is distributed to devotees and nothing is charged from them.It was accepted by him that the ladies also stay in the Gurudwara and there was no obstruction by the Gurudwara Managing Committee.The appellant along with his wife had stayed there for a period of one month and during this period he had never heard any 8 CRA No.24/2006 dispute between them.He had further clarified that the rooms are having attached latrine and bathroom and the appellant and his wife were staying in the same room.7 CRA No.24/20068 CRA No.24/2006Jogendra (PW-4) has stated that the prosecutrix is known to him who is aged about 14 years.He saw her at bus stand Pipraua along with the appellant as well as one and half month old child.The appellant was arrested and the prosecutrix was recovered by the police.The recovery panchanama Ex.P/1 was prepared.The appellant was arrested by Ex.Pancham Singh (PW-5) has stated that on 1.4.2004 he had received the diary of Gum Insan Report No.3/2004 and the FIR lodged by him after conducting the enquiry is Ex.P/6 and the Gum Insan enquiry report is Ex.In cross-examination, it was clarified by this witness that a separate case diary is prepared for Gum Insan enquiry in which every detail of enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer is mentioned.Ramvaran Singh (PW-6) has stated that he had seized the register from Sriram Lodge vide seizure memo Ex.Thereafter, they went to Gurudwara Hamidiya Road, Bhopal where the photocopy of the register was seized which is Ex.P/4C and the seizure memo is Ex.Dr. J.S. Sikarwar (PW-9) had conducted the ossification test of the prosecutrix and had opined that the age of the prosecutrix is more than 16 years but she was below 18 years of age.The ossification report given by Dr. J.S. Sikarwar is Ex.P/13 and the x-ray plates are Ex.P/14, Ex.P/15 and Ex.Mohar Singh (PW-10) had arrested the co-accused Kamlesh vide arrest memo Ex.P/17 and he was sent for medical examination vide Ex.Bhawar Singh Jadon (PW-11) is the Head Constable who went to Primary Health Centre, Shadhora, District Guna where he seized the bed head ticket dated 11.1.2005 of the prosecutrix concerning the delivery of child by the prosecutrix.10 CRA No.24/2006 The bed head ticket is Ex.P/19 and the OPD ticket of the prosecutrix is Ex.Thereafter, this witness went to Sriram Lodge, Ujjain near bus stand Devas Gate and seized the record of Sriram Lodge, according to which the appellant had stayed in the said hotel from 26.3.2004 to 29.3.2004 and copy of the register is Ex.The prosecutrix (PW-1) has stated in her examination-in-chief itself that the appellant was already married having three children.Accordingly, the police after concluding the investigation filed the charge sheet against the appellant and the co-accused Kamlesh for offence under Sections 363, 366, 376 of IPC.The Trial Court by judgment dated 13.12.2005 passed in S.T.No.191/2005, convicted the appellant for offence under Sections 363, 366, 376 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo the rigorous imprisonment of three years and a fine of Rs.1,000/-, five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5000/- and 10 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000/- with default imprisonment, respectively.The co-accused Kamlesh was acquitted of all the charges.The acquittal of the co-accused Kamlesh Viswas has not been challenged by the State or by the complainant, therefore, any reference to Kamlesh Viswas would be in respect of the 4 CRA No.24/2006 allegations made against the present appellant.Thereafter he took her to Ujjain where they stayed in Shriram Lodge for five days and at Ujjain also she was raped by the appellant.From Ujjain they came to Devas and they stayed there for one day in a lodge situated behind the bus stand where also she was raped by the appellant.From Devas they came to Bhopal and stayed in Gurudwara for a period of one month, and there also, she was raped by the appellant.From Bhopal they came to Guna where they stayed for a period of six months with the assistance of co-accused.The appellant used to beat her and rape her.From Guna they went to Sadhora where the appellant opened a clinic.At Sadhora, she gave birth to a child who is now five months old and is residing with her.At Sadhora they stayed for a period of four months and thereafter the appellant extended a threat to compromise the matter and accordingly, brought her to village Pipraua by bus where he was caught by the police.It was further stated that the appellant used to beat her child as well as used to beat the prosecutrix.The appellant was already married and had three children, out of which two were girl and one was boy.The prosecutrix was recovered from the possession of the appellant and the recovery memo is Ex.She was sent for medical examination and her 6 CRA No.24/2006 ossification test was also conducted.Her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. was recorded.The prosecutrix was cross-examined in detail and a suggestion was given to her that the date of birth mentioned in the mark sheet Ex.She also denied that she was 19 to 20 years of age on the date of the incident.Certain omissions were also got proved from the prosecutrix.A question was put to the prosecutrix with regard to date of birth of her younger brother which she denied for want of knowledge.She also denied that her younger brother was 16 years on the date of incident.She could not narrate the name of the hospital where she gave birth to the child.She further denied the suggestion of enmity on the question of local elections.5 CRA No.24/20066 CRA No.24/2006Atar Singh (PW-2) has also stated that on 24.3.2004 his daughter had left the house for appearing in the examination of Class 8th and thereafter she did not come back and accordingly a Gum Insan Report was lodged on 1.4.2004 as he was trying to search out the prosecutrix.In the meanwhile, he was told by one Gautam that the present appellant has eloped with the daughter of this witness.The Gum Insan Report Ex.P/3 was lodged.Sohan Singh (PW-3) has stated that the appellant had 7 CRA No.24/2006 stayed in Gurudwara along with his wife and the name of his wife was disclosed as Mrs. Sonu R/o Chinor.The said register was in 200 pages and as per entry at Srl. No.525 on Page 76, the appellant had stayed in Gurudwara on 31.3.2004 along with his wife and he had disclosed his address as Village Post Chinor, District Gwalior and had disclosed that he has come to Bhopal for taking certificate from the doctor.Ramsharan Barua (PW-7) has stated that Constable 9 CRA No.24/2006 Ramkishan had brought three packets and three specimen of seal from hospital which were seized by this witness vide Ex.9 CRA No.24/2006Dr. Shobha Chaturvedi (PW-8) had medically examined the prosecutrix and did not find any external injury and prosecutrix had given birth to a child which was visible from the symptoms from the body of the prosecutrix.The medical report is Ex.In cross-examination, this witness has stated that for delivery, the prosecutrix had not undergone Cesarean operation.She has further stated that the prosecutrix appeared to be 13 years of age and as the mensuration cycle starts from the age of 13 years, therefore, the prosecutrix was competent to give birth to a child.P/9 and Ex.P/10 which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.Thereafter this witness went to Gurudwara, Bhopal on 13.4.2005 and seized the register from Gurudwara vide seizure memo Ex.P/15 and the photocopy of the register of the Gurudwara is Ex.P/4C which is attested by the Manager of the Gurudwara Managing Committee.10 CRA No.24/2006Naresh Dubey (PW-13) is the Investigating Officer who had lodged the FIR Ex.The spot map Ex.P/3 was prepared and this witness had recorded the statements of Atar Singh and Rajeshwari Devi.In cross-examination, a question was put to this witness that why the Gum Insan Complaint has not been filed in the present case, then in reply, it was submitted by him that it was not possible to include the copy of Gum Insan complaint and other documents in the case diary.He further admitted that a separate diary is maintained for Gum Insan complaints.He 11 CRA No.24/2006 further stated that he had recorded the statements of the person in the same manner in which it was narrated by them.11 CRA No.24/2006Chandrabhan Singh (PW-14) has stated that he had arrested the appellant from Pipraua Tiraha on 9.4.2005 vide arrest memo Ex.P/5 and the prosecutrix aged about 14 years was recovered from the possession of the appellant along with a minor boy aged about three months and the recovery memo Ex.P/1 was prepared.The case dairy statement of the prosecutrix Ex.D/1 was recorded.The appellant was got medically examined which is Ex.P/21 and the medical report of the prosecutrix is Ex.For verifying the statement of the appellant as well as the prosecutrix, he had sent Bhawar Singh, the Head Constable as well as the appellant who was on police remand.In cross-examination he has submitted that he got the information at the police station that the appellant has started by bus from Gwalior at 11:00 AM.As this witness was not in possession of Rojnamcha Sanha, therefore, he could not tell that whether the said information was recorded in the Rojnamcha Sanha or not.It is further submitted that he reached on the spot at about 12:15-12:30 PM and at that time the appellant was at Pipraua Tiraha and the prosecutrix was sitting near the appellant.At the time of his arrest, the search was taken but nothing was found.He denied that the brother of the prosecutrix had called him from the police station by informing that the prosecutrix is sitting near the square.The 12 CRA No.24/2006 prosecutrix was sent for medical examination along with a lady constable and the parents of the prosecutrix had not met with this witness prior to her medical examination.He further denied that the case diary statement Ex.D/1 was prepared at the police station.12 CRA No.24/2006Challenging the findings and conviction recorded by the Trial Court, it is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the prosecutrix was above 16 years of age at the relevant time.As per Section 375 sixthly of IPC the minimum age prescribed was 16 years.It is further submitted that as per the ossification report, the prosecutrix was above 16 years of age and under these circumstances the date of birth of the prosecutrix mentioned in the school record should be discarded.Heard the learned counsel for the parties.13 CRA No.24/200613 CRA No.24/2006The following two questions would arise in the present case:-(i) Whether the prosecutrix was below 16 years of age on the date of the incident?(ii) whether the prosecutrix was a consenting party?In the present case, the prosecutrix went missing on 24.3.2004 and she could be recovered on 9.5.2005 i.e. after more than one year after she was kidnapped.When the prosecutrix was recovered, she was having a three months old child in her lap.The ossification test of the prosecutrix was conducted on 11.4.2005 i.e. one year after the prosecutrix was taken away by the appellant.A Gum Insan Report was lodged on 1.4.2004 and the said diary was handed over to the Head Constable Pancham Singh (PW-5) and after recording the statements of various witnesses, Pancham Singh (PW-5) submitted a report Ex.P/6 on 21.4.2004 to the effect that the prosecutrix has gone away with the appellant.Thereafter, the prosecutrix was recovered from the possession of the appellant on 9.4.2005 from Bus Stand, Police Station Chinor, District Gwalior along with a minor boy aged about three months.The prosecutrix (PW-1) has stated that her date of birth is 2.1.1991 and her mark sheet is Ex.Although the appellant has challenged the date of birth of the prosecutrix but if the date of birth of the prosecutrix is considered in the light of the ossification test report Ex.P/13, then it would be clear that when the appellant took away the prosecutrix with him, she was below 16 years of age.As already pointed out that the appellant took away the prosecutrix with her on 23.4.2004 and she was recovered from the possession of the appellant on 9.4.2005 i.e. after more than one year.She was subjected to ossification test on 11.4.2005 and as per the ossification test report Ex.P/13, the prosecutrix was more than 16 years of age but below 18 years of age.The report given by Dr. J.S. Sikarwar (PW-9) reads as under:-14 CRA No.24/2006"All the epiphysis at elbow its appears fused, epiphysis at the lower end of radius and ulna are incompletely fused as well as iliac crest is also incompletely fused.The prosecutrix (PW-1) has also not stated in her evidence that she had left her house after obtaining due permission from her father and mother.This statement of the prosecutrix has not been challenged by the appellant in his 20 CRA No.24/2006 cross-examination.Thus it is clear that the appellant who was already married and was having three children, kidnapped the prosecutrix who was minor below the age of 16 years on the date of the incident and moved from one place to another and stayed at different places and at every place he projected the prosecutrix as his wife and because of the physical relationship between the appellant and the prosecutrix, the prosecutrix was blessed with a son.Under these circumstances, as the prosecutrix was below the age of 16 years on 24.3.2004 when she was kidnapped by the appellant and was certainly below the age of 18 years for the purposes of offence under Sections 363, 366 of IPC on 23.4.2004, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing that the appellant had committed an offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376 of IPC.Considered the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant.The prosecutrix in paragraph 1 of her examination-in- chief has stated that the appellant was already married and was having three children and this claim/allegation of the prosecutrix has not been challenged by the appellant by challenging the same in the cross-examination of this witness.23 CRA No.24/200623 CRA No.24/2006Under these circumstances, when the appellant himself was already married and was having three children, then kidnapping a minor girl below the age of 16 years and moving from one place to another for a period of one year, as a result of which the prosecutrix gave birth to a male child, this Court is of the considered opinion that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of 10 years as awarded by the Trial Court for offence under Section 376 of IPC does not require any interference.Accordingly, the judgment and sentence dated 13.12.2005 passed by 1st ASJ, Dabra, District Gwalior in S.T.No.191/2005 is hereby affirmed.The appellant in on bail.The appellant is directed to immediately surrender before the Trial Court for undergoing the remaining jail sentence.The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
|
['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
13,061,050 |
Arguments heard on application filed on 17.6.2018 under section 439 of CrPC for grant of bail on behalf of applicants Relu Bai, Jhalu Bai and Munni Bai, in connection with crime No.102/2018, registered a t Police Station Khaknar, District Burhanpur for offences punishable under sections 294, 353, 332, 333, 341, 506, 307/34 of IPC.Case diary of Crime No. 102/2018 perused.As per prosecution story on 07.05.2018, Range Officer Guman Singh received information and upon that information 26 pieces of Teak wood found in the possession of the accused Mukesh.Present applicants used filthy language and attacked upon the Government Officers by the help of Pistol, Axe and other weapons.As per the report, grievous injuries found upon person of Vijay, Nilesh and Raghwendra.Simple injuries also found upon the person of Satyendra Singh and Guman Singh and Vinod.The injuries of Vijay Kumar found dangerous to his life.It is stated in the order dated 06.06.2018 passed by Third ASJ Burhanpur that the accused Jhalu Bai is a pregnant lady about 8 months.Relu Bai also having a son aged about one and a half year.The Munni Bai is also 18 years old girl.Therefore, looking to the part played by applicants and other circumstances of the case, being lady the application is allowed.It is directed that applicants Relu Bai, Jhalu Bai and Munni Bai shall be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) each with one solvent surety of the like 2 MCRC-23332-2018 amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.It is directed that the applicants shall abide by the conditions as enumerated under section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C and in the event of breach of condition of bail, the trial Court will be competent to take coercive action against the applicants.This M.Cr.
|
['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
130,614,166 |
The case is listed today for admission.Heard on the bail application.This is second bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.Applicant's first bail application was dismissed as withdrawn on 31.10.2014 in M.Cr.C. No.7780/2014 by this Court.The applicant has been arrested in connection with Crime No.90/2014, registered at P.S. Tharet, District Datia, for the offence punishable under Sections 304-b/34 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.Co-accused Vinod Kushwah has demanded Rs.50,000/- as dowry to the deceased, when parents of deceased have not fulfilled the said demand.Applicant has murdered the deceased.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not committed any offence and he has falsely been implicated in this case.There is no evidence that at the M.Cr.C. No.4126/2015 (Ramesh Vs.State of M.P.) time of incident he was present at home the incident place.On these grounds, learned counsel for the applicant prayed for grant of bail.The prayer is opposed by learned Panel Lawyer.A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.C.C. as per rules.(Sushil Kumar Gupta) Judge Rashid
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
130,618,662 |
DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 18-03-2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT : 27-04-2016 ORAL JUDGMENT :The applicant in Criminal Revision Application No.162/2012 is hereinafter referred to as "the applicant" and the non-applicant in Criminal Revision Application No.162/2012 is hereinafter referred to as "the non-applicant".Heard Shri Ramesh Mohod, Advocate for the applicant and Shri A.R. Prasad, Advocate for the non-applicant.::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:00:25 :::3 revn162.12 & wp714.13The applicant filed complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying that the non-applicant be punished for the offence punishable under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code, on the following accusations :On 16-12-2010 at 5.00 p.m., when the applicant was working in the field of Shri Vijaykumar Jain, policemen arrested the applicant.It was made known to the applicant that report was lodged against the applicant and the non-applicant had given statement to the police that 14 bags of Soyabean seeds worth Rs.20,000/- were stolen fraudulently from his field and the non-applicant suspected that the applicant had committed the theft.The applicant was kept in custody in the police station from 6-00 p.m. and he was produced before the learned Magistrate, Katol on 17-12-2010 at 11-00 a.m. The charge-::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:00:25 :::4 revn162.12 & wp714.13 sheet was submitted before the Court on 27-01-2011 against some other persons and it was pointed out by the police that the applicant was not concerned with the offence and discharge report was submitted in favour of the applicant.On the above accusations, the applicant contended that the non-applicant had filed false complaint against the applicant with the intention of causing harm and injury to the applicant.The non-applicant, being aggrieved by the above order, filed Criminal Revision Application No.57/2012 before the Sessions Court.The learned Additional Sessions Judge, relying on the judgment given by this Court in the case of Subhash Ramchandra Durge vs. Deepak Annasaheb Gat and another reported in 2000 ::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:00:25 ::: 5 revn162.12 & wp714.13 Cri.L.J. 4774, concluded that the complaint filed by the applicant praying that the non-applicant be prosecuted and punished for offence under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code, was not maintainable at the behest of the applicant-private person.The learned Additional Sessions Judge recorded that the complaint for offence under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code has to be filed by the concerned Court.::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:00:25 :::In view of the above conclusions, the learned Additional Sessions Judge recorded that the order passed by the learned Magistrate directing issuance of process for offence under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code, was not sustainable.The learned Additional Sessions Judge, however, recorded that considering the allegations made by the applicant against the non-applicant in the complaint, prima-facie it appeared that the non-applicant can be prosecuted for offence under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly modified the order passed by the learned Magistrate and concluded that the process has to be issued against the non-applicant for offence under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code.The applicant, being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, setting aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate, has filed this revision application.::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:00:25 :::The learned Advocate for the applicant has opposed the challenge raised on behalf of the non-applicant to the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge directing issuance of process under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code and has submitted that on the basis of the material on record if the Court finds that some other offence is made out, it is always open to the Court to prosecute and convict the accused for that offence also.It is prayed that the Criminal Revision Application No.162/2012 be allowed and the Criminal Writ Petition No.714/2013 be dismissed.::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:00:25 :::The order directing issuance of summons was maintained by the Sessions Court and the High Court.The orders were challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.The challenge was that the complaint for offence under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code was not maintainable at the behest of private person in view of the bar created by Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:00:25 :::::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:00:25 :::(ii) ------------(iii) -----------In the present case also, therefore, we have to see whether all these three ingredients were in existence at the time when the Judicial Magistrate at Chandigarh proceeded to take cognizance of the charge under S. 211, I.P.C. against the appellant."::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:00:25 :::13 revn162.12 & wp714.13 The Hon'ble Supreme Court recorded that on the date on which offence punishable under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code was committed as alleged, there were no proceedings in any Court and, therefore, the bar created by Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure would not be attracted.In that case, complaint praying that the accused be punished for offences punishable under Sections 204, 211 and 385 of the Indian Penal Code was filed on 11 th April, 1959 and till that time the accused was neither arrested nor produced before the Court.The learned Additional Sessions Judge while exercising the revisional jurisdiction could not have directed the issuance of process for the offence under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code.In the circumstances of the case, after the learned Additional Sessions Judge prima facie found that the averments made in the complaint make out some other offence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge could have remitted the matter to the learned Magistrate for applying his mind on the point as to whether the process is required to be issued against the non-applicant for some other offence.::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:00:25 :::(i) The order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge setting aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate directing the issuance of process against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code is maintained.(ii) The order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge directing the issuance of process against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian ::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:00:25 ::: 17 revn162.12 & wp714.13 Penal Code is modified.::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:00:25 :::(iv) Criminal Writ Petition No.714/2013 filed by Kishore Vitthalrao Padole is partly allowed.(v) In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.JUDGE pma/tambaskar ::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:00:25 :::::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:00:25 :::
|
['Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
13,062,294 |
4.We have given our careful and anxious consideration to the rival submissions put forward by the learned counsel on either side and thoroughly scanned through the impugned detention order and the entire materials available on record.5.It is seen from paragraph No.4 of the Grounds of Detention that in similar cases, viz., [a] the accused was released on bail by the learned V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai in Crl.MP.No.460/2013 in respect of the case in Crime No.164/2013 for the offences u/s.384 and 506(ii) IPC on the file of the K3 Aminjikarai Police Station and [b] the accused was released on bail by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai in Crl.MP.No.10992/2011 in respect of the case in Crime No.1640/2011 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 341, 336, 307, 397 and 506(ii) IPC on the file of the V5 Thirumangalam Police Station respectively.
|
['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 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 397 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
130,625,975 |
Shri Sharad Verma, learned counsel for the objector.This is first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail to the applicants.The applicants have been arrested on 24.08.2020 in connection with Crime No.762/2020 registered at Police Station Maihar, District Satna (M.P.) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 420, 409, 421, 294, 506 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code.As per prosecution story, complainant Rupesh Balecha has lodged report against the applicants.It is alleged by the complainant that he is in business of wholesale selling of shoes.He is having a shop which is named as M/s Hariom Shoe Center.He advanced goods to the applicants.Money in respect of goods advanced has not been paid and, therefore, allegations are made against the applicant.Counsel appearing for the applicants submitted that applicants are innocent and falsely being implicated in the case.They have been arrested on 24.08.2020 by Police Station Maihar, District Satna.Counsel appearing for the applicant further submitted that it is dispute arisen from civil transaction between the parties.Complainant and accused were in business relationship with each other, therefore, offence under Section 420 of IPC is not made out against the applicants.On basis of aforesaid, learned counsel for the applicants prays for grant of bail to the applicants.Counsel appearing for the State Government as well as objector opposed the bail application.It is submitted by the counsel appearing for the objector that the applicants may be ordered to pay the dues of the Signature Not SAN Verified complainant.Digitally signed by VINOD KUMAR TIWARI Date: 2020.12.02 17:30:41 IST 2 MCRC-33901-2020 Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the bail application filed by the applicants is allowed.It is directed that applicants may be released on bail on their furnishing personal bond of Rs.30,000/- (Rs. Thirty Thousand only) each with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.The applicant shall abide by the conditions enumerated in Section 437(3) of Cr. P. C.C.C. as per rules.
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
130,626,799 |
Brief facts arising out of this case are that on 04.08.04 at about 10:15 PM, on receipt of an information with regard to occurrence of a quarrel and causing injury by using of chhura/knife at 150 Gali No. 1, 2nd Pushta Sonia Vihar, ASI Dharam Pal Singh along with Const.Khem Chand reached at the spot.On reaching there they saw Rajender S/o Sh.On the MLC of Rajender, he was declared unfit for statement and on the MLC of Shakuntla, the nature of injuries were opined as a simple caused by blunt weapon and on the MLC of Krishan, nature of injuries was opined as simple caused by sharp object.The statement of injured Kishan S/o Rajender Kumar was recorded wherein he stated as under:-"His father had been doing the business of property dealer, who had arranged a plot for sale to Asgar and 2% commission payable by Asgar on sale consideration was settled.On 03/8/04 his father went to the shop of Asgar and asked for his commission.Sirajuddin, father of Asgar refused to pay the commission due to that some altercation had taken place between his father and Sirajuddin.Asgar who was present at the shop stated that he would pay his commission at his house.Again on 04/8/04 at about 8.30p.m.Asgar and his brother Afsar along with two another persons had come to his house and called his father out side the house.Asgar extended threat while saying that AA MAIN TUGHE ABBI COMMISSION DE DETA HOON" In the mean time, other unknown boys caught hold of his father and Asgar and Afsar started stabbing his Crl.A. No.1192/2011 Page 2/23 father with churee/knives.His mother also came out from his house.Asgar and Afsar extended threat of killing her.When he tried to save his mother, one boy of (Savla colour) among them landed a dunda blow on the head of his mother and when he tried to caught hold the knife which was in the hand of Asgar, the also received sharp injuries on three fingers of his hand.Asgar along with his associates attempted to kill his father".On merit, ld. Counsel for the appellants has submitted that in the present case, the injuries received by the PW1 Krishan Kumar, PW2 Smt. Shakuntala and PW3 Rajender Kumar in the altercation on the issue of commission in sale of the property.The injuries caused on PW3 Rajender Kumar were a clean deep wound over right hand measuring 4cm x 1cm; a deep clean wound near mouth left side measuring 4cm x 1cm; a deep clean wound on left hip joint on interior abdominal wall; and a wound measuring 2cm x 5cm above left clavicle.He further deposed that after initial treatment the patient was referred to surgery.School record and report of teacher: He is illiterate.13.FAMILY HISTORY :14.Economic conditions of the family: Economic Condition of the family is assessed as poor class family of the society.He is only earning member of his family.They are hardly meeting their day to day requirements.Report of neighbours: Positive and favourable.15.Legal history: He also faced another case vide FIR No.354/2008 under Section 283 Indian Penal Code police station K.Khas and fined Rs.200/-.The appellant has already undergone 24 days of incarceration, Crl.A. No.1192/2011 Page 5/23It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that three injured witnesses namely PW1 Krishan Kumar, PW2 Smt. Shakuntala and PW3 Rajender Kumar had suffered simple injuries as shown in their respective MLCs.Testimonies of the witnesses were full of contradictions, wherein the above mentioned witnesses deposed differently and could not establish conclusively.Therefore, the benefit of doubt ought to have been extended to the appellants.Learned counsel argued that on 31.08.2004 NBWs were issued against accused Salim s/o Shakeel, and thereafter on 14.09.2004 he was arrested at the instance of PW-1 Krishan Kumar.Report of the MLCs of all the injured persons were obtained.On the MLC of injured Rajender, the nature of injuries were opined as grievous caused by sharp object' and nature of injuries on the MLC of Shakuntla was opined as simple caused by blunt object.Learned counsel for the appellants has referred the deposition of PW- 8 Dr. S. Kohli, who deposed on behalf of Dr. Chanchal, who was working as CMO at the relevant time.He was deputed by M.S. GTB Hospital, to be deposed on behalf of Dr. Chanchal as she left the services of hospital and her present whereabouts were not known.PW8 deposed that on 04.08.2004 at about 11:30 P.M. patient Rajender was brought to the hospital with an alleged history of assault.and submit the proceedings to a Magistrate of the first class forwarding the accuses to or taking, bail for his appearance before, such Magistrate, who shall dispose of the case in the manner provided by sub-section (2)".In the present case, apart from PW-1 Sh.Krishan Kumar / complainant, his mother and father also received injuries.Learned APP has further argued that PW-7 Dr. S. Kohli deposed that on 05.08.2004 at about 12:05 a.m. Krishan Kumar aged about 18 years was brought by ASI Vasudev to the Casualty Ward of GTB Hospital for his medical examination with the alleged history of assault.The Doctor who had examined him has now left the services of the hospital.He identified the handwriting and signatures of Dr.Subhash B Bijita which is Ex. PW 7/A. The said MLC was prepared under supervision as he was posted as CMO casualty on that day.On local examination of injured Krishan an incised wound over the distal (Top), part of index finger, middle finger and ring fingers were noticed and patient was referred to surgery emergency for further management.The said doctor further deposed that on local examination of injured Crl.A. No.1192/2011 Page 11/23 Shakuntla, a lacerated wound measuring 2 x x cm over the left posterior partial region of the head was noticed, and was referred to surgery emergency for further management.During his cross-examination, he reiterated his testimony as submitted by him during examination-in-chief except the fact that both the MLCs were prepared in his supervision but not in his presence.1. Vide the instant appeal, the appellants have assailed the judgment dated 26.08.2011 and order on sentence dated 29.08.2011 in case titled as State Vs.Afsar and others in Sessions case No. 29/09 in case FIR 301/2004 under Sections 307/324/34 IPC, wherein the appellants were sentenced to undergo RI for 03 years and fine of Rs.5,000/- each under Section 307 IPC and further to undergo SI for 06 months for the offence punishable under Section 324/34 IPC and fine of Rs.1000/- Both the sentences were to run concurrently.Havans Lal, R/o 150 B Block, Gali No. 1, 2nd Pushta Sonia Vihar, Delhi, stained with blood.All the injured namely Rajender, Krishan and Shakuntla were taken to GTB Hospital by PCR Van, where they all were medically examined vide MLC No 2493/04, 2637/04 and 2694/04 respectively.Nature of injuries was opined as caused by sharp weapon.On the report of X-Ray plate of injured Rajender, found a chip fracture of iliac crest.The injuries received by PW1 Krishan Kumar, though are of simple in nature, however caused by a sharp object.I note, the appellant No.1 used the knife during altercation whereby caused injuries on the vital parts of the body that too by using a sharp weapon.Learned Trial Judge has already taken a lenient view and awarded only three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/- under Section 307 Indian Penal Code and SI for 06 months for the offence punishable under Section 324/34 Indian Penal Code and fine of Rs.1,000/-; whereas the Crl.A. No.1192/2011 Page 3/23 punishment under Section 307 Indian Penal Code may extend up to life imprisonment.Pursuant to the order dated 10.01.2012, the Probation Officer filed the report of appellant no. 2 Afsar, on the submission of ld.Counsel for appellant who sought the benefit to be extended as provided under Section 360 of the Code, which was taken on the record, which reads as under:-"Report of Preliminary enquiries vide Rule 16 (1)Regarding Afsar s/o Sirfuddin:-Personal history: The accused is a married man of 26 years.He belongs to poor class family of Muslim society.His family originally hails from district Punchsheel of UP.Behaviour and habits: He is observed well behaved with submissive nature.No criminal tendency is found on the nature of accused.Physical and mental history: Physically he is well built.His mental condition is also sound.Leisure time activities: He spent leisure time with his family members.External influences: Chances of being influenced by other seems to be very few.Employment history: The accused started to work as a labour.He also works with his elder brother.Present occupation & wages: He is doing the job of tyre puncture since last 15 years.10.Report of employer: He is self employed with no regular work.He is earning of Rs.6000/- pm.11.Associates: He is not in the association of bad elements.Crl. A. No.1192/2011 Page 4/2312.Contact with social & religious organization, if any: Nothing was reported.He was medically examined by Dr. Chanchal who was working as CMO at that time.On local examination following injuries were noticed :-"a) Superficial wound on left arm measuring 10cm long and 2cm wide Crl.A. No.1192/2011 Page 6/23b) A deep wound over right hand measuring 4cm x 1cmc) A deep clean wound near mouth left side measuring 4cmx1cmd) A deep clean wound on left hip joint on interior abdominal wall.e) A wound measuring 2cmx5cm above left clavicle.He further deposed that after initial treatment the patient was referred to surgery.Nuero surgery, orthopedic department for further management.He further stated that a the time of examination of patient he was fit examination.MLC prepared by Dr. Chanchal is Ex. PW8/A bearing her signatures."Further submitted that PW-10 Dr. Raj Pal, deposed that on 04.08.2004 he examined the X-ray plate of injured Rajender, vide plate No. 3629 of pelvis with both hips AF and found a chip fracture of iliac crest.He proved his report as Ex.PW-10/A bearing his signatures at point A.Learned counsel has further referred to cross-examination of PW2, wherein she stated that her husband has been doing the business of property dealing since last 20 years, however, PW1 Krishan stated that his father was doing the business of property dealing since last 06 years and PW3 Rajinder himself deposed that he has been doing the business of property dealing since last 10/12 years, therefore all the public witnesses failed to prove the modus operandi/ motive, which they tried to implicate the accused persons in the present case.During cross-examination, PW-2 Smt.Shakuntala deposed that she had told the name of the assailants to the doctor who had medically examined her.But on perusal of MLC no name of assailants had been recorded by the doctor, it proves that the testimony of PW2 does not inspire Crl.A. No.1192/2011 Page 7/23 confidence and is liable to be rejected.PW-7 is a doctor, has identified the signatures of Dr. Subhash B. Bijita who examined the injured.He also admitted that on the radiologist report it was written that No Bony Injury seen and thereafter the cutting were made and opined that Bony injury seen.He further deposed that on perusal of X- ray report a chip fracture of iliac-crest and same is counter signed by the doctor in the report Ex.PW 10/A.On the issue, whether the ingredients of Section 307 Indian Penal Code, 1860 are disclosed in the present case, the Learned Trial Judge carefully perused the nature of injuries opined by the doctor on the MLC of all the three injured which is Ex.PW7/A, 7/B and Ex. PW8/A wherein it is established that the injuries mentioned in the MLC of injured Krishan Kumar reflects that he received injuries when he tried to get hold of the knife from the hands of accused person, which was simple in nature caused by a sharp object.The injuries opined on the MLC of PW2 Shakuntla, as nature of injury simple caused by blunt object but on the vital part of the Crl.It is further stated that the injuries noticed on Krishan Kumar can be caused, by falling on hard surface/floor, on the person of Shakuntla is possible.Learned APP has further referred Dr. S.Kohli, CMO of hospital and deposed that he has been deputed by M/s. GTB Hospital to depose on behalf of Dr. Chanchal, as who left the services of hospital, and her present whereabouts are not known.He deposed that on 04.08.2004 at about 11:30 p.m., patient Rajender was brought to the hospital with the alleged history of assault.On local examination, following injuries were noticed:a. Superficial wound on left arm measuring 10cm long and 2cm wide.b. A deep wound over right hand measuring 4cm x 1cm.c. A deep clean wound near mouth left side measuring 4cm x 1cm.d. A deep clean wound on left hip joint on interior abdominal wall.e. A wound measuring 2cm x 5cm above left clavicle.He further deposed that after initial treatment the patient was referred to surgery, Nuero surgery, orthopedic department for further management.He further stated that at the time of examination of patient he was fit examination.MLC prepared by Dr.Chanchal is Ex. PW 8/A bearing her signatures.APP has further submitted that PW-10 Dr. Raj Pal deposed that on 04.08.2004 he examined the X-ray plate form of injured Rajender vide X-ray plate No. 3629 of X-ray pelvis with both hips AP and found a chip fracture Crl. A. No.1192/2011 Page 12/23 of iliac crest.He proved his report as Ex. PW 10/A.Learned APP has referred PW-16, Dr. Manish Chadha who identified the handwriting and signature of Dr. Sanjeev, Senior Resident on the MLC No.C-2493, pertaining to injured Rajender and deposed that Dr. Sanjeev has now left the services of hospital, and his present whereabouts are not know in the office.During his cross-examination, he admitted that on the radiologist report, it was written "No Bony injury seen" and thereafter the cutting were made and opined that "Bony injury seen".Therefore, 'No Bony Injury' was written by mistake and same was corrected and opined with, 'Bony Injury Seen'.Learned APP has further submitted that Learned Trial Judge has dealt the ingredients of section 307 IPC carefully.After pursuing the nature of injuries opined by the doctor on the MLCs, of all the three injured, which are Ex. PW 7/A, 7/B and Ex. PW 8/A, wherein it is established that injuries mentioned in the MLC of injured Krishan Kumar reflects that he received injuries, when he tried to get hold of the knife from the hands of accused person, which is simple in nature caused by sharp object and the injuries opined on the MLC of PW-2 Shakuntla, nature of injury simple caused by blunt object but on the vital part of the body i.e. head and on perusal of the MLC Ex. PW 8/A of injured Rajender / PW-3, injury no. 3, i.e. deep clean wound near mouth left side and injury no. 5 is above the left clavical clearly goes to show that both the injuries were inflicted on the upper limb, i.e. vital part of the body by using sharp weapon.Counsels for parties, in the present case, both the appellants used knife not once, but on numerous time.This fact is proved on the injuries caused to PW-3 Rajinder, who received six injuries.Only one injury is opined as superficial wound, rest all opined as deep wounds.X-Ray Report also proved bony injury was sustained.Some injuries are on vital part of body and grievous in nature.It is also proved that all injuries were caused by sharp weapon.However facts remain that none of injuries were opined as fatal.The intention of the appellants were to cause injuries only, therefore some of the injuries received by injured while holding the knife.From the nature of injuries it established that the knife used in the incident not with that force which would have been fatal.Therefore, in my opinion, the ld.Trial judge should not have convicted the appellants under Section 307 Indian Penal Code, 1860, however the appellants are liable to be punished for the offence punishable under Section 326 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, apart from other provisions.In the above facts and circumstances, I modify the judgement and Crl.Consequently, he shall undergo sentence for a period of one year with fine of Rs.3,000 and in default he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for 2 months.The sentence awarded to the appellants under Section 324/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 shall remain intact.Vide the order dated 26.09.2000 of this court, the respondent/State was directed to verify the authenticity of the documents, as the appellant No.2 has claimed to be juvenile at the time of occurrence of the offence.In pursuance thereto, the respondent/State filed the verification report, found to be correct, as under:-"Accused Afsar S/o Sirajuddin R/o B-7, Service Road, IInd Pusta, Sonia Vihar, Delhi and Asgar S/o Sirajuddin R/o B-7 Service Road, IInd Pusta, Sonia Vihar, Delhi, has been convicted on 29.08.11 by the Court of Sh.Vide order dated 10.01.2012 of this court, the concerned Probation Officer, was directed to file the report on the appellants.Pursuant thereto, same has been filed and taken on record.Crl. A. No.1192/2011 Page 15/23(l)."juvenile in conflict with law" means a juvenile who is alleged to have committed an offence;"Therefore, the age of the appellant from all the available sources reveals that he was a minor on the day of occurrence and hence could not have been tried by the trial court.Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction, as modified by this court, he shall be set free forthwith, as this issue has not been raised before learned Trial Court.After the full trial, learned Trial Judge has found him guilty, and confirmed by this court though with some modifications, therefore, as law has been settled by the Apex Court in Vaneet Kumar Gupta @ Dharminder vs. State of Punjab (2009) 17 SCC 587 wherein it is held as under:-Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has challenged the conviction of the appellant mainly on the ground that on the date of occurrence, the appellant was a juvenile and therefore, he should have been tried under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 ("the Juvenile Justice Act" for short).A. No.1192/2011 Page 18/23 either before the Trial Court or the High Court but he submits that in the light of the provision contained in Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice Act, the question about juvenility of the appellant can be gone into even at this stage.Learned counsel has also pointed out that in fact the High Court was aware of the fact that the appellant had not completed eighteen years of age as on the date of alleged commission of offence and was, thus, a "juvenile" inasmuch as the fact of his being confined in Borstal Jail, Ludhiana, meant for housing a juvenile in conflict with law was mentioned in the application filed for grant of bail.It was, therefore, obligatory for the High Court to hold an inquiry itself for determination of the question of age of the appellant or cause an inquiry to be conducted and seek a report regarding the same.In the said affidavit, it is stated that upon making inquiries from the Principal of the aforementioned School, Certificate dated 15th December, 1987 has been found to be genuine.A. No. 72/2010 titled as Rajiv vs. State of NCT of Delhi.Therefore, appellant No.2 can be set at liberty while maintaining the conviction in his credit.The appellant no. 2 has been found as juvenile, therefore, while maintaining the conviction for the offence punishable under Section 326/324/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860, he is set free.His bail bond and surety bond are discharged.Accordingly, appellant no. 1, Afsar is released on good behaviour by giving benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. Accordingly, he shall furnish the bond of good behaviour for one year, before the trial Court.If the said appellant commit any offence during the bond period, in that case, he shall complete his remaining sentence.Appeal no. 1192/2011 is accordingly disposed of on the above terms & conditions.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
130,627,520 |
The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Malay Marut Banerjee, J.)
|
['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
130,627,710 |
Challenging the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent in C.No.D(1)/PR.No.53/2016/C.PO.No.542/2017, dated 07.04.2017 and for issuing a direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all other monetary and service benefits, the present writ petition has been filed.2.By consent of both parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.2/8http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.14321 of 20203.The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was initially appointed as Sub Inspector of Police in the respondent department and subsequently, he was promoted to the post of Inspector.While the petitioner was working as Inspector of Police, he was prosecuted for the offences under Sections 120-B r/w 409, 409 and 343 of IPC and the same has been taken on file in S.C.No.373 of 2011 by the Mahila Court (Fast Track Mahila Court), Thanjavur.4.Thereafter, by order dated 20.03.2017, the trial Court had convicted and sentenced the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- , in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year each for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B r/w 409 and 409 of IPC and also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months for the offence punishable under Section 343 of IPC.3/8http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.14321 of 20205.Challenging the aforesaid judgment dated 20.03.2017, the petitioner has preferred an appeal in Crl.A.No.101 of 2017 before this Court and this Court by order dated 27.11.2019, has acquitted the petitioner from all the charges.Thereafter, though the petitioner has made representations dated 23.12.2019 and 05.01.2020 before the respondents 3 and 2 respectively by explaining his grievances, no action has been taken till date.Hence, the present writ petition.6.Though this writ petition is filed for a larger relief, seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records in connection with the order passed by the 3rd respondent in connection with the order of dismissal passed by him in his proceeding in C.No.D(1) PR.No.53/2016 C.PO.No.542/2017 dated 07.04.2017 and quash the same as illegal incompetent without jurisdiction and further directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with pay all other monetary and service benefits, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in the course of his argument, restricted the relief for issuing a direction to 4/8http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.14321 of 2020 the respondents 2 and 3 to consider and pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's representations, dated 05.01.2020 and 23.12.2019 respectively.7.The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents would submit that challenging the order of this Court dated 27.11.2019, acquitting the petitioner from all the criminal charges filed as against him, no appeal has been preferred by the respondents.He would further submit that the petitioner's representations dated 23.12.2019 and 05.01.2020 will be disposed of within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.Thus, I direct the respondents 2 and 3 to consider the petitioner's representations dated 05.01.2020 and 23.12.2019 respectively and pass appropriate 5/8http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.14321 of 2020 orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.9.With the above direction, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.No costs.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.2.The Director General of Police, Dr.3.The Commissioner of Police, Office of the Commissioner of Police, 6/8http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.14321 of 2020 Madurai City, Madurai.7/8http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.14321 of 2020 KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.mm W.P.(MD) No.14321 of 2020 14.10.2020 8/8http://www.judis.nic.in
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,306,302 |
This rule was issued at the instance of Anila Bala Devi, who is a Pardanashin lady belonging to a very respectable family and is called the Rani of Jemo Rajbati Madhyam Taraf.L. J. 281 : (23 I. C. 489 Cal.) and the other In re Mrs. Sukhalata Gupta, 21 C. W. N. 168, in which, even in stronger cases than this, Divisional Benches of this Court have allowed Purdanashin ladies to appear by pleader.In the first case mentioned the charges were very serious ones under Sections 307, 308, 325 and 326, Penal Code, and the ladies were even permitted to appear through pleader in the Court of Sessions should the cases be committed.
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
130,633,681 |
As a matter of fact, the premises of College was bought offfrom the Kallar farmers of vadugapatti and the adjoining villages for a sumof Rs.92,376/- and the seed money for the purchase came from the savings ofthe Kallar Common Fund (KCF, 1936-67), the successor of Kallar Trust Fund (KTF 1919-36) established by the British imperial rulers and the moneycollected exclusively from Piramalai Kallar as fine and penalty for variouskinds of 'Law Breaking' by the Piramalai Kallar was thus the source of theKTF money, that turned out to be the seed money for the founding of theCollege.2.2.The College for the past four decades is catering of the poor andthe needy in the region.The College started out as all male and then in 1982it became co-educational one recognising the imperative of female highereducation due to growing, if not more female high school graduates than thatof males, a statewide, national, or even a global trend.2.3.The emergence of the Fourth Respondent College as premier institution of learning for the Kallar as well as non-Kallar in the region,was meant for those under class and the underprivileged sections ofUsilampatti region bringing opportunity for them.The College gained a solidreputation for educating the poor children and the working people and has astrength of about 3000 students.2.4.Since the features of the College and the standard of education ison peril, the Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition.From the first day onwards, there were severalmismanagements and malpractices in the administration of the institution.Earlier, in respect of appointments of non-teaching staff, the FourthRespondent had committed serious illegalities and to oppose the same, thePresident and the Treasurer of the College Committee resigned from theirrespective posts.Based on the advertisement dated 13.09.2016, the selectionCommittee was comprising of five members headed by the Fourth Respondent viz., (1) Mr.P.Pandian; (2)Dr.M.Rajendran, the Principal; (3)Mr.M.Jeyakumar,Head of Department and Associate Professor Department of Botany; (4) Dr.K.Kani, Head of Department and Associate Professor, Department of Commerce and (5)Mrs.M.Prema, Superintendent of the College had fraudulently called forfilling up the posts pertaining to the non-teaching staff members by a newspaper advertisement for 16 non-teaching posts though only 10 posts, wereapproved by the Director of Collegiate education.The 10 posts include 3-Junior Assistants; 2-Typists; 1-Lab Assistant; 1-Library Assistant; 1-StoreKeeper and 2-Office Assistants and the Respondent No.4, but 14 non-teaching staff appointments were made without following the communal roster, who donot even possess a basic qualification.2.5.Under the afore stated circumstances, there were serious chargesof corruption in regard to the appointment of non-teaching staff members andthat a complaint was lodged by one Vanaraja on 01.12.2016 before theInspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption and upon the complaint, apreliminary enquiry was conducted and the preliminary enquiry revealed thatthe Respondent No.4 and other members of the selection Committee had abused their position and public servants and have made appointments for the post ofnon-teaching staff for some illegal consideration and upon oral anddocumentary evidence, a case was registered in Crime No.2 of 2017 under Sections 167, 409, 420, 465, 468, 477-A r/w 120-B of IPC and under Section13(2) r/w Section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 againstthe Respondent No.4 and others and the investigation is pending.It is learnt that theFourth Respondent had received a huge amount from one Easwaran for the post of Assistant Professor in Political Science Department through one Rajendranand Manikandan and from one Mona Visalakshi, D/o.Ganesan, for the post of Assistant Professor in Commerce Department, unless the appointments are made by some independent fair Committee, the same would give rise tomisappropriation and the speculation, which leads to fall in the Educationalstandard.(3).The Gist of Third Respondent's Counter:-3.1.The Fourth Respondent College is an Aided College receiving 100% Grant from the Government of Tamil Nadu.The Second Respondent/Director of Collegiate Education through his letter, dated 06.03.2017, had intimated theRegional Joint Directors of Collegiate Education to send the details ofvacant teaching posts in the Government Aided Colleges from 01.06.2014 to31.05.2016 and that the Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education,Madurai had submitted a report regarding the vacancy of teaching posts in theFourth Respondent's College for the period from 01.06.2014 to 31.05.2016 asSix.The Second Respondent/Director of Collegiate Education had permittedthe College to fill up the following teaching posts with the conditionsspecified therein:-Department Sanctioned Posts to be filled1Chemistry 12Rural Development 13Zoology 14Political Science15Commerce 2Total6It was also stated that rule of reservation and roaster had to be followedand other conditions pertaining to educational qualifications and otherselection criteria are to be followed.The Fourth Respondent had issuedadvertisement for recruitment to the post of teaching staff.3.2.The calling for applications and the selection process solely restwith the Fourth Respondent/College and the first and Second Respondent have no role to play in the selection process of teaching staff.After theselection, the Fourth Respondent/College should submit the proposal alongwith all particulars including the marks obtained in the interview conductedto the Regional Joint Director to the Collegiate Education for appointmentapproval of the posts.In the instant case, the Regional Joint Director ofCollegiate Education, Madurai Region is the competent authority to grantappointment approval to the teaching staff.As a matter of fact, the appointment approval for the said nonteaching staff was not issued to the said College.The FourthRespondent/College, is the authority dealing with the selection process ofits teaching staff.The Director of Collegiate Education, Chennai or theRegional Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Madurai is the competentauthority to accord appointment approval to the teaching staff.During theprocess of appointment approval, all factors relating to sanctioned strength,rule of reservation, educational qualification and other selection criteriawill be examined at the appropriate stage.Moreover, the FourthRespondent/College, is to follow the provisions contained in the Tamil NaduPrivate Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976 and the Rules framed thereunder,while selecting the candidates for the teaching posts.(4).The Salient Features of the Counter of Respondents No.4 and 6:-4.1.The Secretary of the Kallar Kalvi Kazhagam is entitled to hold theoffice for the period of three years from 30.11.2015, as per certificate ofelection issued to him in this regard.He took efforts to increase atleast ofstudent strength from 2200 to 3400, after the establishment of the FourthRespondent/College in the year 1968, the Society has not started any newInstitution so far.With great difficulty, the present management had startedthe new College viz., 'Posumpon Muthuramalinga Thevar Physical Education College' by obtaining necessary recognition and affiliation.The posts are filled up by following the selection procedure contemplated by'UGC' from time to time.If posts are not filled with immediate effect, asdirected by the Second Respondent/Director of Collegiate Education, the postslapses automatically lapses causing burden of the College to appoint staffsfrom their own funds.(5).The Petitioner's Contentions:-The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that beforeappointing persons on a regular/permanent basis, there must be existing Rulesor specific eligibility criteria prescribed for the appointments, there mustbe sanctioned posts, there must be vacancies in the sanctioned posts, andfinally there must be issued advertisements for filling the posts; not astemporary or contractual posts, but as permanent posts; so that they areought to be a level playing field of competition in regard to the prospectiveappointees.However, it is represented on behalf of the Petitioner that theafore stated procedures were not adhered to by the Fourth Respondent and allthe appointments made by the Fourth Respondent are arbitrary one and comes within the definition of 'Nepotism', which is exhibited as under:-Post Person Appointed Related to1.Library AssistantMr.Naveen Brother in law of the 4th Respondent.2.Laboratory AssistantMr.K.Naveen Prakash Son of the one of the Director of 4th Respondent College.3.Record Clerk Mrs.Prema Priya Sister of Mr.Mahendran Ex-MLA's wife who is holding the post of Director ofHigh Level Committee of the 4th Respondent College.4.Marker Mrs.Jeyameena Wife of Mr.Baskara Pandian, who is the Director cum Treasurer of 4thRespondent College.5.Junior AssistantMrs.Anitha Wife of one of the Director of 4th Respondent College namely Mr.Jeyaveeranan.6.Junior AssistantMr.Ramkumar Son of one of the Director of 4th Respondent College namely Mr.Parthiban.7.Office AssistantMr.Arivanantha Pandian Son of the 4th Respondent's personal assistant.8.Lab AssistantMr.Jeyabala Murugan Son of Former Director of 4th Respondent College namely Mr.9.Lab AssistantMrs.Karthika deviWife of Mr.Thirumoorthy, who is the manager of Mr.Mahendran, who is holdingthe post of Director of High Level Committee of the 4th Respondent College.The Fourth Respondent had not conducted the General Body properly and his aim is only to earn money and not the welfare of theinstitution.Offices of a Department may be located at different places, forwhich, there may be a Head of the Department.No.361, Education Department, dated 31.12.1999 which is questioned though has been issued in exercise of the power under Article 309 of the Constitution ofIndia, in our opinion, that would be made applicable only to the GovernmentServants viz., the teachers who are employed in the Government Schools and not to the teachers in private schools, as those teachers are governed onlyby the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder.In the givencase, as the rules contemplate only a Master's Degree in the subject forappointment of a Junior Grade Post Graduate Assistant and does not mandate a Bachelor's Degree as well in the same subject.The Petitioner is a member of the Sixth Respondent/Society, whichis registered under the Societies Registration Act. After knowing that therewere irregularities in filling up of vacancies after conducting thoroughinformations from several sources, the Petitioner finds that the SixthRespondent/Society is having close associateship with the officials servingunder the Respondents No.3 and 4 and having a camouflage and conspiracy to fill up vacancies for an illegal gratification and the entire selectionprocess made to non-teaching staffs was made by illegal methods adopted by the Board of Directors.in fact, the Management Committee had not evenappointed an 'Interim Committee', but the same members sat as 'InterviewCommittee' and later allegations were made and sought for an approval beyondthe cadre strength and the permission was also granted.There were several irregularities and illegalities and byinvolving in corrupt activities, the selection was conducted by the SixthRespondent.Till date, no action is taken on his Representationso made.The Respondents No.1 to 5, who are public and Law enforcing authorities, are refusing to take action in the matter.The Third Respondentrecently had permitted the Sixth Respondent to continue the selectionprocess.The Petitioner is toestablish that he is a member of the Sixth Respondent/Society and he isentitled to file this Writ Petition against the Society as per its Bye-Laws.(12).The Counter Averments of Seventh Respondent:-The Writ Petitioner, who is not qualified to the post ofAssistant Professor cannot assail the notification issued by the College forfilling up the post.As a matter of fact, the Writ Petitioner does not haveany legal enforceable right or much less an individual right to question thenotification issued by the College for filling up the post of AssistantProfessor.Likewise, he is neither affected nor aggrieved over theproceedings issued by the Director of Collegiate Education, dated 25.05.2017.Moreover, the Registrar of Societies had approved the Form-7 submitted by theSociety and the Director of Collegiate Education.Therefore, the WritPetitioner cannot prevent the validly approved Committee from dischargingtheir duties under the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976 andRules.When there is no violation of any of the provisions of Tamil NaduPrivate Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976 and Rules, the Writ Petitioner cannotseek appointment of Special Officer.The Writ Petitioner, as a single person,cannot even seek to convene any meeting in the Society in his individualcapacity and cannot file a Writ Petition seeking appointment of SpecialOfficer to the Society.After the enactment of the Tamil Nadu PrivateColleges (Regulation) Act, 1976 and Rules, the College Committee constitutedunder the Act alone is entitled to make appointments.However, after theintroduction of University Grants Commission Regulation, 2010, the selectionof candidates for appointment can be made only by the selection Committeeconstituted by Madurai Kamaraj University in accordance with UGC Regulations and the seventh Respondent or the present Office Bearers cannot choose any candidates of their choice.The Director of Collegiate Education granted permission to fillup only 10 posts.As there was no requirement for obtaining any priorpermission for filling up the sanctioned non-teaching posts, which arose dueto retirement or promotion, the College management filled 16 sanctioned non-teaching posts as per the existing norms and submitted the proposal beforethe Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Madurai Region forapproval and the same is pending.The Writ Petition has been filed withan oblique motive and as such it is not maintainable, because, it is an abuseof process of this court.(13).The Contents of Status Report of R5:-The prayer in the Writ Petition has nothing to do with the FifthRespondent.In the present case, the Sixth Respondent/Kalvi Kazhagam is aSociety registered under the Societies Act. As a matter of fact, theManagement is a Committee consisting of elected Office Bearers, teachingstaff, University nominee and an Educational Agency, as a recognised agencyby the Government and is receiving 100% aid from the Government.Inasmuch as theCollege is receiving 100% financial aid, from the public funds, they arepublic servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act. There is commissionof an offence under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.The Investigating Officer in the Criminal case had so farexamined 76 witnesses and gathered 128 documents.Before the selection process, there was a sanction of appointment by the Third Respondent/Directorof Collegiate Education on 25.01.2016 and 27.01.2016 authorising andapproving 10 posts of Non-teaching staff to be filled up by the an'Educational Agency'.Subsequently, without any prior permission from theEducational Authorities, a notification was issued for 16 posts, which isclinching to show that the recruitment process can commence only after priorpermission from the Educational Authorities.That apart, forthe category of SCA (DW) persons were sponsored by the Employment Exchange and they attended interview but not selected.It is pertinent to note thatSCA (W) was appointed instead of SCA(DW).There is no approval either from the Educational Agency orCollege Committee that the management Committee can call for applications fro16 posts and not even interview board was approved either by the EducationalAgency or by the College Committee.Four members of the management Committee are the beneficiary in the appointees because of the reason that sons, wifeand 'Close Blood Relatives' of the Management Committee members and the Brother-in-law of the Secretary of the Educational Agency/College ManagementCommittee, the Chairman of the interview board was appointed in the selectionprocess.The First Accused Pandian is the main accused against whom all the materials were available.He appointed his own brother-in-law viz.,wife's brother as a staff of the College, where he is functioning asSecretary of the Educational Agency and Secretary of the College management Committee and he also happened to be the Chairman of the interview board andsubsequently, appointments were approved by the College Committee and apart from that four members of the Management Committee were appointed as College staff.The entire selection process to the public posts which receives100% grant from the Government is filled up by illegal means, abuse of powerand also conspiracy with each other misusing their official position.TheCollege authorities receiving grant/aid from the Government or publicservants and prima facie materials are available on record to proceed furtheragainst them.There are electronic records available with the Investigatingofficer, which are authenticated by scientific experts to show that therewere previous conspiracy among the accused before filling up of the posts andthere were transactions of illegal gratifications for the purpose ofselecting candidates.No.44, Labour and Employment Department, dated 11.03.2015, the post can be filled only by calling forcandidates both from the Employment Exchange and paper notification.Therefore, it is the version of the Petitioner that the commencement ofselection process without sponsorship from the Employment Exchange is not only against Law but against the Government Order itself.The Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner projects anargument that the status report of the Fifth Respondent, dated 09.11.2017 isexplicitly clear in regard to the illegality and commission of crime by theofficials of the seventh Respondent/College and the seventh Respondent bytaking advantage of his official position as Secretary of the CollegeCommittee and Educational Agency had committed a serious crime.Moreover, iffraud in the selection process is proved, the concerned authority is to takenote of the same and to take further action in the matter, as per Rules andRegulations.The integrity, merit and ability are to be relevantly consideredand utmost transparency, ofcourse without any opaqueness, cloud or shroud ormist surroundings the appointments are to be maintained without anydeviation.Later, a notification came to be issued for 16 posts without obtaining anyprior permission from the concerned Educational Authorities.In reality, therecruitment process can be started only after securing a prior permissionfrom the Educational Authorities and there cannot be any post-factoratification in this regard.When there is no valid permission forrecruitment of 6 more posts, then the violation so alleged is not to betreated in a lighter fashion.No costs.Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.1.The Secretary, Department of Collegiate Education, Fort St.2.The Director of Collegiate Education, O/o.The Director of Collegiate Education, EVK Sambath Building, College Road, Chennai.3.The Joint Director of Collegiate Education, O/o.The Joint Director of Collegiate Education, EVK Sambath Building, College Road, Chennai.4.The Secretary to Government Commercial Tax & Registration Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St.6.The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Wing, Madurai.The rivalgroup/defeated party in the election annoyed by the development of theCollege and Society started to raise frivolous and baseless allegations inthe name of numerous persons and endeavors to stall the administration of theCollege and Society.The Second Respondent/Director of Collegiate Education, Chennai,through proceedings dated 25.05.2017, accorded permission to the FourthRespondent/College to fill up six posts of Assistant Professors with severalother conditions, as mentioned thereunder.Likewise, 'post of principal' isalso vacant, in view of the superannuation of the previous incumbent.Since there was a printingerror in the newspaper publication in regard to the Principal post, the samewas corrected by publication of notification on 06.07.2017 by the concernednewspaper.The Regional Director of Collegiate Education, Madurai on thescrutiny of proposals submitted by the College, verified the same andthereafter, the aid was sanctioned and there is no 'Public Interest' involvedin the present Writ Petition.Since the recruitment process is not yet over,the Writ Petitioner can very well approach the Regional Joint Director ofCollegiate Education, Madurai to redress his grievance if any, but the WritPetitioner has not resorted to such a procedure.After the introduction ofthe University Grants Commission Regulation, 2010, the selection ofcandidates for appointment can be made only by the selection Committee constituted by the Madurai Kamaraj University in accordance with the UGCRegulations and these Respondents or the Office Bearers cannot chose any candidate of their choice.The averments that the Secretary and Correspondent of the FourthRespondent College had received huge amount from one Easwaran for the post of Assistant Professor in political science through one Rajendran and Manikandanand from one Mona Visalakshi for the post of Assistant Professor in CommerceDepartment are denied as false and without any basis.The employment in aprivate aided College is not a public employment under Article 16 of theConstitution of India and therefore, the Writ Petitioner cannot question thesame.The employment is purely a contract between an individual and theCollege Committee under Form-7A and the same has nothing to do with the Constitution of India.The Second Respondent/Director of Collegiate Education, grantedpermission to fill up only 10 posts as there was no requirement for obtainingany prior permission for filling up the sanctioned non-teaching posts, whicharose due to the retirement or promotion, the College management filled 16sanctioned non-teaching posts as per the existing norms and submitted theproposal before the Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education, MaduraiRegion for approval and the same is pending.A mere perusal of the First Information Report would point outthat the Secretary and the Correspondent of the Fourth Respondent College isnot a public servant receiving any salary from the Government or from theCollege or from the Society and as such, the Fifth Respondent/police hadabused their official position and registered the First Information Report.Moreover, the allegations set out in the First Information Report do notconstitute any of the ingredients for the purported offences under therelevant Sections of Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act.The reservation prescribed under Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges(Regulation) Rules, 1976 is applicable to the Private College and that theFifth Respondent/Inspector of Police, cannot insist for 200 point roaster,which are applicable only in respect of Government appointments.The teachingand non-teaching staff members figuring as accused had approached this Courtfor quashing the First Information Report and the same is pending.Before sanctioning of 'Aid' by the 'Competent Authority' the WritPetitioner cannot stall all the appointments made in the private College byfiling Public Interest Litigation and the same is not maintainable.Merependency of the 'First Information Report' cannot be taken as a reason tostall the appointments in a private College.The Writ Petitioner being a non-member cannot make any comments in regard to 'Kallar Kalvli Kazhagam'.At the time of hearing and discussion, this was observed by theCourt orally, but the counsel for the Petitioner continued to highlight thereservation policy in favour of a community, as stated above.From thesubmissions as made and the newspaper publication, it appears that the casewas filed not in public interest, but with a view to get some publicity,though the present Writ Petition is not maintainable under the caption"Public Interest Litigation" as it relates to appointment in the service ofMadras University.For the reason aforesaid, while we dismiss the Writ Petition, alsoimpose a cost of Rs. 10,000/= (Rupees Ten Thousand only) on the Petitionerfor payment in favour of the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority,Chennai, to be paid within six weeks.In case of non-payment, it will be opento the State authorities and the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority torecover the amount from the Petitioner.Consequently, connected miscellaneouspetition is also dismissed.Let a copy of this order be also communicated tothe Chief Secretary of the State and the Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu StateLegal Services Authority for their information.The Learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 and 6 inW.P.(MD)No.13026 of 2017 and Respondent Nos.6 and 7 in W.P.(MD)No.13461 of 2017, relies the decision of this Court in P.RAVICHANDRAN v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU reported in (2013) 7 MLJ 641, at special page Nos.645, 649, 650, 652and 653, wherein at paragraph Nos.8, 14, 15 and 20, it is observed asfollows:-In the light of the above findings as well as the decisions, weconclude this Judgment in the following manner:Curiously, against the said order, a Writ Appeal was preferred bythe Private Aided School.(i) W.P.No.30618 of 2005, order dated 21.9.2005;(ii) W.P.No.28396 of 2004, order dated 29.3.2006;(iii) W.A.Nos.92 & 93 of 2008, judgment dated 6.1.2010;(iv) W.P.(MD)No.174 of 2009, order dated 27.4.2010;(v) W.A.Nos.140, 811/2006 & 805/2007, judgment dt.21.10.2010;(vi) W.A.No.2858 of 2010, judgment dated 21.3.2011;(vii) W.A.(MD)No.1088 of 2011, judgment dated 19.10.2011;(viii) W.A.No.2345 of 2011, judgment dated 5.3.2012;(ix) (2012) 5 MLJ 670 (Dr.In such circumstances, it is not open to the Respondentsto again and again contend that only after getting prior permission from theDirector of Collegiate Education, vacant sanctioned posts can be filled up bythe management.In the light of the above findings as well as the decisions, weconclude this Judgment in the following manner:(1) There is no requirement under the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges(Regulation) Act, 1976 and Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Rules,1976, to seek prior permission to fill up any vacant post in an aidedcollege, which has already been sanctioned for the academic year by theDirector of Collegiate Education under Rule 11(1) of the Rules.? In myconsidered view, all these judgments are squarely applicable to these casesand the DEOs/DEEOs shall not insist prior permission from the Government or any authority to fill up the vacancies in non-teaching sanctioned posts.TheDEOs/DEEOs are bound to sanction grant as per Rule 11(2) of the Rules.In the result, for the details reasons mentioned above,(i) All these writ petitions are allowed.(ii) Impugned G.Os., namely, G.O.Ms.No.115, School Education Department, dated 30.05.2007 and G.O.Ms.No.203, School Education Department, dated 23.07.2010 and Government Letter No.8884/D1/2011-2, dated 09.07.2012, are quashed.(iii) The impugned orders of the DEOs/DEEOs refusing to approve of theappointments of various non-teaching posts in these writ petitions are setaside and the official Respondents are directed to approve of thoseappointments of the non-teaching staff in the Private Aided Schools concernedin these writ petitions and to sanction grant.(iv) Wherever writ of Mandamus is sought for, a direction is issued tothe Respondents to approve of the appointments of the non-teaching staff inthe Private Aided Schools and to sanction grant.(v) The official Respondents are directed to comply with the aforesaiddirections within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy ofthis order.However, there will be no order as to costs.Consequently, connectedmiscellaneous petitions are closed."The question of approval to the appointment of non-teaching staff inthe sanctioned post after the introduction of G.O.Ms.No.115 and G.O.203 came to be considered by this Court and the Madurai Banch of Madras High Courtquashed G.O.Ms.No.115, dated 30.06.2007 and G.O.203, dated 23.07.2010 vide order dated 15.03.2016 passed in W.P.(MD)Nos.11481 of 2008, etc. batch.Itwill be appropriate to extract the operative portion of the order as under:In the result, for the details reasons mentioned above, (I) All these writ petitions are allowed.(ii) Impugned G.Os., namely G.O.Ms.No.115, School Education Department, dated 30.05.2007 and G.O.Ms.No.203, School Education Department, dated 23.07.2010 and Government Letter No.8884/D1/2011-2, dated 09.07.2012, are quashed.(iii) The impugned orders of the DEOs/DEEOs refusing to approve of theappointments of various non-teaching posts in these writ petitions are setaside and the official Respondents are directed to approve of thoseappointments of the non-teaching staff in the Private Aided Schools concernedin these writ petitions and to sanction grant.?The Learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 and 6 inW.P.(MD)No.13026 of 2017 and Respondent Nos.6 and 7 in W.P.(MD)No.13461 of 2017, refers the order of this Court in W.P.(MD)No.21664 of 2017, dated22.09.2017 between EZHILARASU V. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY AND THREE OTHERS, wherein, this Court, at paragraph Nos.4, 3A and 5, has observed as under:-,against a sanctioned post already approved by the school authorities, withouteven obtaining prior permission from the Government.In the cases on hand,admittedly, the writ petitioner has been appointed against vacancies relatingto sanctioned posts as Non-teaching staff in various cadres and therefore, byfollowing the above cited case laws, this Court hereby directs the respectiveRespondents to approve the appointments of the Non-teaching staff by thePrivate Aided Schools and to sanction the grant within a period of four weeksfrom the date of receipt of a copy of this order.The Learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 and 6 inW.P.(MD)No.13026 of 2017 and Respondent Nos.6 and 7 in W.P.(MD)No.13461 of 2017, relies the order of this Court in W.A.(MD)No.390 of 2017 and etc batch,dated 22.09.2017 between THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, CHENNAI v. G.MAHENDRAN DAVID, wherein this Court, at paragraph Nos.4, to 7, has observed as follows:-Though, itwas lifted, the Government vide order dated 26.05.2006, reiterated the banorders, which related to appointment of Non-teaching Staff such as JuniorAssistants, Record Clerks, Office Assistants, Sweeper, Gardener, Waterman, Watchman etc,.This was put to challenge by aggrieved persons and the Government Order was quashed.Thereafter, the Government passed various Government Orders one of that being G.O.Ms.No.203 dated 23.07.2010, wherein, the Government took a decision that certain category of posts such asWatchman, Gardener cum Sweeper, Scavenger etc., are required to be out- sourced.These orders were put to challenge along with similar GovernmentOrders and all orders were set aside.6.Consequently, when we perused the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.40, School Education (U2) Department, dated 14.03.2013, we find that it pertainsto Teacher Education Institutions.The School Committee has the powers to appoint and dismiss a teaching staff.Such committee also has the powers to grant leave to any staff.But a recognised aided privateschool, cannot be said to be a unit of the Department of School Education.Onthe other hand, it is an independent unit, governed by the statutoryprovisions of the Act and the rules framed thereunder.S.Rajasekar, learned Additional Government Pleader would however submit that inasmuch as G.O.Ms.No.720, Education Department, dated 28.04.1981 and G.O.Ms.No.361, Education Department, dated 31.12.1999 prescribe a minimum qualification for the said post viz., Bachelor's Degree as well as PostGraduate Degree in the subject, the teacher is not eligible, as she does notpossess a Bachelor's Degree in History.In our opinion, the said submissionof course is made on the basis of the impugned order in the writ petitionwhich is totally a misconception.A careful reading of those GovernmentOrders would indicate that the qualifications prescribed thereunder areprimarily intended for the appointment of teachers in the Government Schools.No.361, Education Department, dated 31.12.2009."The conviction operates and the accused has toundergo the sentence.Though the Teachers employed in Private Aided Schools are inreceipt of the same scales of pay and similar terms and conditions ofservice, the employment in a Private Aided School cannot always be treated onpar with the employment in a Government School.It is, therefore, necessary for the person makingsuch allegations to supply full particulars in the petition.If sufficientaverments and requisite materials are not on record, the court would not makefishing or roving inquiry.Mere assertion, vague averment or bald statementis not enough to hold the action to be mala fide.It must be demonstrated byfacts.Moreover, the burden of proving mala fide is on the person levellingsuch allegations and the burden is very heavy [vide E.P. Royappa v. State ofTamil Nadu, (1974) 4 SCC 4 : (1974) 2 SCR 348].The charge of mala fide ismore easily made than made out.As stated by Krishna Iyer, J. in GulamMustafa v. State of Maharashtra, (1976) 1 SCC 800 : AIR 1977 SC 448], it isthe last refuge of a losing litigant [see also Ajit Kumar v. Indian OilCorporation, (2005) 7 SCC 764].In the case on hand, except alleging that thepolicy was altered by the Government, to extend the benefit to Respondent No.4, no material whatsoever has been placed on record by the appellant.W.P.(MD)No.13461 of 2017:(10).The Writ Facts:-Hence, the Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition assailingthe impugned order of the Third Respondent passed in proceedingsNa.No.9886/G3/2017-11, dated 25.05.2017 and the consequential notificationof the Sixth Respondent published in English Daily Indian Express dated06.07.2017, Madurai edition and for an appointment of Special Officer to theSociety.(11).The Contents of Counter of R1 and R2:-On the basis of Petitioner's Representation dated 08.07.2017, seekingfor appointment of an Special Officer under Section 34-A of the SocietiesRegistration Act, 1975, the District Registrar submitted his report throughletter, dated 22.09.2017 and stated that there is no situation warranting toapply Section 34-A of the Societies Registration Act. There is an allegationagainst the Office Bearers of the Society in the previous tenure, for that,no specific finding is there about the malpractices.Even before the competent authorityrejected the approval, the rival groups in the Society (including the WritPetitioner), influenced the Fifth Respondent/Inspector of Police, Vigilanceand Anti Corruption, Madurai and registered the First Information Report.The allegations in the First Information Report do not constituteany of the ingredients for the alleged offences under the relevant provisionsof Indian Penal Code and under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The FifthRespondent without adverting to the provisions of Tamil Nadu Private Colleges(Regulation) Act, 1976 and Rules, has interfered in the appointments of non-teaching staff in a private aided College.The Registration of First Information Report against the seventhRespondent is an abuse of process of Law.The present College Committee had filled the 16 sanctioned posts of non-teaching staffs as per the provisionsof Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act and Rules.The WritPetitioner, who is selling liquor in black market had arrested by the policeon various occasions, pursuant to the First Information Report No.131 of2009; First Information Report No.81 of 2010; First Information ReportNo.590 of 2011 and First Information Report No.320 of 2012, on the file ofTown Police Station, Usilampatti, is making of endeavors to stall theadministration of the Society and College.Unless a person is convicted bythe trial Court, the presumption of innocence is always in favour of anaccused and as such, the Writ Petition is misconceived one.When the ingredients of Section 34-A of Tamil Nadu Societies Act,are not attracted, the Writ Petitioner cannot seek for appointment of anofficer, as per his whims and fancies.The UGC being the funding agentperiodically verifies the accounts of UGC sanctioned funds.The Collegesubmitted audit utilisation certificate with statement of accounts to UGCperiodically.The posts are filled up by following the selection procedurescontemplated by UGC from time to time.The College authorities hadgranted permission only for 10 posts.However the selection process hadcommenced for 16 posts, which are borne by documentary evidence.There is no valid permission for recruitment of six more posts and in this connectionthere is a violation and serious misconduct committed by the CollegeCommittee in the 'Recruitment Process'.While going for direct recruitment,the list would be called for from the Employment Exchange.(14).The Contentions of the Petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.13461 of 2017:-Furthermore, it is represented on behalf of the Writ Petitionerthat the seventh Respondent by means of proceedings dated 04.02.2016, had called for application from the public through a newspaper advertisement,dated 04.12.2016 and in fact, the interview was not conducted.The Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitionerproceeds to point out that while granting permission for filling up the post,the Third Respondent/Director of Collegiate Education, through proceedings,dated 25.01.2016 and 27.01.2016, specified a condition that the appointmentcan be made only through an Employment Exchange and also by calling for an application from the general public.Rule 21 relates to 'qualification ofperson to audit the accounts of Societies'.Rule 24 of the Tamil NaduSocieties Registration Rule, 1978, refers to 'Investment of Funds'.Since the Petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.13026 of 2017 has come out with an allegation that there were serious charge(s) of corruption in regardto the appointment of non-teaching staff were concerned and that thePetitioner in W.P.(MD)No.13461 of 2017 (Vanaraja) had lodged a complaintbefore the Fifth Respondent/Inspector of Police, Vigilance and AntiCorruption, Madurai and upon the said complaint a case was registered inCrime No.2 of 2017 under Sections 167, 409, 420, 465, 468, 477-A r/w 120-B ofIPC and under Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention ofCorruption Act, 1988, on 27.02.2017 against the Fourth Respondent/P.Pandian, Secretary of the College, the Writ Petition No.13026 of 2017 filed by thePetitioner is maintainable before this Court, because of the reason theallegations of corruption required to be probed into and the conduct ofenquiry must unravel necessary facts.Also that the alleged irregularitiescommitted by the concerned persons, goes to the root of the matter, then thesame required an in-depth enquiry being conducted by the concernedauthorities.No wonder, purity of administration is required to be maintainedand a corruption in a selection process cannot be tolerated.Therefore, the filing of theW.P.(MD)No.13461 of 2017 by the Writ Petitioner (S.R.Vanaraja) ismaintainable in Law.Be that as it may, in view of the fact that theW.P.(MD)Nos.13026 of 2017 and W.P.(MD)No.13461 of 2017 filed by the respective Petitioners are held to be maintainable by this Court and alsothis Court, taking note of the fact that a case in Crime No.2 of 2017 wasregistered against the concerned, under various sections of Indian Penal Codeand relevant provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; that theinvestigation in a criminal case is pending and also the FourthRespondent/College is an aided one; that the Second Respondent/Director ofCollegiate Education in W.P.(MD)No.13026 of 2017, although granted permission to fill up vacant sanctioned posts to the College subject to the conditionsenumerated therein; that the College is the authority dealing with theselection process of the teaching staff of the College; that the SecondRespondent/Director of Collegiate Education, Chennai or the Joint Director ofCollegiate Education, Madurai is the competent authority to accordappointment approval to the teaching staff by taking into account the factorslike sanctioned strength, Rule of Reservation, Educational Qualifications andother selection criteria and besides the above, the College is to adhere tothe relevant ingredients of Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act,1976 and Rules framed thereunder while selecting the candidates for theteaching posts, in furtherance of substantial cause of justice and to securethe ends of justice, directs the Second Respondent/Director of CollegiateEducation, Chennai in W.P.(MD)No.13026 of 2017 (The Third Respondent in W.P.(MD)No.13461 of 2017) and the Fourth Respondent/Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Madurai in W.P.(MD)No.13461 of 2017, to look into theissue of impugned advertisement relating to the appointments of AssistantProfessor and Principal published in the vernacular daily, dated 06.07.2017and to pass appropriate orders by issuing necessary directions to theconcerned Respondents, and if there is substance to conduct an enquiry, toproceed further strictly in accordance with Law and under the Tamil NaduPrivate Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976 and the Rules framed there under,within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of thisorder.While passing necessary orders, the Second Respondent/Director ofCollegiate Education, Chennai in W.P.(MD)No.13026 of 2017 (The Third Respondent in W.P.(MD)No.13461 of 2017) and the Fourth Respondent/Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Madurai in W.P.(MD)No.13461 of 2017, shalltake into account of the pending criminal case registered in Crime No.2 of2017 under various sections of Indian Penal Code and relevant sections of thePrevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the concerned, because of thesimple reason that the Posumpon Muthuramalinga Thevar College (Fourth Respondent in W.P.(MD)No.13461 of 2017) is an 100% aided College.If for any reason, the Second Respondent/Director of CollegiateEducation, Chennai in W.P.(MD)No.13026 of 2017 (The Third Respondent in W.P.(MD)No.13461 of 2017) and the Fourth Respondent/Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Madurai in W.P.(MD)No.13461 of 2017, comes to the conclusion that if any enquiry needs to be conducted in respect of theaffairs of the Sixth Respondent/Society, pertaining to the FourthRespondent/College in W.P.(MD)No.13461 of 2017, concerning the alleged mismanagement, misappropriation as well as the activities of the Board(dehors the report sent by the District Registrar through letterNo.3045/A2/2017, dated 22.09.2017), in this regard, necessarydirections/orders shall be passed, within the time adumbrated by this Court.With the aforesaid Direction(s) and Observation(s), these WritPetitions stand disposed of.
|
['Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
130,636,232 |
The facts giving rise to the present appeal fall within a narrow compass and are as follows :Mahendra Namdeorao Wasnik, PW12, was living with his wife, three children and parents in Village Asra.He used to go to Village Tarkheda for earning his livelihood at the thresher of one Zafarbhai.Normally, he used to return to his village at about 10.00 p.m. after doing his day's work.On 2nd March, 2007, he left his house at 7.00 a.m. and returned from his work at about 9.00 p.m. Upon his arrival, he was informed by his wife Kantabai Wasnik that at about 4.00 p.m. one person, whose name she did not know, had come to the house and after taking tea, he left.The said person had again come at about 6.30 p.m. On his second visit, he told that he would take out their daughter, namely Vandana, to get her biscuits.After talking to the mother of Vandana, the accused had taken Vandana for purchasing biscuits but never brought her back to her house.Having learnt this, PW12 started searching for his daughter Vandana along with others, but they were unable to find her.On 2 3rd March, 2007 at about 8.00 a.m. when he was going to the Police Station for lodging the report, he saw that some persons had gathered in the fields of Pramod Vitthalrao Mohod.He went there and saw the dead body of his daughter in that field.PW2, Kanta, is the mother of the deceased Vandana.In her statement she has stated that she was living along with her husband, one daughter and two sons.According to her, her in-laws were residing in the same house, though separately.Supporting the case of the prosecution, she stated that he had come to the house at about 3.00 p.m. and then left after having tea by saying that he wanted to meet his friends and thereafter, he again came back at 6.00 p.m. Vandana was playing in front of the house at that time.The accused told her that he would purchase biscuits for the child and took Vandana with him.They had gone towards the bus-stand and thereafter, neither Vandana nor the accused returned home.She had told her husband, PW1, about the incident on his return from work.PW2 also stated that on the next day body of deceased was found in the fields.There was blood in her nostrils and mouth.Marks of bites were found on her breast.There was swelling in the private parts of her body.She came to know the name of the accused subsequently.Her statement remained uncontroverted or nothing material came in her cross-examination.Swatanter Kumar, J.The dead body of Vandana was lying in a nude condition and there were injuries on her person.It has come in evidence that the accused had visited the house of PW12, Mahendra Namdeorao Wasnik to see his ailing father.He left after a cup of tea.It was on this information received from his wife that PW12 suspected that the accused was the person who was a resident of Village Parlam and had taken away his daughter.Consequently, PW12 lodged the report with the Police, Exhibit 71 in respect of the incident.As the body of the deceased minor girl, Vandana, had been recovered, an FIR was registered being Crime Case No.23/2007 under Sections 376(2)(f), 377 and 302 IPC.He was subjected to medical examination.The doctor had taken blood and semen sample of the accused.The accused was produced before the Court and was committed to the Court of Sessions where he was charged with the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(f), 377 and 320 IPC.He was tried for these offences.Learned Trial Court found him guilty of all the offences and awarded him punishments as follows :Offences Punishment/Sentence302 IPC Sentenced to death and he shall be hanged by neck till he is dead subject to confirmation by the Hon'ble High Court, Bombay, Bench at Nagpur as per the provisions of Section 366 of Cr.P.C.376(2)(f) IPC Sentenced to imprisonment for life and to 4 pay fine of Rs.1,000 (one thousand), in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months.377 IPC Sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 (ten) years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000 (one thousand) in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months.Aggrieved by the said judgment, the accused preferred an appeal before the High Court which, as already noticed, came to be dismissed.The High Court upheld the conviction and sentence of the accused giving rise to the filing of the present appeals.The prosecution has failed to establish the charge against the appellant.Though the accused, in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., while replying to question No.9 about the death of Vandana and injuries on her body, had stated that it was false but from the evidence led by the prosecution, it is clear that the death of the deceased Vandana was homicidal.One can get the idea of the torture and brutality that the minor girl suffered at the hands of the accused from the injuries found on her person in the post-mortem report.They have been described by the doctor as follows:"External Vaginal Swelling present Vaginal wall lacerated, wound extending from labia mejora to inside vaginal canal in lower 1/3rd on both side 1=" x <" x muscle deep Stains of semen present on inner side of thigh.Hymen absent, one finger easily pass.Swelling present on anal region.Multiple abrasions with Contusions present on body on face, chest back & both shoulders and knees Interiorly.Bite mark on chest (L) side around Nipple elliptical with diameters 1=" x 1<".Right Lung collapsed, 150 gm, Congested on section collapsed.Left Lung Collapsed, 100 gm, Congested on section collapsed.Large vessels - contained blood."The circumstances should be conclusive and proved by the prosecution.There must be a chain of events so complete as not to leave any substantial doubt in the mind of the Court.The circumstances have to be examined cumulatively.The accused had taken Vandana from her home on the pretext of purchasing her biscuits.Neither Vandana nor the accused returned to the house.Accused was seen with the deceased Vandana on 2nd March, 2007 at about 6.00 p.m. at the bus stand where, in the normal course of life, such shops are situated.PW4, is the other material witness, Ravindra, who stated that on the day of the 11 incident, i.e. 2nd March, 2007, he was present at the S.T. Bus stand of Asra and he had seen the accused along with Vandana in hotel Rajendra Bhojane.She was on the waist of the accused and they had purchased a packet of biscuits.Thereafter, he saw the accused going on the road which goes to Amrawati.Thereafter, he even searched for Vandana along with Vikram Meshram.PW5, Bhimrao Pundlik Gulhane is a witness who owns 13 acres of agricultural land at Village Khargodi in Village Nagthana.For the purposes of cultivating his land, he used to engage labourers, and the accused was engaged by him for doing the work on his agricultural field and he disclosed the name of accused as Sanjay Manohar Wankhede.According to this witness, he maintained a regular register for marking `presence' and `payment of wages' to the labourers he engaged.The said witness deposed that on the date of occurrence, i.e. 2nd March, 2007, the accused did not come for duty.However, on that day in the morning, the accused came to him and demanded Rs. 500/- saying that he wanted to go to Asra and thereafter, he did not come back.PW7, is another witness, who had seen the 12 accused holding Vandana when he was going back to his house from the S.T. bus stand Asra.The accused was subjected to medical examination and was examined by Dr. Ravindra Ruprao Sirsat, PW9 and he noticed no injuries on his person.Father of the deceased minor girl was examined as PW12 and he provided the complete chain of events, right from the time he got the information that his daughter had been taken away till the time when her dead body was recovered from the fields.Dr. K.V. Wathodkar, Dr. (Mrs.) V.K. Wathodkar and Dr. Varsha S. Bhade had prepared the postmortem report, Ex.-17, which clearly shows that the cause of death of the three-year old girl was rape and asphyxia.All these factors have been proved by the prosecution both by documentary as well as oral evidence.Once these crucial pieces of documentary evidence have been admitted by the accused and other factual links in the story of the prosecution have been duly proved by the witnesses by circumstantial or direct evidence, there is no occasion for this Court to doubt that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.It has been vehemently argued on behalf of the appellant that the report of the FSL does not connect the accused to the commission of the crime.This, being a very material piece of evidence which the prosecution has failed to establish, the accused would be entitled to the benefit of doubt.His clothes which were seized by the Police did not bear 14 any blood or semen stains and that was duly recorded in ExhibitExhibit 77 were the clothes of the deceased which were blood stained.The clothes contained blood group `O' which was the blood group of the deceased girl.From the report of the experts, it is clear that there is no direct evidence connecting the appellant to the commission of the crime but it is not the case of the defence that the FSL report was in the negative.Merely because the report was inconclusive, it is not necessary that the irresistible conclusion is only one that the accused is not guilty, particularly where the prosecution has been able to establish its case on circumstantial evidence as also by direct oral evidence.It is a settled principle of law that the evidence has to be read in its entirety.If, upon reading the evidence as such, there are serious loopholes or lacking in the case of the prosecution and they do not prove that the accused is guilty, then the Court would be justified in giving the benefit of doubt to the accused on the strength of a weak FSL report.The FSL report Exhibit P77 had clearly established that the blood of group `O' was found on the clothes of the deceased and that was her blood group.The prosecution has been able to establish not only by substantial evidence but clearly by medical evidence as well, that 15 the minor girl had suffered serious injuries on her private parts and there were bite marks on her chest.An attempt was also made to cast certain doubts as to the very identity of the accused but we find this submission without any substance.Besides them, even PW7 Sumeet Ramteke had also stated that he had seen the victim minor girl with the appellant in the house of PW2, Kantabai and then again seen him with the victim going towards the ST bus stand.Statement of these four witnesses successfully stood the lengthy cross-examination conducted on behalf of the defence.There cannot be any doubt in these circumstances that the accused had taken away the victim from the house of PW2 and was seen at the ST stand.The circumstances and the chain of events proved by the prosecution is fully established and the circumstances which were required to be proven by the prosecution, have been proved by 16 them successfully.The cumulative effect of the entire prosecution evidence is that it points unmistakably towards the guilt of the accused.It is not only a case of circumstantial evidence simpliciter but also the `last seen together' principle.There are witnesses who had seen the accused at the house of PW2 with the deceased minor girl.Thereafter, he was again seen with the child at the ST bus stand, Asra and lastly while going away from the ST bus stand with the minor child.Thus, once the evidence had successfully shown that the accused was last seen with the minor girl, it was for the accused to explain the circumstances.The accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in response to all the 68 questions put to him, answered only one simple answer - `it is false'.He also stated that the Police had registered a false case against him and that he did not want to lead any defence.It is very difficult to assume that as many as 13 witnesses from the same village, the Police and doctors would falsely implicate the accused.In other words, the accused, by his conduct, has belied the human relationship of trust and 27 worthiness.The accused left the deceased in a badly injured condition in the open fields without even clothes.This reflects the most unfortunate and abusive facet of human conduct, for which the accused has to blame no one else than his own self.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,303,704 |
The essential controversy in this revision application is whether Sarita and Sharmila, who are admittedly 15 and 17 years old, are to be tried by the Court of Session under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or to be proceeded with under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 by the authorities mentioned thereunder.The facts are very simple.For an offence of murder and other related offences under S. 324 and others purported to have been committed on 19th April, 1988, the petitioners along with Satish Narayan Sawant, Mohan Narayan Sawant and Smt. Yeshoda Narayan Sawant were chargesheeted by the Ponda Police.As the alleged offences were committed within the jurisdiction of the Judicial Magistrate Ponda, he shall deal with the petitioners under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act. 1986 on whatever offences disclosed in the chargesheet.Criminal Revision Application succeeds.
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
130,371,413 |
[Order of the Court was made by A.SELVAM, J.] This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to call for records relating to the detention order passed in No.224/BCDFGISSSV/2017 dated 29.04.2017 by the Detaining Authority against the detenu by name, Sasikumar, aged 37 years, S/o.Karunakaran, residing at No.35, Bharathiyar Street, Salavanpet, Kuttaimedu Post, Vellore District and quash the same.The Inspector of Police, S-13, Chromepet Police Station as Sponsoring Authority has submitted an affidavit to the Detaining Authority, wherein, it is averred to the effect that the detenu has involved in the following adverse cases :T-12 Poonamallee Police Station Crime No.961/2015 registered under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code.ii.S-13 Chromepet Police Station Crime No.1517/2016 registered under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code.iii.S-13 Chromepet Police Station Crime No.150/2017 registered under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code.iv.S-13 Chromepet Police Station Crime No.170/2017 registered under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code.Muthukaruppan, residing at No.20, Mummurthy Nagar 4th Street, Chromepet, Chennai-44, as de facto complainant has given a complaint in S-13 Chromepet Police Station, wherein, it is alleged to the effect that in the place of occurrence, the detenu has illegally detained the de facto complainant by using filthy words and also by way of showing a knife, he snatched a sum of Rs.1000/- and a cellphone from the custody of the de facto complainant.Under such circumstances, a case has been registered in Crime No.477/2017 under Sections 341, 294[b], 336, 427, 392, 397 and 506[ii] of the Indian Penal Code and ultimately, requested the Detaining Authority to invoke Act 14 of 1982 against the detenu.The Detaining Authority after perusing the averments made in the affidavit and other connected documents, has arrived at a subjective satisfaction to the effect that the detenu is a habitual offender and ultimately, branded him as goonda by way of passing the impugned Detention Order and in order to quash the same, the present petition has been filed by the brother of the detenu as petitioner.In the counter filed on the side of the respondents, it is averred to the effect that most of the averments made in the petition are false.
|
['Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
13,037,634 |
On the joint request made by the counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.This revision petition under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, preferred by the accused-petitioner is directed against an order dated 22/7/14 passed in S.T.No. 135/14 by the Sessions Judge Vidisha, thereby framing charge against the petitioner for commission of offence punishable under Section 306 of I.P.C.Brief facts of the case are that on 28/12/13, Lal Singh committed suicide by taking poisonous substance "sulfas pills".It is alleged by the prosecution that soon before death, statement of the deceased was recorded by the police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and on the same day, at about 10-35 p.m., his dying-declaration was also recorded by the Executive Magistrate.In the dying-declaration, it is mentioned by the deceased that "he has taken poisonous substance because he was unable to do much more work", whereas in the police case- diary statement, the deceased stated that "today I have taken three sulfas pills.I was engaged by Shivcharan Raghuvanshi, Kolija, P.S. Nataran for doing work of ploughman and since (Shivcharan) took more work from him therefore he (deceased) 2 Crr.597/2014 Shivcharan Raghuvanshi Vs.State of M.P.has taken sulfas pills."It is submitted by Shri Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner that even if all the allegations as mentioned in the charge-sheet are taken to be true, no offence under Section 306 of I.P.C. has been made out against the present petitioner.On the basis of aforesaid arguments, it is prayed that by allowing the revision, the impugned order framing charge against the petitioner be set aside.The learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State, on the other hand, supported the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of the revision-petition.Having regard to the aforesaid submissions, the entire case has been perused.At this juncture, it would be necessary to look to the relevant provisions of the law.Section 306 I.P.C. under which the accused is charged reads as under:"306 I.P.C. If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."3 Crr.597/2014 Shivcharan Raghuvanshi Vs.The Section reads as follows:A person abets the doing of a thing, who-- First.Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly.-- Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly.--Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.In view of the evidence collected by the prosecution as discussed above and on perusal of the statement given by the deceased himself, it is crystal clear that the deceased has taken poisonous substance on his own because he was unable to perform the work more competently and effectively.If it was so, then he could have resigned from the duty instead of choosing another path.It clearly therefore appears that the deceased was a victim of his own conduct.Thus, taking the totality of materials on record and facts and circumstances of the case into consideration, it will lead to irresistible conclusion that it is the deceased and he alone, and none else, is responsible for his death.In view of the aforesaid analysis, this court is of the considered opinion that the ingredients of 'abetment' are totally absent in the present case to constitute an offence against the petitioner under Section 306 I.P.C.In the result, the revision stands allowed.The impugned 4 Crr.597/2014 Shivcharan Raghuvanshi Vs.order dated 22/7/14 framing charge under Section 306 of I.P.C. against the petitioner is hereby quashed.Accordingly, the petitioner is acquitted of the charge under Section 306 of I.P.C.A copy of this order be sent to the trial court concerned for information and compliance.
|
['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.
|
130,378,216 |
19.06.13 Item No. 56 Court No.17 K.Mitra CRM No. 6952 of 2013 In the matter of: An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 13.05.2013;Item No. 56The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Mr. R.S.Chattopadhyay Mr. U.S. Chattopadhyay Mr. Santanu Maji For the Petitioners Mr. Debajyoti Deb For the State The Petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Bhangore Police Station Case No. 8 of 2013 dated 06.01.2013 under sections 147/148/149/341/353/186/332/333/325/326/307/427 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, have applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocates for the parties and have considered the case diary and the other relevant material on record.
|
['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
130,379,994 |
We say so for the following reasons:(i) In his examination in chief, Satpal Singh stated that he had called Rakesh (PW-5) when he reached the road near the petrol pump.In cross-examination he deposed, per contra, that he called Rakesh after reaching home.(ii) Further, as regards his movements on the said day, Satpal Singh deposed, in his examination-in-chief on 19th March, 2012, thus:I reached my house at about 9:30 p.m. and gave the information about the crime to location at about 10 p.m.. Rakesh called me near the Petrol Pump at about 10 p.m.. I had reached the petrol pump again at about 10 p.m..... Thereafter, I along with Rakesh and the police officials went to the police station.Police has not asked anything from me and thereafter, I went back to my house.On the next day, I along with my other relatives again went to the police station in the morning.(Emphasis supplied) In cross-examination, however, Satpal Singh stated thus:I made a telephone call when I reached on the road near petrol pump from my mobile phone.Rakesh immediately came there and police also came there.This fact was also acknowledged by Anil Kumar (PW-4) who was running the shop M/s. A.K.A. Communications, in his examination-in-chief on 20th March, 2012, when he stated that Kalu (whom he identified in court by pointing at him) had purchased the SIM Card for the No. 7838205464, from him, about 10 months earlier, in the name of Mr. AK Azad, against the photo copy of the ID card and application form filled in the name of the said Mr. AK Azad.He was not cross-examined.The fact that Kalu had purchased the SIM Card with no. 7838205464, therefore, stands proved.13.4 According to PW-10 Kapil, the son of the deceased Sahdev, his father left the house, at about 8 PM., to go to his factory, carrying with him a lunchbox, a GILD make mobile phone with No. 8826275946, Crl Appeal 243/2017 & Crl Appeal 309/2017 Page 63 of 93 and a passbook of the Punjab National Bank.He identified the lunchbox, mobile phone and passbook, which were shown to him during his examination-in-chief, which were, therefore, exhibited as Ex.P-1, P-2 and P-3 respectively.The suggestion, to the contrary, was denied, by him, in cross-examination.13.6 The fact that Sahdev left home at 8 PM.13.7 PW-5 Rakesh Kumar, who ran a plastic factory in which the deceased Sahdev had been employed, deposed, in his examination-in- chief on 22nd March, 2012, that he reached the spot of incident at about 9.15 - 9.30 PM., when he found four to five persons standing in the Gali, near his factory.He stated that, on seeing the said persons, he stopped there, whereupon he found the bloodstained dead body of Sahdev lying in the gali, on seeing which he called 100, using his mobile phone, so as to alert the Police.In cross-examination, Rakesh Kumar denied the suggestion that he had not made any call to the police from his mobile phone.13.8 On receipt of the above call from Rakesh Kumar (PW-5), DD Entry No 22A (PW-17/A) was made, at 9:28 PM., by ASI Rajender Prasad (PW-17), to the effect that someone had murdered Sahdev Singh, aged 35 to 36 years, in the gali in front of the Petrol Pump at village Gokul Puri and that, on receipt of the said information, entry was made in the roznamcha and SI Ishwari Prasad (PW-25) was deputed to look into the matter.The suggestion that the DD Entry No 22A was ante- dated, was denied by him.13.9 At about 9:45 PM., SI E.S. Yadav (PW-19) received a call, regarding the murder of Sahdev, whereupon he, along with SI Ishwari Crl Appeal 243/2017 & Crl Appeal 309/2017 Page 65 of 93 Prasad and the photographer Const.Shyam Lal (PW-21) reached the spot.They found that the dead body had already been removed, but that some blood was still lying there.In the meantime, Insp.Karan Singh Rana (PW-35) also reached the spot, and recorded the statement of SI E.S. Yadav (PW-19).In his cross- examination, PW-19 further confirmed that he had prepared his report at 12 midnight and handed it over to Insp.Karan Singh Rana.These facts were also confirmed by PW-21 Const.Shyam Lal, in his deposition on 13th December, 2012, who also clarified that they had reached the spot of the crime at about 10 P.M., and remained there for about half an hour.13.10 The noting, in the PCR Record (PW-20/A), prepared on the said occasion by Const.Kamlesh (PW-20), notes that, at 10.05 P.M., information was received, from Rakesh Kumar (PW-5), that Sahdev Singh, his employee, had been stabbed and killed.The noting further observes that the local police reached the spot at 10.36 P.M. and that the Station House Officer (SHO) of the Gokul Puri Police Station opined that the murder had been committed elsewhere and the body had been dumped in the Gali.She was not cross- examined, despite grant of opportunity.13.11 The body of the deceased Sahdev Singh was, thereafter, taken, by SI Ishwari Prasad (PW-25) and Const.Rajender (PW-23) to the GTB Hospital, where MLC (PW-14/A) was prepared by Dr. Nitin Chawla (PW-14).Dr. Chawla proved the MLC, in his examination-in- chief as PW-14, on 29th August, 2012, and was not cross-examined, despite grant of opportunity.The MLC notes that the body was received at 10:58 P.M., and that it had been brought dead.It was, therefore, sent to the mortuary for post-mortem.13.12 The rukka (Ex. PW-13/B), drawn up by SI Ishwari Prasad (PW-25) on the body of the DD, stated that the body of the deceased Crl Appeal 243/2017 & Crl Appeal 309/2017 Page 67 of 93 Sahdev, as found by him, and Const.Rajender (PW-23), bore two stab injuries in its stomach, and that there was a small amount of blood on the road.He further stated that, after the MLC had been prepared by Dr. Nitin Chawla and GTB hospital, he, i.e. ASI Ishwari Prasad returned to the site of occurrence, where they could not find any eyewitness to the crime.13.13 On 16th August, 2011, at 12:10 AM, the above mentioned rukka was received by PW-13 ASI Braham Singh, from SI Ishwari Prasad (PW-25), through Const.ASI Braham Singh prepared, on the basis of the said rukka, the register FIR No 286/11 (Ex. PW-13/A).He also endorsed the rukka, during his examination- in-chief on 29th August, 2012, and the endorsement was exhibited as Ex. PW-13/B. After registration of FIR, investigation was marked to Insp.13.14 On the same day, i.e. 16th August, 2011, the IO Karan Singh Rana (PW-35) recovered, from the scene of crime, a lunchbox, a gauze piece with a sample of blood from the crime scene, and some earth and earth control, which were sealed and seized.The seizure memos of the lunchbox, and of the gauze piece, earth and earth control, were exhibited as Ex PW-5/B and PW-5/A respectively.The said Recovery Memos were witnessed by Rakesh Kumar (PW-5) and SI Ishwari Prasad (PW-25), and were signed by the IO Karan Singh Rana (PW-35).13.16 The post-mortem report of the deceased Sahdev (Ex. PW- 28/A) was, thereafter, prepared by Dr. Meghali Kelkar (PW-28), Senior Demonstrator in the Department of Forensic Medicine, UCMS and GTB Hospital.The Post-mortem Report indicates that autopsy of the body commenced at 11:45 AM and concluded at 1:15 PM.. The report read as under:General Observation: Dead body of an adult male.Wearing (1) cream-coloured striped full-screen shirt, (2) sky blue baniyan, (3) grey underwear, (4) blue track pants and wrapped in a white sheet.Eyes and mouth partially open, bloodstains present on shirt and Bunyan.Black coloured fluid coming out of nostrils.Intestinal loops, omentum and soft tissues protruding out of the injuries present on abdomen.Bluish ink stains present on both thumbs.Rigor mortis present in developed states in upper limbs.Post mortem staining present over the back and fixed.No sign of decomposition scene.Cut marks present to a No. on front of (L) side of abdomen of Bunyan surrounded by bloodstains.To cut marks on (L) side of abdomen of shirt.The cut marks were labelled, signed and surrounded by bloodstains.Details of External injuries:(1) Incised stab wound measuring 5.0 x 0.4 cm present on left side of abdomen, vertically placed lower end 19 cm above the pubic symphysis and 2 cm left of midline.The upper end is acute and Laurentiis blunt.The intestinal loops are protruding out of the wound.The track of the wound is directed downwards, backwards and medially cutting through skin, subcutaneous tissues and muscles of abdominal walls, cutting omentum, through and through jejunal loops, essentially an mesenteric blood vessels.Extravasation of blood seen in the soft tissues around the injuries.The wound is 15 cm deep.Corresponding cut mark present on shirt and Bunyan.Scalp - NAD Skull - NAD Brain - 1178 g. NAD Neck - Trachea contain blackish fluid.Walls NAD.Rib Cage - NAD Lungs - (R) 275G, (L) 260 g pale bronchi NAD Heart - 225G. NAD Abdomen and others:Stomach contained 200 ML blackish thick fluid.Walls as mentioned in injury No. Intestine is as mentioned in injuries.Extra position of blood seen in the soft tissues, less entry and Intestinal loops, omentum around the injuries.Spleen - 102 g pale.Shock as a result of antemortem injuries of internal abdominal organs and blood vessels produced by sharp edged weapon.Injury No (1) and (2) are sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature, independently and collectively.13.17 On 26th August, 2011, the samples of the viscera of the deceased Sahdev, the bloodstained gauze and his clothes, were collected, from the hospital, by the IO Karan Singh Rana (PW-35) and Const.Exhibit 4a': One dirty shirt having brown stains.Exhibit 4b': One dirty banyan having brown stains.Exhibit 4c': One pants having muddy stains on lower part of pants.Exhibit 4d': One dirty underwear.(Emphasis supplied) Crl Appeal 243/2017 & Crl Appeal 309/2017 Page 46 of 93Crl Appeal 243/2017 & Crl Appeal 309/2017 Page 46 of 93I and Rakesh went with the police to the police station and to the hospital.(Emphasis supplied) There are too many contradictions, in the two statements of PW-1 Satpal Singh, as extracted hereinabove, to ignore.In his examination-in-chief, he deposed as that it was Rakesh who, answering his telephonic call after reaching home, asked him to reach the Petrol Pump at 10 PM., which he did.Crl Appeal 243/2017 & Crl Appeal 309/2017 Page 48 of 93examination, however, PW-1 deposed that he called Rakesh from the road outside the petrol pump and that, answering the said call, Rakesh immediately reached the spot, without making any reference to Rakesh having asked him to reach there at 10 PM., or his reaching the Petrol Pump at 10 PM.in deference to the said request.Again, while, in his examination-in-chief, Satpal Singh deposed that he, and Rakesh, had proceeded to the Police Station, from where he went home, in his cross- examination, he deposed that, from the Police Station he, and Rakesh, proceeded to the Hospital.(iii) Again, while deposing, in examination-in-chief, that, when he reached the Police Station on 26th August, 2011, he found Lalit being interrogated by the police officials, Satpal Singh, in his cross examination, stated that he had found Lalit standing near the wall looking towards the calendar.(iv) Similarly, regarding 4th September, 2011, PW-1 Satpal Singh, while deposing, in his examination-in-chief, that he was, on the said day, again called to PS, chose to state, in his cross examination, that, on 04/09/2011, (he) had gone to the PS to enquire about the case where (he) came to know about the arrest of the accused persons.Crl Appeal 243/2017 & Crl Appeal 309/2017 Page 49 of 93Crl Appeal 243/2017 & Crl Appeal 309/2017 Page 49 of 93(v) Even as regards the time of the said visit to the Police Station, PW-1 stated, in his examination-in-chief, that he had gone to the Police Station at 12 noon on being called by the police and in his cross examination, that he had gone to the Police Station at 3 P.M., of his own accord.(vi) The conduct and behaviour, of Satpal Singh, on 15 th August, 2011, was also correctly characterised, by the learned ASJ, as highly unusual.Despite being the brother-in-law of Sahdev, he neither, apparently, attempted to save him, or defend him from the assault by Kalu and Lalit, nor raised any alarm, so as to alert any possible onlooker.We also agree with the observation of the learned ASJ, that, even if the failure, on the part of Satpal Singh, to raise an alarm, at the time of the assault on Sahdev, could be attributed to panic, there is no explanation for his failing to alert anybody, even after the assailants had fled from the spot.Neither is there any explanation as to why he did not call the police, or alert any other person about the incident that had taken place and, instead, preferred to reach his house and alert Rakesh Kumar (PW-5), thereafter, at 10 P.M.11.5 The pronounced vacillation exhibited, by PW-1 Satpal Singh, in his deposition during trial, renders his evidence extremely suspect.Crl Appeal 243/2017 & Crl Appeal 309/2017 Page 50 of 9312 The alleged extra-judicial confession made to PW-6 Bhupender:The only redeeming feature, of extra-judicial confessions, is their confessional nature.Crl Appeal 243/2017 & Crl Appeal 309/2017 Page 57 of 9312.4 According to the statement of PW-6 Bhupender, recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. (Ex. PW-6/B), he received a call, from the mobile number of Kalu (7838205464) on his mobile number 9716943654, at 9.15 PM.He stated that Kalu had requested him to speak to Lalit, who confessed to having committing the crime of a killing of Sahdev, along with Kalu, and sought his help in obtaining shelter, for them to hide, which he declined.During trial, PW-6 Bhupender deposed, in his examination- in-chief, that he had, in fact disclosed the above facts, to the police officials, on 17th August, 2011, itself.It was for the first time, in his evidence, during trial, that PW-6 made a reference to such illegal detention.The IO Insp.Karan Singh Rana (PW-35), when queried, categorically denied having ever illegally incarcerated Bhupender.on 15th August, 2011, we find that, in his statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C, PW-6 Bhupender stated that he had spoken to Kalu and Lalit, during the said call, whereas in his statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. he made no reference to having spoken to Kalu at all, stating, rather, that it was Lalit who spoke to him from the mobile phone which was being used by Kalu, and, in his deposition during trial, he stated that Kalu had initially spoken to him and told him to speak to Lalit.Moreover, PW-6 Bhupender was not even cross examined to ascertain whether he could actually recognize Lalit's voice.Given the fact that Kalu and Lalit were each being tried for murder, under Section 302 of the IPC, these inconsistencies, it can hardly be denied, are significant.Rather, we find that in fact, a suggestion, of such a conversation never having taken place was put to Bhupender during cross-examination.No Crl Appeal 243/2017 & Crl Appeal 309/2017 Page 60 of 93 reference was made, to any of the said calls in the depositions of PW- 6 Bhupender, whether under Section 161 or Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., or during trial, which made it appear that the call, at 9.30 PM.from the phone number of Kalu, was not an isolated incident.As such, there is substance, in the contention of learned counsel for the appellants, to the effect that the conversations between the phone number of Kalu and phone number of Bhupender were frequent and reciprocal in nature and it was not as though, after committing the murder of Sahdev, an isolated call was placed by Kalu to Bhupender, during the course of which Kalu and/or Lalit confessed to having committed the said murder.and 9.08 PM., which lasted 96 seconds, 26 seconds and 13 seconds respectively.Even at 9.38 PM., we find two calls, one at 21:38:03 hours and second at 21:38:47, lasting 26 seconds and 30 seconds respectively.It is obvious, therefore, that these calls, which took place around the same time, one of which lasted as long as 96 seconds, were Crl Appeal 243/2017 & Crl Appeal 309/2017 Page 61 of 93 inter connected with each other, which also gives the lie to the notion that at 9.30 PM., Bhupender had received a call from the mobile number of Kalu, during which, Kalu and/or Lalit confessed to the murder of Sahdev.Crl Appeal 243/2017 & Crl Appeal 309/2017 Page 61 of 9312.9 Seen in the light of the fact that there is no other material, on the basis whereof it could be safely concluded that the call, at 9.30 PM., from Mobile No.7838205464, being used by Kalu, to Mobile No.9716943654 being used by Bhupender, was in the nature of a confession to the commission of the murder of Sahdev, we are hesitant to accept the sole evidence of Bhupender, as proof of any extra- judicial confession having been made, to him, by Kalu and/or Lalit, with regard to the commission of the said crime, especially as both Kalu and Lalit, in their statements under Section 313, Cr.P.C., categorically denied having had any such conversation.12.10 Resultantly, the second pillar, on which the prosecution has sought to rest the edifice of its case against the appellants Kalu and Lalit, also crumbles.13 Accompanying circumstantial evidence:Crl Appeal 243/2017 & Crl Appeal 309/2017 Page 63 of 93Interestingly, the IO Insp.Karan Singh Rana (PW-Crl Appeal 243/2017 & Crl Appeal 309/2017 Page 65 of 9335), in his cross-examination on 11th July, 2014, deposed that, after receiving information of the case at about 9:45 P.M. on 15th August, 2011, he reached the spot first time at 11:55 P.M. on the same day and that, when he reached the spot, the dead body was lying, whereafter SI Ishwari Prasad (PW-25) removed the dead body, from the said spot, to the Hospital.The other timings, mentioned in the cross-examination of PW-35 (the IO Insp.Karan Singh Rana), however, correspond with the statements of other witnesses.Crl Appeal 243/2017 & Crl Appeal 309/2017 Page 66 of 93Crl Appeal 243/2017 & Crl Appeal 309/2017 Page 67 of 93Karan Singh Rana (PW-35), who was SHO, Police Station Gokul Puri at the time.In cross-examination, PW-13 ASI Braham Singh categorically denied the suggestion that the FIR was antedated.PW-30 Const.Jai Prakash also confirmed, in his examination-in-chief on 25th October, 2013, that, at 12:30 AM on 16th December, 2012 (corrected, in cross-examination, to 16th August, 2011), envelopes, containing copies of the rukka and FIR, in the present case, were handed over, to him, by the duty officer, and that he delivered the said Crl Appeal 243/2017 & Crl Appeal 309/2017 Page 68 of 93 envelopes at the residences of the ACP, the DCP and the area Magistrate.Crl Appeal 243/2017 & Crl Appeal 309/2017 Page 68 of 9313.15 On the same day,, i.e. 16th August, 2011, the dead body of the deceased Sahdev Singh was identified by Panna Lal (PW-2) (the father of the deceased Sahdev, as admitted by him in his examination- in-chief on 19th March, 2012 as well) and by PW-3 Kirpal Singh (as admitted by him in his examination-in-chief on 19th March, 2012), at the mortuary of the GTB hospital, as belonging to Sahdev (vide Identification Memos Ex PW-2/A and Ex PW-3/A respectively).The identification Memos were signed by the IO Karan Singh Rana (PW-35).Crl Appeal 243/2017 & Crl Appeal 309/2017 Page 69 of 93The injuries have 106 cm above heel.The track of the wound is directed downwards, backwards and medially cutting through skin, subcutaneous tissue and muscles of abdominal wall, cutting omentum through and through the anterior-posterior wall of stomach near greater curvature of left lobe of liver and blood vessels.Extravasation of blood seen in the soft tissues around the Crl Appeal 243/2017 & Crl Appeal 309/2017 Page 70 of 93 injuries.The wound is 11 cm deep.Corresponding cut mark present on shirt and Bunyan.Crl Appeal 243/2017 & Crl Appeal 309/2017 Page 70 of 93(2) Incised stab wound measuring 5 in 20.4 centimetres present on left side of abdomen, obliquely placed, upper medial and is acute and lower lateral and this blunt.The lower lateral and 6 cm left of immediate midline and 16.5 cm above pubic symphysis and 104 cm above heel.About 2 L of blood present in Crl Appeal 243/2017 & Crl Appeal 309/2017 Page 71 of 93 abdominal cavity.Liver - 1135G. Pale.God Bladder contained 10 ML pile.As mentioned in injury No (1).Crl Appeal 243/2017 & Crl Appeal 309/2017 Page 71 of 93Rajender Prasad (PW-27).The Seizure Memo, prepared on the said occasion, was exhibited as Ex. PW-23/A.13.18 Ignoring a few minor inconsistencies here and there, it may, on a holistic appreciation of the above evidence, be reasonably said that the facts relating to the recovery of the dead body of Sahdev, the taking of photographs of the site and preparation of the Site Plan, the Crl Appeal 243/2017 & Crl Appeal 309/2017 Page 72 of 93 conveying of the body to the Hospital and its being declared brought dead, the preparation of the MLC and registration of FIR, the postmortem report prepared by Dr. Meghali Kelkar and the contents thereof, and the subsequent handing over of the body of Sahdev to his relatives, stand established and satisfactorily proved.Crl Appeal 243/2017 & Crl Appeal 309/2017 Page 72 of 9313.19 These circumstances, however, provide no assistance in fastening the liability, for the killing of Sahdev, on Kalu or Lalit or, for that matter, on anyone else.13.20 The circumstances which, in the estimation of the learned ASJ, serve to bring home, to Kalu and Lalit, the offence of commission of the murder of Sahdev (apart from their alleged extra- judicial confession), as reflected in the impugned judgement, were the following:(i) The CDRs of mobile No. 7838205464 indicated that, around the time when the incident of stabbing of Sahdev took place, Kalu was within range of the tower installed in Gokul Puri village.(ii) Correlation, using the IMEI No. of the GILD make mobile phone, which was being used by Sahdev, indicated that the said mobile phone had been used, with SIM card bearing Crl Appeal 243/2017 & Crl Appeal 309/2017 Page 73 of 93 No. 7838205464 (i.e., the SIM card being used by Kalu), from 03.58.57 hours on 17th August, 2011 to 11:49:44 hours on 18th August, 2011, during which period the said Mobile No. was within the range of the towers installed at Village Gokul Puri, Loni border and Johripur Extension, Ghaziabad.Further, the said mobile handset, of Sahdev, recovered from Lalit he had no explanation for being in possession thereof.Crl Appeal 243/2017 & Crl Appeal 309/2017 Page 73 of 93(iii) The disclosure statement of Lalit (Ex. PW-35/B), the identification, of the said mobile phone, by Kapil (PW-10), as belonging to his father, the identification of the said mobile phone by the IO Insp.Karan Singh Rana (PW-35), and the tallying, of the IMEI No. of the said phone, with the IMEI No. mentioned in the CDR relating to a mobile No. 8826275946, it was held, established the fact of recovery, of the GILD phone, being used by the deceased Sahdev, from the house of Lalit.This was regarded as a circumstance which probably incriminated Lalit.(ii) The fact that the knife, with which Sahdev had been stabbed and killed, was recovered, at the instance of Kalu, from his residence, stood proved by the following:Crl Appeal 243/2017 & Crl Appeal 309/2017 Page 74 of 93(a) Lalit, in his disclosure statement dated 26th August, 2011 (Ex. PW-35/B), disclosed that he had given the knife, used in committing the offence of murder of Sahdev, to Kalu.(b) Kalu, in his disclosure statement (Ex. PW-1/D), disclosed that he could get the knife, used in commission of the said offence, recovered and, pursuant thereto, led the IO, Insp.Karan Singh Rana (PW-35), to his house, where, from an almirah, he retrieved the knife.The said recovery was proved by the IO Insp.Karan Singh Rana, Const.Pramod (PW-26) and Satpal Singh (PW-1).(c) There was nothing to indicate that the said knife had been tampered with, before it was produced in court.She also identified the knife as the one which was sent to the FSL examination, when produced before her in court.Crl Appeal 243/2017 & Crl Appeal 309/2017 Page 75 of 93(e) The post-mortem report (Ex. PW-28/A) proved the fact of two injuries having been inflicted, on the upper part of the body of the deceased Sahdev.These circumstances, opined by the learned ASJ in the impugned judgement, formed a complete and unbroken chain, which inexorably implicates Kalu and Lalit, in the murder of Sahdev.The fact that the circumstances, seen as a whole, create a strong suspicion regarding culpability of the accused in the crime concerned, is totally insufficient, to maintain a conviction.Suspicion, howsoever strong, can never substitute proof, and can never be a foundation for an order of conviction against the accused.Exhibit 5': One knife made up of metallic blade and wooden handle.Exhibit 6': Brown cloth piece described as Blood on gauze'.Crl Appeal 243/2017 & Crl Appeal 309/2017 Page 79 of 93 Of these, the FSL reported that blood was detected on exhibits 1', 2', 4a', 4b', 4c', 4d' and 6', and was not detected on exhibits 3' and 5'.No blood was, therefore, found on the knife which was alleged to be the weapon of offence.The serological report (Ex. PW- 35/D), annexed thereto, found the blood, on exhibits 1', 4a', 4b', 4c', 4d' and 5' to be of A' group, which was the group of the deceased Sahdev.Crl Appeal 243/2017 & Crl Appeal 309/2017 Page 79 of 93In the first place, no blood was found on the knife, which was alleged to be the weapon of offence.The blood found on the other exhibits, and the serological analysis thereof, are of no consequence, as the said exhibits were the clothes of Sahdev, and the gauze pieces containing his blood samples, and the samples of earth picked up from the spot where he had fallen, it was but natural, therefore, that the blood, on these exhibits, would be that of Sahdev.13.27 While the aforementioned abortive forensic analysis, by the FSL, of the exhibits submitted to it, serves to knock out much of the wind from the sails of the case of the prosecution, we proceed, Crl Appeal 243/2017 & Crl Appeal 309/2017 Page 80 of 93 nevertheless, to address, first-hand, the issue of the recoveries stated to have been effected from Kalu and Lalit.Crl Appeal 243/2017 & Crl Appeal 309/2017 Page 80 of 9313.28 We are unable to arrive at any convincing conclusion, that the knife (Ex. PW-1/E), stated to have been recovered at the instance of Kalu, from a room on the first floor of his house, was the weapon of offence.The circumstances surrounding the alleged recovery are, to our mind, extremely suspicious.According to the statement of the IO Insp.Karan Singh Rana (PW-35), Kalu's mother was present in the room, when the said recovery took place and he, in fact, asked her to affix her signature on the seizure memo, but she refused to do so.We find, however, that Kalu's mother has neither been arraigned as a witness, nor is there any other evidence to show that she was present in the room, or that she was asked to be a witness to the Seizure Memo.Pramod (PW-26), who allegedly accompanied the IO, as per his statement, makes no reference to the presence of Kalu's mother on the said occasion.Equally strangely, the IO deposed that he had taken finger prints from the knife, before taking it into possession, but admitted that the said finger prints were never sent for testing to the Finger Print Bureau.This, in our view, is an important circumstance as, if finger prints were indeed retrieved, from the knife, by the Investigating Officer, there is no plausible explanation for the absence of submission, thereof, to the Finger Print Bureau.Such a startling lacuna, we must state, imperils the case of the prosecution to Crl Appeal 243/2017 & Crl Appeal 309/2017 Page 81 of 93 a considerable extent.As against this, Const.Pramod (PW-26), in his deposition during trial, flatly denied any memory of the time when they reached Kalu's house, the time of recovery of knife, the colour of the house, the material with which the almirah was constructed, the presence or absence of any other person in the house and whether the knife had any blood stains, on it, or not.All witnesses, who handled the exhibits, and in whose custody they remained, till they were submitted to the FSL, have testified, on oath, that the exhibits were never tampered with, till their submission at the FSL.The said testimony was never questioned or doubted, even in cross-examination.There is no question, therefore, of the blood, which is stated to have been present on the knife at the time of its seizure from Kalu, having been washed away or of its having disappeared naturally, by the time it was submitted to the FSL for analysis.In any event, if the stains had, in fact, been washed away, or had disappeared naturally, any presumption that they were bloodstains, at all, would be purely conjectural.Significantly, the learned ASJ himself notes, while recording the evidence of PW-26 Const.Pramod during trial, that he was prevaricating and giving evasive replies.Both the Insp.Karan Singh Rana (PW-35) and Const.Pramod (PW-26), however, were ad Crl Appeal 243/2017 & Crl Appeal 309/2017 Page 82 of 93 idem on the fact that no public person was associated with the said recovery.Crl Appeal 243/2017 & Crl Appeal 309/2017 Page 81 of 93Crl Appeal 243/2017 & Crl Appeal 309/2017 Page 82 of 9313.29 The only witnesses, to the recoveries purportedly effected from the residence of Kalu i.e. Ex. PW-1/A to Ex. PW-1/G are the IO Insp.Karan Singh Rana, Const.Pramod and PW-1 Satpal Singh.We have already indicated, hereinabove, that the evidence of PW-1 Satpal Singh does not inspire confidence.Pramod remained ambivalent, regarding the recovery in question and claimed that he was unable to remember any of the details relating thereto, including the time when they reached the house of Kalu.His evidence has also been noted, by the learned ASJ himself as being unreliable.We are not able therefore, to hold either the recovery of the dagger from the premises of Kalu, or its use to stab and kill Sahdev, as having been conclusively proved beyond reasonable doubt.13.30 Significantly, the evidence of PW-28 (Dr. Meghali Kelkar) in her subsequent opinion (Ex. PW-28/M) was also inconclusive as she only opined that the injuries on the body of the deceased Sahdev could have been caused by the knife.13.31 We are equally unconvinced regarding the recoveries stated to have been effected from the premises of Lalit.We find from the evidence of PW-35 IO Insp.Karan Singh Rana that, in the house of Crl Appeal 243/2017 & Crl Appeal 309/2017 Page 83 of 93 Lalit, his mother, sister, brother and other family members were allegedly present, but refused to sign the documents prepared on the occasion.None of the said family members has been included as witnesses by the prosecution.It is admitted that no independent witness or neighbour, was called to witness the recovery proceedings.Both Kalu and Lalit have, in their statements under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., denied the factum of the said recoveries.Crl Appeal 243/2017 & Crl Appeal 309/2017 Page 83 of 9313.32 As regards the disclosure statements stated to have been given by Kalu and Lalit, Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, categorically ordains thus:- Provided that, when any fact is deposed to do as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.(Emphasis supplied) 13.33 Mohd Inayatullah vs State of Maharashtra, (1976) 1 SCC 828 authoritatively delineates the principles governing Section 27 of the Evidence Act. In that case, the accused-appellant made the following statement:I will tell the place of deposit of the three chemical drums which I took out from the Haji Bunder on first August.Crl Appeal 243/2017 & Crl Appeal 309/2017 Page 84 of 93 Following on the said statement, the accused-appellant led the police officer and the panchas to a musafirkhana in Crawford Market and pointed out three drums lying there, which were, thereafter, identified by the prosecution witness, in the case, as those which had been stolen.The courts below concurrently found, inter alia, the following facts:Crl Appeal 243/2017 & Crl Appeal 309/2017 Page 84 of 93The copy Ext.Crl Appeal 243/2017 & Crl Appeal 309/2017 Page 87 of 93Crl Appeal 243/2017 & Crl Appeal 309/2017 Page 90 of 93Crl Appeal 243/2017 & Crl Appeal 309/2017 Page 91 of 93No suspicion, however, can substitute proof, whatever be its weight.In our considered opinion, therefore, the appellants Kalu and Lalit are entitled to be granted the benefit of doubt, and acquitted of the charges against them.Crl Appeal 243/2017 & Crl Appeal 309/2017 Page 92 of 93The appellants, who are in custody, shall be released forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other matter.Trial Court record be sent back with a copy of this judgement.Intimation to be sent to the Superintendent Jail.C.HARI SHANKAR (JUDGE) S. P. GARG (JUDGE) May 09, 2018 gayatri Crl Appeal 243/2017 & Crl Appeal 309/2017 Page 93 of 93
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
130,380,014 |
(13/08/13) The following judgment of the Court was delivered by :B. D. Rathi, J. This appeal has been preferred under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the Code") being aggrieved with the judgment dated 12/6/2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Maihar, District Satna, in Sessions Trial No.260/08, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "the IPC") and respectively sentenced to life imprisonment and rigorous imprisonment of 3 years with corresponding fine stipulations.2. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 11/9/08 at about 5 p.m., appellant lodged a report at Police Station Amdara to the effect that she was staying with Bali Singh as his keep for the last 6 years, while his wife was residing at Mahgaon (Kamore).For the last two years, Bali Singh was 2 Cr.A. No.1934/2009 suffering from Asthma and on Wednesday he had come from Maihar after taking medicines and a day before, i.e. on 10/9/08 at 11 a.m., Balisingh had died.Yesterday, she had gone at Jamunia to call Indar Singh son of Balsingh for lodging report, but as he did not come, she had come with her son-in-law Amar Singh to lodge the report.On the basis of said information, Morgue No.56/08 and First Information Report (Ex.P/3, for brevity "FIR") were registered and during investigation, it surfaced that on the date of incident, there had been an altercation between the appellant and Balisingh regarding her marital status and the relief money awarded to famine victims, on which she had pushed Balisingh, who while falling, had got his head dashed with the cot and resultantly started trembling and had become restless.Being enraged, the appellant had strangulated him to death and circulated the buzz that he had died of ailment.2 Cr.A. No.1934/2009Autopsy was conducted by Dr.Jitendra Singh (PW6).As per corresponding report (Ex.P/5), death could have been caused due to strangulation/throttling.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant had been falsely implicated and in fact Bali Singh had died due to asthma.He submitted that conviction of the appellant is based upon improper appreciation of the evidence on record and, accordingly, deserved to be interfered with.On the contrary, learned Government Advocate, while making reference to the incriminating pieces of evidence on record, submitted that the conviction was well merited.Having regard to the arguments advanced by the parties, we have perused the evidence and material on record.In his cross-examination, he deposed that there was no sign of struggle on the body of deceased.According to him, no rope was used for strangulation.He further deposed that no nail scratches were observed on the neck of the deceased.Doctor has also testified in para 3 of his evidence that on 16/09/08 appellant was also examined and no external or internal injury was found on his body.MLC report (Ex. P/6) prepared by him also indicates absence of scuffle between the appellant and deceased.In the aforesaid premises, we are of the considered view that prosecution has failed to prove by cogent and reliable evidence that death was homicidal in nature.According to the trial court, the cause of death of Balisingh had to be explained by appellant as fact of natural death due to asthma was within her special knowledge and on failure to do so, she was convicted.
|
['Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
130,380,687 |
Father of accused Nos.1 and 2, viz. Vyankat Phad was having some dispute with Bamaji Phad and Prakash Phad as about open space adjacent to Pralhad Mobile Shoppe situated at Pangaon 'T' Point, Dharmapuri.3) Prosecution case is that on 24th January, 2012 at about 9.00 a.m. when accused No.3-Balaji was spreading rubble on his land, which is adjacent to the land of Prakash Phad and Bamaji Phad, he was obstructed by PW-6 Chandrakant, son of Bamaji Phad.It was the contention of Chandrakant (PW-6) that Balaji was attempting to spread the rubble on their land.On the same day, at about 5.30 p.m., when Chandrakant (PW 6) was proceeding towards his land via Pangaon 'T' Point, accused No.1-Devraj, who, along with accused no.2 and 3 was standing near the mobile shoppe of one Pralhad Joshi, asked him why he ::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:37 ::: 4 Cri.Appeal 11/2016 obstructed his uncle Balaji from spreading the rubble in his field.Accused No.1 Devraj was alleged to have used abusive language while talking to Chandrakant.There was some hot exchange of words between Chandrakant and the accused persons.By the time, Shivaji, Dhanraj, Ramrao etc. had reached to the said spot.Wordy quarrel between Chandrakant and the accused persons took ugly turn.Accused No.1 Devraj then took out a pistol from his waist and fired one shot at PW 6 - Chandrakant.The bullet so fired caused a serious injury into the chest of PW 6 - Chandrakant.He collapsed on the spot itself.Hearing the sound of bullet shot Devraj, Suryakant (PW 7); Shivaji (PW 5) and others rushed to the said spot.Accused Nos. 2 and 3 were alleged to be holding stick and stone respectively in their hands.When PW 7 -Suryakant tried to intervene, accused No.1 Devraj fired a bullet from his pistol at him also which hit to his left knee and caused him serious injury.He also collapsed on the spot.It was alleged that ::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:37 ::: 5 Cri.Appeal 11/2016 the accused persons beat PW 2 - Shivaji Phad when he attempted to intervene and beat him with fists and kicks and also inflicted a knife blow on his person causing him grievous hurt.Accused, then fled from the said spot.Chandrakant (PW 6) and Suryakant (PW 7) were immediately taken to the S.R.T.M. hospital at Ambejogai through a jeep.After having received the primary treatment, accused No.7 Suryakant lodged a report against the accused.The said report was taken by the police in the hospital itself.14 Cri.In his statement under section 313 of Cr.P.C., accused No.1 has stated that said Prakash Ramrao Phad has encroached to the extent of 7 Ares in the land Gut No.1382 owned and possessed by his family and in order to prevent them from claiming back the said 7 Ares land from Prakash, a false case was filed against them with a systematic plan.In order to ascertain as to whether intention of the accused was to cause murderous assault upon PW 6- Chandrakant and PW-7 Suryakant, the quantum of injury and manner of assault would be significant.After the alleged occurrence, PW 6- Chandrakant and PW 7-Suryakant were removed to SRTR Medical College and Hospital at Ambejogai.1) Appellants have preferred the present appeal against the judgment and order passed in Sessions Case No. 38/2012 on 23rd December, 2015 by Additional Sessions Judge Ambejogai, District ::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:37 ::: 2 Cri.Appeal 11/2016 Beed.The appellants have been convicted in the aforesaid Sessions Case for the offences punishable under Section 307 read with 34 of IPC and Section 323 read with 34 of IPC.For the offence punishable under section 307 read with 34 of IPC, the appellants are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.15,000/- each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months each; whereas for the offence punishable under section 323 read with 34 of IPC, the appellants are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for eight days each.Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently.::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:37 :::The appellants are the residents of village Dharmapuri, Tq. ::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:37 :::::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:37 :::3 Cri.Appeal 11/2016 Parli Vaijnath District Beed.On the complaint so lodged by PW 7 - Suryakant, offence was registered against the accused persons and investigation was set in motion.The police visited the spot of occurrence; carried out its panchanama and seized the casings of bullets lying on the spot.Medical examination of the injured was done.::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:37 :::rushed to the said spot.Accused Nos. 2 and 3::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:37 :::While in custody of the police, ::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:37 ::: 6 Cri.Appeal 11/2016 accused Nos. 1 and 3 allegedly gave their statements and in pursuance of it, the pistol and the stick were alleged to be recovered at their instance.The pistol so recovered and the cartridges and casings recovered from the spot of occurrence as well as the blood samples of the injured, blood-stained earth collected from the spot of occurrence, clothes on person of PW-6 and PW-7 etc. were sent for chemical analysis to the Chemical Analyzer.Report from the Ballistic expert was also sought.The Investigating Officer in the meanwhile recorded the statements of the witnesses.After completing the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused in the JMFC court at Parli District Beed for the offence punishable under Section 307, 323, 506 read 34 of IPC as well as under Section 4(25) of the Arms Act. Since the offence under Section 307 was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the JMFC, Parli, vide order passed on 21st April, 2012, committed the said case to the Court of Sessions.After committal of the case, the ::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:37 ::: 7 Cri.The accused did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried.In order to prove the guilt of the accused, as many as 13 witnesses were examined by the prosecution.The defence of the accused was of total denial and false implication.None of the accused entered into the witness box nor any defence witness was examined by any of them.The learned Additional Sessions Judge after having assessed the oral and documentary evidence brought before him, held the accused guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 307 read 34 of IPC as well as under Section 323 read 34 of IPC and sentenced them to suffer the imprisonment as noted herein above.Aggrieved by, the accused have filed the present appeal.::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:37 :::::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:37 :::5) Shri Shirish Gupte, learned Sr.Counsel appearing for the accused, assailed the impugned judgment and order on various grounds.The learned Counsel submitted that the learned Trial ::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:37 ::: 8 Cri.Appeal 11/2016 Court has grossly erred in relying upon the testimonies of PW Nos. 4, 5,6 and 7 to base the conviction of the accused.The learned Counsel, taking me through the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses, submitted that there are material contradictions and omissions in the testimonies of these witnesses and the facts stated by the witnesses as about the core instance are also not consistent.In the circumstances, according to the learned counsel, benefit of doubt was liable to be given to the accused persons.::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:37 :::6) The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the evidence in respect of the alleged recovery of pistol as well stick, at the instance of accused Nos. 1 and 3 is highly doubtful.The learned counsel further submitted that the trial court has failed in appreciating that for recording memorandum statement at police station Parli, PW 3 - Mahadev Dahiphale was summoned by the police to act as a panch witness from village Dharmapuri, which is at the distance ::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:37 ::: 9 Cri.Appeal 11/2016 of about 26 kms from Police station Parli.The learned Counsel further submitted that PW 3 - Mahadev Dahiphale is maternal uncle of informant::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:37 :::- Chandrakant (PW 6).The learned Counsel further submitted that to call a person from the distance of about 26 kms, who is admittedly the near relative of the informant for recording the memorandum statement of the accused, creates serious doubt about giving of any such statement voluntarily by the accused persons.The learned Counsel further submitted that the recovery of the weapon of the offence is thus under shadow of doubt.7) The learned counsel further submitted that the evidence of the Ballistic expert (PW 13) if read in proper perspective, it is difficult to reach to the conclusion that the weapon allegedly recovered, was in fact used in commission of the alleged crime.The learned counsel further submitted that present is the case wherein the accused were entitled to be given benefit of ::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:37 ::: 10 Cri.Appeal 11/2016 doubt since the prosecution has failed in bringing on record any unimpeachable evidence to prove that it was accused No.1, who had caused fire arm injury to PW 6 - Chandrakant and PW 7 - Suryakant and that accused Nos. 2 and 3 were sharing a common intention with accused No.1 to cause death of PW 6 - Chandrakant and PW 7 - Suryakant.::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:37 :::8) Learned APP supported the impugned judgment and order.Learned APP submitted that PW 6 and PW 7 are the victims of the alleged occurrence and both had narrated the alleged incident as it had occurred.The learned APP further submitted that both the aforesaid witnesses have specifically alleged that accused No.1-Devraj shot the bullet from his pistol causing injuries in the chest of PW 6-Chandrakant and in the left knee of PW 7 -Suryakant.Both these witnesses have further deposed that accused Nos. 2 and 3 were all the while along with accused No.1-Devraj and were instigating accused ::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:37 ::: 11 Cri.Appeal 11/2016 No.1 to finish PW 6-Chandrakant as well as PW 7- Suryakant.::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:37 :::9) The learned APP further submitted that though evidence of PW 2 -Shivaji, who is also one of the victims in the alleged occurrence, has not been believed by the learned trial court.The said witness also had corroborated the facts as were deposed by PW 6-Chandrakant and PW 7- Suryakant.The learned APP further submitted that the objection raised by the appellants as about recovery of weapons of offence cannot be sustained in view of the fact that accused No.1- Devraj himself in his statement given under section 313 of Cr.P.C., has submitted that the said pistol was handed over to the police by his father.The learned APP further submitted that the Ballistic expert (PW 13) has candidly opined that the casings which were seized from the spot of occurrence, were of those bullets which were fired from the said pistol.The learned APP further submitted that firing of bullet in the ::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:37 ::: 12 Cri.Appeal 11/2016 chest of PW 6-Chandrakant explicitly reveals the intention of the accused to cause death of said Chandrakant.The learned APP further submitted that the trial court has passed a well reasoned judgment and has rightly held the accused persons guilty for the offences punishable under Section 307 read with 34 of IPC and no interference is called for in the judgment and order so passed.The learned APP, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the appeal.::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:37 :::10) I have duly considered the submissions made by the learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the appellants-accused and learned APP appearing for the State.I have perused the impugned judgment and the evidence adduced in the sessions trial.11) From the case of the prosecution and more particularly from the charge framed against the accused, it is quite evident that overt act of firing bullet from the pistol at PW 6- Chandrakant and PW 7-Suryakant, is alleged ::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:37 ::: 13 Cri.Appeal 11/2016 against accused No.1-Devraj and the allegation against accused No.2-Aashish and accused No.3- Balaji is that they shared common intention with accused No.1-Devraj to cause death of both the aforesaid victims and that in furtherance thereof instigated accused No.1-Devraj to fire the bullet from the pistol at the aforesaid victims.::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:37 :::12) Though accused Nos.2 and 3 are also charged with offence under Section 307 of IPC with the aid of section 34 of IPC.First I would like to examine whether the charge against accused No.1-Devraj that he attempted to commit murder of PW 6-Chandrakant and PW 7-Suryakant by firing the bullets on them can be said to have been proved by the evidence brought on record by the prosecution.13) It is the specific allegation against accused No,.1-Devraj that he fired the bullets from the pistol in his hand at PW 6 -Chandrakant and PW 7-Suryakant and attempted to kill them.::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:37 :::::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:37 :::14) The offence was registered against the accused persons on the basis of the statement given by PW 7-Suryakant.The evidence on record shows that the police recorded the statement of Suryakant in the Government Hospital at Ambejogai on 24th January, 2012 at about 7.45 p.m. The said ::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:37 ::: 15 Cri.Appeal 11/2016 statement was treated as FIR and on the basis of the same, the crime was registered against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 323, 506 read 34 of IPC and under Section 4(25) of the Arms Act and the investigation was set in motion.::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:37 :::15) In the FIR, it was the contention of informant Suryakant (PW 7) that on 24th January, 2012 at about 5.30 p.m., when he was standing besides his bullock, he heard the sound of firing in front of the shop of one Pralhad Joshi at Pangaon 'T' point, where his nephew Chandrakant (PW 6) was standing.He, therefore, rushed there and saw that Chandrakant had suffered a fire arm shot.Accused No.3 - Balaji and two sons of brother of Balaji viz. Vyankat Phad were alleged to be present on the spot.It was further contended that son of Vyankat, who is in military, was holding a revolver in his hand.When informant Suryakant asked Balaji (Accused No.3) and sons of Vyankat as to why they are ::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:37 ::: 16 Cri.Appeal 11/2016 beating Chandrakant, son of Vyankat Phad, who was in military, fired a bullet from the pistol in his hand on his left knee, because of which, he fell down.It was further contended that Chandrakant was already fallen on the earth after having suffered a bullet shot in his chest.It was further contended that accused No.3 - Balaji and the brother of the military-man, i.e. accused No.2-Aashish were holding sticks in their hand and they beat him and Chandrakant (PW 6).It was further contended that at the relevant time, Shivaji Phad; Dhanraj Phad; Suraj Suryakant Phad; Ramrao Dashrath Phad etc. reached at the spot and removed him as well as Chandrakant (PW 6) to the hospital at Ambejogai in the jeep of one Rajabhau.Informant Suryakant has made a specific allegation against Balaji, i.e. accused No.3 and sons of Vyankat Phad, i.e. accused Nos. 1 and 2 that they had attempted to commit murder of him and PW 6 - Chandrakant by firing the bullet in the chest of Chandrakant and in the left knee of Suryakant.::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:37 :::sons of Vyankat Phad, i.e. accused Nos. 1 and 2::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:37 :::::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:37 :::incident was stated to have happened at around 5.30 p.m. at Pangaon 'T' point, village Dharmapuri.It is thus evident that the FIR of the said incident was promptly lodged within 2½ hours of the occurrence of the alleged incident.17) The evidence on record further shows that immediately after registration of the crime, the police reached at the spot of occurrence which was disclosed by informant - Suryakant and drew its panchanama.When the police reached at the spot, the exact spot was shown to the police by father of Chandrakant.The spot panchanama at Exh. 47 reveals that from the spot of occurrence two casings and two live cartridges were seized.18) It was sought to be contended by the learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the accused that while preparing the panchanama of the spot, intentionally the close relatives of the informant and the victims were taken as the panch ::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:37 ::: 18 Cri.Appeal 11/2016 witnesses and hence no reliance can be placed on such a panchanama.I am, however not convinced with the objection so raised.Shri Prashant Deshpande, the then Police Inspector, who investigated Crime No. 7/12, has also in his testimony before the court elaborately deposed about his visit to the spot of occurrence and about seizure of the empty and the live cartridges from the place of occurrence.Nothing has been brought on record so as to disbelieve the version of the said witness.::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:37 :::19) The evidence on record further shows that the casings and the live cartridges so seized from the spot of occurrence were sent for their chemical analysis in the forensic lab at Kalina, Santacruz.20) It was the further case of the prosecution that accused No.1-Devraj and accused No.2-Balaji while in custody of the police, expressed their desire to give their memorandum statement and accordingly on 29th January, 2012, ::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:37 ::: 19 Cri.Appeal 11/2016 their memorandum statements were recorded in presence of Mahadeo Trimbak Dahiphale and Dnyanoba Balaji Phad.It was further case of the prosecution that in pursuance of their memorandum statements, the pistol was recovered and seized at the instance of accused No.1-Devraj and the stick at the instance of accused No.3-Balaji in presence of the aforesaid panch witnesses.::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:37 :::21) To prove the recovery of the weapon of the offence the prosecution has examined Mahadeo Trimbak Dahiphale (PW 3) who was one of the panch witnesses.According to the prosecution, the said witness has fully corroborated the case of the prosecution and as such, the recovery of the weapon of offence at the instance of the accused persons has been duly proved by the prosecution.As against it, it was vehemently argued by the learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the accused that both the witnesses on the so-called memorandum statements and the recovery of weapon, were interested witnesses.The learned Counsel ::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:38 ::: 20 Cri.Appeal 11/2016 submitted that PW 3 - Mahadeo is maternal uncle of victim Chandrakant and another witness Dnyanoba was cousin brought of informant Suryakant.The learned counsel submitted that they were purposely called for drawing the aforesaid panchanama from the distance of 26 kms.The learned Counsel further submitted that the panchanama drawn in presence of such interested witnesses when the police could have certainly called the independent witnesses from the vicinity, raises serious doubts about the correctness and truthfulness of the said panchanama.The learned counsel submitted that no reliance can be placed on such panchanama to base the conviction of the accused.::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:38 :::22) It cannot be disputed that both the witnesses on the recovery panchanama are the relatives of the victims of the alleged incident.It is further not in dispute that both were called from the distance of 26 kms by specifically summoning them.There is no ::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:38 ::: 21 Cri.Appeal 11/2016 explanation from the side of the prosecution as to why the Investigating Officer was required to call the witnesses from the distance of 26 kms and that too such witnesses, who are admittedly in relation to the victims of the alleged occurrence.The objection raised by the defence as about genuineness of the alleged recovery of weapon, thus deserves serious consideration.::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:38 :::23) The question also arises whether the prosecution has brought on record sufficient evidence to prove that, the weapon produced in the case was used in commission of the alleged crime.It is nowhere the case of the accused that the pistol which was ::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:38 ::: 22 Cri.Appeal 11/2016 produced in the case as weapon of offence and which was sent for its examination to the Ballistic expert, was not the pistol handed over by father of accused No.1 and that the pistol as was shown to have been recovered at the instance of accused No.1-Devraj and the pistol handed over by father of accused No.1 were two different pistols.::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:38 :::25) The prosecution has examined Shri Mahesh Shankar Kadam, who was at the relevant time, serving as Assistant Chemical Analyzer in the Forensic Lab at Kalina, Santacruz, Mumbai in its Ballistic division.The said witness has testified that one 7.65 mm - caliber 0.32 mm pistol having body No.RP-155121 and marking PISTOL 7.65 mm (0.32) - RP - 155121 - GSF-IN-2011, Two intact KF 7.65 mm pistol cartridges and 2 KF 7.65 mm pistol empties having indentation on their caps, were received to the Ballistic division for their analysis.I deem it appropriate to reproduce herein below paras 6 and ::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:38 ::: 23 Cri.Appeal 11/2016 7 of his deposition before the court, which read thus, -::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:38 :::"6) During analysis, I measured physical parameters and draw the sketches.I performed the chemical tests.I carried out test fire.I carried out ballistic comparison.During the ballistic comparison, firing pin impression in addition to breach face impression on the empties Exhibit 1 C and 1 D tallied with test fired cartridge through exhibit 1 A. Mr. Toskar taken the photographs of ballistic comparison on my instruction.7) I have prepared the report and shown to H.O.D. for checking.The result of analysis Exhibit 1 A is a 7.65 mm caliber pistol in working condition, residue of fired ammunition nitrite was detected in the barrel washings of Exhibit 1 A showing that 7.65 mm caliber pistol was used for firing prior to its receipt in the laboratory, Two 7.65 mm pistol cartridge in Exhibit 1 B were successfully test fired through ::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:38 ::: 24 Cri.Appeal 11/2016 the Exhibit 1 A.::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:38 :::The empties in Exhibit 1 C and 1 D are the fired 7.65 mm pistol cartridge cases, the characteristics features of fire pin impression in addition to breech face marks on the empties in Exhibit 1 C and 1 D tally among themselves and with those on the 7.65 mm pistol cartridge test fired from Exhibit 1 A (examined under comparison microscope), showing these empties in Exhibit 1 C and 1 D have been fired from the 7.65 mm caliber pistol Exhibit 1 A."::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:38 :::::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:38 :::the casings, which were seized from the spot of occurrence immediately after the occurrence of the alleged incident, were discharged from the said 7.65 mm caliber pistol, i.e. Exhibit-1A produced in the case as weapon of offence.Thus, through the evidence of PW 13 Mahesh Kadam, the prosecution has successfully proved that the pistol produced as weapon of offence was used in commission of the alleged crime.In the circumstances, both the facts, whether the pistol was recovered at the instance of accused No.1- Devraj, as per the case of the prosecution or it was handed over by father of accused No.1-Devraj to the police, as stated by accused No.1 in his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., lose significance and the bare fact remains that the prosecution has fully established that the pistol produced in the case as weapon of offence was used in the commission of the alleged crime.::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:38 :::consideration is, whether the evidence brought on record by the prosecution proves that accused No.1 - Devraj fired two bullets from the said pistol, one on PW 6-Chandrakant and the other on PW 7-Suryakant, causing them grievous injuries.In this regard, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of about four witnesses.As per the case of the prosecution, PW 4 - Ram Bhagwan Phad; PW 5 - Shivaji Ramrao Phad, are the eye-witnesses to the alleged incident; whereas PW 6-Chandrakant and PW 7-Suryakant are the victims of the alleged incident.29) I have carefully gone through the evidence of all these witnesses.PW 4-Ram Phad though in his examination-in-chief deposed that he saw accused No.1-Devraj firing the bullet from his pistol on PW 6-Chandrakant, in the cross- examination the said witness has admitted that he went to the spot of occurrence after hearing noise of the crowd.He has further stated in his cross-examination that he reached to the spot of ::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:38 ::: 27 Cri.Appeal 11/2016 occurrence after the incident took place.The evidence of PW 4-Ram Phad, therefore, cannot be accepted to be the evidence of an eye-witness.Further, there are certain material contradictions and omissions in his evidence, which also prevent me from placing reliance on the evidence of the said witness.The only relevant fact, which the said witness deposed is that he saw PW 6-Chandrakant and PW 7-Suryakant lying on the spot and the bullet injury was caused to Chandrakant in his chest and to Suryakant on his knee.::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:38 :::30) PW 5-Shivaji Ramrao Phad has deposed that on 24th January, 2012, he was present at the spot of occurrence when the alleged incident happened.He has further deposed that when the accused persons started abusing Chandrakant, he had asked the accused as to why they were abusing him.He has further deposed that the accused then abused him also and accused No.1-Devraj took out the pistol from his pocket and fired bullet ::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:38 ::: 28 Cri.Appeal 11/2016 from the said pistol on the chest of Chandrakant and the second bullet on the left knee of Suryakant.The said witness has also deposed that accused No.2-Aashish inflicted stick blows on his right middle arm and accused No.3-Balaji inflicted injury on his back with stone.However, after having read the entire evidence of the said witness, I find it unsafe to rely upon, for the reason that in the cross-examination, some different story has been built up by the said witness that one blow of knife was inflicted on his person, however, has not clarified as to who inflicted the said knife blow on him.There are few more contradictions and omissions in his evidence, which I do not find it to be worth mentioning.Suffice it to say that the evidence of the said witness is not dependable.::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:38 :::31) PW 6 - Chandrakant is the victim of the alleged assault.He has deposed that on 24 th January, 2012 at 5.30 p.m., when he was proceeding towards his land from Pangaon T point, ::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:38 ::: 29 Cri.Appeal 11/2016 all the three accused came in front of him and there were some altercations amongst them.Chandrakant (PW 6) has also deposed that all the three accused abused him and Devraj threatened him to kill him.Chandrakant has further deposed that accused No.1-Devraj shot bullet from the pistol in his hand into his chest, which went out from his back.Chandrakant has also deposed that after hearing the sound of the fire arm, Suryakant arrived on the spot and accused No.1- Devraj shot bullet from his pistol on his left knee.Chandrakant has further deposed that because of the injury suffered by him, he fell down on the earth.::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:38 :::32) The learned Sr. Counsel though highlighted the contradictions and omissions in the evidence of Chandrakant to urge that no reliance was liable to be placed on his evidence, it is difficult to agree with the contention so raised.I have carefully gone through the cross- examination of PW 6-Chandrakant.Though certain ::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:38 ::: 30 Cri.Appeal 11/2016 contradictions are brought on record in his cross-examination, the core fact deposed by him that accused No.1-Devraj shot bullet from his pistol into his chest, has remained unshattered.Apparently, I do not see any reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW 6-Chandrakant so far as it relates to the fact deposed by him that accused No.1-Devraj shot the bullet from his pistol into his chest.::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:38 :::33) In his evidence before the Court, PW 7- Suryakant has also specifically deposed that accused No.1-Devraj shot the bullet from his pistol on his left knee.In his cross-examination also certain contradictions and omissions are brought on record by the defence.However, considering his evidence as a whole, in so far as the key fact that accused No.1-Devraj shot the bullet from the pistol on his left knee is concerned, the same has been undoubtedly proved.::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:38 :::learned Sr.Counsel that taking into account the incident happened in the morning of 24th January, 2012, there was every reason for PW 6-Chandrakant and PW 7-Suryakant to falsely implicate the accused persons in commission of the alleged crime.The learned counsel brought to my notice the statement given by the accused persons under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The learned counsel further submitted that the accused had sufficiently brought on record that there was a dispute between the accused persons on one side and the family of Bamaji Phad and Prakash Phad on other side on account of the land abutting to the road situated near Pangaon T point.The learned counsel further submitted that in the morning, one instance had already occurred and as such, there was every reason for PW 6-Chandrakant and PW 7-Suryakant to falsely implicate the accused persons in commission of the alleged crime.::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:38 :::that PW 6-Chandrakant and PW 7-Suryakant, the victims of the alleged crime, would falsely implicate the accused persons in commission of the alleged crime, leaving real perpetrator of the crime free.36) Further, it cannot be lost sight of that FIR of the alleged incident was promptly lodged by PW 7-Suryakant, wherein he has disclosed the names of all the three accused and has specifically alleged that the bullets were shot by accused No.1-Devraj from the pistol in his hand.The further particulars were also provided that the first bullet was shot into the chest of PW 6-Chandrakant and the other into his left knee.He has also disclosed the spot where the alleged incident had occurred.37) As I have discussed herein above, the police visited the said spot within a short while after occurrence of the alleged incident and two casings were seized from the said spot.Through ::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:38 ::: 33 Cri.Appeal 11/2016 the evidence of PW 13, the Ballistic expert, the prosecution has undoubtedly proved that casings which were seized from the spot of occurrence, were of the bullets shot from the pistol produced in the case as the weapon of the offence.::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:38 :::38) By examining PW-9 Dr. Ashok Vishwanath Dake, PW-10 Dr Gaurav Arun Kale and PW-11 Dr Manoj Sudhir Landge, the prosecution has sufficiently proved that, the injuries caused to PW-6 Chandrakant in his chest and the injuries caused in the left knee of PW-7 Suryakant, both were fire arm injuries.39) Though the prosecution has not produced on record any document showing ownership of accused No.1-Devraj over the said pistol, sufficient evidence is brought on record proving that the said pistol was possessed by accused No.1-Devraj and he was holding the license therefor.Moreover, as per the statement of accused No.1-Devraj himself given under Section ::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:38 ::: 34 Cri.::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:38 :::40) The evidence as above, which I have alaysed in detail, if is considered cumulatively, there remains no doubt that the prosecution has successfully proved that it was accused No.1, who fired the bullets on PW 6-Chandrakant and PW 7- Suryakant from the pistol produced in the case as weapon of offence and caused grievous injuries to both of them.41) Once it is proved that accused No.1- Devraj had fired the bullets, one in the chest of PW 6-Chandrakant and the other in the left knee of PW 7-Suryakant, the next question falls for consideration as to what offence is made out against accused No.1-Devraj? According to the prosecution, it was the joint attempt of all the accused, to commit murder of PW 6-Chandrakant and PW 7-Suryakant and as such, the trial Court has ::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:38 ::: 35 Cri.Appeal 11/2016 rightly convicted all of them for the offence under Section 307 read with 34 of IPC.::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:38 :::42) Per contra, it is the argument made on behalf of the accused that even if the evidence of the prosecution is held believable, then also, no offence under Section 307 of IPC can be said to have been made out against any of the accused persons.It was the contention of the learned Sr.Counsel that in order to attract the offence under Section 307 of IPC, intention or knowledge of accused is necessary to be established and without such strong evidence on record, there could be no offence of attempt to commit murder.43) Learned Sr.Counsel submitted that had accused No.1 been intending to commit murder of PW 7 Suryakant, he would not have fired the bullet on his left knee.The learned Sr. Counsel further submitted that Dr. Landge (PW-11) has candidly opined that the fire arm injury caused to PW 7- Suryakant was not fatal and not capable ::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:38 ::: 36 Cri.Appeal 11/2016 of causing death of PW 7 Suryakant.In the circumstances, according to the learned Sr. Counsel, in no case, it can be said that accused No.1-Devraj was intending to commit murder of PW 7-Suryakant so as to attract Section 307 of IPC.::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:38 :::44) The learned Sr. Counsel further submitted that though the injury is caused to PW 6-Chandrakant in his chest, merely on that count, no such conclusion can be drawn that accused No.1- Devraj was intending to cause his death.The learned Sr. Counsel further submitted that all other circumstances will have to be taken into account before reaching to any conclusion whether by causing the alleged injury to PW 6 Suryakant, accused No.1-Devraj was intending to cause his death.45) The learned Sr. Counsel further submitted that the circumstances on record clearly demonstrate that before making the alleged assault on PW 6-Chandrakant, there was a ::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:38 ::: 37 Cri.Appeal 11/2016 wordy quarrel between said Chandrakant and the accused persons.The learned Sr.Counsel submitted that PW 6-Chandrakant in his cross-examination has admitted that he was not fearing that accused No.1-Devraj will fire bullet on him even though Devraj took out the pistol from his waist.The learned Counsel further submitted that had accused No.1-Devraj been intending to cause death of PW 6-Chandrakant, he could have shot one more bullet in vital organ of PW 6-Chandrakant and would have ensured his death on the spot itself.Not making of any repeated assaults on PW 6- Chandrakant by accused No.1-Devraj reveals that he was never intending to cause death of PW 6- Chandrakant.::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:38 :::46) In the aforesaid circumstances, it was the alternate submission of the learned Sr.Counsel that, if at all any offence was made out against accused No.1-Devraj, it was under Section 326 of IPC and not under Section 307 of IPC.::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:38 :::::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:38 :::PW 11-Dr.Manoj Landge was the medical officer in the casualty department at the relevant time.Said Dr.Landge in his evidence before the court has deposed that following injuries were noticed on person of PW 6-Chandrakant and PW 7-Suryakant.Injuries noticed on person of PW-6 Chandrakant1) Punctured wound over lower 1/3rd of Pre-sternal area 2 x 2 cm.oval, age less than six hours.2) Punctured wound over right side of chest post axillary line about in 7 inter costal space 2 x 2 cm.oval, age less than six hours.::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:38 :::::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:38 :::39 Cri.3) Contused lacerated wound over scalp left parieto occipital region, 2 x 1 x 0.5 cm, age less than six hours, simple in nature.Injuries noticed on person of PW-7 Suryakant1) Punctured wound on lateral aspect of upper part of left knee 2 x 2 cm, oval, age less than six hours, grievous in nature.2)Punctured wound over medical aspect of poplital region, 2 x 2 cm.oval, age less than six hours.Grievous in nature.X-ray shows displaced fracture of supracondylor. "48) Dr.Landge has further specifically deposed that injuries No.1 & 2 caused to PW 6- Chandrakant were capable of causing his death.Landge has denied the suggestion given to him in his cross-examination that the injuries caused to PW 6-Chandrakant were not fatal.It is significant to note that in so far as injuries caused to PW 7-Suryakant are concerned, Dr. Landge has opined that the injuries of Suryakant were not fatal to life.In absence of any contrary evidence on record, I see no reason to disbelieve the evidence of Dr. Landge to hold ::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:38 ::: 40 Cri.Appeal 11/2016 that the injuries caused to PW 6-Chandrakant were fatal and were capable of causing his death.It has come on record through the evidence of PW 6- Chandrakant that accused No.1-Devraj fired the bullet into his chest from a short distance, which exited from his back.::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:38 :::49) In the FIR lodged by PW 7-Suryakant, he had stated that one of the sons of Vyankat Phad was in the military.There is reason to believe that Accused No.1-Devraj being a military man, was possessing sufficient knowledge and skill as about the use of a weapon like pistol.Secondly, holding of a valid license for possessing the pistol by accused No.1-Devraj also leads to an inference that he was having knowledge how to use the pistol.In the circumstances, it cannot be believed or accepted that hitting of the bullet into the chest of Chandrakant (PW-6) was a co-incidence or an accident or that accused no.1 did not knowingly ::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:38 ::: 41 Cri.Appeal 11/2016 fire the bullet into the chest of Chandrakant (PW-6).In the circumstances, the only conclusion, which emerges is that accused No.1-Devraj fired the bullet from his pistol into the chest of PW 6-Chandrakant knowing that it was capable of causing his death.::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:38 :::50) There cannot be a dispute that chest is the vital part of the human body and causing any injury to such vital organ was likely to cause death of PW 6-Chandrakant.The evidence which has been brought on record by the prosecution thus sufficiently establishes that accused No.1-Devraj fired the bullet from his pistol on PW 6- Chandrakant knowing that it may cause death of PW 6-Chandrakant.The act of accused No.1 would, therefore, fall within the mischief of Section 307 of IPC.Even if it is assumed that accused No.1-Devraj had no intention to kill PW 6- Chandrakant, he certainly had the knowledge that his said act was likely to cause death of PW 6- Chandrakant, which would make his act an offence ::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:38 ::: 42 Cri.Appeal 11/2016 of murder if the death had been caused by his said act.::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:38 :::51) The next question arises whether the act of accused no.1 Devraj of firing a shot and causing a bullet injury to the left knee of PW-7 Suryakant would also amount to an offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. It is well settled that, the act which would amount to an attempt under Section 307 of I.P.C. must be one, which is capable of causing death.As has been discussed by me herein before, none of the bullet injury caused to PW-7 Suryakant was fatal to his life.In the circumstances, the assault made on PW-7 Suryakant by accused no.1 Devraj would not fall under the mischief of Section 307 of I.P.C. However, the evidence on record fully establishes that, by firing a bullet at the left knee of PW-7 Suryakant, accused no.1 Devraj voluntarily caused him a grievous hurt by a dangerous weapon.I, therefore, hold him guilty for the offence under Section 326 of I.P.C.::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:38 :::::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:38 :::consideration is whether accused no.2 Ashish and accused no.3 Balaji had shared the common intention with accused no.1 Devraj in an attempt by said Devraj of committing murder of PW-6 Chandrakant and causing of grievous hurt to PW-7 Suryakant.The learned Sr. Counsel further submitted that the prosecution has not brought on record any such evidence on the basis of which an inference could have been drawn that intention of each of the accused in the instant case was known to the others and that they have shared the said ::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:38 ::: 44 Cri.Appeal 11/2016 intention.::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:38 :::54) The learned Sr. Counsel further submitted that there is no evidence on record showing that accused Nos.2 and 3 were having knowledge that accused No.1 would take out the pistol and would fire a bullet from it since everything happened in the spur of moment and in the circumstances, accused Nos.2 and 3 could not be deemed to have shared common intention.The learned Sr.Counsel further submitted that when PW 7-Suryakant has deposed that accused Nos.2 and 3 beat PW 6-Chandrakant after and before he suffered the fire arm injury and that he was beaten by accused Nos.2 and 3 with stick and stone, PW 6-Chandrakant in his testimony before the court has, nowhere deposed any such fact.As testified by him, neither he was manhandled ::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:38 ::: 45 Cri.Appeal 11/2016 before he suffered the fire arm injury nor he was beaten by any of the accused either before suffering the firearm injury or thereafter.The learned Counsel submitted that the prosecution has not brought on record any evidence on the basis of which accused Nos.2 and 3 could have been held guilty even for an offence under Section 323 of IPC.According to the learned Sr.Counsel, in absence of any evidence against accused Nos.2 and 3, they are liable to be acquitted of all the charges leveled against them.::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:38 :::55) As against the argument so advanced by the learned Sr.Counsel, it was the contention of learned APP that the prosecution has brought on record sufficient evidence even as against accused Nos.2 and 3 to prove that they had shared the common intention with accused No.1-Devraj in causing murderous assault on PW 6-Chandrakant and PW 7-Suryakant.::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:38 :::::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:38 :::APP to the evidence of PW 4 Ram Bhagwan Phad; PW 5 Shivaji @ Shivraj Ramrao Phad; PW 6-Chandrakant and PW 7- Suryakant.According to the learned APP, all these witnesses have consistently deposed that all the three accused had reached at the spot with the common intention in their mind to cause death of PW 6-Chandrakant and PW 7- Suryakant.It was also contended by the learned APP that accused No. 2 and accused No.3 both were fully aware that accused No.1 was possessing the pistol with him.It was also contended that even when accused No.1 took out the pistol and held it against PW 6-Chandrakant, neither accused No.2 nor accused No.3 did make any attempt to prevent accused No.1-Devraj from hitting the bullet from his pistol, on the contrary, as has been deposed by PW 6-Chandrakant as well as PW 7-Suryakant, accused Nos. 2 and 3 were instigating accused No.1-Devraj to finish them.It was also contended by the learned APP that evidence on record also shows that accused Nos. 2 and 3 had actively ::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:38 ::: 47 Cri.Appeal 11/2016 participated in beating PW 6 and PW 7 even after the said witnesses have suffered the bullet injuries.According to the learned APP, accused Nos. 2 and 3 were also, therefore, liable to be held guilty for an offence under Section 307 of IPC with the aid of Section 34 of IPC and have been rightly held guilty by the learned trial court for the said offence.::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:38 :::57) I have held the accused no.1 guilty for an offence under Section 307 of IPC for making murderous assault on PW-6 Chandrakant and for the offence under Section 326 of I.P.C. for causing grievous hurt with dangerous weapon to PW-7 Suryakant.It has now to be examined whether accused nos.2 and 3 had shared the common intention in commission of the aforesaid offences by accused no.1 Devraj in light of the arguments advanced by the learned Senior Counsel and the learned APP.::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:38 :::It has to be inferred from the facts and circumstances of each case.The accused, who is fastened with liability on the strength of section 34 of IPC should have done some act, which has nexus with the offence.Even if it is only a overt act, it is enough, provided such overt act is proved to have done by the co- accused in furtherance of the common intention.::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:38 :::::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:38 :::49 Cri.Appeal 11/2016 Even an omission can, in certain circumstances, amount to an act.This is the purport of Section of 32 of IPC.So, the act, mentioned in Section 34 of IPC, need not be an overt act even an illegal omission to do a certain act in certain situation can amount to an act.59) The acts committed and the conduct of accused nos.2 and 3 during the relevant period will have to be examined in light of the principles stated above for arriving at a conclusion whether they can be held guilty for the offences committed by accused no.1 with the aid of Section 34 of I.P.C. It is not in dispute that, the cognizable overt act of firing bullet shots at PW-6 Chandrakant and PW-7 Suryakant is attributed on part of accused no.1 alone.Accused nos.2 and 3 were however accompanying accused no.1 at the relevant time.As has come on record through the prosecution evidence, accused nos.1 to 3 were standing together near the mobile shoppe of one Pralhad at Pangaon 'T' point.There ::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:38 ::: 50 Cri.Appeal 11/2016 further appears no dispute that, accused nos.2 and 3 were aware of the fact that, accused no.1 Devraj was carrying a pistol with him.The material on record further reveals that, initially a wordy quarrel took place between accused on one side and PW-6 Chandrakant on the other side and the altercations so started amongst them subsequently took an ugly turn.The evidence on record also shows that, accused nos.2 and 3 provoked accused no.1 as a result of which, he fired the bullet shots at PW-6 Chandrakant and PW-7 Suryakant.It has come in the evidence of PW-7 Suryakant that, accused nos.2 and 3 beat PW- 6 Chandrakant with kicks, fists and sticks.Appeal 11/2016 been duly corroborated by any other witness.The medical evidence also does not support the allegation so made by PW-7 Suryakant Thus, no evidence has come on record against accused nos.2 and 3 to show that, any overt act was committed by these accused except that, they instigated accused no.1 Devraj against PW-6 Chandrakant and PW-7 Suryakant, as a result of which accused No.1 Devraj fired bullet shots at them causing them grievous injuries.::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:38 :::::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:38 :::60) Further, it was sought to be contended by the learned Sr.Counsel that for invoking section 34 of IPC against the accused, prior concert or pre-arranged plan has to be established.It was also contended by the learned Sr.Counsel that the prosecution has not brought on record any evidence even remotely to suggest that all the three accused had assembled on the spot of occurrence with the determination to assault PW 6-Chandrakant with whom they had some quarrel in the morning.In absence of any such ::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:38 ::: 52 Cri.Appeal 11/2016 evidence, according to the learned Sr.Counsel, even though the incident had occurred of firing a bullet from his pistol at the hands of accused No.1-Devraj, in no case an inference can be drawn that accused Nos. 2 and 3 were sharing common intention with accused No.1 in making such assault by him on PW 6-Chandrakant and PW 7- Suryakant.::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:38 :::61) The prosecution has admittedly not brought on record any evidence showing that, after the occurrence of the morning incident, accused nos.1 to 3 had some discussion amongst them in respect of taking any further action against PW-6 Chandrakant or persons from his side.Further nothing is brought on record to show that the accused were having some concrete information that PW-6 Chandrakant will be passing from Pangaon 'T' point in the evening so that, with some determination the accused had assembled at the said spot.It is, therefore, difficult to believe a prosecution theory that, the assaults ::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:38 ::: 53 Cri.Appeal 11/2016 made on PW-6 Chandrakant and PW-7 Suryakant was a pre-arranged plan prepared by the accused with the common intention.::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:38 :::62) As I have discussed herein before, it is difficult to hold that, accused no.1 Devraj had any intention to cause the death of PW-6 Chandrakant though he has fired the bullet in his chest.However, he certainly had the knowledge that, his said act was likely to cause death of Chandrakant, which would make his said act an offence of murder if death has been caused by his said act.That is the reason that I have held accused no.1 Devraj guilty for an offence under Section 307 of IPC insofar as assault made by him on PW-6 Chandrakant.However, from the evidence as aforesaid, I am afraid a conclusion can be drawn that, accused nos.2 and 3 had shared the common intention with accused no.1 Devraj of attempting to commit murder of PW-6 Chandrakant.To constitute common intention, it is necessary that, the intention of each of the accused is ::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:38 ::: 54 Cri.Appeal 11/2016 known to the others and is shared by them.::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:38 :::63) Evidence on record reveals, that in the morning of 24th January, 2012, PW 6-Chandrakant obstructed accused No.3-Balaji from spreading the rubble, alleging that it was being spread in his land.However,according to accused No.3, PW 6- Chandrakant had unauthorizedly and illegally obstructed him though he was not having concerned with the said land.In relation to the aforesaid land and more particularly the frontage of the said land, there were serious disputes between the family of Bamaji Phad and Vyankat Phad.Though no such specific evidence has come on record, it can be discerned that accused No.3- Balaji must have disclosed the said incident to accused No.1-Devraj and accused No.2-Aashish.::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:38 :::::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:38 :::that in the evening of 24th January, when the accused were standing together near Mobile Shoppe of Pralhad at Pangaon T point and when PW 6- Chandrakant was seen by them passing from the said place reminded by the incident happened with accused No.3-Balaji in the morning, accused No.1- Devraj got exasperated the moment he saw PW 6- Chandrakant and he entered into the quarrel with him.Accused No.3-Balaji was already having grudge against PW 6-Chandrakant.This was an opportunity for him to settle the score against PW 6-Chandrakant taking to the morning incident.Accused No.2-Aashish being younger brother of accused No.1-Devraj naturally joined him.As has come on record, accused Nos. 2 and 3 both provoked accused No.1 and resultantly, accused No.1-Devraj fired the bullet shots from the pistol in his hand at PW 6-Chandrakant and PW 7- Suryakant.::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:38 :::difficult to jump to any conclusion or to draw an inference that accused Nos. 2 and 3 were intending to cause death of PW 6-Chandrakant or PW 7-Suryakant.What could be gathered from the circumstances which have come on record is the fact that their intention was to cause hurt to PW 6-Chandrakant and PW 7 Suryakant so that they should be alarmed of the consequences if they again enter into dispute with the accused.66) As I have elaborately discussed herein before, even accused No.1-Devraj cannot be said to be intending to commit murder of PW 6- Chandrakant or PW 7-Suryakant though he fired the bullets at them from the pistol in his hand.It can be surmised that at that particular moment, he was so infuriated that he fired the bullets at PW 6-Chandrakant and also on PW 7-Suryakant because he tried to intervene.Appeal 11/2016 said act an offence of murder if death had been caused by his said act.That is the reason that I have held accused No.1-Devraj guilty for an offence under Section 307 of IPC in so far as assault made by him on PW 6-Chandrakant and for an offence under Section 326 of IPC in relation to the assault made by him on PW 7-Suryakant.Both these accused were sharing the common intention with accused No.1-Devraj only to the extent of causing some sort of hurt to PW 6-Chandrakant and PW 7 Suryakant so as to caution them that they shall not take any friction with them.In the circumstances, both these accused can, at the most, be held guilty for an offence of abatement to cause hurt.::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:38 :::67) In the case of Babusingh and Ors.State of Haryana - 1995 Cri.L.J. 2630 (SC), four appellants were tried for the offence under Section 307 read with 34 of IPC and other ancillary offence.The trial court convicted all ::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:38 ::: 58 Cri.Appeal 11/2016 of them under Section 324 read with 34 of IPC for having caused injuries to the victims in the said case.On appeal by the State, the Punjab and Haryana High Court convicted all the four accused under Section 307 read with 34 of IPC.On joint special leave petition to the Hon'ble Apex court, Leelasingh, one of the accused, who was also convicted for the offence under Section 307 of IPC, was declined leave whereas the other appellants were granted lave to appeal and ultimately the Hon'ble Apex court altered their conviction to offence under Section 324 read 34 of IPC, by observing that common intention to commit murderous assault could not have been attributed to all the accused other than one, who caused injury from which murderous assault could be spelt out.The Hon'ble Apex court further held that common intention only to commit lesser offence, i.e. one under section 324 of IPC was liable to be attributed on part of other accused.In the instant matter also, accused Nos.2 and 3 can be attributed common intention only to commit ::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:38 ::: 59 Cri.Appeal 11/2016 lesser offence, i.e. for abatement of the offence of causing grievous hurt under section 326 of IPC.::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:38 :::In the instant matter also, accused Nos.2 and 3::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:38 :::In the said case, the facts were thus: Three accused persons armed with a stick and two knives had rushed from their house to attack their opponents, one of the accused gave a knife blow to one of the victims, which caused a deep punctured wound in his chest and as soon as the victim shouted that he was killed, the accused persons ran away and the attack did not continue after that serious injury was inflicted.In premise of such facts, the Division Bench observed that, when the accused persons armed with deadly weapons started from their house to attack their opponents, it must be held that, their common intention was to cause grievous ::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:38 ::: 60 Cri.Appeal 11/2016 hurt.One of them exceeded the common intention and inflicted the fatal injury on one of the victims.The Division Bench, therefore, convicted the accused, who inflicted a knife blow and caused deep punctured wound to one of the victim, under Section 307 of IPC for attempted murder and all the three accused including the accused who inflicted the knife blow, under Section 326 read with 34 of IPC for causing grievous hurt.::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:38 :::69) In the instant case also all the three accused were sharing common intention to cause grievous hurt to PW-6 Chandrakant and PW-7 Suryakant, but accused no.1 Devraj exceeded the common intention and fired a bullet shot in the chest of PW-6 Chandrakant.As such though accused no.1 is held guilty for the offence under Section 307 of IPC, accused nos.2 and 3 can be held guilty only for the offence under Section 326 read with 34 of IPC.They are held guilty accordingly.::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:38 :::::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:38 :::Appeal 11/2016 Court be altered and be reduced to the period already undergone by the said accused.::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:38 :::71) For accused nos.2 and 3, the learned Senior Counsel had claimed clean acquittal.For these accused also, the similar alternative prayer was made that, in case, they are held guilty for the offence under Section 307 read with 34 of IPC or for any lesser offence, they may be sentenced for the period already undergone.The learned APP had further contended that, considering the serious nature of offence committed by the accused, they do not deserve to be shown any more leniency.According to the learned APP, punishment awarded by the trial ::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:38 ::: 63 Cri.Appeal 11/2016 Court was adequate and shall not be reduced any more.::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:38 :::73) Section 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure enlists the powers of the Appellate Court while hearing the appeals from the trial Court.In an appeal from conviction, if the conviction is maintained, the Appellate Court has the power to alter the nature or the extent, or the nature and extent, of the sentence.75) First I will consider the case of accused no.1 Devraj.The trial Court has convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC read with 34 of IPC and has ::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:38 ::: 64 Cri.Appeal 11/2016 sentenced him to suffer RI for 7 years with fine of Rs.15,000/-.For the reasons recorded above, I have held accused no.1 Devraj guilty for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC in so far as murderous assault made by him on PW-6 Chandrakant and for the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC in relation to assault made by him on PW-7 Suryakant causing him a grievous injury by a dangerous weapon.::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:38 :::Thus, initially he was in jail for the period of about 6 months.He was taken in custody after pronouncement of the Judgment by the trial Court i.e. 22nd December, 2015 and since then, he is behind the bars.It is not in dispute that, at the time of commission of the offence age of accused no.1 Devraj was 23 years.Undisputedly there are no criminal antecedents against him.It is further not in dispute that, he did not make the repeated assaults to ensure ::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:38 ::: 65 Cri.Appeal 11/2016 the death of PW-6 Chandrakant.It is also the matter of record that, he fired the bullet shot at PW-7 Suryakant on the non vital part of his body i.e. left knee and the Medical officer has candidly opined that, the injuries caused to PW-7 Suryakant were not fatal to his life.As noted by me earlier, the assault made by accused no.1 was not premeditated.There is reason to believe that, it happened at the spur of moment.::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:38 :::Considering the nature of offence committed by accused no.1 Devraj, it does not appear to me that, sentence of 5 years imprisonment would be in any way inadequate or disproportionate.He cannot be branded to be an anti-social element.He is not a habitual offender.In the circumstances, it does not appear to me that, his prolonged confinement is ::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:38 ::: 66 Cri.Appeal 11/2016 necessary.According to me, the five years imprisonment for him will be an adequate punishment for him.Of course, a balance can be struck by appropriately enhancing the amount of fine.::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:38 :::78) Offence under Section 326 read with 34 of IPC proved against accused no.1 is part of the same incident.In view of the fact that, he is being convicted under Section 307 of IPC, his conviction under Section 326 read with 34 is redundant.Even otherwise if any separate punishment is awarded, even then the sentences awarded for the two offences would run concurrently.79) Nextly, about the punishment to be imposed upon accused nos.2 and 3 for the offence punishable under Section 326 read with 34 of IPC.Accused no.2 Ashish was only 19 years old on the ::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:38 ::: 67 Cri.Appeal 11/2016 date of offence, whereas accused no.3 Balaji was of the age of around 38 years.It is contended on behalf of accused no.2, that considering his age and his future career, he may be sentenced for the period already undergone by him.Same request is made for accused no.3 Balaji on the ground that, he is the sole bread earner of his family.Admittedly, there are no criminal antecedents against both the accused and they are the first time offenders.::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:38 :::Accused nos.2 and 3 are behind the bars from the date of pronouncement of the Judgment.Considering the periods as aforesaid, it is evident that, both the accused have undergone the imprisonment for the period of more than 3 years.It appears to me that, for the offence committed by these accused, the imprisonment already undergone by these accused will be the adequate punishment.Here also the ::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:38 ::: 68 Cri.Appeal 11/2016 balance can be struck by imposing the adequate amount of fine, so that the said amount can be directed to be paid to the victims of the alleged occurrence.::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:38 :::In the result, the following order is passed.The conviction of accused nos.1 to 3 namely Devraj s/o.Vyankat Phad, Ashish s/o.Vyankat Phad and Balaji Ramrao Phad for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with 34 of IPC and the sentence awarded to them for the said offence is set aside.(i) Accused no.1 Devraj Vyankat Phad is convicted under Section 307 of IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 4 months.(ii) Accused no.1 Devraj Vyankat Phad is also convicted for the offence under Section 326 read with 34 of IPC and is sentenced to suffer the imprisonment of the period already undergone by him and to pay fine of Rs.15,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months.::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:38 :::::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:38 :::and Accused no.3 Balaji Ramrao Phad are convicted for the offence under Section 326 read with 34 of IPC and are sentenced to suffer imprisonment of the period already undergone by them and to pay fine of Rs.25,000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months.(iv) The conviction of accused nos.1 to 3 namely Devraj s/o.Vyankat Phad, Ashish s/o.Vyankat Phad and Balaji Ramrao Phad for the offence punishable under Section 323 read with 34 of IPC and the sentence awarded therefor is maintained.(v) The sentences imposed upon accused nos.1 to 3 namely Devraj s/o.Vyankat Phad, Ashish s/o.Vyankat Phad and Balaji Ramrao Phad shall run concurrently.(vi) The accused are entitled for the set off under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the period which they had remained behind the bars as under trial prisoners.Vyankat Phad and Accused no.3 Balaji Ramrao Phad, they shall be released ::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:38 ::: 70 Cri.Appeal 11/2016 if not required in any other case or crime.::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:38 :::(viii) If the fine amount is deposited by the accused, a sum of Rs.60,000/- out of the same shall be paid to PW-6 Chandrakant Bamaji Phad and Rs.30,000/- shall be paid to PW-7 Suryakant Baburao @ Ramrao Phad by way of compensation as per the provisions under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The impugned Judgment and order, thus, stands modified to the aforesaid extent and the Criminal Appeal stands partly allowed in the aforesaid terms.(P.R. BORA) JUDGE BDV/GGP::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:38 :::::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2018 01:34:38 :::
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
130,382,793 |
-: 2:- Misc.his Tractor near the electric line.In the year 1995 the Contractor Satyanarayan had installed the electric line and his work was supervised by the then Assistant Engineer - applicant Maganlal.[2] Brief facts of this case are that on 12.05.2012 at about 5.00 PM deceased Kanji and injured Dinesh and Sukharam were unloading the fertilizers from the Trallor in the filed of Virag Mishra.During that operation they came in contact with 33 KV electric line.Due to electrocution deceased Kanji has been died; whereas Dinesh and Sukharam were seriously injured.Police Station Badnagar has registered a Merg and during inquiry it was found that the Tractor driver Mukesh has negligently takenAs per rules the distance between 2 polls should be 120 meters and hight of the line should be 20 feet; whereas it was 157 meters and 10.5 feet.On the basis of the inquiry report, Crime No.229/2012 has been registered at Police Station Badnagar for the offences under Sections 337 and 304-A of IPC.After investigation, final report has been filed against the Tractor driver Mukesh; Contractor - Satyanarayan and the then Assistant Engineer - Maganlal Gupta (applicant herein).Considering the material on record, learned ACJM vide order dated 25.08.2015 explained the particulars of offences under Sections 304-A and 338 (on 2 counts) of IPC.Against this order, the applicant has filed the revision.Learned ASJ vide order dated 17.11.2015 dismissed the revision holding that there is ample material against the applicant and the documents filed by the applicant cannot be considered at the stage of charge.Being aggrieved, the applicant has filed this petition.In such circumstances the prosecution against the present applicant be quashed.-: 4:- Misc.additional evidence of his acquittal would have to be allowed, but since that is not the criteria, we have to determine whether the appellant's act in giving only one batch number to all the four lots manufactured on 12.11.1962 in preparing Batch No.211105 was the cause of deaths and whether those deaths were direct consequence of the appellants' act, that is, whether the appellants' act is the direct result of a rash and negligent act and that act was the proximate and efficient cause without the intervention of another's negligence."[7] Keeping in view the above principle, I have examined the evidence which is filed along with the final report.The Station House Officer, Police Station Badnagar has made some queries to Madhya Pradesh Paschim Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Company Ltd. They have replied the letter, which is as under :-
|
['Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
130,387,256 |
Case Diary is perused.Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.This is the first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C for grant of bail.In the statement she has not taken the name of Bundel Singh, the present applicant.Even after being declared hostile, she has denied that Bundel Singh was present at the time of incident.Learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and prays for its rejection.Looking to the facts without expressing any opinion of the case, this application is allowed.The applicant be enlarged on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) alongwith two solvent sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court/committal court concerned, the applicant shall be released on bail, with a direction that he will remain present on each and every date of the trial before the trial court/committal court concerned and shall abide by all the terms and conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of Cr.P.C.His single non-appearance shall cancel his bail automatically by the trial court concerned, without any further order of this court.CC as per rules.(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE 2 MCRC-21248-2018 mani SUBASRI MANI 2018.07.06 17:33:27 +05'30'
|
['Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
11,573,580 |
Hence, they have comeforward with these quash petitions and to that effect these joint memo ofcompromise are filed.?If the compromise isentertained mechanically by the Court, the accused will have the upper hand.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."Taking note of the judgments referred to supra, considering thenature of allegations and in view of the separate joint memo of compromise,dated 13.03.2018, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose wouldbe served in keeping the matters pending.Therefore, the proceedings inC.C.No.50 of 2017 pending on the file of the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Manamadurai, and Crime No.274 of 2016 pending on the file of the Inspector of Police, Manamadurai Police Station, SivagangaiDistrict, in respect of the petitioners/accuseds herein in both petitions arehereby quashed.Accordingly, these Criminal Original Petitions are allowed.The above said two joint memo of compromise, dated 13.03.2018 shall form partof this order.PRAYER: Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code,to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings in C.C.No.50 of 2017 onthe file of the learned Additional District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate,Manamadurai.PRAYER: Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code,to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings in Crime No.274 of2016, on the file of the first respondent police and quash the same.Since, the petitioners in these two petitions are involved in the samecrime registered in different crime numbers in Crime Nos. 274 of 2016 and275 of 2016, i.e., case and case in counter, these two petitions are taken uptogether, heard and disposed of by way of common order.These petitions have been filed seeking to quash the Charge Sheetin C.C.No.50 of 2017 which was arose in Crime No.275 of 2016, on the file ofthe learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Manamadurai and CrimeNo.274 of 2016 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Manamadurai PoliceStation, Sivagangai District.On the complaint lodged by the defacto complainants in bothcases, the first respondent police has registered two cases in Crime No.275of 2016, for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 506(ii)IPC., and Section 4 of TNWH Act., against the petitioners inCrl.After filing charge sheet in Crime No.275 of2016, the same has been taken on file in C.C.No.50 of 2017 on the file of thelearned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Manamadurai.Now, forquashing the said C.C.No.50 of 2017 and Crime No.274 of 2016, the petitionersand the defacto complainants are before this Court on the ground that theyhave arrived at a compromise.Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, Mr.Ganesan,the Special Sub Inspector of Police, Manamadurai Police Station, SivagangaiDistrict, is present.The defacto complainants and the petitioners arepresent and their identifications were also verified by this Court, inaddition to the confirmation of the identity of the parties by the learnedGovernment Advocate (Criminal side) through Mr.In Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.406, 530 and 864 of 2016 (Prabu and othersvs.State Rep. By The Inspector of Police and others), decided on 28.01.2016,this Court considered the various decisions rendered by the Hon'ble SupremeCourt in this regard in several cases, namely, Gian Singh vs. State of Punjaband another [(2012) 10 SCC 303], B.S.Joshi vs. State of Haryana [(2003) 4 SCC675], Nikhil Merchant vs. CBI [(2008) 9 SCC 677], Narinder Singh and othersvs.At the instance of the learned counsel for the petitioner/s,the petitioner/s themselves voluntarily came forward to contribute someamount to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre attached to this Bench.Accepting the submission, the petitioners inCrl.O.P.(MD).No.4780 of 2018 are directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- each,(totally Rs.2000/-), and the petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.4729 of 2018 isdirected to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/-, to the Mediation and Conciliation Centreattached to this Bench, under the head of Infrastructure funds, within aperiod of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.Aftermaking payment, a copy of the challan shall be furnished to the Registrar(Administration), Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.Note to office:Registry is directed to mark a copy of this orderto the Registrar (Administration),Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.1.The District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Manamadurai.2.The Inspector of Police, Manamadurai Police Station, Sivagangai 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.
|
115,737,033 |
This is second application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of Cr.P.C for grant of bail, whereas his first bail application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 28.06.2017 in M.Cr.The applicant has been arrested in connection with crime No. 17/2017 registered at Police Station-Mayapur, District Shivpuri for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 323, 294, 506-B, 34 of IPC.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not committed any offence and he has falsely been implicated in the present matter.It was alleged that the applicant inflicted injury on the head of the deceased by Axe but as per MLC report no injury of sharp cutting weapon is found on the head of the deceased.In the statements of Vilas and Ghanshyam it was alleged that Indrabhan Singh caused injury on the head of the deceased Ramkumar by means of lathi and MLC report indicates that the deceased received hard and blunt injuries on his parietal region and only because of this injury he has died.Co-accused Indrabhan Singh has already been released on bail by this Court vide order dated 24.04.2017 passed in M.Cr.2 M.Cr.C. No. 9456/2017In these circumstances he prays for rejection of bail application.
|
['Section 302 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.
|
115,743,016 |
As per the prosecution case, prosecutrix is a 16 years and 11 months old minor girl.At about 10 p.m. on 16.04.2017, when she was returning to her home petitioners Lakshman and Anand and co-accused Ramkishore stopped her.They gagged her mouth with a Handkerchief and tied her hands.Thereafter, they took her to the roof of Lakshman Choudhary's house.They made her lie and thereafter started beating her.At that time, Lakshman's mother Jasoda came on the roof, slapped her twice or thrice and thereafter let her go.If Jasoda had not come on the roof the petitioners would have raped her.Thereafter, the prosecutrix returned home.Next day, she went to Niwar to visit her paternal Aunt (Bua).On 17.04.2017, her mother reached that place.After that, the prosecutrix went to Katni Railway Station and stayed there till 05.05.2017, whereafter she returned home.Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the application mainly on the ground that the statement made before the trial Court cannot be evaluated for the purpose of granting bail.Moreover, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case in their entirety, particularly the facts as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, in the opinion of this Court, petitioners deserve to be released on bail.Consequently, this first for bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the petitioners Lakshman and Anand Kumar, is allowed.It is directed that the petitioners shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 40,000/- with one solvent surety in the same amount each to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance before that Court on all dates fixed in the case and for complying with the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.(C V SIRPURKAR) JUDGE
|
['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
115,745,410 |
As per the prosecution case, the prosecutrix is 14 years 5 C months old minor girl.On 27.01.2017, she was going along h with her sister Geeta to school.At about 01:00 p.m., ig petitioner Annu and co-accused persons Khilli and Mandu H started to tease the sisters whereon they returned home.At about 04:30 p.m. the same evening, aforesaid three accused persons entered her house forcibly after opening the door and had tried to tease her.When the prosecutrix raised alarm, Pankaj and Sunder Shrivastava arrived, whereon the accused persons ran away.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the incident is rather trivial in nature and the petitioner has been in custody since 28.10.2017; therefore, it has been prayed that the petitioner be released on bail.a Consequently, this first application for bail under Section 439 hy of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of petitioner ad Annu Sen @ Nannu, is allowed.It is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail on M furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 40,000/- with of one solvent surety in the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before that Court on all rt dates fixed in the case and for complying with the conditions ou enumerated under Section 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal C Procedure.h Certified copy as per rules.ig H (C V SIRPURKAR) JUDGE Digitally signed by BIJU BABY b Date: 2017.11.23 21:06:15
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,157,492 |
Nine persons namely (1) Hanmant Hariba Sonwalkar (2) Jagannath Dagadu Kharat (3) Sahebrao Dagadu Kharat (4) Mohan Dagadu Kharat (5) Sou.Radhabai Jagannath Kharat (6) Sou.Suman Sahebrao Kharat (7) Sou.In short, the prosecution case runs as under:-The accused Dagadu Kharat is the father of the accused Jagannath Kharat, Sahebrao Kharat and Mohan Kharat and father-in-law of Sou.Radhabai Kharat, Sou.Suman Kharat and Sou.The accused Hanmant Sonwalkar and Dattu Sonwalkar are his grandsons.The said accused persons on the one hand, the deceased Shivaji, his wife Phulabai P.W. 7, his nephew Dada Kharat P.W. 5, his nephew Vithal Kharat P.W. 6 and Namdeo Shelke P.W. 4 lived in the immediate proximity of one another, in village Nimbodi, Taluka Khandala, District Satara.There was enmity between Shivaji and the accused because, water from the bath room of the accused, used to flow towards the wall of Shivaji and cattle of the accused used to dig its foundations.On 10.9.1993, at about 7 p.m. the accused called Shivaji to their house.He went into their courtyard.At that time, Shivaji's wife Phulabai P.W. 7, his nephews Dadu Kharat P.W. 5 and Vithal Kharat P.W. 6 and Namdeo Shelke P.W. 4 heard commotion.They went to the house of the accused and saw that an exchange of hot words between the accused Dagadu Kharat and Shivaji was taking place.Vithal tried to separate Shivaji and Dagadu Kharat.In the meantime, the accused Hanmant Sonwalkar inflicted an axe blow on the neck of Shivaji as a consequence of which, he fell down.Accused Jagannath, Sahebrao Mohan, Sou.Radhabai, Sou.Suman, Sou.Sindhu Dagadu and Dattu who were also there assaulted Dada Kharat, Vithal Kharat and Phulabai with sticks.Some of them also abused them and hurled stones towards them.After assaulting them, the accused persons ran away.Evidence of Dada Kharat P.W. 5 (the informant) shows that thereafter, he went to Vithal Shelke and got his Bajaj-M-80 on the same, he and Vithal went to their family doctor Dr. Adsul in Lonand who, advised them to approach the Government Dispensary.They proceeded there.At the Government Dispensary, they learnt that Shivaji had also come there but was taken to Dr. Shivde.Thereafter, they went to Dr. Shivde who informed them that Shivaji had been sent to Pune.Then, they returned to Lonand.The FIR of the incident was lodged by Dada Kharat P.W. 5 at 10.30 p.m. same day at Police Station, Lonand.Evidence of ASI Balasaheb Gaikwad shows that the same night, at 11.15 p.m., accused Jagannath lodged an FIR at the said police station against the informant Dada Kharat, the deceased Shivaji, Vithal Kharat and Dayaram alleging therein that the said persons had entered his house and assaulted him, Sahebrao, Mohan and Dagadu with sticks and axe.On the basis of Jagannath's FIR, ASI Gaikwad registered readC.R. No. 73 of 1993 under Sections 147, 148, 452, 324 and 323 of the I.P.C. with Section 149 of the I.P.C.The injuries of both the sides were examined the same night by Dr. Subhash Doshi P.W. 9 Primary Health Centre, Lonand.In his cross-examination, he stated that the injuries No. 1 to 3 were possible by a fall.During the course of it, on the pointing out of some of the accused persons, he recovered weapons in the presence of public panchas under panchanamas.Sindhu Mohan Kharat (8) Dagadu Krishna Kharat and (9) Dattu Hariba Sonwalkar, were tried by the Sessions Judge, Satara for offences punishable under Sections 148, 302 read with 149 of the I.P.C., 325 read with 149 of the I.P.C. 324 read with 149 of the I.P.C. and 323 read with 149 of the IPC.(i) Hanmant Hariba Sonwalkar was tried for the offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C.;(ii) Jagannath Dagadu Kharat was tried for offence under Section 325 of the I.P.C.;(iii) Sahebrao Dagadu Kharat and Mohan Dagadu Kharat were tried for the offence under Section 324 of the I.P.C. (for causing hurt to Dada Raghu Kharat);(iv) Sou.Suman Sahebrao Kharat was tried for offence under Section 324 of the I.P.C.; and(v) Sou.Radhabai Jagannath Kharat, Sou.Sindhu Mohan Kharat, Dagadu Krishna Kharat and Dattu Hariba Sonwalkar, were tried for offence punishable under Section 323 of the IPC.The learned trial Judge convicted Hanmant Hariba Sonwalkar for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and one year R.I. in default, for the same.He however, acquitted other accused persons.Criminal Appeal No. 34 of 1995 has been preferred by Hanmant Hariba Sonwalkar against his aforesaid conviction and sentence.Criminal Appeal No. 173 of 1995 has been preferred by the State of Maharashtra against the acquittal of eight others who were tried with Hanmant Hariba Sonwalkar.Dada Kharat was examined at 8 p.m. and was found to have suffered the following injuries:-(1) C.L.W. 1.2" x 2" on the back of the top of scalp.Bleeding was present, wound was bone deep.(ii) Oblique C.L.W. 1" x 0.2" bone deep, on the left side of the top of scalp.The two injuries are separated by a distance of about 4 inches.(iii) Oblique contusion about 2" right to the midline of the back of the chest, about 6" x 1" near the outer margin of the right shoulder blade.(iv) Horizontal contusion 5" x 1" on the left side of the back of the chest.(v) Oblique contusion 2.4" x 1" on the outer side of the upper aspect of the left upper arm.(vi) Vague contusion on the back of the left forearm 3" x 1.5".Vithal Kharat was examined at 8.15 p.m. and was found to have sustained the following injuries:-(i) One deformed left elbow joint which is swollen, marked tenderness was present.Clinically suspected supra condylar fracture of the left numerous.(ii) Vague contusion on the back of the middle of the right forearm about 2" x 1" in size.In the opinion of Dr. Doshi, injuries of Dada Kharat and Vithal Kharat were due to a hard and blunt object.Shivaji Kharat was examined at 7.45 p.m. and was found to have sustained one incised cut injury/oblique in nature, on the right side of the neck.The accused Dagdu Kharat, Sahebrao Kharat and Mohan Kharat were medically examined the same night between 11.30 p.m. and 11.45 p.m. On the person of Dagadu Kharat, the following injuries were found:-(i) Faint horizontal contusion 2" x 1" across the left side of the back of the chest.(ii) Superficial abrasion 2" x 2" on the lower aspect of right knee.On the person of Sahebrao Kharat, the following injuries were found:-(i) Superficial abrasion 2" x 1.5" area on the front of left knee cap.(ii) Faint/contusion 5" x 1" across the right shoulder blade region.(iii) Scattered superficial abrasion on the right knee cap region.In the opinion of Dr. Doshi, the injuries of Dagadu and Sahebrao Kharat were attributable to a hard and blunt object.On the person of Mohan Kharat, an incised superficial cut injury 0.5" x 0.2" below the left elbow was found which in the opinion of Dr. Doshi was attributable to a light and sharp cutting object.Jagannath Kharat was medically examined at 7.15 p.m. on 11.9.1993 and was found to have suffered the following injuries:-(i) Abrasion with contusion 1" x 0.8" outside right eye.(ii) Abrasion 0.4" x 0.3" on the back of the left ear pinna.(iii) Oblique contusion 3.5" x 1.2" on the outer side of the left shoulder.In the opinion of Dr. Soshi, they were attributable to a hard and blunt object.In the opinion of Dr. Doshi, the injuries of all the seven victims could have been caused at the time of the incident.Evidence is that same night, Shivaji succumbed to his injuries.The autopsy on his corpse was conducted on 11.9.1993, between 11.20 a.m. and 12.30 p.m., by Dr. Syed Sami P.W. 10 who found on it the following ante-mortem injuries:-(i) Abrasion 1 cm.x 1/2 cm.over right big toe.(ii) Contused abrasion 11/2 cm.x 1 cm.over left forehead, just above left eye brow medically.(iii) Small abrasions over left forehead.(iv) Incised wound 15 cms.x 4 cms.over left side neck posterio-laterally, bone deep.(v) Incised wound, 10 cms.x 2 cms.over right side neck, laterally oblique in direction and muscle deep.On internal examination, Dr. Sami found dislocation of third and fourth cervical vertebrae and spinal cord to be partly cut.In the opinion of Dr. Sami the deceased died due to shock and haemorrhage on account of fracture of cervicle spine.He also opined that injury No. 4 was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and fracture of cervicle vertebrae and cutting of spine was on account of it.It is significant to point out that he proved the panchanama of the scene of the offence, a perusal of which shows that blood was found in the house of the accused persons.After completing the investigation, PSI Pathare submitted the charge-sheet against the accused persons.The case was committed to the Court of Sessions in the usual manner where the accused persons were charged on a number of counts, including Section 302 read with Section 149 of the I.P.C. They pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried.During the trial, in all the prosecution examined 13 witnesses.Four out of them, Namdeo Shelke, Dada Kharat, Vithal Kharat and Phulabai Kharat, P.W.s 4, 5, 6 and 7 respectively were examined as eye -witnesses.The defence case suggested to the eye-witnesses in their cross-examination, was that on the date and time alleged by the prosecution, Dada Kharat P.W. 5, Vithal Kharat P.W. 6, the deceased Shivaji and Dayaram armed with axes and sticks entered inside the house of the accused persons; disturbed the utensils with sticks, dragged out Dagadu Kharat.started assaulting Dagadu Kharat; and also assaulted Jagannath Kharat, Sahebrao Kharat and Mohan Kharat who reached hearing the shouts of Dagadu.It was suggested to the eye-witnesses on behalf of the defence that the deceased Shivaji was injured by the axe of Vithal.However, the said defence suggestion was denied by the eye-witnesses.The learned trial Judge believed the evidence vis-a-vis the accused Hanmant Sonwalkar and convicted and sentenced him in the manner stated in para 2, above.He however, acquitted eight accused persons who were tried along with him.Hence, these appeals.We have also perused the entire material on record.After the gravest circumspection, we have reached the conclusion that Criminal Appeal No. 34 of 1995 deserves to be partly allowed and Criminal Appeal No. 173 of 1995 warrants to be dismissed.In the instant case the controversy lies in a very narrow ambit.The date, time and place are admitted to the prosecution.The dispute is about the manner in which the incident took place and whether the right of private defence was available to the accused persons.Four eye-witnesses of the incident namely Namdeo Shelke, Dada Kharat, Vithal Kharat and Phulabai Kharat, P.W Section 4, 5, 6 and 7 respectively have admitted that the incident took place on the date and time alleged by the prosecution and also the placed alleged by it namely inside the house of the accused persons.The manner in which, it took place according to them, has been detailed by us, in para 3 above, wherein the prosecution story has been set out on the basis of the recitals contained in their examination-in-chief.Their evidence shows that on 10.9.1993, at about 7 p.m. they heard the cries of Shivaji coming from the house of the accused persons.On the said cries, they reached his house.They saw that an exchange of abuses was going on between Shivaji and Dagadu Kharat.Vithal Kharat P.W. 6 tried to separate them.In the meantime, the accused persons reached there.Hanmant Sonwalkar who had an axe inflicted a blow with the same on the neck of Shivaji resulting in his falling down.Others inflected blows with sticks on the person of Dada Kharat, Vithal Kharat and Phulabai Kharat.Some of them also hurled stones.The version of the four eye-witnesses in respect of assault on Dada Kharat and Vithal Kharat and the deceased Shivaji is corroborated by the medical evidence which we have referred to earlier.Their claim that the incident took place inside the house of the accused persons, is corroborated by the circumstance that from there, the Investigating Officer recovered blood.The question is whether the incident took place in the manner alleged by the four eye-witnesses or they are suppressing the genesis.We are constrained to observe that they are not furnishing the true story in respect of the incident and are concealing their aggression.As we have mentioned earlier, four of the accused persons namely Dagadu Kharat, Jagannath Kharat, Sahebrao Kharat and Mohan Kharat sustained injuries.Excepting Jagannath Kharat, who was medically examined at 7.15 p.m. on 11.9.1993, others were medically examined the same night between 11.15 p.m. and 11.30 p.m. i.e. within 4 1/2 hours of the incident taking place.During the course of the cross - examination of the eye-witnesses, it was suggested to them that on the date and time alleged by the prosecution.Dada Kharat P.W. 5, Vithal Kharat P.W. 6, the deceased Shivaji and Dayaram armed with axes and sticks entered inside the house of the accused persons, disturbed the utensils with sticks, dragged out Dagadu Kharat, started assaulting Dagadu Kharat and also assaulted Jagannath Kharat, Sahebrao Kharat and Mohan Kharat who, reached hearing the shouts of Dagadu.It was suggested to the eye-witnesses on behalf of the defence that the deceased Shivaji was injured by the axe of Vithal.However, the said defence suggestions were denied by the eye-witnesses.But, the question whether the injuries are minor or superficial is a question of fact and not one of law.In the instant case, we have earlier set out the injuries suffered by the accused persons.We find that three of the injured namely Dagadu, Sahebrao and Mohan were medically examined within 4 1/2 hours of the incident and Jagannath Kharat was medically examined the next day.Why he was examined next day, is for the prosecution to explain because, ASI Balasaheb Gaikwad P.W. 11 who on the night of the incident, at 1 1.15 p.m. registered a case on the basis of Jagannath's FIR in his cross-examination admitted that he was referred to the Medical Officer immediately after lodging the FIR.(i) Injury No. 1 of Dagadu which was a contusion 2" x 1" across the left side of the back of the chest;(ii) Injury No. 2 of Sahebrao which was a contusion 5" x 1" across the right shoulder region; and(iii) Injury No. 3 of Jagannath which was a contusion 3.5" x 1.2" on the outer side of left shoulder.The circumstance that these injuries were examined promptly and are backed up by the counter - FIR which was lodged within 4 hours of the incident i.e. at 11.15 p.m. the same day by accused Jagannath shows that they are not manufactured.At any rate, on suggestion was put to the doctor of these injuries being manufactured.To repeat, in our view, the injuries sustained by the four accused persons are not superficial and are not explained by the prosecution.Their injuries coupled with the circumstance that the Investigating Officer has admitted in his cross-examination that the utensils in the house of the accused were lying scattered shows that there is a fair amount of substance in the defence suggestion put to the eye-witnesses.The evidence shows that it was Hanmant Sonwalkar who inflected fatal axe injury on the deceased Shivaji.Accused other than him acted within the four corners of their right of private defence in causing abrasions to the deceased which had no nexus with his death and injuries to Dada Kharat and Vithal Kharat.(See Para 8 of State of Bihar v. Nathu Pandey and Ors. .The only question which remains is the quantum of sentence to be awarded to the appellant Hanmant Sonwalkar for the offence under Section 304(1) of the I.P.C. We have reflected over it.In our view, a sentence of seven years R.I. coupled with a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default one years R.I., would meet the ends of justice.In the result:-(A) Criminal Appeal No. 34 of 1995 is partly allowed.Although we acquit the appellant Hanmant Hariba Sonwalkar for the offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and set aside his conviction and sentence thereunder but, we find him guilty for the offence under Section 304(1) of the I.P.C. and sentence him to undergo seven years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/in default to undergo one year R.I.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
115,759,017 |
At this stage, we deem it appropriate to examine the testimonies of three most important witnesses in this regard, i.e., PW1 (the victim), PW10 (sister of the victim), PW4 (mother of the victim), PW5 (father of the victim) and PW6 (Dr. Rashmi).PW1, the victim, aged about 15 years at the time of deposition in Court testified that she cannot tell about the date and month of the incident and deposed that the incident probably took place in the year 2010, when she was studying in 6th standard and was residing with Crl.L.P.474/2017 Page 5 of 20 her parents.PW1 further deposed that when she was about 6-7 months of age, she was adopted by the respondent (maternal uncle) duly identified by her in Court.But, when a child was born to him, the respondent and his wife started beating her and finally she came to the house of her parents and started living with them.PW1 was of 14 years of age at the time she returned to her parental home.It was further deposed by PW1 that the incident took place on Sunday and Rohit, who is the son of the respondent had come to her house and told her mother that his mother had gone to the village, as some death had taken place.Rohit asked her mother to send PW1 to his house.So that, she might clean the house and cook for them.At around 11:00 PM, the respondent came to his house.All the three persons had dinner together.Thereafter, they went off to sleep.It was further deposed by PW1 that on the night of the incident, the respondent slept with his son Rohit on a bed and she slept on a cot.At about 1.00 am in the night, the respondent came to her cot and tried to put off her salwar.She woke up and resisted his attempt but the respondent put a towel on her mouth and pressed it with his hands which made her unconscious.Thereafter, she did not know what happened with her.She woke up at 6.00 am, the next day and the respondent asked her to prepare tea.PW1 however told that she was going her house and left.On reaching home, the mother of PW1 asked her as to why her eyes were swollen.PW1 did not inform anything to her mother.Thereafter, her mother had left for her duty and her father also left for his shop.She made a call to her elder sister at about 9.00 am and told about the incident.Her sister called her father and narrated the entire incident and at about Crl.L.P.474/2017 Page 6 of 20 10:00/10.30 am, her father came back and made enquiries from the victim about the incident however, she could not tell the same as the respondent had accompanied her father.She got frightened and became unconscious and regained her consciousness after about 2-3 hours when a doctor was called.L.P.474/2017 Page 5 of 20L.P.474/2017 Page 6 of 20When PW1 regain her consciousness, she found her entire family there and in front of her family, she narrated about the incident.The respondent was called by her family members.The respondent came there, but did not say anything.Thereafter, the family members called the wife of the respondent.Next day, the respondent along with his wife was again called by her parents but he did not come.PW1 further deposed that the respondent tendered an apology for his conduct when he was called in the evening of the previous day.PW1 further deposed that she came to know about galat kaam being done by the respondent after she felt pain.PW1 again deposed that at the time she felt pain, the respondent had inserted his male organ into her urinal organ and thereafter, she became unconscious.It was further deposed by PW1 that the police was informed about the incident after 10-15 days of the incident as all the relatives told her parents not to report the matter to the police, as it was the matter of reputation of her family.The statement of the victim was recorded by the police and the same was proved by her as Ex.PW1/A. She also proved her statement recorded by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate as Ex.PW1/B. It was also deposed by PW1 that she got married on 17.09.2010 and had gone to her matrimonial home only once alongwith her sister who had also married in the same family.PW1 deposed that she did not have any Crl.L.P.474/2017 Page 7 of 20 physical relation with her husband.L.P.474/2017 Page 7 of 20In her cross-examination, PW1 categorically stated that she was living in the house of the respondent when she was of six months of age and stayed there till she attained 14 years.She categorically stated that the respondent never committed any such wrong during the said period.PW1 admitted that the respondent came at 9.00 PM and at that time; PW1 and Rohit were talking to the wife of the respondent (mami) on telephone.PW1 had gone to the Police Station 5-6 times where her statement Ex.PW1/A was recorded.PW1 also stated that she forgot to mention in her statement Ex.PW1/A that the respondent had come at 9.00 PM and left after taking tea.PW1 further stated that she had tried to raise alarm when the respondent started misbehaving with her.It was further stated that neither had she pushed the respondent nor she had tried to escape.It was voluntarily stated by PW1 that she tried to escape but the respondent had kept cloth on her mouth which made her unconscious.After she was unconscious, she was not aware as to what had happened with her.She regained her consciousness at 6.00 in the morning and had left for home at about 9.30 AM.PW1 admitted that she had refused her medical examination but, denied the suggestion that she had refused the same for the reason that no such incident had taken place.L.P.474/2017 Page 8 of 20It is also relevant to examine the testimony of the sister of the victim (PW10) as she was the first person to whom the victim had disclosed about the said incident.She advised her sister to inform their parents; however, PW10 called her father and narrated the same to him.PW10 further stated that her sister was not treated well by the wife of the respondent and made complaints to her several times.The parents of PW10 had gone to bring the victim to their house but the respondent and his wife did not allow them to bring the victim.On 23.05.2011 at about 10:30 AM, she received a call from the victim and thereafter, Crl.L.P.474/2017 Page 9 of 20 she reached her parental home at about 1:00/1:30 PM.The victim was not taken to any hospital by PW10 and the victim did not make any call to the police in her presence on the fateful day.L.P.474/2017 Page 9 of 20PW4 (the mother of the victim) deposed that the victim is her younger daughter, aged about 15 years.When she was 6-7 months of age, she was given to her brother i.e. the respondent herein, as he was not having any child at that time.The respondent was living in her neighbourhood at that time.The respondent got admitted the victim in school and mentioned him as the father of the victim.It was further deposed by PW4 that the respondent and his wife started giving beatings to the victim thus; she did not want to live with the respondent.The victim was residing with her about 6-7 months prior to the incident.The victim had returned on the next morning at about 9.00 am.At that time, PW4 left for her duty but the victim did not tell anything prior to her leaving for duty.At about 11.00 am, her husband came to the factory and told her that the victim was not well and she was unconscious.Thereafter, she came back to her home after taking leave from the factory.The elder daughter of PW4 had also arrived in her house and told her that the victim had called her and narrated the incident of rape committed upon her by the respondent.Since all her relatives were living nearby, they had received the information about the offence and advised to lodge a complaint about the incident.On 07.06.2011, her husband called the police by way of dialing 100 number.In her cross- examination, PW4 admitted that the victim started residing with her Crl.L.P.474/2017 Page 10 of 20 6-7 months prior to the date of incident; that the victim was adopted by the respondent when she was 6-7 months of age.PW4 again stated that her daughter was 8 month old at the time of her adoption.L.P.474/2017 Page 10 of 20PW 4 further stated that she did not remember the exact date when her daughter had started living with her.However, she stated that it was about three years prior to her deposition in Court.Thereafter, the victim did not visit the house of the respondent.PW4 again stated that she had visited the house of the respondent only once post her marriage.It was also admitted by PW4 that in the month of December, 2009 her family members had sold the piece of land in her village Dabi near Patiala and she had also executed the relevant documents.However, PW4 stated that she did not receive money on account of the sale of that land and she had been given only travelling expenses for the same.PW4 denied the suggestion that the respondent had offered her money on account of the sale of that land, to which she had refused.PW4 categorically stated that she did not make any enquiry from the respondent or his wife regarding the incident in question.PW4 also stated that she had not taken the victim to the hospital for her medical examination.L.P.474/2017 Page 11 of 2020. PW5 (father of the victim) deposed on similar lines as deposed by his wife with respect to the age of the victim and the fact that she was given to the respondent when she was 6-7 months of age.He deposed that the respondent was living in his neighbourhood.The victim had started living with them 6-7 months prior to the incident.On 07.05.2011, the son of the respondent namely Rohit came to his house and requested to send the victim to his house as his mother had gone to pay condolences to some relation.His daughter returned on 08.05.2011 at 9.00 am.At that time he had already left for his duty.At about 10.30 am, his other daughter PW10 informed him about the incident whereupon he came back to his house immediately and found the victim in semi-conscious state.In the meantime, her elder daughter had reached to his home and informed the incident of rape committed upon the victim by the respondent.The examination-in-chief of PW1 can be summarized as under:i) The victim first deposed that the respondent tried to put off her salwar and when she woke up and resisted, the respondent put a Crl.ii) It is difficult to believe that on reaching home, the next day at 9.00 AM, the victim did not disclose anything to her mother and father but had called her married sister who in turn informed the father of the victim;iii) As per the testimony of victim, she gain consciousness at 6.00 AM on the next day but returned her parental home at about 09.00 AM, there is no explanation as to why she had reached after a delay of 3 hour, more particularly, when the respondent was residing in their neighbourhood shows a conduct which is against the natural behavior of the human being;iv) The victim was married and had recently visited her matrimonial home.The victim made following improvements in her cross-examination which read as under:i) The victim stated that in her statement to the police, Ex.PW1/A, she forgot to mention that on the fateful day, the respondent came at 9.00 PM and after having tea, he left after taking tea;PW5 further improved his version that her elder daughter (PW10) had first informed to her mother-in- law and mother-in-law in turn informed him on phone.The applications stand disposed of.L.P.474/2017 Page 1 of 20The present leave to appeal has been filed by the State under Section 378 (3) of the Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) against the impugned judgment dated 05.12.2015 passed by the learned Trial Court in Sessions Case No. 53/13 arising out of the FIR No. 162/2011 registered at Police Station Nangloi under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), by virtue of which the respondent has been acquitted.The case of the prosecution, as noticed by the Trial Court, is reproduced as under:Brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that the accused Ramphal is charge-sheeted by the police of PS Nangloi for the offence punishable U/S 376 of IPC, as the FIR in the case in hand has been registered on the basis of the statement of the prosecutrix 'N' (presumed name of prosecutrix.The real name of the prosecutrix is withheld to protect her identity).The prosecutrix has alleged in her statement recorded by the police on 08.06.2011 which is Ex.PW1/A that she is 14 years of age.She lives with her parents and studies in 6 th class.When, she was 6/7 months of age.The accused who is maternal uncle of the prosecutrix adopted her, as he was not having any child and when his son was born, then, the accused started beating to the prosecutrix and she started living in the house of her parents and further alleged that on 22.05.2011 at 4.00pm, Rohit i.e. son of her maternal uncle, (i.e accused) had come to the house of the prosecutrix and her mother had asked him the reason for weeping and master Rohit told that he has been beaten by the children and his mother had gone to the village to attend some condolence and Rohit asked to the prosecutrix to go the house of the accused for cooking the meal and also cleaning his house and the mother of the prosecutrix had send to the prosecutrix alongwith her sisters "P" and "B" who returned to their house, after leaving the prosecutrix in the house of the accused.She has further stated that the accused Crl.L.P.474/2017 Page 2 of 20 came to his house at 11.00pm.She prepared BHUJIA of eggs and took the dinner together and slept and at about 1.00/1.30am the accused started doing GALAT HARKAT with the prosecutrix and removed her SALWAR and when she resisted and cried, then, the accused put a cloth on her mouth and pressed the same.L.P.474/2017 Page 2 of 20On recording of such statement of the prosecutrix on dated 08.06.2011 the FIR no.162/11 was registered on dated 08.06.2011 and she was medically examined her the statement U/S 164 of Cr.On completion of the investigation the charge-sheet was filed U/S 376 of IPC and on finding of the prima- facie case, the charge U/S 376 of IPC was framed against the accused, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial."To bring home the guilt of the respondent, the prosecution examined as many as 19 witnesses.The statement of the respondent was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C whereby he stated that he was falsely implicated in the present case.The respondent had examined 2 witnesses in his defence.L.P.474/2017 Page 3 of 20 contradiction in her testimony.The testimony of victim is consistent and minor contradiction if any, cannot be a ground for acquittal of the respondent.She further submits that it has been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court of India that an order of conviction can be based on the sole testimony of a victim.L.P.474/2017 Page 3 of 20However, the Trial Court has erred in acquitting the respondent ignoring the MLC on the ground that as there was no opinion as to whether the tear was fresh or old and also the fact that the victim was married on the day of occurrence which could be the possible reason for the same.Thus, it was prayed by the counsel for the appellant that in the absence of the opinion of the Doctor as to whether the tear in hymen was fresh or old, the respondent could not be given the benefit of the same.Learned counsel for the State submits that the learned Trial Court has failed to examine the testimonies of material witnesses including mother, father and sister of the victim, in its correct perspective.Lastly, it is submitted that the victim was raped by none other than the maternal uncle and it was prayed that the strictest punishment be given to him.L.P.474/2017 Page 4 of 20We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions.Before dealing with the submissions made by Ms. Radhika Kolluru, we deem it appropriate to analyse the testimonies of some of the material witness including the victim (PW2), sister (PW10), mother (PW4) and father (PW5) of the victim.It was further deposed by PW5 that his relatives advised him to lodge the complaint about the incident.The brother of PW5 alongwith his wife had come to his house from Kurukshetra after about 12 days of the alleged incident.PW5 made a call at 100 number and informed the Police about the incident.Thereafter, police officials searched the respondent.In his cross examination, PW5 stated that he as well as the respondent run barber shops and there was about 25-30 Crl.L.P.474/2017 Page 12 of 20 shops in between their shops.The respondent had got the victim admitted in the school and also used to bear all the expenses of the victim.PW5 admitted that the victim had not told anything about the incident to him.PW5 stated that he is not aware about the contents of his statement recorded by the police.PW5 further stated that he had not enquired about the incident from the respondent.PW5 also stated that his elder daughter informed the present incident to her mother-in-law and her mother-in-law informed him on phone.L.P.474/2017 Page 12 of 20PW6 Dr. Rashmi had proved the MLC of the victim which was prepared by Dr. Asha.As per the MLC (Ex.PW6/A) the victim was examined on 07.06.2011 at 09.12 PM and there were no fresh external injuries on the body of the victim.Hymen was found to be ruptured.The victim had refused for her internal examination.With regard to the tear of hymen being fresh or old, there is no opinion and the counsel for the appellant was not given opportunity to cross-examine PW6 in the Trial Court.While doing so, the Supreme Court examined as to when the prosecutrix can be called to be a "sterling witness" as under:L.P.474/2017 Page 13 of 20In our considered opinion, the "sterling witness" should be of a very high quality and calibre whose version should, therefore, be unassailable.The court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation.The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross-examination of any length and howsoever strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should give room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as the sequence of it.Such a version should have co- relation with each and every one of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion.The said version should consistently match with the version of every other witness.It can even be stated that it should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him.Only if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all other such similar tests to be applied, can it be held that such a witness can be called as a "sterling witness" whose version can be accepted by the court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished.We deem it appropriate to reproduce the relevant findings of the learned Trial Court.The relevant para 43 and 44 of the impugned judgment reads as under:The Crl.The accused has examined Sh.Ram Kumar as DW1 and Sh.Om Parkash as DW2 and both these defence witnesses have deposed that the father of the prosecutrix had threatened to falsely implicate to the accused in view of dispute of the property and it is worthwhile to mention here that PW4 who is the mother of the prosecutrix, has admitted during her cross-examination that she and the accused had inherited the property from Smt. Omni and also stated that she had sold away her share in the property of Smt. Omni on dated 27.07.2012 i.e. during the pendency of the present case.Thus, the dispute of property between the accused and mother of the prosecutrix is admitted fact and the mother of the prosecutrix has admittedly sold away her share in the property of Smt. Omni during the period of incarceration of the respondent in the present case.L.P.474/2017 Page 16 of 20 towel on her mouth and pressed it with hands which made her unconscious.However, in the second version the victim deposed that she came to know about galat kaam being done upon her after she felt pain on insertion of male organ by the respondent into her urinal organ which made her unconscious;L.P.474/2017 Page 16 of 20ii) PW1 tried to raise alarm when the respondent started misbehaving with her; however, she did not try to push the respondent or even tried to escape from the house of the respondent.L.P.474/2017 Page 17 of 20On careful reading of the testimony of PW1, we are of the view that the testimony of the victim is not believable and also contradicts with the other evidence adduced by the prosecution.It is noteworthy to mention that there is no evidence with regard to the misbehaviour of the respondent during the period, the victim stayed at the house of the respondent.It clearly shows that the respondent treated her like a daughter and paid for all her expenses including school fee.In this background, solely relying upon the testimony of the victim will be a dangerous proposition correctly repelled by the Trial Court.Even the testimony of PW10 (sister of the victim) is not reliable.As it has emerged in her cross-examination that the victim was adopted by the respondent when she was of six months old and was resided with the respondent even on the day of occurrence.PW10 also stated that her sister had never gone to her matrimonial house since her gauna has not been performed yet.From the evidence extracted above, the victim was married in the same family where her elder sister was already married and if we believe the testimony of PW10, the victim had never visited her matrimonial home.In this background, we find the testimony of PW10 not reliable as all the other prosecution witnesses deposed in one voice that the victim had returned to her parental home 6-7 months prior to the date of the incident and had visited the matrimonial home.After reading the testimony of PW4 (mother of the victim), the respondent got admitted the victim in school and mentioned him as the father of the victim.In her cross-examination, PW4 stated that she did not remember as to when her daughter had started living with them but Crl.L.P.474/2017 Page 18 of 20 again stated that it was about three years prior to her deposition in Trial Court.L.P.474/2017 Page 18 of 20On reading the evidence of PW5 (father of the victim), it is clear that the respondent got her admitted in school and always paid all her expenses.As per his testimony, the incident took place on the night of 7-8.05.2011 and his daughter had returned on 08.05.2011 at 09.00 AM.The present leave petition is dismissed.
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,157,614 |
The basic allegation against the petitioner No. 1 being that he is the Chairman of the Trust and that he is alleged to have purchased a property named Bhidewada which is adjacent to the building of the Trust in the name of the petitioner No. 2, who is his son.The allegation in the complaint is to the effect that the Trust had paid an amount of Rs. 5,000/- against the purchase of this property and that the petitioner No. 1 who is alleged to have told the trustees that the property is purchased in the name of the Trust and that only at a subsequent point of time they came to know that the petitioner No. 1 has purchased the property in the name of his own son and that he has also recovered the rents of the same which ought to have come to the Trust and misappropriated the rents in question.This is a petition filed by the two original accused in Criminal Case No. 64 of 1985 pending on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nasik.The complaint was filed by Shri Vishwakarma Mandir Trust and its Trustees.The gravemen of the charge appears to be that the petitioner No. 1 misused his position in his capacity as Chairman of the Trust and purchased the property in his son's name.It is necessary to state at this stage itself that the complaint is totally silent with regard to the most important ingredient viz., the question as to whether the Trust funds were utilised by the Petitioner No. 1 and if so, to what extent and in what manner.It is hardly permissible for a criminal proceeding to be sustained on the basis of allegations that are vague and incomplete and wanting in material particulars.Under these circumstances, the case as against petitioner No. 1 abates.Undoubtedly, if a case has been made out against accused No. 2 and if there is sufficient material against him, there is no difficulty whatsoever in the proceeding being sustainable against accused No. 2 even if original accused No. 1 has died.Judge, Nasik, dated 5-4-1986, which is an order passed on the Criminal Revision Application No. 115 of 1985, preferred by the present petitioners.Since accused No. 1 has died and the case against him has abated, this question has now been rendered academic and, therefore, does not need to be examined.Before parting with this case, I would like to observe that I was considerably impressed with the manner in which the young advocate Mr. Jamdar has studied his brief, his intelligent application and the manner in which he very correctly presented the matter on behalf of his client.In the result, the petition succeeds.Petition allowed.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
115,766,988 |
Shri S.K. Kashyap, Government Advocate for the applicant- State.Heard on admission.This is an application for grant of leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("Code" for short) against the acquittal of respondent of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'the IPC').On the basis of said information, morgue intimation (Ex.P/9) was recorded and after investigation, charge-sheet was filed.During investigation, it surfaced that Rekhabai was assassinated by her husband viz. the respondent herein.Having regard to the arguments advanced by the learned Government Advocate, we have gone through the impugned judgment and record of the trial Court.Smt. Vandana Lodhi (PW2), daughter of Rekhabai (since deceased), was declared hostile.Harlal Thakur (PW3) expressed his ignorance about commission of offence and also denied that there was any altercation between the deceased and the respondent on the fateful night.Ramsingh (PW7), Dinesh Singh (PW5), respectively father and brother of the deceased, deposed that they were informed by Yogesh that respondent had killed Rekhabai, but Yogesh was not examined by the prosecution.From the evidence of Santosh (PW4) and Dinesh (PW9), it could not be proved that an Iron Riser Pipe and blood stained clothes of the respondent, were seized from the spot.Further, as per Forensic Science Lab Report (Ex.P/16), it was not proved that the same group of blood, as that of the deceased, was present over the seized articles.Factum of last seen was also not proved as on the date of incident, the respondent was not at home.In the aforesaid premises, the trial Court found that the chain of circumstantial evidence was not complete and the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.The application, therefore, stands dismissed in limine.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
115,812,225 |
Heard, Case-diary perused.First application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 09/02/2018, passed in M.Cr.As per prosecution case, on 06/12/2017 at about 1.30 am in the night, the applicant allegedly, entered into the house of the prosecutrix and caught hold the hand of the prosecutrix and started to drag her.When, prosecutrix, raised alarm her parents had wakened up and the applicant ran way from the spot.The further allegation against the applicant is that he used to tease the prosecutrix on her way back from her coaching class.There is no possibility of absconsion or tampering of the evidence by the applicant, if released on bail.Under these circumstances, counsel M.Cr.C. No.20134/2018 2 prays for grant of bail to the applicant.C. No.20134/2018 2This order shall be effective till the end of the trial, however, in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.Certified copy as per rules.(S. K. AWASTHI) V. JUDGE sumathi Digitally signed by Sumati Jagadeesan Date: 2018.06.26 10:55:35 +05'30'
|
['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
115,831,900 |
The facts in brief are : The appellant is a neighbour of the prosecutrix.On the date of the incident, the appellant, taking advantage of the fact that she was all alone in the house, had entered her house at about 9.00 p.m. and pressed her breasts.When she tried to raise alarm, he had pressed her mouth and gave threat to kill her.She was asked to remove her clothes, which she did under duress and fear.He made her to lie down on ground and committed sexual intercourse with her.The prosecutrix was warned by appellant not to disclose the incident to anybody and thereafter used to commit intercourse with her.As a result, the prosecutrix became pregnant.By passage of time, people in the village came to know about the pregnancy of prosecutrix.The appellant and prosecutrix garlanded each other in the temple of Lord Hanuman in the village and then prosecutrix stayed with the appellant, at his house.The appellant left his house after 2-3 months.As he left the house and did not return nor maintained her, the prosecutrix reported the matter to the Police ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:09:39 ::: 3 Station, Kondhali.An offence punishable under sections 376 and 506-II of the IPC were registered and police investigation commenced.Statements of various witnesses were recorded.The prosecutrix was referred for medical examination.Her clothes, underwear were seized.Samples of blood, vaginal swam, pubic hairs of prosecutrix were collected.School leaving certificate of the prosecutrix was also collected.The appellant was zeroed down.He was also referred for medical examination and his clothes were seized and samples of blood, semen, public hair were collected.Looking in to the evidence led by the prosecution in the trial Court: the prosecutrix , studying in V standard, examined as PW 2 stated her age to be of 16 years as on 26.12.2007 when she deposed.According to her, about one year prior to her deposing, the incident occurred in summer on Wednesday, at about 9.00 p.m. when she was all alone in the house, the appellant, came there, started teasing her, pressed her breasts with both his hands.He removed her clothes and his own clothes and committed forcible intercourse with under the threat of killing her if she discloses the incident to anybody.DATE OF RESERVING: 23.09.2009 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 06.10.2009 ORAL JUDGMENT :The appellant was convicted for the offence ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:09:39 ::: 2 punishable under sections 376 and 506-II of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced for offence of rape, to suffer RI for seven years and to pay fine in the sum of Rs. 1000/- in default, to suffer RI for six months; and, for offence of criminal intimidation, to suffer RI for six months.The substantive sentences of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently, with benefit of set off for period undergone in jail.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:09:39 :::The articles seized were referred for Expert's opinion.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:09:39 :::The appellant was charge-sheeted before learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Katol who committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Nagpur, for trial.Charge was framed on 1.10.2007 in Sessions Trial No. 263/2007 before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur against the appellant u/ss. 376 & 506-II IPC, to which he pleaded 'not guilty' and claimed to be tried.The prosecution examined a total of eight witnesses.The appellant/ accused pleaded innocence saying that he had gone for labour work and returned to his village after ten months.Seema's parents spread rumours about her pregnancy from him and the villagers performed his marriage with Seema in the temple and thereafter appellant brought prosecutrix at his house and stayed for eight days, living like husband and ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:09:39 ::: 4 wife and then he went out of village in order to find out labour work.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:09:39 :::When he returned to village after 15 days, Police arrested him as prosecutrix had lodged a report to Police against him.After one month, she became pregnant.The appellant told her that he would perform marriage with her.Appellant then performed marriage with prosecutrix in the temple of Lord Hanuman in the village, by garlanding her.The appellant was in the village only for a day and did not return for about a month and then he absconded.Thus prosecutrix also deposed that two months before the date she deposed, she had delivered a male child.Mother of prosecutrix who is a rustic, illiterate lady, was examined to corroborate the evidence of prosecutrix that she is studying in V standard and might be of 16 years of age, though she could not tell the exact date of birth.Prosecutrix had informed her mother about ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:09:39 ::: 5 her pregnancy of eight months from accused, who had came in the night, gagged the mouth of the prosecutrix and committed forcible sexual interourse.Father of prosecutrix (PW 3) also deposed that prosecutrix is studying in V standard and might be sixteen years old.When the prosecutrix was running eight month pregnancy from accused told about the accused having committed forcible sexual intercourse with her when she was alone in the house at night time.It is also in the cross-examination of PW 3 that he came to know about the marriage of appellant with prosecutrix in temple of Lord Hanuman, in the presence of father of appellant and villagers, Ganesh, Namdeo etc. and Seema (prosecutrix ) and appellant stayed together at his house for about two to four days ( before he absconded).::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:09:39 :::A victim who is terrorized or threatened with dire consequences with or without weapon, making her to submit to the carnal pleasure of rapist, even if she gives her consent by passive submission under cloud of fear or terror, her consent is not valid consent.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:09:39 :::When two young male and female due to love affair between them, having attained the age of discretion, are attracted to each other and due to emotional and passionate attachment succumb to the temptation of sexual relationship, then such mutual and voluntary participation is not an offence.Section 90 of the Indian Penal Code explains that a consent is not such a consent as it is intended by any section of the Code, if the consent is given by a person under fear or injury or under misconception of fact and if the person doing the act knows, or has reason to believe that the consent was given in consequence of such fear or misconception or consent by insane person unable to understand the nature and consequences of the act due to ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:09:39 ::: 7 unsoundness of mind or intoxication or consent given by child below twelve of years unless the contrary appears from the context can not be treated as valid and lawful consent.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:09:39 :::Learned Advocate for the appellant made reference to ruling in Uday vs. State of Karnataka : AIR 2003 SC 1639 to urge that consent given by prosecutrix to sexual intercourse with a person with whom she is deeply in love on a promise that he would marry her on a later date cannot be said to be given under "misconception of fact".They met often and it did appear that the prosecutrix had permitted him liberties which if at all is permitted only to a person with whim one is in deep love.Prosecutrix had also stealthily went out with appellant to a lonely place at 12 o' clock in the night.The Apex Court observed "in such circumstances the promise loses all significance, particularly when they are overcome with emotions and passion and find themselves in situations and circumstances where they, in a weak moment succumb to the temptation of having sexual relationship".In the peculiar facts and circumstances the accused was acquitted of the charge.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:09:39 :::Learned Advocate for the appellant placed reliance on the ruling in Ashok Bhaurao Gaikwad vs. State of Maharashtra : 2009 All M R (Cri) 131 (Bombay High Court), in order to urge that prosecutrix had on her own volition travelled with accused by night train from Bhusawal to Mumbai and stayed with the accused at Gowandi; Ambarnath, without raising any alarm or without any protest during transit nor she tried to flee away from the company of the accused.There was no evidence to positively show that prosecutrix was aged below 16 years at the relevant time.There was no substantital reason to hold that she was enticed by the accused to accompany with her from Bhusawal to Mumbai.Under these circumstances, accused was acquitted.9. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the prosecutrix had admitted in her cross-examination that there was love affair between her and the appellant and, therefore, above rulings are attracted as there was no evidence beyond reasonable doubt to prove that the prosecutrix was below 16-years of age at the time of the incident.Per contra, learned APP contended that an isolated admission elicited from the prosecutrix in the course of cross-examination that there was love affair between her and the appellant, cannot save the apellant/ accused because it is in evidence that the prosecutrix was first subjected to forcible sexual intercourse by the accused when he had entered in her ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:09:39 ::: 9 house, taking advantage of fact that she was all alone in the house.The appellant had threatened to kill her if she discloses his name to anybody.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:09:39 :::The appellant having impregnated the prosecutrix and subsequently garlanding her in the temple, and taking her to his house to cohabit and then absconding, leaving her in lurch, are tell-a-tale facts that appellant had no intention whatsoever to perform marriage with prosecutrix.Mere act of garlanding the prosecutrix in a temple can not absolve the appellant of earlier heinous act of forcible rape under threat of killing her.The appellant had told prosecutrix not to disclose the incident to anybody, otherwise he would kill her.Learned APP thus submitted that the trial Court had correctly concluded that the accused had committed rape on prosecutrix under threat to kill her.The evidence led in the present case do indicate that the appellant had entered the house of prosecutrix and under threat committed sexual intercourse with her, subsequently garlanded in the temple in presence of some villagers and then making show of marriage and continuing sexual intercourse with her, cannot absolve the appellant from penal liability for offence punishable under sections 376 and 506 (II) of the IPC.Intention of the appellant to leave the prosecutrix alone and leave house indefinitely without maintaining her is mala fide.A prosecutrix consenting for sexual intercourse subsequent to garlanding her in temple ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:09:39 ::: 10 under total misconception of marriage, can not be treated as a valid consent from her as it was merely a show of marriage without bona fide intention on the part of appellant to marry with the prosecutrix.Consent obtained on the premise that appellant had promised to marry her which he never intended to fulfill, is consent given under misconception of fact, not really voluntary; hence such consent obtained, cannot condone the offence of rape and criminal intimidation.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:09:39 :::Presumption has been introduced by the legislature in the Evidence Act looking to atrocities committed against women and in the instant case as per statement of P.W. she resisted and she did not give consent to the accused at the first instance and he committed rape on her.The accused gave her assurance that he would marry her and continued to satisfy his lust till she became pregnant and it became clear that the accused did not wish to marry her."::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:09:39 :::The accused first committing rape on victim against her will and without her consent but subsequently held out a fond hope for the prosecutrix that he would marry her and continued to satisfy his lust without bona fide intention to marry and maintain her is conduct which stands out to hold him guilty.The Appeal is thus dismissed.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:09:39 :::JUDGE sahare ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:09:39 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:09:39 :::
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
114,352,087 |
The prosecution's case, in short, is that, on 25.8.2009, the prosecutrix (P.W.1) had lodged an FIR at Police Station Bina, District Sagar that on 23.8.2009, she was present in her house at village Rampur (Police Station Bina, District Sagar), her M.Cr.- 2 -husband was not present in the house.However, her sister-in-law Bhagwati was present.At about 7 p.m., the respondent called her husband.When the prosecutrix went out of the house, the respondent pressed her breasts and held her neck.On her shouting, Sukhwati Bai (P.W.3) and Gajra Bai (P.W.2) came to the spot and therefore, the respondent left her and went away.offence under Sections 323, 354, 506-B of IPC.Before leaving the place, he gave a threat to the prosecutrix that if FIR has been lodged then, she would be killed.In the evening, her husband and sister-in-law came to the house and the prosecutrix told about the incident to them.However, due to fear of the respondent, FIR could be lodged after two days.After due investigation, charge-sheet was filed.After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that Gajra Bai (P.W.2) has accepted that there was enmity between the prosecutrix and maternal uncle of the respondent.Maternal uncle of the respondent namely Kallu Ahirwar had an enmity with Mukesh, husband of the prosecutrix relating to fetching of water from a common hand-pump.It was alleged by the prosecutrix (P.W.1) that the respondent held her neck and pressed her breasts but, on arrival of the M.Cr.- 3 -witnesses, he ran away.However, Gajra Bai (P.W.2) has accepted in para 4 of the statement that when she reached the spot, the respondent was not present.Similarly, Sukhwati Bai (P.W.3) has turned hostile and therefore, there is no evidence in support of the prosecutrix that on her shouting, witnesses came to the spot and thereafter, the respondent ran away.Possibility cannot be ruled out that with help of witnesses, a case was cooked by the prosecutrix against the respondent.The prosecutrix could not show any acceptable explanation as to why the FIR was lodged with delay of 2 days.If she was deprived of lodging the FIR due to threat given by the respondent then, no reason has been shown as to how her fear was removed.When FIR was lodged with delay of two days, the prosecution story comes in the clouds of doubt.When other witnesses Gajra Bai and Sukhwati Bai did not support the prosecution's story as such then, the trial Court has rightly disbelieved the testimony of the prosecutrix.The prosecution could not prove beyond doubt that the respondent outraged the modesty of the M.Cr.- 4 -prosecutrix or assaulted her or gave any threat to her.The trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondent.There is no reason to grant leave for filing the appeal.(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE Pushpendra
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
114,353,245 |
Learned AGA has filed counter affidavit on behalf of State is taken on record.Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no. 0081 of 2019, under Sections 363, 366, 504, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Ghiror, District Mainpuri, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the an abducted girl aged about 17 years developed relationship with the applicant and joined company with him, came to Allahabad and has filed a Civil Misc.Writ Petition C No. 8328 of 2019 whereby on 08.03.2019 the interest of the petitioner was protected.Per contra learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and could not dispute the aforementioned facts.Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail.In view of the above, let the applicant- Amol, be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned in case crime no.0081 of 2019, under Sections 363, 366, 504, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Ghiror, with the following conditions:-(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT THEY SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT.IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH THEIR COUNSEL.IN CASE OF THEIR ABSENCE , WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSE THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
114,354,289 |
Item No. 18The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya Mr. Rabi Sankar Chattopadhyay Mr. Uday Sankar Chattopadhyay Mr. Anindya Sundar Das For the Petitioners Mr. Partha Pratim Das For the State Ms. Bhargabi Chakaborti Mr. Tapas Kumar Mondal For the De facto Complainant The Petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Tamluk Police Station Case No. 284 of 2013 dated 16.07.2013 under Sections 147/148/149/325/326/448/307/380 of the Indian Penal Code, have applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocates for the parties.We have seen the case diary and the injury reports.The Petitioner Nos.1 and 2, Anil Kumar Hazra and Sk.Saidul, have been directly implicated by the injured and their names appear in the injury reports.Therefore, the Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, Anil Kumar Hazra and Sk.Hence, their applications are rejected.ED 1 & 2 As regards the other Petitioners, their custodial interrogation is not required in this case.In these circumstances in the event of arrest, the Petitioner Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, Sk.Musibul @ Sk.Musi, Sk.Rabiul @ Sk.Rabi, Sk Bapi, Sk.Samsed @ Samser and Sk.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Kanchan Chakraborty, J) ALLOWED 3 to 7
|
['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
114,360,243 |
Since co-accused Manoj Soni @ Noona is juvenile, he is facing trial at Juvenile Justice Board, Sagar.It is alleged by the prosecution that, on 2.9.2006, in front of Vidhyapeeth School, Vivekanand Ward, Sagar, there was celebration of Ganesh Utsav.The complainant Sonu was sitting along with his uncle Sunil in a bench.Suddenly, all the appellants came there from Bada Bazar and surrounded Sunil Soni.Due to old enmity, the appellant Kishore caused multiple knife injuries to Sunil.Other appellants caught Sunil (since deceased) while the appellant Kishore caused the injuries.Sunil died on the spot.It is not in dispute that he is nephew of the deceased.He deposed that on the date of incident at about 10:30 p.m., he was sitting along with his uncle Sunil on the strip of Vidhyapeeth School.Suddenly, all the appellants with juvenile Noona came there and surrounded his uncle Sunil.Juvenile Noona and appellant Devendra caught hold the hands of Sunil, whereas appellant Ramu caught hold the hairs of Sunil, they all were assaulting Sunil by kicks and fists.The appellant Kishore inflicted multiple blows by knife on his abdomen and left side of his chest.When Sonu (PW-(28.02.2018) Per : Smt. Anjuli Palo, J.All the above appeals have been filed by the accused persons being aggrieved by judgment dated 24.12.2007 passed by 1 st Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar in S.T. No.450/2006, whereby the appellant Kishore has been convicted for offence under Section 302 of the IPC and other appellants have been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 302/34 of the IPC and sentenced for imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.3000/- with default stipulations.Seeta, Jai Narayan, Bhagirath Soni and others, witnessed the incident.On the same day, (FIR Ex.P/6) has been lodged by Sunil at Police Station, Moti Nagar, Sagar.Police registered crime for offence punishable under Sections 302/34 of the IPC against the appellants.After concluding the investigation, charge sheet has been filed before the Court of Judicial 3 Cr.A. No.202/2008 Cr.A. No.732/2008 Magistrate First Class, Sagar.3 Cr. A. No.202/2008After committal of the case, learned trial Court framed charges under Section 302 of IPC against the appellant Kishore and Sections 302/34 of IPC against other appellants.They abjured guilt and pleaded that, they were falsely implicated by the complainant party.Dr. B.K. Mishra (DW-1) has been examined as defence witness.Learned trial Court found that the testimony of Sonu (PW-3) is reliable, which has been clearly corroborated by the medical evidence.He has no ulterior motive to falsely implicate the appellants.Hence, after relying the said evidence, learned trial Court held the appellants guilty for committing murder of Sunil in furtherance of their common intention.Hence, they were convicted and sentenced as mentioned above.The appellants challenged the impugned judgment on the ground that the Court below wrongly believed the solitary evidence of Sunil (PW-3), a real nephew of the deceased.Further that, the trial Court failed to appreciate that prosecution has failed to prove the motive of the appellants to commit the offence.It was alleged by the appellants that the said incident have taken place on the spur of moment.Therefore, no case should have been made out against the appellants under Sections 302 or 302/34 of the IPC.The appellants prayed that the impugned judgment be set aside and they be acquitted from the charges levelled against them.Learned Govt. Advocate has vehemently opposed the contention of learned counsel for the appellants and submitted that conviction can be based on sole testimony of a witness with the aid of 4 Cr.A. No.202/2008 Cr.Appellants Devendra and Ramu are liable to be convicted with the main accused Kishore for offence under Section 302 of the IPC.There is sufficient evidence on record against them.Hence, he has prayed for dismissal of the present appeals.4 Cr. A. No.202/2008Perused the record.3) shouted for help, the appellants tried to beat him.His uncle fell down on the earth towards his face.Again, all the appellants were assaulting his uncle Sunil.Then, the appellant Kishore inflicted a knife blow on his back.Sunil was unconscious but alive.Sonu's father Jai Narayan, mother Vidhya, sister Sita and one neighbour Bhagchand came there.Then the appellants ran away from the spot.Sunil was taken to Tilli Hospital, Sagar by Jai Narayan, where Sunil was declared dead.Thereafter, FIR (Ex.P/6) has been lodged by Sonu (PW-3) at Police Station.5 Cr. A. No.202/2008A. No.452/2008 Cr. A. No.732/2008Bhagirath (PW-8) also witnessed the incident.He deposed similar version of Sonu (PW-3) and narrated that at the time of incident, he was present at the spot and was present at a distance of 20-25 ft.He also deposed that only the appellant Kishore inflicted knife blows to Sunil, whereas, other appellants caught him.In para 5, he gave same statement.He also established the presence of Sonu on the spot.We find that presence of Sonu (PW-3) on the spot is strongly established by his cross- examination.Therefore, we have no reason to disbelieve his testimony.The appellants ran away from the spot then, he reached the spot and saw the injuries of the deceased.His daughter Sita (PW-5) also saw the scene of occurrence.Jai Narayan Soni (PW-4) and Seeta (PW-5) also established the presence of Bhagirath (PW-8) nearby the spot and stated that Bhagirath came on the spot.A. No.202/2008 Cr.A. No.452/2008 Cr.A. No.732/2008 sufficient to prove that with in furtherance of common intention of the appellants, the appellant Kishore inflicted blows of knife to Sunil.Witnesses tend to exaggerate the prosecution story.If the exaggeration does not change the prosecution story or convert it into altogether new story, allowance can be made for it.If the evidence of witness is to be disbelieved merely because he has made some improvement in his evidence.P/6 was promptly lodged by Sonu (PW-3).The facts of FIR Ex.11 Cr. A. No.202/2008Due to above injuries, upper side of peritoneum and abdomen 12 Cr.A. No.202/2008 Cr.A. No.452/2008 Cr.A. No.732/2008 were in cut condition.These wounds reached upto right lob and posterior and interior side of right lob of liver.There was torn about 2 cm.x 1.5 cm.entire thoracic and abdominal cavity were full of blood.12 Cr. A. No.202/2008Dr. Shukla opined that the deceased died due to above injuries on liver and due to shock within 24 hours from postmortem.All the injuries were caused by hard, sharp and pointed weapon and ante mortem in nature.In our opinion, all the above injuries were sufficient to cause death of the deceased in ordinary course of nature.We do not find any reason to disbelieve the findings of Dr. Shailendra Shukla (PW-2).The ocular version of prosecution case is duly supported by medical evidence also.Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the seizure of incriminating weapon from the appellants.With regard to testimony of G.P. Mishra (PW-10), who seized a knife from the possession of appellant Kishore is duly corroborated by Panch-witness Bunty (PW-6).He established that in his presence, police seized a knife as per memorandum of appellant Kishore.The knife was sent to the FSL for examination.As per FSL report (Ex.P/18), blood was found on the knife seized from the possession of appellant Kishore.Hence, it cannot be a reason to discard or brush aside the whole prosecution case, which was otherwise duly established by medical and direct evidence on record.The appellants examined B.K. Mishra (DW-1) as defence witness, who was Civil Surgeon of District Hospital, Sagar.He deposed that 13 Cr.A. No.202/2008 Cr.The testimony of defence witness is not sufficient to disprove the prosecution story.13 Cr. A. No.202/2008On the basis of aforesaid discussion and taking of over all view of the matter, which are examined by us in the light of principles laid down by the Supreme Court, we are of the opinion that no interference is warranted in the impugned judgment and sentence.Hence, all the appeals filed by the appellants Kishore, Devendra Dubey and Ramu @ Hansraj Namdeo are hereby dismissed.If the appellants are on bail, it is directed that their bail bonds stands cancelled.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,143,696 |
DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 8.7.2010 DATE OF PROUNCEMENT OF THE JUDGMENT : 16.7.2010 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:12:38 ::: 2 J U D G M E N T :::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:12:38 :::1 The challenge in this appeal is to the conviction and sentence inflicted upon the appellant (original accused no.1) by judgment and order dated 5.12.2009, rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani, in Sessions Trial No. 24 of 2008, convicting the appellant under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer S.I. for one month.2 The factual matrix of the prosecution case can be summarised as under :-It is the case of prosecution that deceased Shobha i.e. victim herein was the wife of appellant herein and she was residing with the appellant along with her three children in her matrimonial home at Pimpalgaon, Taluka Jintur.The marriage between deceased Shobha and accused no.1 was solemnized about eight years back from the date of incident.It is alleged that the appellant ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:12:38 ::: 3 herein used to assault victim Shobha under the influence of liquor frequently.It is also alleged that about prior to eight days of the date of occurrence of the incident, the appellant made scene in the house under the influence of liquor and he sold grains and fire wood from the house to the liquor seller when deceased Shobha was at the house of her parents.Thereafter deceased Shobha returned to her matrimonial home after learning the said incident from her mother-in-::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:12:38 :::On 12.10.2007, at about 8.00 a.m., the appellant under the influence of liquor demanded money from deceased Shobha to purchase liquor, but deceased Shobha refused therefor.Thereupon the accused assaulted her by slaps and fist blows and stated that he would finish her, and accordingly, poured kerosene on her person and set her ablaze and thereafter fled away.Hence, victim Shobha raised shouts.Thereupon the neighbours extinguished the fire and removed her to the Civil Hospital, Parbhani by jeep.3 It is also the case of the prosecution that PW14 A.S.I.Abdul Wahid was on duty police Chowki Amaldar at Police outpost Civil Hospital, Parbhani on 12.10.2007 from 8.00 a.m. to 8.00 a.m. He received M.L.C. letter from Nanalpeth police station stating that a burnt lady namely Shobha Prakash Chavan was admitted in Civil ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:12:38 ::: 4 Hospital, Parbhani and he was instructed to record her statement.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:12:38 :::Accordingly, he contacted the Casualty Medical Officer and went to burns ward along with the Medical Officer and saw the patient, but she was not in position to speak and said doctor made endorsement on the M.L.C. (Exh.64).4 It is also the case of prosecution that PW4 Devichand ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:12:38 ::: 5 Mansing Rathod, father of deceased, received a telephone call that Shobha was burnt and admitted into the Civil Hospital, Parbhani, and therefore, he rushed to the said hospital and deceased disclosed to him that the accused demanded money from her under the influence of liquor and when she refused therefor, the accused set her on fire.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:12:38 :::Moreover, it is further the case of prosecution that the Naib Tahsildar PW13 Surekha Palwe was called and she recorded another dying declaration on 12.10.2007 between 4.05 p.m. to 4.25 p.m. and since both the hands of the victim were burnt, thumb impression of her left toe was taken thereon.Shamsher Ahmed was on duty as P.S.I. at Bamni police station at the relevant time and C.R. No. 77 of 2007 was entrusted to him for investigation, and accordingly he went to the spot and drew the spot panchanama (Exh.47) and seized the kerosene bottle, match box and burnt clothes of the deceased and shoes of the accused thereunder in presence of two panchas including PW1 Ambadas Rathod and Attam.During the course of investigation, he recorded statements of the witnesses and neighbourers as well as relatives of ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:12:38 ::: 6 the deceased and also recorded statement of the minor son of the accused.However, the victim Shobha succumbed to the injuries on 21.10.2007 at 2240 hours in the Civil Hospial, Parbhani.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:12:38 :::Moreover, the seized articles were sent to the Chemical Analyser's office for examination purpose along with forwarding letter Exh.17 on 23.10.2007 through carrier PW3 Ramesh Sonawane.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:12:38 :::7 To substantiate the charges levelled against the accused, the prosecution has examined in as much as 14 witnesses as mentioned below :-PW1 Ambadas Hiraman Rathod - spot panch - turned hostile PW2 Vimal Attam Rathod, witness of scene of offence, who allegedly extinguished the fire - turned hostile PW3 Ramesh Marotrao Sonawane - police Naik - carrier PW4 Devichand Mansing Rathod, father of deceased PW5 Dr. Jayashri Sudhir Yadav, Medical Officer, who gave top endorsement (Exh.26 and bottom endorsement (Exh.27) on dying declaration ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:12:38 ::: 8 recorded by police on 12.10.2007 and also produced the medical papers of the victim (Exh.29) PW6 Ansabai Pandurang Rathod - turned hostile PW7 Dr. Shakir Ul Karim, Postmortem doctor who produced postmortem notes (Exh.33) PW8 Kamal Ramesh Chavan - turned hostile PW9 Gokul Prakash Chavan, child witness, son of the victim and the accused.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:12:38 :::PW10 Dr. Parmeshwar Salve, who examined the victim Shobha Chavan on 13.10.2007 PW11 Dr. Archana Bhusewad , who gave endorsements (Exhs. 44 and 45) on second dying declaration dated 12.10.2007 recorded by Naib Tahsildar -Surekha Patwe ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:12:38 ::: 9 PW12 P.S.I. - Shamsher Ahmed, investigating officer PW13 Surekha Anna Palve, Naib Tahsildar, Parbhani, who recorded second dying declaration of victim on 12.10.2007 at 4.05 p.m. (Exh.61) PW14 A.S.I. - Abdul Wahid, who recorded first dying declaration of the victim on 12.10.2007 at 1.40 p.m. (Exh.26).::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:12:38 :::8 The defence of the accused was of total denial and the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein he stated that he was not at all present at the spot of incident at the time of its occurrence and deceased sustained burn injuries while she was cooking the food.It is also stated that deceased was suffering from epileptic attacks and while cooking food in front of hearth her clothes caught fire and sustained burn injuries and succumbed to the same.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:12:38 :::10 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the appellant herein has assailed the same in the present appeal and prayed for quashment thereof.11 In order to deal with the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it would be useful to deal with the material evidence adduced and produced by the prosecution.12 In the said context, coming to the deposition of PW14 A.S.I. Abdul Wahid, who recorded the first dying declaration (Exh.26) of the victim Shobha and stated that on 12.10.2007 he was police Chowki Amaldar of police out-post Civil Hospital, Parbhani and was on duty from 8.00 a.m. to next day 8.00 a.m. and received M.L.C.Letter from Nanalpeth police station informing that a burnt woman, namely Shobha Prakash Chavan was admitted in Civil Hospital, Parbhani and he was instructed to record her statement.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:12:38 :::Accordingly, he contacted the Casualty Medical Officer and went to burns ward along with the C.M.O., but found that the patient was not in a position to speak, and accordingly, doctor made endorsement on M.L.C. (Exh.64).He also stated that again on the same day he contacted the C.M.O. and went to burns ward near the patient and doctor examined the patient and found that she was conscious and in fit position to give the statement, and hence the doctor gave the endorsement.He further stated that he then recorded the statement of the said patient, namely Shobha Prakash Chavan.He deposed that the said victim informed that in the morning her husband came to house and demanded money for consuming liquor, but she could not satisfy the said demand, and therefore, he assaulted her.She also stated that her husband was accompanied by his friend Chavan and he also instigated her husband to set her on fire.Accordingly, her husband poured kerosene on her person and his friend Chavan provided match box to him and thereafter her husband ignited the match stick and set her on fire.However, the neighbourers extinguished the fire and shifted her to the hospital.He also stated that he recorded her statement as per her version and read over the contents thereof to her.She admitted the same to be true and correct and then she put her right thumb impression on it, as the right thumb ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:12:38 ::: 12 was not much burnt and left thumb was badly burnt.Moreover, he further stated that doctor examined the patient and made the endorsement at the foot of the said statement.Accordingly, he submitted that the said statement was sent to Nanalpeth police station along with covering letter dated 12.10.2007 (Exh.66).He further stated that the doctor put the timing below the said statement as 1.20 p.m. 13 During cross-examination, he stated that he asked formal questions to the said lady i.e. her name and address, but stated that he cannot tell the name of the doctor who accompanied with him.He denied that when the statement was being recorded the relatives of the patient were sitting there.However, he stated that his writer constable Moin was with him and the contents thereof are in the hand writing of said writer namely Moin.Suggestion was given to him that the patient was ailing and was not in a position to speak, but same was denied by him.It was also suggested to him that patient did not make any statement before him, but same was denied by him.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:12:38 :::Suggestion was also given to him that the endorsements at the top and at the bottom had been made by the doctor after completion of ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:12:38 ::: 13 recording the statement, but same was denied by him.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:12:38 :::14 Accordingly, it is evident from the testimony of PW14 A.S.I. Abdul Wahid that as per the M.L.C. letter he went to the burns ward of Civil Hospital, Parbhani along with C.M.O. and verified that the patient was in a position to speak and doctor also examined the said patient and found that she was conscious and in a fit condition to give the statement and gave endorsement accordingly.Besides few suggestions were given to him, which were obviously denied by him.Accordingly, there is nothing damaging in his cross-examination, and therefore, it establishes that PW14 A.S.I. Abdul Wahid recorded the first dying declaration (Exh.65) of victim Shobha on 12.10.2007 at 1.20 p.m. 15 The aspect of giving endorsement on the afore said first dying declaration (Exh.65) has been substantiated by PW5 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:12:38 ::: 14 Dr.Jayashri Sudhir Yadav, who stated that on 12.10.2007 she was working as C.M.O. at Civil Hospital, Parbhani and on the request of police personnel she went to the burns ward and examined the patient i.e. victim herein and found that she was conscious and well oriented to give the statement, and accordingly, she gave endorsement to that effect and thereafter police personnel recorded the statement of the said patient.Moreover, she also stated that on the top of the said statement she put her endorsement (Exh.26) and her signature below it.She further stated that the entire statement of the said patient was recorded in her presence and the patient was fully conscious and oriented during recording of the statement.She further stated that after completion of recording the statement, she again examined the patient and put her endorsement below the said statement (Exh.27) that the patient was conscious and well oriented.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:12:38 :::16 She also stated that the patient was admitted in the hospital when she was on duty as C.M.O. and she has written the admission notes in her hand writing.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:12:38 :::17 In cross-examination, she stated that the patient suffers dehydration in the event burn injuries are 35%.She also stated that the said patient was having deep as well as superficial burns.According to her, burns were on upper and lower limbs of both hands.She stated that twenty minutes required for recording the dying declaration.Suggestion was given to her that police did not record the statement of patient Shobha in her presence and said patient did not put her thumb impression thereon in her presence, but same was denied by her.She further categorically stated that she had not administered any sedatives to the patient and she had provided artificial oxygen and necessary injectables and said oxygen was applied at 11.40 a.m. till 1.20 p.m. As regards medical papers, she stated that at the time of admission of the patient, Devichand Rathod and Shivlal Chavan had accompanied with the patient.Hence, suggestion was given to her that when she examined the patient Devichand Rathod was present near the patient, but she denied the same.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:12:38 :::18 Accordingly, from the testimony of PW5 Dr. Jayashri Yadav, there is no dispute that she examined the patient on 12.10.2007 and gave both the endorsements Exhs. 26 and 27 i.e. before recording the statement as well as after recording the statement of victim, respectively and she found that during the course of recording the statement, the said patient was conscious and well oriented.She also found that the patient was conscious and well oriented to give the statement and accordingly she made both the endorsements.As regards the medical papers Exh.29 she stated that relatives of the patient i.e. Devichand Rathod and Shivlal Chavan had accompanied along with the patient, who gave history of the patient at the time of her admission which was recorded by her.Accordingly, she went to the Civil Hospital, Parbhani and contacted the C.M.O. and further she went to burns ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:12:38 ::: 17 ward along with the said C.M.O., and further found that some persons were sitting near the patient, and therefore, she requested them to wait out side as she had to record her dying declaration.On her request, the doctor examined the patient and made remark about the condition of patient on the paper of dying declaration.Thereafter PW13 Surekha Patwe asked formal questions to the said patient and she gave her name and address which was noted by PW13 Surekha Patwe.PW13 also stated that she found that the said patient was in a condition to give the statement, and thereafter she asked the patient how the incident occurred, and thereupon she told the incident which was noted by PW13 Surekha Patwe.Moreover, PW13 Surekha Patwe also read over the said contents of the statement to victim Shobha and she admitted the same.She further stated that her palms were burnt, and therefore, she obtained toe impression of her right foot below the said statement and PW13 Surekha Patwe also attested it.Moreover, she further stated that the doctor was waiting there while she was recording the statement and on her request doctor again examined the patient and noted about the condition and made remark about the condition at the foot of the said statement.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:12:38 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:12:38 :::20 In cross-examination, she stated that doctor had talked with the patient in her presence.However, doctor had not checked the B.P. or pulse rate and volunteered that the doctor had perused the medical case papers.She further stated that doctor has made remark on the case paper about recording of dying declaration.She denied that while recording the statement the doctor had received urgent call, and therefore, the doctor left the said place.She further denied that relatives of the patient were near the cot while recording the said statement.However, she stated that she prepared the printed format for recording the dying declaration and denied that she has not recorded the dying declaration but has just filled in the blanks.She further denied that she did not record the dying declaration as per the version of Shobha.She also denied that the patient was not in a fit condition to give the statement at the time of recoding her statement.She further stated in the cross-examination that she had not actually perused the medical papers.Her testimony has not been shaken in the cross-examination and few suggestions were put to her, but same were denied by her.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:12:38 :::22 That takes me to the testimony of PW11 Dr. Archana Buhsewad, who gave endorsement on second dying declaration (Exh.61) recorded by PW13 Surekha Patwe, wherein she stated that on 12.10.2007 she was on duty as C.M.O. in Civil Hospital, Parbhani and the Executive Magistrate came to her, who wanted to record the dying declaration of patient in burnt case and she accompanied with her to burns ward and she examined the said patient who was ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:12:38 ::: 20 conscious and was able to give the statement, and accordingly, she put her signature thereon (Exh.44).She further stated that the Executive Magistrate recorded the statement of said patient in her presence and she again examined the patient and found that said patient was conscious and well oriented.Accordingly, she put her endorsement and signed below the same (Exh.45).::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:12:38 :::In cross-examination, she stated that she was monitoring the pulse of the patient when the dying declaration was being recorded and she was near the patient for half an hour.She further stated that connotations, "mentally fit" and "conscious" are two different terms.Hence, suggestion was given to her that the patient was not in fit state of mind to give the statement, but same was denied by her.It was also suggested to her that the patient was under influence of sedative drugs, but same was denied by her.She further stated that both the hands and both the legs of the patient were burnt, but she does not remember whether palms and fingers of the patient were burnt.Suggestion was given to her that she put the endorsements Exhs.44 and 45 without examining the patient by sitting in her chamber, but same was denied by her.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:12:38 :::24 Thus it is amply clear from the testimony of PW11 Dr. Archana Bhusewad that she examined the patient for recording second dying declaration Exh.61 by PW13 Surekha Patwe and found that the said patient was conscious, and accordingly, she gave the endorsement before recording the statement and after recording the statement of the patient on Exhs.44 and 45, respectively.However, she stated in the cross-examination that left hand thumb impression of the patient was obtained, which is contradictory to the testimony of PW13 Surekha Patwe, who has deposed that since palms of the patient were burnt, she obtained right foot toe impression of the patient below the said statement.25 Coming to the deposition of PW10 Dr.During cross-examination, after perusal of the medical case papers Exh.29, he stated that the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:12:38 ::: 22 endorsement is made at 11.40 a.m. and note in the medical case papers is that "History was of accidental burns (while boiling water) History given by relatives".General condition moderate.Findings pulse 96 per minute.Civics and R.N.S./N.A.D., that means, no abnormality detected in cardio vascular system, respiratory system, and central respiratory system, per abdominal system.Local observation 65% burns.Complaining of giddiness.General condition not satisfactory.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:12:38 :::He also stated about the history given by relatives of accidental burns sustained by the patient.He further categorically stated that only one dying declaration was recorded on 12.10.2007 from 1.20 p.m. to 1.40 p.m., but he remained silent in respect of recording of second dying declaration at about 4.05 p.m. on the same day.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:12:38 :::There were 68% burn injuries consisting of superficial to deep.His opinion regarding cause of death was, "Septicemia secondary due to 68% burn injuries".During cross-examination, suggestion was given to him that deep burn injuries are not possible in accidental case, but same was denied by him.However, he stated that both the hands of the patient were burnt i.e. 9% of each upper limb.He also admitted that he has not mentioned as to which injuries were superficial and which were deep in the postmortem notes.He further stated that if a lady with a saree meets with an accidental burns, then she may sustain deep burns.28 Accordingly, PW7 Dr. Shakir Ul Karim has categorically stated that both the hands of the patient Shobha were totally burnt i.e. 9% for each upper limb, and therefore, there is no possibility of obtaining right hand thumb impression of the patient on first dying ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:12:38 ::: 24 declaration Exh.65, as stated by PW14 A.S.I. Abdul Wahid.It is also apparent from the admission given by him that he has not mentioned which injuries were deep and which were superficial, which conveys that there were both types of injuries sustained by the patient and even as further stated by him, there is possibility of sustaining deep burns on some part of the body in the event of accidental death.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:12:38 :::Coming to the deposition of PW4 Devichand Rathod i.e. father of the victim, wherein he has stated that incident occurred on 12.10.2007 at about 8.00 a.m. and on the said date, he received a phone call from the place of accused and it was informed to him that his daughter i.e. victim Shobha was burnt and was admitted in the Civil Hospital, Parbhani.Hence, he, his wife and his son-in-law, as well as his other daughter went to Civil Hospital and reached there at about 1.00 p.m. He stated that his daughter was admitted in burns ward.Hence, he asked her how she was burnt, and thereupon she told that on that night accused no.1 and accused no.2 after consuming liquor heavily made commotion and in the morning appellant herein demanded money from her, but she stated that since she had no money from where she would give to him and thereby accused no.2 asked the appellant why he had kept such wife and he ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:12:38 ::: 25 must kill her by burning and thereupon appellant herein poured kerosene can on the parson of his daughter and accused no.2 (acquitted) set her on fire by match stick and both of them ran away.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:12:38 :::Neighbourers then extinguished the fire.He also identified the appellant in the court.30 During cross-examination, he admitted that his daughter Shobha suffered fits prior to marriage, but he had provided medical treatment to her and she was cured.Suggestion was given to him that even after marriage she used to suffer fits, but it was denied by him.He also denied the suggestion that when he met Shobha in the hospital, she was unconscious and not in a condition to talk.He further admitted that when the police personnel and Tahsildar recorded the statement of Shobha, he and his wife were present in burns ward standing at one side.Moreover, omission has been brought on record in respect of contents of the alleged dying declaration made by victim Shobha to him in respect of making commotion by accused nos. 1 and 2 under the influence of liquor.He further stated in the cross-examination that when the police personnel recorded the first dying declaration Exh.65 of his daughter, doctor was not present there.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:12:38 :::31 Accordingly, prelude of the oral dying declaration allegedly made by victim Shobha before her father i.e. PW4 Devichand i.e. making commotion by appellant and accused no.2 (acquitted) on the night prior to fateful day under the influence of liquor has amounted omission in his police statement and improvement in his testimony, and hence, further contents of oral dying declaration that was allegedly made by victim Shobha before PW4 Devichand comes under the cloud of suspicion.Moreover, in the said oral dying declaration of Shobha he allegedly stated that the appellant poured kerosene can on her person, but pertinently kerosene bottle has been seized under the panchanama.Moreover, PW4 Devichand also admitted that he and his wife were present while recording both the dying declarations i.e. by police personnel and Naib Tahsildar in the burns ward standing besides her, and therefore, possibility of influencing the contents of the said dying declarations by PW4 Devichand and his wife cannot be ruled out.Moreover, he further admitted that when police personnel recorded the first dying declaration of victim Shobha, the doctor was not present, which is contradictory to the testimony of PW14 A.S.I. Abdul Wahid and PW5 Dr. Jayashri Yadav.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:12:38 :::32 Turning to the deposition of PW9 Gokul Prakash Chavan, child witness i.e. son of the victim and the accused/appellant, he stated in his deposition that his mother i.e. victim Shobha was preparing food and she fell down on hearth.He stated that presently he resides with his father and after death of mother she was residing with another grand-mother i.e. mother of mother at Ambhora Tanda.Suggestion was given to him that his father i.e accused Prakash told him that he should say that his mother fell on hearth, but he denied the same.He categorically stated that nobody has told him what he should depose.33 Accordingly, the version of PW9 Gokul is different from both the dying declarations i.e. Exh.65 and 61 respectively, and also it differs from the history given by in-laws also which is reflected in the medical case papers Exh.29 and the version given by PW9 Gokul is altogether different.34 On the afore said background of material evidence, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the prosecution case mainly relied upon the two dying declarations i.e. first dying declaration (Exh.65) recorded by police personnel PW14 A.S.I. Abdul ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:12:38 ::: 28 Wahid at about 1.20 p.m. on 12.10.2007 and second dying declaration (Exh.61) recorded by the Naib Tahsildar PW13 Surekha Patwe at 4.05 p.m. on 12.10.2007, but there are glaring variances in both the said dying declarations and the said dying declarations disclose that accused allegedly poured kerosene on the person of Shobha and set her on fire.It is also canvassed that in fact when the victim Shobha was admitted in the hospital, she was not in a position to speak, and as stated by PW5 Dr. Jayashri Yadav victim Shobha's father and in-laws had accompanied along with her and they were present at the time of recording the dying declarations, and they gave the history i.e. accidental burns (while boiling water for bath), which is recorded at 9.40 a.m. on 12.10.2007 in medical papers Exh.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:12:38 :::The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the observations made in the case of Amin Pyarali Bhimjibhai Charniya vs State of Maharashtra, reported at 2009 ALL MR (Cri) 2950, which are as follows :-" The generally accepted law is that when there are two Dying Declarations which are contrary to each other, and are not compatible with each other, then convicting a person would be hazardous. "::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:12:38 :::35 Pertinently, PW9 child witness Gokul i.e. son of the victim and the accused stated in his deposition that when his mother was preparing food, she fell on the hearth.It is also canvassed that PW10 Dr. Parmeshwar Salve stated in his deposition that he examined victim Shobha, and therefore, the endorsement of the said doctor, who examined and treated the victim should have been obtained on the dying declarations and not the endorsement of PW5 Dr. Jayashree Yadav and PW11 Dr. Archana Bhusewad on first and second dying declarations Exhs. 65 and 61 respectively, and consequently, raised suspicion about both the dying declarations and relied upon the observations made in the case of Kamalakar Nandram Bhavsar and ors.Vs State of Maharashtra, reported in 2004 ALL MR (Cri) 833 (S.C.), which are as follows :" 7 ......... ........ ............ It is very surprising that a doctor who admittedly did not treat a patient during her life time would be called upon to certify the fitness of the patient to ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:12:38 ::: 30 make a dying declaration when other doctors who treated the said patient were available for the said purpose. ....... ......."::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:12:38 :::36 It is also argued by learned counsel for the appellant that PW4 Devichand Rathod i.e. father of the victim Shobha stated in his deposition that the oral dying declaration was made by the victim before him and stated that accused no.1 i.e. appellant herein and accused no.2 created commotion in the night prior to the date of incident after consuming liquor heavily and in the morning demanded money from her, to which she declined stating that from where she would give and thereupon accused no.2 said the appellant why he had kept such wife and he must kill her by burning and appellant poured kerosene can and appellant no.2 set her on fire by match stick and they both ran away.37 In the said context, learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that as noted herein above, the first part of the alleged oral dying declaration in respect of creation of alleged commotion by appellant and accused no.2 after consuming liquor on the prior night of the date of incident has come under omission and as regards the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:12:39 ::: 31 further part of the alleged oral dying declaration it is submitted that although dying declarations and seizure panchanama disclose that kerosene bottle was seized, the said alleged oral dying declaration refers to pouring of kerosene from can on the person of victim, and hence, suspicion is created whether kerosene was poured allegedly from the bottle or from can, and even there is suspicion in respect of seizure of bottle containing kerosene since PW1 Panch Ambadas Rathod has turned hostile, and consequently, suspicion is created in respect of oral dying declaration allegedly made by victim before her father PW4 Devichand.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:12:39 :::38 It is also submitted that although as per the version of victim, the incident occurred at about 8.00 a.m. as per first dying declaration, no nearby witnesses have been examined by the prosecution.Moreover, the jeep driver, who allegedly removed the victim to the hospital, has not been examined.39 Moreover, it is submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish the connecting link between shoes allegedly seized under the spot panchanama and the appellant herein and even the Chemical Analyser's report dated 13.2.2008 (Exh.55) does disclose ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:12:39 ::: 32 that neither blood nor tissue matter is detected on Sari (Exh.2) of the victim.The Chemical Analyser's report Exh.55 dated 13.2.2008 is positive for Exhs. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6, except Exh.3 i.e. Sitar match box.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:12:39 :::40 Accordingly, learned counsel for the appellant urged that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge levelled against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and even the prosecution has failed to bring the guilt at home against the appellant under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code and conviction and sentence inflicted upon the appellant by the learned Trial Judge thereunder shall not sustain, and hence, present appeal needs to be allowed acquitting the accused therefrom.41 Smt. B.R.Khekale, learned Additional Public Prosecutor countered the said arguments and submitted that there is consistency in both the dying declarations that the appellant herein poured kerosene upon the victim and set her on fire, as well as there is consistency in both the dying declarations on material points.It is also pointed out by learned Additional Public Prosecutor that both the dying declarations bear doctor's endorsements at the beginning as ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:12:39 ::: 33 well as at the bottom thereof.It is also canvassed that the first dying declaration recorded at 1.20 p.m. on 12.20.2007 (Exh.65) discloses that the victim Shobha narrated that appellant stated to her that, "Tula Khatam Karato", which itself discloses the intention of the appellant and he knew the repercussions of pouring kerosene and setting her on fire.As regards second dying declaration (Exh.61), learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that it is recorded in printed format by PW13 Naib Tahsildar Surekha Patwe and PW13 Surekha Patwe stated that it was recorded as per version of the victim.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:12:39 :::42 As regards the medical history allegedly given by the father and father-in-law of victim Shobha, it is submitted that PW5 Dr. Jayashree Yadav stated that said history was given by in-laws in the hospital and both the said dying declarations will carry more weightage in comparison of the said history given by in-laws and both the said dying declarations which are reliable and truthful connect the appellant with the crime.43 It is also canvassed by learned Additional Public Prosecutor that PW4 Devichand Rathod father of victim Shobha has specifically stated that victim Shobha gave oral dying declaration ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:12:39 ::: 34 before him and the said oral dying declaration is also in consonance with the above referred two dying declarations (Exhs. 65 and 61), which connects the appellant with the crime.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:12:39 :::44 It is further canvassed that the Chemical Analyser's report Exh.54 regarding Exh.2 partially burnt bluish green sari and whitish cloth piece, Exh.4 Partially burnt reddish cloth piece of petticoat, Exh.5 partially burnt black cloth piece, and Exh.6 a pair of black shoes is positive for kerosene, however, the same is negative in respect of Exh. 3 Sitar brand match box for kerosene.Therefore, the Chemical Analyser's report, which is corroborative piece of evidence, also strengthens the prosecution case and connects the accused with the crime.45 As regards the medical evidence, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that PW7 Dr. Shakir Ul Karin, who conducted postmortem on the dead body of victim Shobha, as well as postmortem notes Exh.33 categorically disclose that victim sustained 68 per cent burn injuries and the cause of death, according to him, was, "Septicemia secondary due to 68% burn injuries", and therefore, even the said evidence also corroborates with the versions of the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:12:39 ::: 35 afore said two written dying declarations and oral dying declaration and consequently connects the appellant with the crime.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor relied upon the observations made in the case of Jalinder Bhimrao Sonawane vs State of Maharashtra, reported in 2006 ALL MR (Cri) 2767, which are as follows :-::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:12:39 :::" 3. ....... .......... .........The dying declaration is recorded in the prescribed format.It bears the endorsement by the Doctor that the patient was in conscious condition to make a statement.Such certificate was again taken after the recording of dying declaration was over.Both the certificates have been proved by the Doctor as made by him.The dying declaration is therefore properly recorded and proved.It cannot therefore, be assailed on any of the technical grounds.The disclosures made by the wife in the statement are natural.There is no other evidence on record to suggest that she was in any manner prompted to do what she did.There is therefore, no reason why this dying declaration should be rejected. "46 Accordingly, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the reasoning adopted by the learned Trial Judge ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:12:39 ::: 36 while convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be faulted with and further submitted that learned Trial Judge has rightly convicted the appellant thereunder and no interference therein is warranted under the appellate jurisdiction and submitted that present appeal bears no substance and same be dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant herein.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:12:39 :::47 I have perused the impugned judgment dated 5.12.2009 and the record and proceedings with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties, as well as scrutinized the oral and documentary evidence adduced and produced by the prosecution and also considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent, as well as gave thoughtful consideration to the observations made in the Rulings cited by the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent, and I am inclined to accept the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, since the prosecution case mainly revolves around two written dying declarations and one oral dying declaration allegedly made by victim ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:12:39 ::: 37 before her father PW4 Devichand Rathod, and there are material variances therein and the theory advanced by the prosecution through the said two written dying declarations Exhs. 65 and 61 that the appellant allegedly poured kerosene on the person of victim Shobha differs from the history given by the relatives of victim in medical case papers Exh.29, which discloses accidental burns sustained by victim at home while boiling water for bath; whereas PW9 child witness Gokul has given different version that when victim Shobha was preparing food, she fell down on the hearth, and accordingly, said different versions sustained fatal blow to the case of prosecution.Moreover, it has come in the evidence of PW4 Devichand that while recording both the said written dying declarations Exhs. 65 and 61, he and his wife were present, and hence, possibility of tutoring and pressurising the victim cannot be ruled out, and consequently, both the said written dying declarations are not free from doubt, and hence, same cannot be construed as truthful and reliable versions of the victim to base the conviction against the appellant.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:12:39 :::48 The variances in both the written dying declarations Exhs.65 and 61 can be summarised as under :-::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:12:39 :::(ii) Moreover, cause behind the said incident also differs in both the said written dying declarations, since the first dying declaration (Exh.65) discloses that accused demanded money for liquor and since money was not given to him by victim, the accused poured kerosene on her person and set her on fire; whereas the second written dying declaration (Exh.61) is silent regarding demand of money and non-payment thereof by victim and in fact no cause is stated in the said second written dying declaration for the occurrence of the incident.(iii) The first dying declaration (Exh.65) is silent regarding the aspect that accused came home after consuming liquor heavily, which is stated in the second written dying declaration (Exh.61).(iv) So also, the first dying declaration (Exh.65) is silent ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:12:39 ::: 39 regarding presence of children; whereas the second dying declaration (Exh.61) discloses that there were two children who requested the accused not to pour kerosene upon victim.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:12:39 :::(v) The first written dying declaration (Exh. 65) is silent regarding presence of Raghu Chavan i.e. accused no.2 (acquitted) in the first part thereof, but in the second part of the said dying declaration it has been stated that said Raghu Chavan accompanied with the appellant and provided match stick to appellant to set victim on fire, whereas pertinently second written dying declaration (Exh.65) refers to one Gel Raja alias Buwa along with appellant allegedly came to home after consuming liquor heavily and took match stick from said Buwa and set the victim on fire after pouring kerosene on her person.(vi) The first written dying declaration (Exh.65) discloses that the nearby persons on the plot extinguished the fire upon hearing her shouts; whereas second written dying declaration (Exh.61) discloses that the ladies present on Boring (hand pump) came running and poured water upon her and extinguished the fire.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:12:39 :::(vii) Moreover, as stated herein above, the first written dying declaration (Exh.65) is silent regarding appellant being under influence of liquor; whereas second written dying declaration (Exh.61) discloses that since the appellant was under influence of liquor he set the victim on fire.Had the appellant not being under the influence of liquor, he would not have set her on fire.(viii) The first dying declaration (Exh.65) discloses that right hand thumb impression was obtained at the bottom thereof; whereas second dying declaration (Exh.61) discloses that since both the palms of the victim were burnt, impression of her right toe was taken at the bottom of said second dying declaration.(ix) Pertinently, PW11 Dr. Archana Bhusewad, who gave endorsement on second dying declaration, stated that left hand thumb impression was obtained on the second dying declaration (Exh.61), which is contradictory to the second dying declaration (Exh.61), which discloses that toe impression of right foot of the victim was obtained at the bottom thereof.(x) It is also material to note that PW13 Surekha Patwe Naib ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:12:39 ::: 41 Tahsildar sated in her deposition stated that she recorded second dying declaration (Exh.61) of victim Shobha as per her narration and thereafter she read over the statement to her and she admitted the contents thereof.However, PW13 Surekha Patwe did not ask the victim who was the offender, and accordingly, PW13 Surekha Patwe did not testify the actual occurrence of the incident in the version of victim Shobha, and hence, in fact, the contents of second dying declaration (Exh.61) have not been proved, and hence, same cannot be of any aid and assistance to the case of prosecution to establish the guilt against the appellant.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:12:39 :::49 Coming to the medical case papers Exh.29, which disclose the history given by Shivlal father-in-law of the victim and Devichand father of the victim, whose signatures appear on the said medical case papers below the said history and said history is, "accidental burns at home while boiling (heating) water for bath".True it is, that unblemished dying declarations would carry more weightage in comparison to medical history given on case papers, but in the instant case, both the said dying declarations cannot be termed as unblemished dying declarations, since there are variances and infirmities as mentioned herein above, and hence, medical history ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:12:39 ::: 42 given by the father and father-in-law of the victim in the hospital, which is first in point of time at 9.45 a.m. on 12.10.2007 clarifies that the victim sustained accidental burns at home while boiling (heating) water for bath and the said medical history cannot be ignored and certainly creates suspicion in respect of versions of victim in above referred both the written dying declarations, which, in fact are not in consonance with each other.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:12:39 :::50 It is significant to note that PW9 Gokul child witness has put forth the third theory and stated in his deposition that his mother i.e. victim fell down on the hearth while preparing food and the said different theory, which is contradictory to the theories put forth in two written dying declarations as well as medical history disclosed in medical case papers (Exh.29) and strengthens the factum that the prosecution case has been shattered in pieces and there is no consistency therein.51 In the circumstances, there are infirmities and deformities in the prosecution case and prosecution has failed to bring guilt at home against the accused, and therefore, appellant cannot be held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304 of the Indian ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:12:39 ::: 43 Penal Code as convicted and sentenced by the trial Court thereunder and the conviction and sentence inflicted upon the appellant therefor shall not sustain, and hence, same deserves to be quashed and set aside, and appellant herein requires to be acquitted therefrom by allowing the present appeal.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:12:39 :::Fine amount, if paid by the appellant, be refunded to him.(SHRIHARI P. DAVARE), JUDGE.dbm/cra43.10 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:12:39 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:12:39 :::
|
['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
114,372,710 |
Digitally signed by Shailesh Sukhdev Date: 2018.08.23 11:14:31 +05'30'Applicant (Yogendra), is apprehending his arrest in connection with crime no.351/2018, registered at police station - Malharganj, Dist.Indore, for the offence punishable under Sections 354, IPC.3. Learned Senior counsel for the applicant submits that there was inter se dispute between the complainant and the present applicant when daughter of the accused plying cycle, she hit the complainant and, therefore, due to the aforesaid dispute, the present complaint has been lodged.He submits that a detailed complaint has been filed by the complainant to the Superintendent of Police, Indore on 3.8.2018 and looking to the fact and circumstances, so also the fact that except complainant, no other persons who are residing to the police quarter have made any allegation or supported the complaint and prays for grant of anticipatory bail.Learned public prosecutor opposed the prayer and submits that the complaint lodged by the present applicant is pending before Superintendent of Police, Indore and prays for rejection of the bail application.On due consideration of the totality of the facts and HIGH COURT OF M.P. BENCH AT INDORE Pg.No.2 circumstances and material available in the case diary, so also the fact that after deliberation, the alleged offence has been lodged and there is a delay in lodging the complaint, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the application for grant of anticipatory bail of applicant - Yogendra son of Shankarlal Ji Parmar, is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant be released on bail for a period of one month subject to his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.30,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer on the conditions enumerated under Section 438 (2) of Cr.P.C.This order shall be valid for thirty days.Accordingly, M.Cr.C.No.32412/2018, is allowed and stands disposed of.as per rules.(P.K. JAISWAL ) JUDGE ss/-
|
['Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,143,755 |
The fourth accused and fifth accused are found guilty of an offence punishable under Section 148 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each and further each of them found guilty of an offence punishable under Section 302, of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment.The sixth accused is found guilty of an offence punishable under Section 148 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and further found guilty of an offence punishable under Section 307, IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years.The 7th accused is found guilty of an offence punishable under Section 148, IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.The accused Nos.3 to 6 are directed to serve out the above sentences concurrently.1.The first, second and 8th accused arc acquitted against the charges leveled against them.P.W.1 is the brother in law of deceased Essaki Pandi.In his evidence he says that the second accused is native of Munnerpallam.All other accused are of Tharuvai village.On 31.8.1987 at about 9.00 A.M he alongwith Essaki Pandi, Muthu Pandi, Uyyankondan Mandiri (P.W.3), Kandasamy (P.W.4) and one Sivasubramaniam went to the panchayat office of Tharuvai village to participate in the auction to be conducted to lease out the quarry right in the Pachiaru river.At that time, the accused alongwith some other persons were also present there to participate in the auction and the prosecution party werestanding on the south side of the road and they were all waiting for the Tahsildar to conduct the auction.At that time, the deceased and the fourth accused made a request to P.Ws.l to 4 and others to give out the auction in their favour by not participating in the same.Since P.W.3 who is the earlier leaseholder sustained a huge loss during the previous lease period, P.Ws.l to 4 and others refused to heed their request and determined to knock the auction at any cost.On that score, there was some wordy quarrel between the prosecution party and the accused parties for about ten minutes.For that, the reply of P.W.3 and others is in negative.The fifth accused launched a cut on the right upper arm and left hand fingers of the deceased Essaki Pandi.The sixth accused stabbed P.W.3 in the abdomen with his suri knife.The seventh accused launched a cut on the left fore arm of P.W.3 with Aruval.Thereafter deceased Muthupandi ran for a short distance and fell on the pial of one Paramasivathevar and deceased Essaki Pandi ran for a distance and fell near the shop in front of Amman Kovil.P.W.3 also ran and fell near the mud wall of Paramasivathevar house.Their further evidence is that P.W.4 took both the deceased Muthu Pandi, Essaki Pandi along with P.W.3 to Palayamkottai Medical College Hospital by engaging a taxi where both the deceased were declared dead and P.W.3 was admitted in the hospital for treatment for his injuries.13. P.W.4 Kandasamy is a cousin brother of both the deceased Muthu Pandi and Essaki Pandi.He deposed in all material facts as that of the other eye witnesses with regard to the assembling of the persons before the Panchayat Office and the instigation by the first and second accused and the stabbing, cutting by the other accused with particular reference to each of the injuries and he further deposed that immediately after the occurrence he rushed to the Village Administrative Officer.In the mean time, all the accused took their heels.Since the Village Administrative Officer is not available in his office, he ran to the main road and procured a taxi and send both the deceased Muthu Pandi, Essaki Pandi and P.W.3 with P.Ws.l and 2 to the Hospital.Immediately, he went to Munneerpallam police station and gave a complaint to the Sub-Inspector of Police which is Ex.P.1 at about 10.45 A.M.P.W.12, the Sub-Inspector attached to Munnerpallam police station registered the complaint Ex.P.l as Crime No.398 of 1987 under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324 and 307 of IPC and he prepared the express first information report Ex.Then, he telephonically informed the same to the Inspector ofPolice.Thereafter, he sent Ex.P.1 the complaint alongwith Ex.P.20 the F.I.R to the Court and the superior officers.P.W.14 is the Inspector of Police.He on receiving information reached the police station by 11.30 A.M. on 31.8.1987 and started investigation.He went to the scene of occurrence by 12.00 Noon and prepared the observation mahazar Ex.On receipt of the death intimation Ex.P.23 and send the same to the Court.By 12.30 P.M.he seized the blood stained earth M.O.4, blood stained stone M.O.6 and blood stained earth M.O.5 where P.W.3 fell down after sustaining injury and blood stained earth M.O.4 which has been recovered near Paramasivan's house and blood stained palm leaves box M.O.3 under Ex.P.3 which has been attested by P.W.5 and Thavidan.Thereafter, on 31.8.1987, at about 1.30 P.M, he went to the T.V.M.C.Hospital and he held inquest over the dead body of Essaki Pandi between 1.30 to 3.00 P.M and the inquest report is Ex.He examined P.W.4 one Tavisi and Essaki Pandi alias Thavidan.Then, he sent the dead body of Essaki Pandi for post-mortem to P.W.7 with a request under Ex.Thereafter between 3.00 to 5.00 P.M, he conducted the inquest over the dead body of Muthu Pandi and the inquest report is Ex.Thereafter, he sent the dead body of Muthu Pandi for post-mortem with a request under Ex.Both the wounds No.3 and 4 exposed the cut surfaces of muscles, nerves and blood vessels of that region.The clotted blood was found firmly adherent to the above said wounds.An oblique beveled stab wound from below upwards, from left to right direction measuring 2.5x1.5 cm on the right side of chest 13 cms away from themidline and 18 cms below the right acromion process and also lateral to the right nipple.The edges of the wound were found bruised.On dissection, 5th rib was found cut with bruising of soft tissues wound it.The wound was found communicating into the right thoracic cavity.The right lung was found collapsed.The right pleural cavity contained 50 ccs of pale blood stained fluid."The post-mortem certificate issued by him is Ex.The mesenteries of small and large intestines were filled with blood.The depth of the wound was 18 cms."The post-mortem certificate issued by him is Ex.He is of the opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of stab injury to the regions of lower part of the left side of the chest and abdomen.P.W.14 the Investigating Officer on information arrested the first and second accused on 31.8.1987 at 6.30 P.M near Mela Munnirupallam road and remanded them to custody.ORDER K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1.The above criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of the Sessions Court of Tirunelveli in S.C.No.237 of 1988 dated 16.8.1989 whereby the third accused is found guilty of an offence punishable under Section 147 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and found guilty of an offence punishable under Section 302, IPC read with 109, IPC and sentenced to undergo an imprisonment for life.The prosecution of the accused is an outcome of the dispute in respect of participation in the auction held for leasing out the right to quarry sand in the river Pachiaru.The case of the prosecution is as follows:-For the fasli 1396 which corresponds to 1.7.1986 to 30.6.1987 P.W.3 Uyyankondal Mandiri was the leaseholder of the sand quarry from Pachiaru.He determined to take the quarry on lease for the next fasli year also through his relative one Sivanupandian, since he has committed some default in payment of the lease amount.Likewise, the deceased, the fourth accused, Koraikattu Sivanupandian along with other accused were also determined to take the quarry on lease for the fasli year 1397 and thus they locked horns with each other.While that being so, on 31.8.1987, at about 9.30 A.M, each of the party is awaiting before the Tharuvai Panchayat office to participate in the auction to be held for the Pachiaru river quarry right.At that time, the deceased, the fourth accused made a request to P.W.3 Uyyankonadan Mandiri and others to leave the auction in their favour which was turned down.The accused being filed with anger they formed the unlawful assembly and accused Nos.l and 2 instigated the other accused to finish away the persons who participate in the auction against them.The 4th accused stabbed the deceased on his right chest and the right forearm with a sun knife.The fifth accused stabbed one Essaki Pandi another deceased, the elder brother of P.W.3, on the left lateral side of lower part of the chest and middle of the left upper arm with a suri knife.The 7th accused stabbed P.W.3 on the abdomen with suri knife.The 8th accused launched a cut on P.W.3 on the left ear and left hand fingers by Aruval.The 9th accused attacked on the back of P.W.3 with stone.The said Muthu Pandi and Essaki Pandi were succumbed to their injuries when they were taken to hospital.Hence, charges were laid against the accused under Sections 109, 147, 148, 149, 323, 324 and 302 of IPC.To drive home the case, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses, marked 15 exhibits and produced 15 material objects.It is stated across the bar by the learned counsel for the appellants that A4, the second appellant Veerapandian died on 28.12.1989 during the pendency of the appeal and recording his statement, the appeal is dismissed as abated against the second appellant herein.The learned counsel for the appellant assailed the conviction of the appellants as found by the trial Court raising the contention that the motive as put forth by the prosecution is too flimsy to warrant a conviction of the appellants and that the occurrence as projected by the prosecution took place after a wordy quarrel between the parties and as such, the appellant cannot be punished under Section 302 of IPC.Further even as per the prosecution version, there are more than two hundred persons assembled before the Panchayat Office and in the melee some other person would have caused the injuries on the persons of prosecution party.The trial Court having disbelieved the evidence of P.Ws.l to 4 in respect of A1, A2 and A8, the same benefit ought to have been given to the appellants.The first accused is the Revenue Inspector of Munnerpallam village.He is related to the deceased and fourth accused.The second accused is a friend of deceased and 4th accused.The deceased and accused Nos.3 to 9 are all related to each other.P.Ws.l to 4 are the eye witnesses.Immediately A1 said that P.W.3 failed to give the commission in respect of the previous year.If he was allowed to take the quarry on lease for the present, he would not give the commission for the current year also and added to do away with those people.Immediately, the second accused shouted saying when the first accused himself gave such a permission, do not waste time and kill them.Immediately, thereafter, the third accused caught hold of the left hand of Muthu Pandi, the deceased, and the fourth accused.Koraikattu Sivanupandian stabbed with the suri knife on the chest and upper arm of the deceased Muthupandi.The fourth accused stabbed on the left chest and left upper arm of the another deceased Essaki Pandi with a suri knife.P.22 from the outpost police station at Tirunelveli Medical College Hostel.P.8 and thereafter by 5.00 P.M. he recovered M.Os. 1 and 2 from P.W.3 under Ex.P.W.7 is a Professor of Forensic Medicine at Tirunelveli who received the dead body of the deceased Muthu Pandi.He deposed that at 11.30 A.M on 1.9.1987 he conducted the autopsy over the dead body of Muthu Pandi.He found the following injuries on the dead body."1. Abrasion 1 x 0.5 cm on the left infra axiliary region,2. 0.5 x 0.5 cm on the inner aspect of left elbow (abrasion)An oblique incised stab wound from below upwards in right to left direction measuring 5x3x2 cms seen on the front and inner aspect of middle of right upper arm.The edges of the wound were found contused.Another stab wound of 2x1x1 cm seen in line with the above said wound.It was 1 cm away from inner aspect of the wound No.(3).The intervening area of skin between the wounds No.3 and 4 was found very thin.The edges of the wound were not bruised.Wound No.3 appeared to be a wound of entry and wound no.4 wound of exit.He is of the opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of stab injuries to the regions of right upper limb and right side of chest.On the same day, he received Ex.P. 10 request for post-mortem of the dead body of Essaki Pandi and he conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body by 12.45 P.M. He found the following injuries on the dead body:"1. abrasion with a slight curve 6 x 1/4 cm on the front of right shoulder.The upper end of wound showed an oblique beveled cut of 1 x 0.5 x skin deep,Slightly curved abrasion of 11 x 1/4 cm on the back of right shoulder over the posterior axillary fold.Abrasion 1.5 x 1/4 cm on the left back of chest 3 cms away from midline in the interscapular region.Irregular abrasion of 4 x 3 cms on the left middle of back 10 cms away from the midline.Irregular abrasion 6 x 4 cms on the left lateral side of lower part of chest, it was more on the back 1.4 cms away from the midline.An oblique stab wound of 2 x 0.5 x 2.5 cm on the outer aspect of middle of left upper arm.It was 14 cms above the lateral epicondyle.The edges were found bruised.Horizontal cut wounds on the back of proximal pholanges of index finger middle finger and ring finger each measuring 0.5 x 1/4 x bone deep, 1 x 1/4 1/4 cm of thickness of bone 0.5 x 1/4 and bone deep respectively.The edges were found bruised.The proximal phalange of left middle finger showed a clean cut to a 1.4 cm of its depth with complete fracture at the site of the wound.An oblique horizontal stab wound 4 x 1.5 cm seen on the left lower lateral part of the chest.It was 21 cms away from midline and 15 cms above the iliac crest (hip bone).The blood was found oozing out through the wound while turning the body.Dried blood stains were seen over the abdomen and back.It also lies 6 cms above the lower border of left costal margin.On Dissection:- The left 9th intercostal muscle is found cut and bruised.The wound is found communicating into the left thoracic cavity and then it made a cut in the left diaphragm.The left lung is found collapsed.The left pleural cavity contained 15 ccs of fluid blood.The peritoneal cavity contained 500 cc of fluid blood.The small and large intestines which were found close to the wound were contused, On further dissection, the left perinephric haematoma was seen with a clean out of 3.5 x 0.5 x2 cms in the front of middle of left kidney.to a depth of 1 cm.Further, the wound traveled on the upper pole of right kidney and it made a clear cut of 2 x 1 x 0.5 cms.Perinephric hematoma is also seen on the right kidney.Thereafter, he visited the T.V.M.C and there he examined P.W.3 and obtained his statement.He sent a request under Ex.P.12 to send the material objects for chemical examination.On 12.9.1987, he examined P.W.11 the Tahsildar.On 13.9.1987, he examined P.W.7 and received the copy of the post mortem certificates Ex.On 18.9.1987, he received information that the other accused have surrendered before the Thiruchandur Magistrate's Court.On 24.9.1987, he filed a petition to get the accused to police custody.On 13.10.1987, he examined P.W.6 and obtained a wound certificate of P.W.3 which is Ex.From the evidence available on record it is clear that the overtact of each of the accused i.e., A3 to A7 has been specifically attributed.This evidence of P.W.1 has been corroborated in all material facts by other eye witnesses viz., P.Ws.2 to 4 also.Their evidence to that effect has not been dislodged by the defence by any of the modes known to law particularly in their cross examination.P.W.3 being an injured witness we don't find any reason to discard his evidence.P.W.11 is the Tahsildar who enjoins the duty of leasing out the said quarry at Pachiaru river.On that day, the first accused the Revenue Inspector, the Village Administrative Officer and Thalayari were present.Even for that amount there were no bidders.On that day, A1 and the Village Administrative Officer reported him that Tharuvai village was in a disturbed state in respect of the auction sale and on that score, he adjourned the auction under Ex.This evidence of P.W.11 an independent witness also proves that the person assembled for participating in the auction were furious against each other and the state of affairs in the Tharuvai village was in a tense mood over the sand quarry.Furthermore, P.Ws.l to 4 in theircross examination have stated that the accused Nos.3 to 8 related to each other and belongs to the same village and there were previous enmity between the prosecution party and the accused and the 7th accused was punished by the Court of law at the instance of the prosecution party.It is common knowledge that the sand quarry business is a money making business and in every such auction there are keen and cut through competition in knocking out the quarry.Hence, having this common phenomenon in mind, if we scan the evidence of eye witnesses P.Ws.l to 4 as stated above coupled with the independent witness P.W.11 Tahsildar, we are of the view that there were previous enmity between the prosecution party in respect of some property dispute with the dispute with the accused and even in respect of the auction of the subject sand quarry they were locked borns with each other and there were also heated wordy quarrel for more than ten minutes among the said two parties just prior to the occurrence and that we are of the view that the prosecution has established the motive without any doubt.The other contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that even as per the prosecution, more than 200 persons were assembled for participating in the auction and in the melee which took place some other person not identifiable by the prosecution party would have caused the injury is raised for the purpose of rejection of the prosecution evidence made available by the prosecution.The evidence of the eye witnesses P.Ws.1 to 4 is particular and categorical about the overtacts of each of the accused which has not been dislodged by the defence by way of cross examination.Each and every injury inflicted by each of the accused have been clearly spoken to by the eye witnesses very cogently and without any contradiction even in minute aspect.In such circumstances, the evidence of P.Ws.l to 4 is left with no option but to accept the same and hence the said contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is rejected as devoid of any merit.The other contention put forth on behalf of the appellants is that the trial Court having disbelieved the evidence of P.Ws.l to 4 in respect of A1 and A2, the same benefit ought to have been given to the appellants also.In our view, this contention is also made only for the sake of contention.The trial Court on a detailed analysis of the evidence of P.Ws.l to 4 has come to the conclusion that A1 was not the member of the unlawful assembly.Even as per the evidence of P.Ws.l to 4, A1 was in the office of the Pancnayat along with his subordinate staffs, Village Administrative Officer and Thalayari.On the contrary, the incident took place in the front and eastern and western side of the Pancnayat Office.P.23 and P.24 with reference to Exs.Likewise, in respect of A2 also, the evidence of P.Ws.l to 4 is categorical to the effect that A1 is the resident of Munnerpallam village.There is no previous enmity between A2 and the prosecution party and there was no wordy quarrel even between A2 and prosecution party and no overtact is attributed to him.In that case, A6 members of an unlawful assembly having common object to commit murder fired from his gun which hit a boy who fell down and thereafter other accused throwing him into fire and the body was totally charred.Hence, we dismiss this revision petition also.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
114,381,188 |
The civil miscellaneous appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 18.11.2015 passed in M.C.O.P.No.1306 of 2014 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special Sub Court), Cuddalore.The Doctor assessed the partial permanent disability as 45% and therefore, the Tribunal ought not to have applied Multiplier by fixing the permanent disability as 20%.Even after the treatment, the claimant continued to perform his job as Lab Technician and is earning without any loss of income.Therefore, the appeal is to be allowed.There is a reduction of flush in the Left Thigh due to the fractures both in the side, movement of the left hip also affected and under these circumstances, the Tribunal is right in awarding compensation by applying the Multiplier method and therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.Considering the documents as well as the evidences produced by the respective parties, the Tribunal decided the issues with reference to the negligence as well as the quantum of compensation.The accident occurred on 24.03.2014 at about 5.30 a.m., at Cuddalore – Chidambaram Main Road near SIPCOT and the claimant was aged about 26 years at the time of accident.Cuddalore Police Station registered the case in Crime No.157/2014 under Sections 279, 337 & 338 IPC 3/9http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.No.543 of 2016 and the claim is set out for a total sum of Rs.10,00,000/-.The Tribunal tried the issues and arrived a conclusion that the Tractor Driver was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently, resulted in an accident, more specifically, the Tractor bearing Registration No.TN-31-K- 8982, came in a rash and negligent manner and accordingly, the Tribunal formed an opinion that the Tractor Driver has committed an act of negligence.The claimant was riding the Motor Cycle and even during the Cross examination, the appellant/Oriental Insurance Company could not able to rebut the evidence of the claimant.Therefore, the Tribunal arrived a conclusion that the Tractor Driver committed an act of negligence, resulted in the accident.As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, this Court is of the considered opinion that undoubtedly, the nature of the injuries sustained by the claimants are fracture.Fracture on the left Femur and fracture on left Pelvic and grievous injuries all over the body and head.However, the claimant had taken treatment and thereafter, joined duty and is performing his job as a Lab Technician and no document or evidence had been filed or 4/9http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.No.543 of 2016 established before the Tribunal that the claimant sustained loss of income.In other words, the claimant has not established that there was a loss of income on account of the injuries sustained by him during the accident.In the absence of any valid evidence, that there is a loss of income, the Courts are expected to be cautious.If the quantum of compensation is to be considered with reference to the nature as well as the gravity of the injuries sustained by the claimants and as far as the loss of income is concerned, there must be an evidence and in the absence of any evidence, the Tribunal ought not to have fixed the permanent disability as 20% and applied Multiplier and granted compensation, which is undoubtedly on the higher side and excessive.The findings of the Tribunal in this regard reveals that the Doctor assessed 45% partial permanent disability.Undoubtedly, there is a loss of strength in the left leg.However, it is not established by the claimants that there was a loss of income and admittedly, he continued to perform his duty as a Lab Technician after taking treatment.This being the facts and circumstances, this Court is of an opinion that fixing 20% permanent disability is on the higher side and therefore, the percentage of disability deserves to be reviewed.5/9http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.No.543 of 2016There is a loss of left hip movement and the same is to be considered as disability though the claimant is able to walk speedily.Thigh Fracture resulted in disability.For all these reasons, this Court is inclined to fix 15% disability for the purpose of calculating the amount of compensation under the head of loss of income.Thus, the quantum of compensation fixed for loss of income is to be modified as Rs.3,97,800/- (Rs.13,000/-*12*17*15%) [Rupees Three Lakh Ninety Seven Thousand and Eight Hundred only]After granting compensation for the loss of income by applying the Multiplier, the Tribunal further granted a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for disability, which cannot be granted at all.Once the Multiplier method is applied and the quantum of compensation is arrived, then separate compensations for disability cannot be granted at all.Therefore, the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is also to be set aside.In view of the reasons stated above, the quantum of compensation 6/9http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.No.543 of 2016 of a sum of Rs.7,68,741/- granted by the Tribunal is modified as hereunder:Disability and Loss of income (Rs.13,000/-*12*17*15%) : 3,97,800/-Thus, the respondents/claimants are entitled to get the total compensation of a sum of Rs.4,52,800/- (Rupees Four Lakh Fifty Two Thousand and Eight Hundred only).Accordingly, the judgment and decree dated 18.11.2015 passed in M.C.O.P.No.1306 of 2014 is set aside and the quantum of compensation stands modified.Consequently, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in C.M.A.No.543 of 2016 stands allowed.7/9http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.No.543 of 2016The appellant / Oriental Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire award amount with accrued interest within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, if not already deposited.If already deposited, then the respondents/claimants are permitted to withdraw the modified compensation awarded by this Court along with the interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition by filing an appropriate application before the Tribunal and the payments are to be made through RTGS.The balance amount, if any, shall be reimbursed to the appellant.No costs.Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.15.07.2020 Index : Yes Speaking order Kak To1.The Special Sub Court, (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal), Cuddalore.2.The Section Officer, V.R Section, High Court, Madras.S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J., 8/9http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.No.543 of 2016 Kak C.M.A.No.543 of 2016 15.07.2020 9/9http://www.judis.nic.in
|
['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.
|
114,712,968 |
Case diary is available.With aforesaid liberty, the application is dismissed as withdrawn.
|
['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
114,726,691 |
This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 10.10.2001 in SC.No.203 of 1987 on the file of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Poonamallee.2 During the years 1983 and 1984, a number of dacoity incidents were reported in the stations limits of Chitlapakkam, Velachery, Tiruporur, Namakkal, Crime Branch, Villianoor, Puthur, Naidu Pettai, Kiliyanoor, Kundrathur, Marakkanam, Mnimangalam, Ulundurpet, Natrampalli, Thalaivasal and Senthamangalam and as many as 25 criminal cases were registered.Since it appeared that all these offences were perpetrated by a gang of dacoits, investigation was entrusted to CBCID.As many as 36 persons were shown as accused ; the final report was taken on file and committed to the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Poonamallee in S.C.No.203 of 1987, out of 36 accused charges were framed only against 12 persons, 17 persons had absconded and 6 have passed away.71 persons were examined as prosecution witnesses.As many as 103 exhibits were marked on the side of the prosecution, Material Objects 1 to 8 were marked.On the side of the accused, two witnesses were examined and 5 documents were marked, including the represention sent to Chief Minister.3 The learned Trial Judge after elaborate consideration of the entire materials on record, came to the conclusion that except A.12, Rajamanickam, the prosecution has proved the case against the other accused beyond the reasonable doubt and A.12- Rajamanickam alone was acquitted.The convicted accused were sentenced to a term of 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment, a fine amount of Rs.2,000/- each and in default six months imprisonment was imposed and aggrieved by the same, the convicted accused have preferred this Criminal Appeal.Property1A1 M.ElumalaiS/o.ManthondiA4 MunusamyS/o.SingaraveluA5, Rajamani,S/0.SamiduraiChitlapakkamP.S.Cr.No.172/83 u/s.457 & 380 IPCGold and Silver jewels and cash Rs.14,000/- all valued Rs.16,500/-A1, M.ElumalaiS/o.ManthondiA4 MunusamyS/o.SingaraveluVelacherry P.S. Cr.No.93/83u/s.380 IPCGold jewels and watch all valued Rs.4,800/-A1 M.ElumalaiS/o.ManthondiA4 MunusamyS/o.SingaraveluA5, Rajamani,S/0.SamiduraiTirupporur PS Cr.No.98/83 u/s.380 IPCGold and Silver jewels and cash all valued Rs.25,000/-A11, Thattarai Mani,S/o.Annamalai Namakkal PS Cr.No.356/83 u/s.380 IPCGold jewels and cash Rs.300/- all worth Rs.10,575/-A1 M.ElumalaiS/o.ManthondiA3, Gandhi,S/o.NarayanasamiA5, Rajamani,S/0.SamiduraiCBCID Cr.No.32/84 u/s.457 & 380 IPCGold and Silver jewels and cash all worth Rs.3,000/-A1 M.ElumalaiS/o.ManthondiA5, Rajamani,S/0.SamiduraiA6, Ranganathan @ DevendranS/o.RamakrishnanTiruporur PS Cr.No.127/83 u/s.457 & 380 IPCGold and Silver jewels all worth Rs.2,800/-A1 M.ElumalaiS/o.ManthondiTiruporur PS Cr.No.151/83 u/s.457 & 380 IPCGold and Silver jewels all worth Rs.2,800/-A1 M.ElumalaiS/o.ManthondiA9, Perumanam KrishnanS/o.AnnamalaiA10, Perumanam SubramaniS/o.Perumanam KrishnanVilliyanoor PS Cr.No.158/83 u/s.457 & 380 IPCGold and Silver jewels all worth Rs.20,000/-A1 M.ElumalaiS/o.ManthondiA5, Rajamani,S/0.SamiduraiVilliyanoor PS Cr.No.176/83 u/s.457 & 380 IPCGold and Silver jewels all worth Rs.5,150/-A1 M.ElumalaiS/o.ManthondiGandhi, A3, S/o.NarayanasamiTiruporur PS Cr.No.236/83 u/s.457 & 511 IPCA1 M.ElumalaiS/o.ManthondiGandhi, A3, S/o.NarayanasamiTiruporur PS Cr.No.237/83 u/s.457 & 380 IPCSarees, covering jewels and cash all worth Rs.750/-Chinaraj A7, S/o.ManthondiKiliyanoor PS Cr.No.171/83 u/s.380 IPCGold jewels worth Rs.30,000/-A1 M.ElumalaiS/o.ManthondiT.Ramar, A2,S/o.ThangaveluKiliyanoor PS Cr.No.180/83 u/s.380 IPCGold chain worth Rs.6,000/-A1 M.ElumalaiS/o.ManthondiT.Ramar, A2,S/o.ThangaveluKunrathur PS Cr.No.550/83 u/s.457 & 380 IPCGold jewels worth Rs.3,000/-A1 M.ElumalaiS/o.ManthondiT.Ramar, A2,S/o.ThangaveluGandhi, A3, S/o.NarayanasamiSuthukanikrishnan-A8, S/o.PariyababuBelai Subramaniam-A12, S/o.Chinnasamy(He was expired during the appeal period)Marakanam PS Cr.No.285/83 u/s.394 IPCGold jewels and cash all worth Rs.20,000/-A1 M.ElumalaiS/o.ManthondiGandhi, A3, S/o.NarayanasamiBelai Subramaniam-A12, S/o.Chinnasamy(He was expired during the appeal period)Manimangalam PS Cr.No.165/83 u/s.395 IPCGold jewels and cash all worth Rs.8,000/-A1 M.ElumalaiS/o.ManthondiGandhi, A3, S/o.NarayanasamiBelai Subramaniam-A12, S/o.Manimangalam PS Cr.No.14/84 u/s.395 IPCGold and Silver jewels and watch all worth Rs.500/-A1 M.ElumalaiS/o.ManthondiT.Ramar, A2,S/o.ThangaveluGandhi, A3, S/o.NarayanasamiBelai Subramaniam-A12, S/o.Chinnasamy(He was expired during the appeal period)Ulundurpet PS Cr.No.5/84 u/s.395 IPCGold and Silver jewels and cash all worth Rs.28,000/-A1 M.ElumalaiS/o.4 None appeared on the side of the appellants, MrT.Shanmuga Rajeswaran, Government Advocate(Crl.Side) has represented the prosecution.5 Even though, there is no appearance on the side of the appellants, this Court went through the record to give a disposal on merits.6 The case on hand relates to gang Dacoity by a group of Kuravas and there are as many as 25 cases and the offences were committed in quite a few Districts of Tamilnadu and in neighboring States of Andhra Pradesh and Pondicherry.The break through came on 29.03.1984 at Thirupapuliyur ,when Elumalai, Raman @ Raju were arrested and based on the confession given by Elumalai and Raman and Subramani, the other accused were arrested.Likewise, confession was recorded from other appellants also.In this case, the confession of each of the accused led to recovery of gold and silver articles.The following tabular column, in a nutshell, gives the details regarding the recovery based on the confession of the accused.S.NoAccused NameCrime No.Chinnasamy(He was expired during the appeal period)ManthondiGandhi, A3, S/o.NarayanasamiBelai Subramaniam-A12, S/o.Chinnasamy(He was expired during the appeal period)17, Natrampalli PS Cr.No.3/84 u/s.380 IPCSilver jewels, watch and cash all worth Rs.350/-A4 MunusamyS/o.SingaraveluA5, Rajamani,S/0.SamiduraiA11, Thattarai Mani,S/o.Annamalai 4, Talaivasal PS Cr.No.16/84 u/s.457 & 395 IPCGold jewels and silver jewels, watch and cash all worth Rs.18,000/-Gandhi, A3, S/o.NarayanasamiA4 MunusamyS/o.SingaraveluA5, Rajamani,S/0.SamiduraiA11, Thattarai Mani,S/o.Annamalai 18, Senthamangalam PS Cr.No.13/84 u/s.392 IPCGold jewels, Wrist watch and cash Rs.3664/- all worth Rs.10,000/-7 Likewise identification parade was also conducted.The persons who are victims of the crime, duly identified the accused not only during identification parade but also before the Court.8 The learned Trial Judge has rightly recorded the finding that the prosecution had established its case against the appellants beyond the reasonable doubt This Court, after careful perusal of the entire material on record is of the view that the said judgment of the Trial Court in convicting the accused/appellants, does not warrant interference.However, the question is as regards the sentence whether the impugned judgment is to be affirmed as such.As already pointed out the learned Trial Judge had found the appellants guilty of offences under Section 395 and 400 of IPC and sentenced to the term of 10 years imprisonment.Taking into account, all the 25 cases and considering the fact that the occurrence took place during the years 1983 and 1984 and that the trial itself commenced in the year 1987 and the appeal itself was filed way back in the year 2002 and considering the long lapse of time, this Court is of the view that in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate to modify the sentence imposed by the Trial Court to the period already undergone by the appellants.G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.rpl 10 In the result, the criminal appeal is partly allowed, confirming the conviction passed against the appellants by the Trial Court vide judgment dated 10.10.2001 in S.C.No.203/1987 on the file of Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Poonamallee and modifying the sentence imposed on the appellants to the period already undergone by them.Fine amount imposed, remains unaltered.11 It is reported that the appellants are on bail.Hence, the bail bonds executed by each of the appellants shall stand cancelled.21.04.2018Internet : Yes/NorplTo1 The Additional Sessions Judge Poonamallee.2 Inspector of Police, CB CID, Madras.3 The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.A.Nos.7 of 2002G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.A.Nos.7 of 200221.04.2018
|
['Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
114,729,097 |
None for the complainant.The first criminal appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 22.1.2018 passed in CRA No.5865/2017 and the second criminal appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 19.2.2018 passed in CRA No.1261/2018 with liberty to revive after a month.Per contra, the counsel for the respondent/State opposed the appeal.Certified copy as per rules.
|
['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,147,303 |
P.W.1 is working in a lorry transport office at Ukkadam.The deceased, who is a member of RSS, is P.W.1's younger brother.P.W.1, the deceased and their mother are all living together.The deceased was an active member of RSS.P.Ws.5 and 28, the former residing east of P.W.1's house and the latter residing at Kovaipudur, were there in the crowd.When P.W.1 enquired them, they told him that the attack is in the context of the earlier incident, where, a person belonging to the assailants' community had come to be stabbed.They also told him that the assailants ran away from the crime scene.Within ten minutes thereafter, P.W.6 came there and she informed P.W.1 that in the morning when she was opening her shop (P.W.6 is having a fruit vending shop), she noticed two or three persons coming near her shop in a red colour car and scooter and then they proceeded in the pathway leading to the temple.P.1 is the said complaint.Murugesan was wearing a white colour shirt and a white dhoti.At the crime scene, the handbag of the deceased, his hawai slippers (two in number) and a mobile phone were found.M.O.1 is the mobile phone.M.O.2 is the handbag and M.O.3 is the hawai slippers.At 8.30 a.m., the Investigating Officer came to the hospital.During inquest, P.W.1 identified the dead body of his brother.M.Os.4 and 5 are the dhoti and shirt of the deceased respectively.P.W.29 is the Sub-Inspector of Police in the investigating police station.At 8.20 a.m on 28.03.2002 when he was in the police station, P.W.15, who is the local BJP leader, telephoned to him and said that Murugesan, a resident of Kovaipudur, had been stabbed by a few and with multiple injuries, he is being taken to the Government Hospital at Coimbatore.On that information, P.W.29 reached the hospital at 8.45 a.m where, he came to know that Murugesan had already died.He collected the death intimation available in the police outpost.He examined P.W.1 and recorded his statement.P.W.29 came back to the police station at 9.45 a.m and registered that complaint as Ex.P.1 in his police station Crime No.271/2002 for various offences.P.72 is the printed first information report.P.W.30, on the occurrence day morning, received information over wireless about this crime and accordingly, taking permission from his higher ups to leave the place where he was on duty, reached the crime scene at about 10.00 a.m on that morning.He collected the express records from police constable Rajendran and in the presence of P.W.20 and another, he prepared Ex.P.30, the observation mahazar and Ex.P.74, the rough sketch, between 10.00 and 10.20 a.m. Then he made security arrangements for the place and proceeded to the Government Hospital, where, in the presence of panchayatdars and witnesses, he conducted inquest over the dead body.P.73 is the inquest report.As Murugesan's relatives wanted to donate the eyes of Murugesan, with the permission of the Chief of the Hospital, the eyes of Murugesan were allowed to be removed.Then, P.W.30 gave Ex.P.47 (requisition) to the hospital to conduct post mortem.P.W.21 is the Casualty Medical Officer in the Government Medical College Hospital at Coimbatore, before whom, at 8.30 a.m on 28.03.2002, Murugesan (since deceased) was brought by P.W.15 and others.On examination, P.W.21 found Murugesan already dead.P.W.21 consigned the dead body to the mortuary and Ex.P.33 is the record in regard thereto.Right hydrocele present."The Doctor opined that death is due to haemorrhage and shock due to injuries 1, 2 and 3 (stab injuries over chest and corresponding internal injuries to heart and both lungs).According to the Doctor, death would have occurred 4 to 8 hours prior to autopsy.P.49 is the viscera report, which shows that neither poison nor alcohol was detected in the viscera.Except the abrasions, injuries 1 and 6 could have been caused by the knife shown to him.Injuries 2 to 5 and 7 are stab injuries and the injuries noted in serial No.6 could have been caused by the use of two knives.Cut injuries and tear injuries might have been caused by the weapons in M.O.6 series.P.W.30, from the crime scene, recovered M.O.1 (mobile phone); M.O.2 (a faded dark colour canvass cloth shoulder bag) and M.O.40 series viz., a sum of Rs.5,920/- consisting of 17 notes in Rs.100/- denomination; 34 notes in Rs.50/- denomination; 4 notes in Rs.20/- denomination and 47 notes in Rs.10/- denomination.Besides the above, he also recovered M.O.8 series (a key chain); M.O.3 (a pair of faded yellow colour hawai chappals); M.O.7 (a knife cover); M.O.9 (blood stained earth) and M.O.10 (sample earth) under Ex.P.31 attested by P.W.20 and another.Then, he examined P.Ws.2 to 4, 7, 8, 16 and 20 by recording their statements.On 29.03.2002, he examined P.Ws.15, 19 and 23 by recording their statements.On 30.03.2002 and 31.03.2002, P.W.30 examined further witnesses by recording their statements.On 01.04.2002, P.W.30 sent the incriminating objects recovered from the crime scene to the court.He recovered M.Os.5, 41, 42 and 4 removed from the dead body after post mortem and handed over to him under Form 95 (Ex.P.75).A1 gave a voluntry confession statement at that time, the admissible portion of which is Ex.The statement was recorded from 8.15 p.m till 10.30 p.m on that day.Pursuant to the same, A1 led the police party and the witnesses to another place, from where, he produced a knife (M.O.6 series), which was recovered under Ex.P.54 attested by the same witnesses.Then, A1 took the police party and the witnesses to the crime scene and then to his house, from where, he produced M.O.15, a full sleeves polyester shirt; M.O.16, a faded blood stained pant; Ex.P.17 (medical record); M.O.17 and M.O.18 (Journals) under Ex.P.55 (search list) attested by the residents of the house.The arrested accused was brought to the police station and confined in the station cell.He then altered the section of offence and prepared Ex.At that time, A2 gave a voluntary confession statement, the admissible portion of which is Ex.P.50, pursuant to which, one knife (M.O.6 series) came to be recovered under Ex.A2 then led the police party to the crime scene.Then, he took the police party to his residence, from where, he produced M.O.14 (blood stained full sleeves shirt); M.O.13 (faded cement colour pant); M.O.11 (a book on religion) and M.O.12 (another book) under Ex.P.52 (search list).The arrested A2 was brought to the police station and then locked up in the station cell.On prior information, he searched the house of A3 in the presene of P.W.25 and another.A3 was not available there.From his house, he recovered M.O.19 series under Ex.P.57 (search list).P.W.30 also searched the house of A5, from where, M.O.20 series came to be recovered under Ex.P.58 (search list).Then P.W.30 searched the house of A4, from where, he recovered M.O.21 series under Ex.P.59 (search list).The house of the absconding accused Ibrahim was also searched, from where, M.O.22 series came to be recovered under Ex.P.60 (search list).The house of another absconding accused by name Ashraf Ali was also searched, from where, M.O.23 series came to be recovered under Ex.P.61 (search list).P.W.30 arrested A3 at 9.00 p.m on 11.04.2002 on being identified by the informant and examined him in the presence of P.W.25 and another.A3 at that time gave a voluntary confession statement, the admissible portion of which is Ex.Personal search of A3 resulted in the recovery of M.O.24 (money purse); M.O.25 ( a paper containing the address of the deceased); M.O.26 (a visiting card) and M.O.27 series (Rs.30/- consisting of three Rs.10/- denomination notes) under Ex.P.63. A3 then led the police party and the witnesses to a place known to him, from where, a knife (M.O.6 series) came to be recovered under Ex.A3 also produced M.O.30, a bag, from that place, in which, M.O.28, a blood stained green colour lungi and M.O.29, a full sleeves shirt, were available and they were recovered under Ex.A3 then led the police party and the witnesses to the crime scene.He also led the police party and the witnesses to his house, from where, he produced M.O.31 (notice), which was recovered under Ex.P.66 (search list).P.W.30, on prior information, arrested A4 at 6.00 a.m on 12.04.2002 on he being identified by the informant.At that time, A4 gave a voluntary confession statement.M.O.32, the scooter driven by A4, was recovered.Personal search of A4 resulted in the recovery of M.O.33 (money purse); M.O.34 (sacred ashes and kumkum); M.O.35 (photo of Lord Vinayaga) and M.O.36 series (a sum of Rs.45/- consisting of one note in the denomination of Rs.20/-; two notes in the denomination of Rs.10/- and one note in the denomination of Rs.5/-) and M.O.37 (a bit of paper containing the address of the deceased) under Ex.A4 led the police party and the witnesses to the crime scene.P.W.30 got sample signature from A4 in three papers, which are Ex.P.W.30 gave Ex.Shocked at seeing Murugesan lying in a pool of blood, P.Ws.5 and 28 stood there itself.P.Ws.5 and 28 know that Murugesan is involved in RSS movement.Police examined him at 11.00 or 11.30 a.m. P.W.6 is having a fruit shop in Kovaipudur division near Abirami Gas Company.P.W.6 normally opens her shop at 6.45 a.m and closes it at 10.00 or 10.30 p.m everyday.On 28.03.2002 as usual she opened the shop at 7.00 a.m. At that time she noticed opposite to her shop two red colour motor cycles and one blue colour scooter parked.She also noticed three persons standing near the vehicles, out of whom, one was wearing a lungi and having a small French beard.The said person was also wearing a shirt.He would be aged about 20 to 25 years.The other one was tall and he was wearing a pant and shirt.He would be aged about 25 years.The third one was a fair complexioned medium height person wearing a pant and shirt.All the three persons would be in the age group of 20 to 25 years.P.W.6 thought that they had come there to buy something in her shop.A few minutes later, he saw people running on that passage shouting that Murugesan (since deceased) had been stabbed.P.W.6 noticed the assailants opposite to her shop around 7.00 or 7.05 a.m and at about 7.30 a.m on that day, he saw people running on that passage.P.W.6 also went towards Badrakaliamman temple, where, she found Murugesan lying dead in a pool of blood.There was 10 or 15 people, out of whom, P.Ws.5 and 28 were also there.P.Ws.5, 28 and others said that the assailants ran towards south.Murugesan's relatives came there and took him to the hospital.P.W.6 informed Murugesan's brother about what she saw stating that she can identify the three persons whom she had seen opposite to her shop.The second one, who was neither tall nor short but of a medium height, had a bleeding injury on his right hand wrist.The person, who was already near the scooter, on seeing the five persons coming back to that place, started the scooter.All the six persons were talking for some time and then they left in the three scooters, each in different directions.Then, P.W.7 went to the private college to deliver to the students their ironed dresses and when he returned, he found a crowd near his shop.Her evidence would only show that P.Ws.2, 3 and 4 came to her house on 28.03.2002 at about 7.00 a.m to meet her husband (P.W.20) and since her husband was not available, she asked P.Ws.2, 3 and 4 to inspect the lorry which is parked by the side.She is not an eye witness to the occurrence.P.W.10 is a resident of Sathyanagar at Parvathipuram, Coimbatore.He is a carpenter by profession.On 27.03.2002, after finishing his day's work, he went to a non-vegetarian hotel at 8.30 p.m for dinner.After dinner, he came out of the hotel in the company of his friend Ramachandran (not examined) around 9.00 p.m. At that time, he saw the six accused put up for trial standing along with Ashraf Ali (absconding accused) and Ibrahim Ali, whom he knows.They were standing a little away from the hotel.P.W.10 knows the names of all the six accused.A4 and A5 were talking a little distance away from the other accused.P.W.10 heard them talking that they would again meet at 10.00 p.m on that night near Aruna Theatre in Kuniyamuthur.All the eight persons were in the procession of Sultan Meeran's funeral journey to the burial ground.P.W.10 heard A5 telling others that, on that night itself, Murugesan must be finished.(Sultan Meeran is shown to have been murdered on the night of 26.03.2002).All the eight persons left the scene and P.W.10 also boarded a bus to go to his house.P.W.11 was Judicial Magistrate No.3, Coimbatore, during the relevant time.On Ex.P.W.16 is selling lottery tickets.As usual, at 7.00 a.m on 28.03.2002, he opened his shop and at that time he saw two persons coming in a red colour motor cycle.In a nearby tea shop, they wanted to know whether tea is ready? One among the two was 5-1/2 feet tall with a fair complexion and he had a muscular body.The other one had a beard and he was reasonably short with a moderate complexion.They will be between 23 and 24 years of age.They were talking in a low voice among themselves and then they left in their motor cycle.Sometime later, P.W.16 came to know that Murugesan had been stabbed and he also ran towards the crime scene, where, he found P.Ws.1, 15 and Murugesan's uncle there.Thinking that Murugesan was alive, they took him to the hospital.P.5 (P.W.6), Ex.P.20 (P.W.28), Ex.P.2 (P.W.2), Ex.P.4 (P.W.4) and Ex.P.W.18 is vending milk, which he sells in Kovaipudhur area and Kovaipudhur diversion area.He used to go in his TVS 50 Moped for selling milk.Between 6.45 a.m and 7.00 a.m on 28.03.2002 (occurrence day), he went to supply milk to one Paramasivam residing at Kovaipudhur diversion.On that day, he saw three persons standing by the side of the lorry.After supplying milk to the house of Paramasivam, when P.W.18 returned, his vehicle stopped for want of petrol.At that time, he noticed two persons one near the water tank and the other in the pathway leading to Badrakaliamman temple.P.38 and P.39 are the serologist's reports.P.40 is another requisition given by the Investigating Officer on 26.04.2002 to the court to send some of the case properties to the laboratory.As an enclosure to Ex.P.41, those properties were also sent to the laboratory.P.42 is the chemical examiner's report and Ex.P.43 is the serologist's report.The Investigating Officer gave Ex.P.44 (requisition) to send the disputed signature to the expert for comparison with the admitted signature.As an enclosure to Ex.P.45 (court's letter), the signatures were sent to the expert.Ex.P.46 is the report of the handwriting expert and it contains reasons.A2 gave a voluntary confession statement, the admissible portion of which is Ex.Pursuant to Ex.P.50, a weapon, forming part of M.O.6 series, came to be recovered under Ex.Then, A2 led the police party and the witnesses to his house, where, under Ex.P.52 (house search list), M.Os.11 to 14 came to be recovered.P.W.25 is the Village Administrative Officer.At about 7.30 p.m on 10.04.2002, the Investigating Officer came to his house, which is close to Kuniyamuthur Bus Stand.Investigating Officer took P.W.25 with him and pointed out a person, who was already in his jeep.Investigating Officer examined the said person.The said person answered that his name is Abu Thaqir (A1) and on examination, he gave a voluntary confession statement.P.W.25 identified that person as A1 present in court.P.53 is the admissible portion of the confession statement of A1, pursuant to which, a knife, forming part of M.O.6 series, came to be recovered under Ex.Later on, under Ex.The arrested first accused (A1) was brought to the police station and then, all of them went to the Nursing Home of P.W.13 at Madukarai, where, P.Ws.13 and 14 were examined by the Investigating Officer.From that hospital, the Investigating Officer recovered M.Os.16 and 17 (medical records) relating to A1 under Ex.P.56 (Mahazar).The Investigating Officer asked P.W.25 to come on the next day.On the next day, the Investigating Officer went to the house of A3, where, A3 was not found.Under Ex.P.57 (search list), M.O.19 came to be recovered from A3's house.Then, the Investigating Officer proceeded to the house of A5, where, under Ex.P.58 (search list), M.O.20 came to be recovered.A5 was not in the house at that time.From there, they went to the house of A4 and he was also not there.However, under Ex.P.59 (house search list), M.O.21 series came to be recovered.From the house of Ibrahim (absconding accused), M.O.22 series came to be recovered under Ex.P.60 (house search list).The above named accused was not in the house.From the house of one Ashraf Ali, M.O.23 series came to be recovered under Ex.P.61 (house search list).A3 was arrested at about 9.00 p.m on 11.04.2002 and examined.P.62 is the admissible portion of the confession statement of A3, pursuant to which, M.Os.24, 25, 26 and M.O.27 series came to be recovered under Ex.Pursuant to Ex.P.62, one of the knives, forming part of M.O.6 series, also came to be recovered under Ex.M.Os.28 to 30 also came to be recovered pursuant to Ex.P.62 under Ex.Then, the police party went to the house of A3, from where, M.O.31, produced by A3, was recovered under Ex.At 6.00 a.m on 12.04.2002, on being identified, A4 was arrested.His examination resulted in the recovery of M.O.32 (scooter) and recovery of M.Os.33 to 37 under Ex.The arrested accused were taken to the police station.At 12.00 noon on 15.04.2002, A5 was arrested, on being identified by the informant, and examined.Both A6 and Ibrahim left.Those who were already there also left.P.W.30 came to know that the absconding accused (Ibrahim) and Ashraf Ali are residing at No.3, Angappa Naicken Street, Chennai.He also denied his arrest as spoken to by the Investigating Officer.He would state that his signatures were forcibly taken by the police in some papers and that the scooter stated to have been recovered from him does not belong to him at all.According to him, he was taken to the police station on 06.04.2002 itself, where, by illegally detaining him, his signature was taken in a number of papers.The signatures sent to the expert for comparison were all forcibly taken from him.Since A4 was taken into illegal custody on 06.04.2002 itself, his mother gave a telegram on 11.04.2002 to the Investigating Officer and he had enclosed a copy of the telegram.According to A4, he was photographed and videographed in the police station, which were shown to the witnesses.D.W.4 is working in a place very close to his house and he knows A1, who is none else than D.W.1's uncle's son.A1 resides close to D.W.4's house.He had admitted in his evidence in cross that he did not know the name of A5 prior to the occurrence and that, he did not know where A5 resides.He had further admitted that, except giving the personal identifying features of A5, he did not give the identifying features of the other accused.But however, he had given the names during investigation, which names he came to know by reading a newspaper.According to his evidence, initially he was not paying his attention to the conversation of the eight but when in mid-way they were referring to the use of a knife, he started paying attention to the conversation.He then states that he did not know the name of the lane where he was standing and the name of the hotel where he had gone to take the dinner.He then added that within 15 or 20 days after the murder, he saw in a newspaper the names of all the accused and only on seeing that, he came to know that only those persons murdered Murugesan.He had admitted that, even after seeing the newspaper as referred to above, he did not inform the police till such time he was enquired by the police on 30.06.2002.His evidence in cross also shows that he was enquired by the police by showing photographs and even in the police station he saw the photographs.At the fag end of his cross examination, he had also stated that prior to 27.03.2002, he had not seen A1 to A3 at all.According to him, Ibrahim is not in court.P.W.20 had given the name of the financier as Narmada Financier at Salem.D.W.4 had been examined to lend support to the oral evidence of D.W.1 that A1 sustained injury while attempting to repair the radiator of the lorry, which was under the control of D.W.1.Since we have rejected the evidence of D.W.1,we have no hesitation at all to reject the evidence of D.W.4 also.vsl/Tr9.The State represented by Inspector of Police, R-1 Podanur P.S., Coimbatore DistrictSix accused were tried in S.C.No.114/2003 on the file of the First Additional Court of Sessions, Coimbatore, for various offences.At the end of the trial, the learned trial Judge found A1 to A3 guilty under sections 120-B, 148, 341 and 302 I.P.C; A4 and A6 under sections 120-B, 147 and 302 read with section 149 I.P.C and A5 under sections 120-B and 302 read with section 109 I.P.C. For the offence of criminal conspiracy, each one of the convicted accused stands sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life together with a fine of Rs.10,000/-, carrying a default sentence.For the offence of murder, either directly or with the aid of section 149 or 109 I.P.C, each one of the convicted accused stands sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life together with a fine of Rs.10,000/-, carrying a default sentence.For the offence under section 341 I.P.C., each one of the convicted accused stands sentenced to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment together with a fine of Rs.500/-, carrying a default sentence.For the offence under section 148 I.P.C., the convicted accused stands sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment together with a fine of Rs.10,000/-, carrying a default sentence.The sentences stand directed to run concurrently.Hence, the convicted A4 to A6 have filed Crl.No.336/2004 and A1 to A3 have filed Crl.No.338/2004 before this court.Heard Mr.B.Sriramulu learned senior counsel appearing for A1; Mr.According to the prosecution, on 26.03.2002 a Muslim by name Sultan Meeran was murdered by two persons and therefore, to retaliate, a criminal conspiracy was hatched on 27.03.2002 by the accused; as a consequence to the criminal conspiracy, all the accused formed themselves into members of unlawful assembly (A1 to A3 armed) on 28.03.2002 at 7.30 a.m and in the course of the same transaction, by wrongfully restraining Murugesan (since deceased), A1 to A3 caused his death.To prove their case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 30, besides marking Exs.Both P.W.1 and the deceased are unmarried.At about 6.30 a.m on the occurrence day, the deceased was taking his bath and P.W.1 went to a nearby barbar shop to have a shave.P.W.1's paternal uncle came to the barbar shop and informed P.W.1 that east of Badrakaliamman Koil, somebody are engaged in a quarrel with Murugesan (since deceased).Immediately P.W.1 ran towards that place, where he found his younger brother lying on the ground with bleeding injuries.Sometime later, P.W.1's uncle Subramani (not examined) and P.W.15 came there.P.W.15 and others took injured Murugesan in the car of P.W.1's uncle to the Government Hospital at Coimbatore.En route, P.W.14, over his mobile phone, informed the investigating police station.When P.W.1 reached the crime scene, it was 7.30 a.m and fifteen minutes thereafter, they left for the hospital, which they reached at 8.00 a.m. The duty Doctor, by examining Murugesan, pronounced him dead.The narration of P.W.1 was reduced into writing by P.W.29, in which P.W.1 had signed.Then, he sent the express records to the court as well as to the higher officials.P.W.30 is the Investigating Officer.Since six months before the occurrence, there was no supply of printed first information report forms.Since xerox copy of the first information report format is used, care is taken to see that the serial number available in the printed first information report is not masked while taking xerox copies.P.W.21 sent intimation to the police outpost about the medico legal case.P.W.23 is the Professor of Forensic Medicine in the Government Medical College Hospital at Coimbatore.During post mortem, he found various symptoms as noted by him in Ex.P.48, the post mortem report.The symptoms are as hereunder:"1) Vertically oblique stab injury over front of right side of chest measuring 5 cms x 2.5 cms x entering the right thoracic cavity.The upper outer end of the wound is 6 cms above and medial to right nipple.On dissection the wound passes backwards, medially and downwards in the right third intercostal space cutting the intercostal muscles, vessels, nerves and cutting the fourth rib close to sternum.Then it has caused a stab injury in the underlying anterior aspect of lower part of upper lobe of right lung measuring 2.5 cms x 1 cm x 1.5 cms and exited out in the inner aspect of lower part of right lung measuring 2.25 cms x 1 cm.Then it caused a cut in the right side of front of pericardium measuring 1.75 cms x 1 cm and then caused a stab in the anterior aspect of right ventricle measuring 1.5 cms x 1 cm x cavity deep.Pericardial sac contains 50 ml of blood with clots.Right pleural cavity contains 750 ml of blood with clots.The depth of the wound tract is about 10 cms.The margins of the wound are regular and both ends are pointed.2) Transversely oblique stab injury over back of left side of upper chest measuring 3 cms x 1 cm x entering the left thoracic cavity.The lower medial end of the wound is 4 cms from the middle of T 3 vertebra.The wound passes forward, downwards and medially through the left third intercostal space causing a stab injury in the posterior aspect of upper lobe of left lung measuring 2 cms x 1 cm x 2 cms.The deepest part ending as a point.Both ends of the wound are pointed and the margins are regular.The length of the wound tract is about 8 cms left pleural cavity contains 400 ml of blood with clots.3) Vertically oblique stab injury over back of right side of upper chest measuring 3 cms x 1 cm x entering the right thoracic cavity.The upper medial end of the wound is 1.5 cms from the middle of T 4 vertebra.The wound passes downwards, laterally and forwards in the fourth right intercostal space cutting the right fourth rib in the posterior aspect and causing a stab injury in the middle lobe of right lung measuring 2.5 cms x 1 cm x 2 cms and the deepest point ending as a point.The length of the wound tract is about 8 cms.Both ends of the wound are pointed and the margins are regular.4) Transversely oblique stab injury over back of left side of upper chest close to midline measuring 3 cms x 1 cm x 3.5 cms deep in the muscle plane.The lower inner end of the wound is close to middle of T3 vertebra.The wound passes downwards, laterally and forwards.Both ends of the wound are pointed and margins are regular.5) Vertically oblique stab injury just below the right side of lower lip measuring 1 cm x 0.5 cms through and through and exiting through the buccal surface of the lower lip on the right side, wound measuring 0.75 x 0.5 cm.The wound passes upwards, backwards and laterally.The length of the wound tract is about 1 cm.The upper inner end of the wound is 1 cm right to midline of chin.The ends of the wound are pointed (both) and the margins are regular.6) Vertically oblique stab injury over the middle third of back of left arm measuring 4.5 cms x 2 cms x 6 cms deep in the muscle plane.The distal outer end of the wound is 8 cms above left elbow.The wound passes upwards, forwards and medially.Both the ends of the wound are pointed and margins are regular.7) Oblique stab injury over the posterior aspect of left hip measuring 3 cms x 1 cm x 5 cms deep in the muscle plane.Both ends of the wound are pointed and the margins are regular.The lower outer end of the wound is 7 cms below and behind the left anterior superior illiac spine.The wound passes forwards, upwards and laterally.8) An oblique cut injury over left side of upper lip measuring 3 cms x 1 cm x 1 cm muscle deep.9) An oblique cut injury over left side of lower lip measuring 4 cms x 1 cm x 1 cm muscle deep.10) Transversely oblique incised wound over front of upper part of neck just above thyroid cartilage measuring 3 cms x 1 cm x skin deep.11) Oblique incised wound in the middle of right infra clavicular region measuring 1 cm x 0.5 cm x skin deep.The upper inner end of the wound is 6 cms from the medial end of right clavicle.12) Transversely oblique skin deep incised wounds four in number in the left subscapular region measuring 5 cms x 1 cm, 3 cms x 1 cm, 2 cms x 0.5 cm and 1 cm x 0.5 cm.13) Transversely oblique skin deep incised wound over upper interscapular region on the right side measuring 2 cms x 1 cm.14) Transversely oblique skin deep incised wound over the back of right lower chest measuring 2 cms x 0.5 cms.15) Vertically oblique skin deep incised wound over the upper interscapular region on the left side measuring 4 cms x 0.5 cm.16) Vertically oblique skin deep incised wound over the upper interscapular region on the right side measuring 2 cms x 0.5 cms.17) Transversely oblique skin deep incised wound over the back of left side of upper abdomen measuring 2 cms x 1 cm.18) Transversely oblique skin deep incised wound over the dorsum of right wrist measuring 5 cms x 0.5 cm.19) Oblique cut injury over the dorsum right hand measuring 5 cms x 1 cm x bone deep.20) Another transversely oblique cut injury over the dorsum of right hand close to right index finger measuring 3 cms x 1 cm x bone deep.21) Oblique cut injury over the radial aspect of right palm measuring 2 cms x 0.5 cm x 1 cm muscle deep.22) Oblique cut injury over the medial aspect of lower third of right thigh 5 cms above right knee measuring 7 cms x 2 cms x 1 cm deep in the subcutaneous plane.23) Transversely oblique cut injury over the front of upper part of left arm 12 cms below the top of left shoulder measuring 2 cms x 1 cm x 1 cm deep in the muscle plane.24) Oblique incised wound over the front of upper part of left forearm 8 cms below left elbow measuring 3 cms x 0.5 cm x skin deep.25) Abrasions seen in the following regions:1 cm x 1 cm, 0.5 x 0.5 cm over right side of forehead.3 cm x 0.25 cm over right lateral aspect of lower chest.2 cm x 1 cm, 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm over dorsum of proximal part of right forearm.2 cm x 1 cm over back of right elbow.3 cm x 1 cm, 2 cm x 1 cm over lateral aspect of upper part of right leg.4 cm x 3 cm over lateral aspect of middle third of right thigh.2 cm x 1 cm over the lateral aspect of right hip.7 cm x 4 cm over the lateral aspect of right gluteal region.3 cm x 1 cm just below left mastoid.4 cm x 1 cm and 3 cm x 1 cm over left lateral aspect of neck.3 cm x 1 cm over left supra scapular region.4 cm x 0.5 cm and 1 cm x 1 cm over lateral aspect of upper part of left arm.1 cm x 1 cm over posterior aspect of lower part of left arm.5 cm x 4 cm and 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm over posterior aspect of left elbow.4 cm x 2 cm over lateral aspect of left hip.Multiple tiny scratch abrasions over left knee, lower part of left forearm, right hand, right side of face, left side of forehead, dorsum of nose and over front of neck.Other findings:Peritoneal cavity empty.Lungs cutsection pale.Heart all chambers empty.Coronaries patent.Hyoid bone intact.Stomach contains 150 ml of brown colour fluid without any specific smell.On 02.04.2002, 04.04.2002 and 08.04.2002, he examined further witnesses by recording their statements.On prior information, P.W.30 arrested A1 identified by the informant at 8.15 p.m on 10.04.2002 and examined him in the presence of P.W.25 and another.P.76, the altered express first information report.At 6.00 a.m on 11.04.2002, P.W.30 arrested A2 on prior information on he being identified by the informant.A1 and A2 were sent for judicial remand.As A1 had injuries on his right hand wrist, he was sent for treatment with a medical memo.P.8 (requisition) to the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 12.04.2002 to conduct a test identification parade.On orders being passed, P.W.30 served summons (Ex.P.9 series) on P.Ws.5, 6, 28 and other witnesses to appear in the Central Prison at Salem.P.W.30 sent the case properties to the court along with Ex.P.40 (requisition) to subject the same for chemical examination.P.W.30 gave Ex.P.44 (requisition) to the court to send the handwriting/signature of A3 and A4 to the handwriting expert to be compared with the papers recovered from A3 and A4, each containing the address of Murugesan (since deceased).On 18.04.2002, P.W.30 arrested A5 in the presence of P.W.25 and another.At that time, A5 gave a voluntary confession statement, which was recorded.A5 was then sent for judicial remand.On 28.04.2002, on prior information, P.W.30 arrested A6 at about 11.30 p.m when he was riding his two wheeler bearing Regn.TN-38-3997 and examined him in the presence of P.W.25 and another.A6 gave a voluntary confession statement at that time, which was recorded.A6 then led the police party and the witnesses to the crime scene and then led them to his house, where, in the presence of witnesses, M.O.39 series came to be recovered under Ex.P.69 (search list).(Mylsamy and Nagaraj are not examined in court).P.13 series are the summons served on the two witnesses.P.W.30 gave Ex.P.19 (requisition) to the court to examine P.Ws.2 to 7, 10, 16, 19, 28 and others under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.P.29 series are the summons served on the witnesses.P.W.30 examined further witnesses by recording their statements.9. P.W.2 is an automobile broker by profession.P.W.4 is selling tomato in wholesale.P.W.4 wanted a lorry.At 6.00 a.m on 28.03.2002, P.W.2, in the company of P.Ws.3 and 4, went to the place where P.W.20 is residing.There they did not find P.W.20 but found only his wife (P.W.8), who informed them that her husband had gone out.P.W.2 introduced himself to P.W.8 and explained the purpose for which he had come there.P.W.8 told P.W.2 to have a look at the lorry parked outside.P.Ws.2, 3 and 4 examined the tyre and the general condition of the lorry.At that time, three persons passed them towards west and ten minutes thereafter, they heard a cry in pain from that side, which made P.Ws.2 to 4 run towards that place, where, they saw a person being stabbed by three persons.It was around 7.00 or 7.30 a.m. As the three persons were stabbing the victim, one among the three got a cut injury on the right hand.All the three were frightened and therefore they ran from the crime scene.All the three went to Palakad and then Chithoor in the look out for a lorry for purchase and they had their lunch at Palakad.At 5.00 p.m on that day, they returned home and at 8.30 p.m on that day, P.W.30 examined him, to whom, P.W.2 disclosed as to what he saw.P.W.2 would also state that when he was witnessing the occurrence, a few persons came running.But however, he did not know them.He asserted that he can identify the three assailants and in fact, he identified the three persons present in court i.e., the first three in the line to his left, as the persons involved in the crime.On 28.05.2002, he appeared before the court for being examined and then, on the direction of the court, he appeared again on 29.05.2002, on which day, he was examined under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.P.2 is the said statement.10. P.W.3 is also an automobile broker by profession.As P.W.4 wanted to buy a lorry, on the occurrence day, P.Ws.3, 2 and 4 went to the house of P.W.20 to inspect the lorry.On P.W.2 asking for Marudhachalam (P.W.20), his wife (P.W.8) told them that her husband had gone out and they can inspect the lorry.As P.Ws.3, 2 and 4 were inspecting the lorry, three persons passed them towards west.Ten minutes after that, they heard a distress call.It was around 7.00 or 7.20 a.m. These three witnesses ran to a distant of 10 to 15 feet, where they found one person stabbing another on the back and again on the right side chest.Another person stabbed the victim on the centre of his back.The victim fell down and the said person was continuously stabbing him.At that time, the said assailant had received an injury on his right hand wrist.When the witnesses went towards them, they were criminally intimidated with dire consequences.The persons whom he identified in the prison are A1 to A3 present in court.M.O.6 series (three knives) are the knives used by the assailants on the date of the crime.P.W.4's evidence regarding his presence in P.W.20's house on that morning, is on the same lines as spoken to by P.Ws.2 and 3 and his evidence on the occurrence proper is also on the same lines as spoken to by the above referred to witnesses (P.Ws.2 and 3).His evidence also shows that one of the assailants, who was short and aged about 22 years or so, stabbed on the left side back of the victim.Another short person, aged about 23 years, stabbed on the right side chest of the victim.The third tall one stabbed on the centre of the back side of the victim and he may be aged about 25 years.All the three indiscriminately stabbed.The tall one was holding the victim while the other two were indiscriminately stabbing and at that time one such aim resulted in an injury on the right hand elbow of the assailant, who was tall.When the witnesses reached the crime scene after hearing the hue and cry, they were intimidated by the assailants.Then, he would depose, as spoken to by P.Ws.2 and 3 that all of them went to Palakad, from where, they went to Chithoor, since one automobile broker told them that there is a lorry available for sale at Chithoor.Then they came back to Palakad, where they had their lunch and then returned to their native place.At 9.00 p.m., the Inspector of Police examined these witnesses.In the test identification parade, he identified two persons.The witness identified A1 to A3 present in court as the persons whom he had seen as the assailants at the crime scene.A1 and A2 are the persons, whom he had identified in the test identification parade.M.O.6 series are the weapons used by the assailants at the crime scene.P.W.5 is having a Subscriber Trunk Dialling booth at Kovaipudur diversion.At 7.15 a.m on 28.03.2002, he went to Badrakaliamman Temple to offer prayers.The temple is close to his house.P.W.28, a resident of the same area, also came to the temple.P.Ws.5 and 28 were climbing down the stairs after worshipping the Goddess and at that time they saw Murugesan (since deceased) passing the temple with a bag hung on his shoulder.At that time P.W.5 heard somebody loudly proclaiming that a Muslim had been murdered in the town and as a retaliation, they are killing somebody.P.W.5 ran towards the place from where he heard the noise and there he found Murugesan lying in a pool of blood.Three persons in the age group of 20 to 25 years were running towards the road on the south.One was wearing a lungi and a shirt on his person while the other two were wearing pant and shirt respectively.P.W.5 was able to see only one among the three whom he could identify.Therefore they decided to inform P.W.15, the Secretary of the local BJP.However, they saw P.W.15 coming in the opposite direction.Those persons took the injured (Murugesan) to the hospital in a car.The car belongs to Subramani (uncle of Murugesan not examined).P.W.1 went along with the injured to the hospital.P.W.5 came to know that Murugesan died in the hospital and therefore he went to the hospital, where, he observed the dead body.All the three were talking for about five minutes.All the three went towards Badrakaliamman temple through the pathway.P.W.6 returned to her shop.At 8.30 a.m., she came to know that Murugesan had died.Leaving the shop in her son's charge, P.W.6 went to the hospital around 10.30 a.m. In the hospital, P.W.30 (Investigating Officer) was conducting inquest and during inquest, P.W.6 was examined.P.W.6 identified A1 to A3 in the test identification parade as the persons whom she had seen on the occurrence day opposite to her shop and then going on the pathway leading to the temple.P.W.6 also identified A4 in the test identification parade.He opens the shop everyday at about 6.30 a.m. On the occurrence day also, he opened the shop likewise.Ramasamy, running a mess opposite to a private college, came near his shop, since his two wheeler (motor cycle) had some repair.Immediately thereafter, six persons came there in two red colour mopeds and one blue colour scooter and parked their vehicles near the fruit shop close to Abirami Gas Company.The shop of P.Ws.6 and 7 is separated by a distance of 100 feet.Three persons stood near the two wheelers themselves and the remaining three went in the pathway leading to Badrakaliamman temple.Two out of the three, who were standing there, left the place in a motor cycle and came back within five or ten minutes.All the three were talking among themselves.One among them went on the road leading to a residential area.It was around 7.15 a.m. The three persons, who had already left towards Badrakaliamman temple, came back in the same road followed by two persons among the three, who were originally standing near the scooter.One among the three was of a medium height with a fair complexion.Only at that time he came to know that Murugesan (since deceased) had been stabbed.Out of fear and to avoid police enquiring him, P.W.7 closed his shop and went home.At 6.30 or 7.00 p.m on that night, police examined him and P.W.7 gave all the details.In the test identification parade, he identified the three persons, who went in the pathway leading to Badrakaliamman temple; A1 to A3 present in court are the three persons whom he saw going in the pathway leading to Badrakaliamman temple and it is those persons whom he identified in the test identification parade.When she returned home after leaving her child in the school, she found a crowd in the pathway.Her husband (P.W.20) also returned home by about 9.00 or 10.00 a.m. Police examined them.On the occurrence day at 6.30 a.m., he left the house to buy some articles and returned home at about 9.00 a.m. He found a crowd at a distance of 50 feet from his house and when he asked his wife (P.W.8) about it, she answered that an automobile broker along with two persons came and inspected his lorry.P.W.20 went to the crime scene around 10.00 a.m., where he found a huge crowd and police personnel were there.P.W.20 witnessed the preparation of Ex.P.30, the observation mahazar.Then police left for the hospital asking P.W.20 and others to stay there itself.Police returned to the crime scene later on and at that time, some currency; mobile phone; key bunch; a pair of slippers; a knife cover; blood stained earth and sample earth came to be recovered under Ex.P.31 (mahazar).P.W.9 is a resident of Ramachettipalayam at Coimbatore.At 8.30 p.m on 27.03.2002 he went to a petrol bunk at Kuniyamuthur to fill up petrol for his moped motor cycle.After filling up petrol, he went to a hotel near a cinema theatre to take dinner.It was around 8.45 p.m. Then he went to the cinema theatre to see a film.As he used to smoke, he went to the northern side of the cinema theatre to smoke and he was standing there smoking.At that time he found a crowd of eight talking among themselves.Two motor cycles were found parked near them.However, he does not remember the colour of those motor cycles.Initially, he did not pay any attention to the conversation, since he thought that they were all friends.But in the mid-way, he heard them talking about the use of knife and therefore he started listening to the conversation.One among them was commanding the others stating that, by that night, xerox shop owner Murugesan (since deceased) should be finished.P.W.9 did not understand why such a plot was made.The person who gave such a command called Shajakhan (A2), Abu Thakir (A1), Sirajudeen (A3) by their names; verified as to whether they have knives and told them that since they have knives, they must finish the transaction.The same person also told others that they can keep watch.He identified A1 to A3 as the persons who were called by their names by A5 on that day.A1 to A3 were armed on that day; P.W.9 can identify the other three persons who were also in the crowd and two among the three are not in court.It was around 9.30 or 9.45 p.m. After giving the necessary commands, A5 crossed the road and left.The rest left the place in three motor cycles.P.W.9, after witnessing the night movie, went home.On 30.06.2002, P.W.9 was examined by the police.P.8/request given by the Investigating Officer, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore, passed an order to conduct a test identification parade.Accordingly P.W.11 issued Ex.P.W.11 issued Ex.P.10 (letter) to the Prison Authorities to make the necessary arrangements.She verified the presence of the witnesses with the summons issued.She verified with records the suspected persons to be identified.A1 was asked to stand in a line along with persons of similar features.P.W.13, the Doctor, identified A1 correctly.P.W.14, the nurse, also identified A1 correctly.P.Ws.13 and 14 identified A1 thrice correctly.Then all the accused were asked to stand in a line with persons of similar features in any place as they like.P.W.6 identified A1, A2, A3 and A4 correctly on all the three occasions.P.W.5 identified A2 twice correctly and on one occasion, he identified a different person.P.W.28 identified A1 and A2 twice correctly.P.W.2 identified on all the three occasions A1 and A2 correctly and another person.Witness Subramani (P.W.4) identified thrice correctly A1 and A2 and another unconnected person.The position of the suspected persons were re-arranged.They were also asked to change their dresses.Witness Rajendran (P.W.3) identified correctly A1 and A2 thrice.P.W.7 identified A1 to A3 correctly.P.W.16 could not identify anybody.Then P.W.11 questioned the identified accused whether they have anything to say? All the suspected accused stated that they were all photographed and videographed in the Chettipalayam Police Station.P.11 is the proceedings drawn by P.W.11 on the identification held.P.W.12, during the relevant time, was Judicial Magistrate No.6, Coimbatore.On 15.05.2002 at about 11.00 a.m., P.W.12 conducted the test identification parade.She verified the witnesses present with the records available; observed the necessary precautions and then made the suspected accused to stand in a line with persons having more or less similar features.Witness Nagaraj (P.W.16) identified A6 correctly on all the three occasions.P.W.13 is a private medical practitioner, before whom, at 7.45 a.m on 28.03.2002, A1 appeared for treatment stating that while attending to the repairs in a lorry radiator, he sustianed injuries on his right hand.P.W.13 identified A1 in the test identification parade.A1 was discharged on his own request.P.W.14 identified A1 in the test identification parade.P.W.15 is in charge of BJP party at Coimbatore and he knows the deceased, who was having a xerox shop in the place where P.W.15 is residing.P.W.15 is having a small hotel.At about 7.30 a.m on 28.03.2002, a few people informed him that Murugesan is lying with stab injuries and east of the foot pathway near Badrakaliamman temple, he found Murugesan lying in a pool of blood with stab injuries.P.Ws.5 and 28 told P.W.15 that three persons, stating that they are taking revenge for the murder of their man, stabbed Murugesan and ran away.P.W.6 also told P.W.15 that in three two wheelers, a few people came and three out of those persons, after alighting from their scooter, went towards Badrakaliamman temple.Thangaraj and his uncle also came there.The injured was taken by P.W.15 and others to the Government Hospital.En route, P.W.15 informed the police over his mobile phone about this crime.P.W.15 left the crime scene at about 7.45 or 8.00 a.m on that day and within ten minutes after they left, he told the police about the incident over his mobile phone.At 8.30 a.m., they all reached the hospital, where the duty Doctor, pronounced Murugesan dead.At 8.45 a.m., P.W.29 (Sub-Inspector of Police) came to the hospital, who, by examining P.W.1, recorded his statement.P.W.15 was examined during inquest.On the same night, P.W.16 was examined by the police.P.18 is his statement recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Judicial Magistrate.P.W.17 was Judicial Magistrate No.4, Coimbatore during the relevant time.Pursuant to Ex.P.19 order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, he examined P.Ws.1 to 5 under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.P.3 (P.W.3) are the statements recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.He also examined P.W.7 and others and Exs.P.29 series are the summons issued by him for examining all the witnesses referred to above.Then he left.In the evening when he returned, he found a huge crowd in Kovaipudhur diversion area.He came to know about the occurrence and he was examined by the police.P.W.19 is the Village Administrative Officer of a particular area in Coimbatore.The Investigating Officer verified him as to whether A1 was residing in his area? After verifying, P.W.19 told him that such a person was not residing in the address given by the Investigating Officer.P.W.20 is the husband of P.W.8, who deposed that he is owning a lorry bearing Regn.Since he had some financial problem in the year 2002, he decided to sell the lorry and in that context, he had informed two or three automobile brokers, including P.W.2 about the sale.At 6.30 a.m on 28.03.2002, P.W.20 left his house to Kuniyamuthur to buy some articles.Around 9.00 a.m., he returned and at that time, at a distance of 50 feet from his house, he saw a crowd.When P.W.20 asked his wife (P.W.8) as to why there was a crowd, she answered that along with a person, two persons came and inspected the lorry.After hearing about the occurrence, P.W.20 went to the crime scene around 10.00 a.m accompanied by his brother Paramasivam (not examined).The occurrence place is at a distance of 50 feet from his house and the lorry was parked 20 feet away from his house.Police was already there.He witnessed the preparation of Ex.P.30, the observation mahazar.Then, asking P.W.20 and others to stay in the same place and promising to come back, police went to the hospital and came back at about 1.00 p.m. P.W.20 witnessed the recovery of currency; mobile phone; key chain; hawai slippers; a knife cover; blood stained earth and sample earth under a mahazar as spoken to by P.W.30, the Investigating Officer.M.O.7 is the knife cover.M.O.1 is the bag.M.O.2 is the mobile phone.M.O.8 series are the key bunch.M.O.3 is the hawai slippers.M.Os.9 and 10 are blood stained earth and sample earth respectively.P.31 is the mahazar under which they were recovered.P.W.21 is the medical officer in the Government Medical College Hospital at Coimbatore.At about 7.15 a.m on 11.04.2002, A1 was brought before him by a police constable attached to the Investigating Police Station.P.W.21 examined A1 and at that time, A1 voluntarily stated that at 7.00 a.m on 28.03.2002 when he was walking on the road leading to Badrakaliamman temple, an unknown person came to attack him with a bottle and in self defence when he moved his right hand, he received an injury.A1 also told him that the assailant himself took him to the private hospital of P.W.13 at Madukarai and he (A1) was there in P.W.13's hospital from 7.15 a.m till 12.30 p.m. Ex.P.34 is the accident register.P.W.30 sent the case properties to the court with a requistion to subject the same for chemical examination.P.W.22 is the Magisterial Clerk, who speaks about the receipt of the case properties received along with Ex.P.35 (requisition) given by the Investigating Officer.As an enclosure to Ex.P.36 (court's letter), the case properties were sent to the laboratory.On 28.04.2002, on being identified, A6 came to be arrested and examined.His examination resulted in the recovery of M.O.38 (scooter) under Ex.P.68 (mahazar).Then, A6 took the police party and the witnesses to his house, from where, M.O.39 series came to be recovered under Ex.P.69 (house search list).P.W.26 is the scientific expert in the laboratory.As an enclosure to Ex.P.45 (court's letter), M.Os.31 and 37 (letters) and sample letters stated to have been recovered from A4 and A3 were received by his office.The expert was asked to examine the signature in Exs.The sample signature in Ex.P.70 tallied with the contents of M.O.37 and likewise, the sample signature in Ex.P.W.27 is residing at Sundarapuram.At about 8.00 a.m on 28.03.2002, he was standing in the bus stop at Kuniyamuthur.A5, whom he knows earlier, was also standing in that place at that time.P.W.27 identified A5 in court also.In a red colour motor cycle, Ashraf ali and A3 came.He identified Siraj as A3 present in court.He would also state that Ashraf Ali is not in court.He noticed all the four persons talking.At that time, he heard the tall person, who came in the scooter wearing a colour shirt, telling A5 that everything is already over.Ashraf Ali, leaving Siraj (A3) left the place.Sometime later, in a blue colour scooter, A6 and another person by name Ibrahim came.He can identify them.A6 present in court was the person whom he saw on that day.Therefore P.W.30 submitted Ex.P.77 to the court for permission to search that house.However, since he came to know later on that the absconding accused were not there in that house, he did not search that house.After completing the investigation, P.W.30 filed the final report in court against the accused on 08.07.2002 under sections 147, 148, 341, 302, 302 read with 109 and 149 and 120-B I.P.C.When the accused were questioned under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the basis of the incriminating materials made available against each one of them, they denied each and every circumtance put up against them as false and contrary to facts.A1 to A3 filed a joint written statement stating that they do not belong to any religious group or association; on 30.03.2002, they were taken to the Investigating Police Station, where, their personal details were obtained; one week later, police forcibly took their sample handwriting and signatures in various papers; several books and articles were recovered from their house contrary to law; A1 and A2 were taken to the residence of the Judicial Magistrate at 7.30 p.m on 11.04.2002 and A3, at 7.30 p.m on 12.04.2002; at about 6.30 a.m on 28.03.2002 when A1 was attending to a repair work by opening the bonnet of the vehicle, the blade of the radiator fan accidentally hit him resulting in an injury on his right hand wrist, for which, he took treatment in the hospital of P.W.13; police are making use of those hospital records and that A1 to A3 have no connection whatsoever with Murugesan's murder.A4 had filed a separate written statement denying the entire prosecution case.A5 filed a written statement stating that he had been falsely implicated because, he is a Muslim by religion.He would state that he was taken into illegal custody on 16.04.2002 and that his wife had given a telegram on 22.04.2002 complaining about illegal custody to the State Human Right's Commission.Police have clandestinely removed the copy of that telegram from his house.He would state that he was shown to the witnesses in the police station.D.Ws.1 to 4 were examined on the side of the defence.D.W.1 would state that he has been driving heavy vehicle over the past twenty years and he knows A1, who was a cleaner under him for 10 or 12 days.About 20 months prior to he giving evidence in court (he gave evidence in court on 09.12.2003), A1 was working under him as a cleaner in his lorry for 10 or 12 days.According to him, on the occurrence day when he left for Palakad in his lorry, A1 was working as a cleaner under him.Around 6.00 or 6.15 a.m at Madukarai, the water pump connecting the radiator got cut.Immediately D.W.1 stopped the lorry and asked A1 to open the bonnet, to verify from where water is leaking? A1, holding the opened bonnet in his left hand, put his right hand inside the engine, at which point of time, the fan blade of the radiator caused injury on A1's right hand wrist.A1 also received an injury on his left hand.Since A1 was having a bleeding injury, D.W.1 took him to the hospital of P.W.13 at Madukarai around 6.45 a.m., where, there was a nurse.D.W.1 took the telephone number given by A1 and made a call to that number informing that A1 had been admitted in the hospital.D.W.1 was in P.W.13's hospital for about 15 minutes and then leaving A1 in the hospital itself, D.W.1 proceeded on his journey, after informing A1's parents.Ten or twenty days later when he returned, he came to know that A1 had been arrested by the police.D.W.2 is having a clinical laboratory at Kottamedu in Coimbatore.On 03.09.2003, he gave Ex.D.1 his blood group report.A1's blood group is "A" positive.D.W.3 is not only a photographer but also a videographer and he works as such from his house at G.M.Nagar, Ukkadam, Coimbatore.Four days prior to he taking photographs, he videographed that area.Defence material objects 1 to 10 are the photographs he had taken.On 28.03.2002 morning, as usual, he opened his office.At about 7.15 a.m., he received a phone call from P.W.13's hospital and D.W.1 spoke to him on the phone stating that A1 had suffered an injury; he had been admitted in the hospital at Madukarai and A1's house may be informed about that.Accordingly, D.W.4 telephoned to A1's house and then went to his house.Since D.W.4 did not have any money at that time, only at 9.00 a.m he and A1's mother went to the hospital, from where, A1 was got discharged.By taking us through the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 4, it is argued by the learned senior counsel that when it is shown that P.W.4 is selling tomatoes in wholesale, it is highly unbelievable that P.W.4 would be in a position to buy a lorry.If the capacity of P.W.4 to buy a lorry could be easily doubted, then the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 4 that they joined together and went to the house of P.W.20 on the occurrence day morning, which alone had enabled them to see the occurrence, can be easily disbelieved.Though in the rough sketch prepared, the lorry, which P.Ws.2 to 4 claim to have inspected, is shown, yet, in the observation mahazar, the noting of the presence of the lorry at the crime scene appears to be only by way of an interlineation.The prosecution had failed to establish whether P.W.20 had any lorry at all with him for sale.The evidence of P.Ws.8 and 20 also would not inspire the confidence of this court to conclude that P.W.20 had a lorry with him for sale.Though P.Ws.2 to 4 are shown to have been examined on the occurrence day itself, yet, the statement recorded from them had reached the court belatedly.Therefore, when records of non-material value, which according to the prosecution had come into existence on the day of the occurrence itself, had reached the court on the next day, then there is no reason at all as to why the statement of key witnesses for the occurrence proper namely, that of P.Ws.2 to 4, had been sent only after a long time to the court.This raises a serious suspicion about the prosecution case as to whether P.Ws.2 to 4 could have been eye witnesses at all.The evidence of various witnesses that they have identified A1 to A3 in the test identification parade and court, is far from convincing and in any event, there are materials to show that all the witnesses were shown to A1 to A3 as well as to the others prior to the test identification parade.When the identity of A.1 to A.3 is doubtful then it is not possible to conclude that A1 to A3 alone participated in the murderous attack on Murugesan.The arrest and recovery at the instance of A1 and from A2 and A3 also, is not free from doubt.All the accused have been taken into illegal custody by the police on suspicion long prior to the actual arrest shown and only while they were in such illegal custody, police, using third degree methods, got statements, signatures and handwritings from the accused and therefore no credibility at all could be attached to the case built by the prosecution on such materials.Mr.B.Sriramulu, learned senior counsel, by taking us through the evidence of D.Ws.1 to 4, would argue that A1's presence at the crime scene is doubtful and this evidence explains the circumstance under which A1 had come to sustain the injury.S.Shanmugavelayutham, learned counsel (now learned senior counsel) would adopt the arguments of Mr.B.Sriramulu learned senior counsel.Mr.V.Gopinath, learned senior counsel appearing for A4 to A6 would state that they were put up for trial only on the basis of the criminal conspiracy stated to have been hatched between all the accused on a particular day.To sustain the offence under section 120-B I.P.C, P.Ws.9 and 10 alone have been examined.P.W.9 had come to be examined on 30.06.2002, by which time, much water had flown under the bridge and therefore his evidence cannot be accepted at it's face value.In addition to that, P.W.9's statement recorded during investigation had also reached the court belatedly.According to the prosecution, only three persons participated in the crime.None had identified A4 to A6 as the assailants present at the crime scene.Under these circumstances, learned senior counsel appearing for A4 to A6 would contend that there is no legal evidence at all against the above named accused to connect them with the crime and if that is so, then, they must be acquitted.They were not examined during inquest.The police officer had sent the inquest report and the evidence of the witnesses examined during inquest alone to the court on the next day.Examination of P.Ws.2 to 4 alone had given some clue about the identity of the assailants and the failure on the part of the Investigating Agency to send the statement of P.Ws.2 to 4 recorded during investigation immediately, cannot be taken serious note of in doubting the prosecution case, especially when the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 4 is found to be natural, reliable and trustworthy.There is evidence to show that the entire Coimbatore City was in great turmoil, tension and in the grip of fear and those factors cannot be totally lost sight of in evaluating the prosecution case on the accusation of the defence that the statements of P.Ws.2 to 4 were sent belatedly to the court.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor wanted us to believe the evidence of P.Ws.9 and 10, which unerringly establishes the conspiracy charge.He would also submit that the evidence of D.Ws.1 to 4 is far from convincing.In the light of the submissions made by the learned senior counsel appearing for A1; learned senior counsel appearing for A2 and A3; learned senior counsel appearing for A4 to A6 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, we went through the entire materials available on record with utmost care and caution.In sum and substance, the prosecution case is that, to take revenge for the murder of a person in their community by Hindus, all the accused, along with the absconding accused (two in number), hatched a conspiracy at 9.00 p.m and 10.00 p.m on 27.03.2002 at two different places and in continuation thereof, forming themselves into members of an unlawful assembly, A1 to A3, after wrongfully restraining Murugesan, murdered him.The prosecution had also let in evidence to show that, after hatching the conspiracy on the occurrence day morning, the accused assembled at a particular place; from there, three accused alone proceeded to the crime scene, where, Murugesan was fatally attacked and the accused re-assembled in the same place where they originally met, from where, they made good their escape.In our considered opinion, the prosecution case could be easily compartmentalised into three parts namely, conspiracy, constitution of an unlawful assembly and lastly, the actual murder.Let us now examine the prosecution case on conspiracy.Two witnesses have been examined to prove that the accused hatched a conspiracy.It is not in dispute that P.W.9 came to be examined for the first time during investigation only on 30.06.2002 and the statement shown to have been recorded from him on that day during investigation had reached the court only on 13.02.2003 namely, along with the final report.P.W.9 is definitely a key witness.This court, right from the judgment reported in 1974 L.W.Crl.But, despite the examination of P.W.9 almost three months after the crime and the delay in sending his statement to the court as referred to above, we wanted to satisfy ourselves as to whether P.W.9 could be treated as a reliable witness? We have already extracted his evidence in the earlier portion of this judgment, which shows that he heard the persons assembled at that time conspiring to commit an offence namely, to kill Murugesan and A1 to A3 were assigned to do that job.According to him, he went to fill up petrol for his TVS 50 Moped motor cycle to a petrol bunk at Kuniyamuthur at 8.30 p.m on 27.03.2002, from where, he went to a hotel near a cinema theatre for dinner and after finishing his dinner, he was standing opposite to the cinema theatre at about 8.45 p.m to buy a ticket for seeing the late night movie.His evidence shows that he moved to the side lane to smoke and at that time he saw a group of eight persons talking among themselves.This means giving allowances regarding his perception of time that P.W.9 could have seen the group of eight by about 9.00 p.m or so.This witness had not participated in the test identification parade.On top of this, P.W.30, the Investigating Officer, had admitted that during investigation P.W.9 did not tell him that the accused were standing near the lane north of the cinema theatre and were talking.P.W.30's evidence also shows that P.W.9 did not tell him that among the eight, one was telling others in a commanding voice.Having an overall view of the evidence of P.W.9 and the fact that he came to be examined for the first time almost three months after the crime and in the context of his statement reaching the court along with the final report, we have a serious doubt in our mind as to whether this person would have been there as claimed by him and heard the conspiracy and so we reject his evidence.This witness is shown to have been examined on 30.03.2002 i.e., two days after the occurrence.P.W.10's evidence is that, at or about the same time namely, at 9.00 p.m on the same night (i.e.) 27.3.2002, he watched the accused put up for trial along with the absconding accused standing and talking a little away from the non-vegetarian hotel, where, this witness had gone to take dinner.The prosecution had not explained as to how the same group of persons would have been seen more or less at the same time by P.W.9 at a different place and P.W.10 at a different place.The prosecution had not even let in evidence to show that the place where P.Ws.9 and 10 saw the accused talking among themselves is the same place or in close proximity to each other.P.W.10's evidence is that, he knows the names of all the six accused and out of the six, A4 and A5 were standing a little away and talking.P.W.10's evidence is that, he heard the accused talking among themselves that they would meet near Aruna Cinema Theatre at 10.00 p.m. We have already noted that P.W.9 had stated in his evidence that, after taking his dinner at about 8.45 p.m when he came before the cinema theatre, he saw the accused there.According to P.W.9's evidence, he saw the accused talking among themselves between 9.30 and 9.45 p.m and on this evidence we have already expressed our doubt.Whatever it is, we wanted to examine P.W.10's evidence on it's own merits.P.W.10's evidence is that, he knows all the six accused by name and he knows A4 and A5 personally also.According to his evidence, he heard the accused deciding to meet near Aruna Theatre at Kuniyamuthur at 10.00 p.m (the prosecution through P.W.9's evidence had brought that at about 9.30 to 9.45 p.m near Aruna Theatre, he saw them and we have already expressed our reservation on that evidence).We find that if really the accused wanted to hatch a conspiracy and when all of them have assembled near the hotel as spoken to by P.W.10, we see no reason at all as to why they did not hatch the conspiracy at that time but wanted to postpone it.P.W.10 would further state that A5 at that time told the others that on that night itself Murugesan must be finished and then they left.From the evidence of P.W.10, it is clear that he is not a stranger to the accused.If that is so, then, the normal conduct of a person like P.W.10 in that given situation would be to go and mingle with his friends.In this case, P.W.10 had not done any such thing.This raises a serious suspicion in our mind as to whether P.W.10 knew that the accused are going to conspire and therefore he must watch them discreetly.Though he asserted in his cross examination that he told the Magistrate, when he was examined under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that he heard A5 commanding others that Murugesan must be finished on that night itself, yet, we find from Ex.P.7 (his statement) that he had only mentioned that all the eight accused were found talking in secrecy and nothing more.P.W.30, the Investigating Officer, had also admitted that during investigation P.W.10 did not disclose to him that A5, at the time of hatching the conspiracy, openly said to the other accused that Murugesan must be finished that night itself.As we have noted earlier, P.W.10 had admitted that he is acquainted, to a certain extent, with the accused and he used to talk to them whenever he sees them.If such is the acquaintanceship, we see no reason at all as to why, we reiterate, P.W.10 did not mingle with those known people at that time.According to him, his friend, who was with him at that time (the said friend is not examined), went to the police station to disclose the details about the conspiracy.P.W.10 had also admitted that the Investigating Officer did not send for him but on the other hand, when he saw the Investigating Officer on 30.03.2002 in the Kovaipudhur diversion road, on his own he went and told him.He had admitted that he did not disclose to the police the identifying features of any of the accused and only from the paper, he came to know that two persons have been arrested.In the light of our discussion referred to above, we find that P.W.10's evidence also cannot be relied upon easily at it's face value.Since the prosecution relies upon the evidence of P.Ws.9 and 10 only to establish the theory of conspiracy and as we have found both of them to be unreliable, we have to necessarily hold that the prosecution had failed to establish the offence under section 120-B I.P.C. Accordingly, A1 to A6 are acquitted of the offence under section 120-B I.P.C and the fine amount, if any, paid by each one of them for that offence is directed to be refunded to them.The next broad aspect of the prosecution case is, the accused forming themselves into members of an unlawful assembly some of them namely, A1 to A3 armed, to murder Murugesan.We have to remember that even if the prosecution fails in establishing the case of criminal conspiracy, yet, if they establishes that there was an unlawful assembly, of which the accused were members; that unlawful assembly had the object of committing a crime namely, killing Murugesan and in accomplishing that object, Murugesan is murdered by all the accused participating or only a few participating, the prosecution can always succeed.By examining the evidence, let us first find out whether there was any unlawful assembly at all? Accepting for the present that P.Ws.2 to 4 have seen the crime, even then, it only shows that there were three assailants who murdered Murugesan.It is not necessary that the prosecution must establish that at the scene where the crime is committed, there was an unlawful assembly.In our opinion, unlawful assembly, with an object to commit the crime, may be formed at a totally different place and it is possible for a few members of that unlawful assembly to move and then commit the crime at a different place.But one thing must be definitely established namely, there was an unlawful assembly; that unlawful assembly had the object of committing a crime and in pursuance of the same, the crime itself was committed.There should be nexus between the unlawful assembly and the actual commission of the crime.27. P.W.6 is having a fruit shop near Abirami Gas Company at Kovaipudhur.We have already extracted her evidence.In sum and subtance, her evidence shows that at about 7.00 a.m on the occurrence day when she opened the shop, she found three persons standing there near three motor cycles and that all the three left in the foot pathway leading to Badrakaliamman temple.According to her, she identified four persons in the test identification parade conducted by the Judicial Magistrate and A1 to A3 present in court are the persons who went in the foot pathway leading to Badrakaliamman temple on the occurrence day and the fourth person identified by her in the test identification parade is A4, whom she found talking with the other three persons opposite to her shop.Therefore, at the best, her evidence shows that four persons assembled near her shop, out of whom, three went towards Badrakaliamman temple.Her evidence also shows that within a short time after the three persons proceeded towards Badrakaliamman temple, she heard that Murugesan had been done to death.To constitute an unlawful assembly, there must be five or more persons.Thereafter, one went towards the area where there was a overhead water tank and the other one went in the road leading to a residential area.It was around 7.15 a.m. Then the three persons, who first left the scene, came back running followed by two persons who left later.We want to note here that P.Ws.6 and 7 are not eye witnesses to the crime.They have been examined by the State probably to establish that there was an unlawful assembly.In our considered opinion, the evidence of P.W.6 as to how many assembled near her shop deserves acceptance because, admittedly P.W.7 also states that the suspected persons stood only opposite to the shop of P.W.6 and therefore she would have been in a better position to see how many came there.In the face of that evidence of P.W.6, we are of the considered opinion that the evidence of P.W.7 as to how many assembled before the fruit shop of P.W.6 is open to a very serious doubt.P.Ws.6 and 7 do do not say in their evidence whether any of the persons who had assembled there according to P.W.6 three persons and according to P.W.7 six persons were armed.Since we have held that the conspiracy charge had collapsed, even if we accept the evidence of P.W.7, it would only show that six persons assembled.From the evidence available on record, we are not able to even infer that the said assembly assuming we accept the evidence of P.W.7, which we have rejected earlier had any unlawful object in their mind.So is our conclusion from the evidence of P.W.6 also.We may note at this stage that the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 5 and 28 is that, only three persons attacked Murugesan.There is evidence of yet another witness namely, the evidence of P.W.16, to test the prosecution case on unlawful assembly.His evidence shows that he is having a lottery shop in Kovaipudhur and on the occurrence day, as usual he opened the shop at 7.00 a.m. He noticed two persons coming to a nearby tea shop for taking tea.In another scooter, one person came, who started conversing that the two persons, who had already come there, and then they left.In our considered opinion, the evidence of P.W.16 leads the prosecution case to no-where.P.W.27 in his evidence would state that at about 8.00 a.m on 28.03.2002 when he was standing in the bus stop at Kuniyamuthur, he saw A5 (Abdul Nazar) standing near him.At that time, in a red colour scooter, A3 and another person by name Ashraf Ali came, of whom, he knew A3 already.All the four were talking and one tall person among the four told A5 that everything is over.So, it is clear that P.W.27 speaks about meeting of five persons according to him after the event was over.He does not speak about who the fifth person is? Evidence of P.W.27 then shows that Ashraf Ali left the place and after some time A6 came in a blue colour scooter and one Ibrahim came in a red colour scooter.Then all left.The prosecution had not established that after the crime, the unlawful assembly, if any, had any common object.In the light of our discussion referred to above on the available materials, we have no doubt at all that the prosecution had definitely failed to establish that there was an unlawful assembly on 28.03.2002 having a common object to commit a crime and in accomplishing that object of the unlawful assembly alone, Murugesan had been murdered in this case.Accordingly, we acquit A1 to A3 of the offence under section 148 I.P.C and A4 to A6 of the offence under section 147 I.P.C. The fine amount, if any, paid by them for the said conviction, is directed to be refunded to them.Since we have held that the prosecution had not established any unlawful assembly having a common object to commit a crime on the date of the occurrence, pursuant to which only Murugesan was murdered, we are inclined to acquit A4 and A6 of the charge under section 302 read with section 149 I.P.C. The fine amount, if any, paid by each one of them is directed to be refunded to them.A5 stands convicted under section 302 read with section 109 I.P.C. We have disbelieved the prosecution case on conspiracy and on unlawful assembly and the only evidence available against A5 is that, in the course of conspiracy, A5 directed A1 to A3 to commit the murder.Since we have already disbelieved the prosecution case on conspiracy charge and since there is no other evidence to show in which way A5 abetted the commission of the crime, we are inclined to acquit A5 of the offence under section 302 read with section 109 I.P.C and accordingly, he is acquitted of the said offence.The fine amount, if any, paid by him for the said conviction is directed to be refunded to him.Of course, the registration certificate of the said lorry had not been produced.But P.W.20 had given evidence that as the lorry is subject to a hire purchase transaction, registration certificate is with the financier.In Ex.Even the lorry number had come to be given and this rough sketch was prepared on 28.03.2002 itself.The crime scene is very close to the place where the lorry is parked.A perusal of Ex.P.30, the observation mahazar shows that the lorry was found parked in that area.We carefully applied our mind to this point and perused Ex.P.W.8 is the wife of P.W.20 and she had also stated that her husband had a lorry with him for sale.P.W.4 had admitted, when he was cross examined, that till he gave evidence in court, he had not purchased any lorry.There are instances where the financer, after making the hire purchase endorsement in the R.C.Book, would give the book to the lorry owner himself.No worthy cross examination had been made at all to P.W.4 at least by even suggesting that he had no money to buy a lorry.As stated earlier, P.Ws. 2 to 4 are eye witnesses to the crime.We have no doubt at all that the evidence of the witnesses - may be even eye witnesses - may not be disbelieved solely on the ground that the statements of such witnesses recorded during investigation have reached the court belatedly.In other words, if the evidence of such witnesses are found to be reliable and trustworthy and there are no suspicious circumstances surrounding the examination of such witnesses during investigation, simply because the investigating agency had not taken care to send the statements of such witnesses to the court early, cannot be taken serious note of.P.W.30 had also stated in his evidence that Ex.P.3, the Observation Mahazar; Ex.P.73, the inquest report and Ex.Therefore it is clear that the investigating officer had sent the statements of witnesses recorded during inquest and the other documents referred to above to the court without any waste of time.P.W.30 had stated that, in the context of the murder of Sultan Meeran on 26.3.2002; murder of Murugesan on 28.3.2002 - murders in succession the entire city of Coimbatore, Kuniyamuthur and areas surrounding those places were in a highly disturbed state and a wide spread police bandobast was posted in and around the crime scene.We have already extracted in the earlier portion of this judgment their evidence in detail, which undoubtedly establishes that as they were inspecting the lorry, three persons passed them and within a short time thereafter, they heard a cry, which made them to run towards that place, where they found three persons stabbing one individual and it was around 7.00 or 7.30 a.m. Though these three witnesses have been cross examined by the defence at length, yet we find that their evidence in chief that three persons joining together stabbed one individual, remains unshaken.Had they done it, the defence would have no chance to condemn them.But from that mere failure on their part in not going to the police station, we are not in a position to reject their evidence in toto.Their evidence also shows that only on the night of 28.03.2002, all of them were examined by the police.When cross examined by A4 to A6, P.W.2 had stated that among the three assailants, one had beard and the third accused in court is the said person having beard.The test identification parade was held on 23.04.2002 and therefore it would have been definitely possible for P.W.2 to identify the assailants in the test identification parade, since the test identification parade had come to be conducted within a short time after the occurrence.It may be true that in the test identification parade P.W.2 had identified an unconnected person as the third assailant.Since the occurrence had taken place in broad day light, the possibility of the witnesses retaining in their mind the impressions about the accused cannot be totally eliminated.P.W.2's evidence is that, one among the three assailants had received an injury in the course of the same transaction on his right hand wrist.We get corroboration for this in the evidence of P.W.13, the Doctor, before whom, A1 appeared at about 7.45 a.m. on 23.08.2002 for taking treatment for the injury sustained by him on his right hand wrist.Of course, to P.W.13, A1 had given a different picture as to how he came to sustain the injury.However, we are relying upon the evidence of P.W.13 only to the extent, namely, it lends corroboration to the oral evidence of P.W.2 that one of the assailants, he saw at the time of occurrence, received an injury on his right hand wrist.P.W.3's evidence on the occurrence proper and his subsequent conduct is more or less on the same lines as that of P.W.2. P.W.2 identified A1 to A3 in the test identification parade conducted by the Judicial Magistrate.He denied that he was shown the photographs and videographs of the accused before he was asked to participate in the test identification parade.P.W.3's evidence also shows that one among the three assailants received an injury on his right hand wrist in the same transaction.We have already referred to the oral evidence of P.W.13 in this regard.His evidence also shows that one among the three assailants received an injury on his right hand.His evidence shows that among the three assailants, one had beard and A3 in court is the said person.There is no evidence to show that these three witnesses were available very much at the crime scene or any where near the crime scene so as to enable the police officer to examine them.That judgment deals with the effect of delayed examination of witnesses.It would depend upon several factors.It may not have any effect on the credibility of the prosecution's evidence tendered by the other witnesses."P.Ws.5 and 28 had gone to the temple to worship.At that time, they saw Murugesan passing the temple.As we have noted earlier, the response of an individual seeing a dastardly crime being committed would vary from individual to individual.P.W.28 had denied that he was shown the photographs before he participated in the test identification parade.But however, the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 4 establish that A1 to A3 are the persons, who murdered Murugesan and the evidence of P.Ws.5 and 28 establish that they saw all the three assailants namely, A1 to A3, escaping from the scene of occurrence.D.W.1's evidence also shows that A1 was taken to the hospital at Madukkarai.P.W.13 is the doctor in the said hospital.D.W.1 is the driver of the lorry and according to him, A1 was with him in the lorry during the occurrence time.The evidence of D.W.1 does not inspire our confidence at all.It is possible to secure the evidence of such witnesses later on to create 'alibi'.Accordingly,while acquitting A1 to A3 for the offence under Section 341 IPC with a further direction to refund the fine amount, if any, paid by them, we confirm the conviction and sentence of A1 to A3 for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. Both the appeals stand disposed of as here under:"The conviction and sentence of A1 to A6 for the offence under Section 120-B I.P.C.; the conviction and sentence of A1 to A3 for offences under Sections 148 and 341 I.P.C.; the conviction and sentence of A4 and A6 for offences under Sections 147, 302 read with 149 I.P.C and the conviction and sentence of A5 for the offence under Section 302 read with section 109 I.P.C are set aside and each one of them are acquitted of the respective offences.The fine amount, if any, paid by them for the respective offences shall be refunded to them.The conviction and sentence of A1 to A3 for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. is confirmed."1.The First Additional Sessions Judge, Coimbatore2.-Do- Through the Principal Sessions Judge, Coimbatore3.The Judicial Magistrate No.7, Coimbatore4.-Do- Through the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore5.The District Collector, Coimbatore6.The Director General of Police, Chennai7.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras8.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Coimbatore
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
114,730,528 |
This is the first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C for grant of anticipatory bail.The applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.74/2015 registered at P.S. Dehat Hoshangabad, District Hoshangabad (M.P.) for the offences punishable under Sections 294, 323, 327, 506 and 34of the IPC.As per prosecution, it is alleged against this applicant that the applicant has assaulted the complainant by fist and foot and demanded the money from him.Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case.It is further submitted that there is no direct evidence against the applicant to bring out his role and participation of alleged offence.Under such circumstances, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.Learned counsel for the State has opposed the application.Certified copy as per rules.(G.S. Solanki) Judge Julie (G.S. SOLANKI)
|
['Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
11,473,140 |
Somasekhar I.Tulanur, Dean of M/s.It is alleged that declaration forms, appointment orders and joining orders of the Faculties/Doctors were forged and fabricated without the knowledge of the Faculties/Doctors for obtaining renewal permission.It is further alleged that A2 and A7, the Dean of the College attested the same as genuine and A6 and A8, who are the Inspectors of the Medical Council of India, under conspiracy failed to point out the discrepancies in the declaration forms and shortage in the teaching faculties.It is alleged that A5, who is the General Manager of the College, fabricated Form 16 and failed to remit professional tax to the local body of Pondicherry for the Staff of the Medical College from the Inspector of Medical College.Ketan Desai has no role to play, since forwarding the proposal for renewal of a College is based on the collective decision of the Executive Committee of the Medical Council of India based on the reports submitted by the MCI Inspectors.The Respondent/CBI had also stated that the other MCI Doctors, who had accompanied A6 and A8, had no role to play and do not have much say in the inspection and had further stated that the Respondent/CBI had recommended for regular departmental action against those MCI Doctors.A. Unauthorised and illegal investigation.B. Non compliance of Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as DSPE Act).C. Non compliance of CBI Manual.D. No complaint by Medical Council of India or Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.E. Pick and choose investigation.More significantly, the Medical Council of India by letter dated 24.12.2012 appoints Dr.MCR.Vyas (A6), Dr.Dhananjay and Dr.For the academic year 2009-2010, Dr.K.Ravi and Dr.Yamini Trivedi along with A6 Dr.M.C.R.Vyas have been appointed as Inspectors and Dr.K.Ravi and Dr.Yamini are neither shown as witness nor arrayed as an accused.In fact, all the three jointly conducted the inspection and the report thereon is signed by all those three inspectors.Like wise for the academic year 2010-2011, Dr.Agarwal (A8), Dr.Kirti Debey and Dr.Shilpa Rao, have jointly conducted inspection of the Petitioner's Institute, but however, except Dr.Agarwal, the other two Doctors who jointly carried out the inspection are neither shown as witness nor as an accused.Further, after approval by the Council, the report sent by the Inspectors shall be forwarded to the Central Government for its action.Therefore, inspection of a Medical College is conducted by three Inspectors and their joint report is sent to the Medical Council and thereafter to Central Government for consideration of approval/ renewal of Medical College.In the instant case, admittedly, Dr.Dhananjay and Dr.P.Dileepan (who jointly inspected with A6 Dr.MCR.Vyas) for academic year 2008-2009 and Dr.K.Ravi and Dr.Yamini Trivedi (who jointly inspected with A6) for academic year 2009-2010 were not made as accused, although admittedly they jointly carried out the inspection and signed the inspection report.Similarly, Dr.Kirti Dubey and Dr.Shilpa rao (who jointly inspected with A8 Dr.Agarwal) were not made as accused.It is highly inconceivable without their knowledge A6 and A8 would have hatched conspiracy.M.Rajagopal was functioning as Dean from July 2005 till 31.12.2007 and he was said to be present during the inspection conducted by A6 Dr.The fact remains that A7 Dr.M.Rajagopal (Petitioner in Cr.OP.No.12756/2014) attained superannuation on 10.12.2007 itself.Admittedly, the source information disclosed serious allegations against Dr.Prayer:- These Criminal Original Petitions are filed to call for records in Special CC.No.2/2012 on the file of the learned Special Judge, Pondicherry and to quash the same.For Petitioner : Mr.R.Thiyagarajan, SC-Crl.A.Vaithialingam @ Vaithu, Deputy Medical Superintendent, M/s.Originally, the case was registered on source information and one Dr.Ketan Desai, the then President of Medical Council of India, had figured as the first accused in the First Information Report and the Respondent/CBI while filing the charge sheet had deleted the name of the said Dr.Ketan Desai and that of the other Doctors of Medical College Institution who had accompanied the Inspectors, A6 and A8 for inspecting the Institution for renewal of permission, on the ground that Dr.The CBI has filed the charge sheet as against the Petitioners.The Petitioners/A1 to A8 thereupon filed petitions as referred to above under Section 482 of Cr.PC for quashing the criminal proceedings in Special CC.No.2/2012 on the file of the learned Special Judge, Pondicherry on the following grounds:-In the present case, it is brought to the notice of the court that the Petitioner/A1 on the earlier occasion filed an application to quash the First Information Report in Cr.OP.No.19154/2010 and the same was dismissed.As against which, an SLP was filed before the Honourable Supreme Court in SLP.No.3173/2012 and the same was disposed of on 30.7.2012 observing as follows:-The allegations against the accused is that A1 to A5 colluding with A6 and A8 who are whole time Inspectors from the panel of Inspectors with Medical Council of India, cheated Medical Council of India and Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.Indisputably, no complaint has been lodged by the aggrieved parties i.e. either Medical Council of India or Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.Section 10A, which provides for terms and conditions to be fulfilled before starting or establishing a Medical College or starting higher courses, makes it clear that what is postulated thereunder is evaluation of application made by the Institution concerned by the Central Government in the first instance and then forwarding the same to the Medical Council of India for its further examination.Thereafter, under the Ordinance dated 15.5.2010 Board of Governors appointed by the Central Government superseded the Medical Council and the Central Government assigned all its powers of granting, renewing or refusing permission to Medical Colleges to the Board of Governors.In Cr.OP.No.19154/2010 filed by A1 to quash the First Information Report, counter has been filed by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare wherein it has been stated as extracted below:-I respectfully submit that the recommendations, on which decisions had been taken by the Central Government prior to promulgation of Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Ordinance 2010 dated 15.5.2010 have not been reviewed and only those recommendations which were pending with the 1st Respondent/CBI as on 15.5.2010 were sent to the Board of Governors, Medical Council of India for their consideration and decision as per the provisions made in the above said Ordinance.It is further pointed out by the learned counsel for the Petitioners that after inspection by the Inspectors appointed by the Board of Governors, permission was granted on 11.5.2011 for starting higher course, namely MD (Bio Chemistry) Course.Similarly, permission has been granted by the Board of Governors on 11.5.2011 for starting MD (Physiology) Course to the Petitioner's College.The documents referred to above are all public documents and there cannot be any doubt that they are unimpeachable documents.Therefore, the circumstances proved before, during and after the occurrence, have to be considered to decide about the complicity of the accused.Abdukumar Rajarathinam, the learned counsel appearing for some of the Petitioners, contended that the Respondent/CBI had charge sheeted the accused persons in a pick and choose manner.The learned counsel pointed out to the inspection reports jointly submitted by the Inspectors for the academic period in question, i.e. for 2008-2009, 2009-2010 and that the other Inspectors were not made as accused though they had inspected the College jointly and further pointed out that they had also signed the report.It is important to note that those Doctors who have accompanied A6 and A8 during their respective inspection were not even enquired into and cited as a witness in this case which clearly suggest biased investigation done by the investigating agency.At this juncture, it becomes necessary to refer to the statement of LW.139 Dr.Amulya Navin Chandra Setalvad, the then Secretary, MCI, which would clearly indicate that only those Doctors who accompanied A6 and A8 during inspection were entrusted with the work of verifying the declaration forms (which according to the Prosecution is forged one) and they were responsible for any omission committed in that regard.For better appreciation, the relevant portion in her further statement recorded on 7.4.2011 is extracted below:-As seen from the declaration forms, Dr.Kirti Dubey and Dr.Shilpa Rao have been entrusted with the work of verifying the declaration forms.While conducting inspection, Dr.Kirti Dubey and Dr.Shilpa Rao failed to verify the bona fideness of the faculty members available/present in the Medical College and also failed to verify/check whether the signatures of the faculty members of the Medical College in the declaration forms are identical and genuine.It is mandatory as per the prevalent norms of the Medical College of India that these Inspectors should obtain the signatures of the faculty members in their presence, either in the Attendance sheet or in the declaration form at the time of inspection, to verify the same with the signatures of the said faculty already seen in the declaration forms, received at the MCI earlier.In the instant case, though they have obtained the signatures of the faculty members in the Attendance Sheets dated 28.1.2010 as well as in the declaration forms, they failed to verify the signatures obtained in their presence with the signatures of the faculty members already available in the declaration forms.Dr.S.B.Agarwal the whole time Inspector of MCI who was leading the inspection team should have ensured the same as he has more say being the leader of the inspection team, which he has failed miserably It is strange that the other Doctors who have conducted joint inspection and had signed the Report jointly were not even enquired into and cited as a witness.The Investigating Officer having found that there is a joint report by all the three Inspectors should have at least made an effort at investigating the cause and the circumstances resulting in the joint report and further whether they had any positive role.Not only the Investigating Officer did not do so, he did not even make an attempt at recording the statement of the Doctors.When there is soft pedalling in the investigation in respect of the Doctors who were similarly placed throws doubt on the impartiality of the investigating agency.However, the office of the Council shall ensure that such inspections are not carried out at least 3 days before upto 3 days after important religious and festival holidays declared by the Central/State Government.(4) Failure to seek timely renewal of recognition as requiredin sub clause (a) supra shall invariably result in stoppage of admissions to the concerned Undergraduate Course of MBBS at the said Institute.Thus, it is clear that Medical Council of India is a body which has its own code of conduct to be followed while granting approval or recommending for renewal.The shortfall in faculties and submissions of fake/forged documents would only disentitle the Institution from getting renewal of permission.(xi) Forgery making or executing a false document (sec.463 to 471 and 474)(xii) Fraudulent cancellation/destruction of valuable security etc.(sec. 477)(xiii) Fraudulently going through marriage ceremony (sec.496).It follows therefore that by merely alleging or showing that a person acted fraudulently, it cannot be assumed that he committed an offence punishable under the Code or any other law, unless that fraudulent act is specified to be an offence under the Code or other law.That apart, it is pertinent to mention that no specific allegation is made in the charge sheet as to which accused created or signed the alleged forged documents in the above case.In the result, these Criminal Original Petitions are allowed.Issue on 06.08.2014To:The Special Judge, PondicherryThe Inspector of Police, CBI, Anti Corruption Branch, Shastri Bhavan ChennaiThe Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, MadrasPre Delivery Order inCrl.OP.Nos.12751, 12754 to 1260/201406.08.2014
|
['Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
114,741,819 |
gms Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.1.The Secretary to Govt.,of Tamil Nadu Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.The Superintendent Central PrisonChennai.According to the learned counsel, while arriving at the subject to the satisfaction, the detaining authority has not at all taken note of Cr.No.129 of 2006 and the order passed by the learned Magistrate dated 24.03.2006 granting bail.The details furnished in the grounds show that in adverse case No.5 in Cr.No.129 of 2006, the offences are under Sections 341, 324, 332, 336, 307, 427 and 506(2)IPC, namely wrongful restraint, endangering human body, voluntarily causing hurt to deter a public servant from discharging his duty, attempt to murder, mischief to property and criminal intimidation, as such punishable under chapters 16, 17 and 22 of the Code.In this regard, it is useful to refer the earlier decision of this Court reported in 2006(3)CTC 650, wherein under similar circumstances, a Division Bench of this Court, after finding that the ground case is graver in nature, concluded that if the graver offence is taken into consideration while passing the order of detention, the ultimate decision taken by the detaining authority cannot be faulted with and rejected a similar contention and ultimately confirmed the order of detention.In the light of what is stated above, we find that though even in the requisition for remand the detaining authority has referred to two Crime numbers, namely Cr.No.129 of 2006 which relates to fifth adverse case and Cr.No.130 of 2006 which relates to ground case, the detaining authority has taken note of the fact that the ground case relates to major offences (which we have already referred to) and has considered all those materials relating to the ground occurrence and therefore, we are satisfied that the ultimate order passed by the detaining authority cannot be faulted with.Accordingly, the petition fails and the same is dismissed.The Public ProsecutorHigh Court, MadrasThe Joint Secretaryto the Government of Tamil NaduPublic ( L & O)Fort Saint GeorgeChennai 9+ one cc to Mr. M. Rajavelu, Advocate sr no. 34548AKM(CO)NM(18.08.2006)H.C.P.No.418 of 2006
|
['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
114,743,172 |
The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records pertaining to C.C.No.6755 of 2018, on the file of the learned Special Metropolitan Magistrate to try CCB and CBCID Cases at Egmore, Chennai and quash the same.During pendency of the case, the petitioner has filed the present Original Petition to call for the records pertaining to C.C.No.6755 of 2018, on the file of the learned Special Metropolitan Magistrate to try CCB and CBCID Cases at Egmore, Chennai and quash the same.The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would submit that in the complaint given by the second respondent in the name of the petitioner has not been mentioned.In the FIR itself only 10 unknown persons have been mentioned and no allegations are madehttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 against this petitioner.During investigation, the first respondent police has recorded the statement from the defacto complainant/second respondent herein.Though the second respondent has categorically stated that at that time of incident, the petitioner was present at some distance from the place of occurrence, there is no incriminating materials shown against him that he has committed the offence either Section 294(b) IPC or Section 506(ii) IPC.The statement of the second respondent/defacto complainant was recorded by the first respondent Agency on several dates.In none of these statements, he has implicated this petitioner.The other witnesses have not spoken anything about the present petitioner except that he was present at some distance from the scene of occurrence.Further, the learned Senior Counsel pointed out that the petitioner is a known person of the second respondent/defacto complainant.In order to prove the same, he has also placed the copy of the order passed by the learned Special Metropolitan Magistrate to try CCB and CBCID Cases at Egmore, Chennai, in which the petitioner appeared as Advocate of the defacto complainant herein/first petitioner therein in proceedings, which shows that the petitioner is a known person to the defacto complainant/second respondent.If really the petitioner was also involved, the defacto complainant would havehttp://www.judis.nic.in 4 named the petitioner in the FIR.But, he has not mentioned about the petitioner in the complaint or in the FIR.Further, the statement also does not reveal that he has spoken anything adverse against the petitioner herein.Therefore, even the Investigating Officer has not stated that the witnesses so far examined, have spoken about anything adverse against the petitioner herein.Since prima facie no allegations levelled against the petitioner for the offences under Section 294(b) or 506(ii) IPC and prima facie no case was made out against him.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent would submit that the witnesses have not spoken anything adverse against the petitioner.Since he was present at the scene of occurrence, his name has also been included in the charge sheet.The second respondent fairly conceded that there is no allegation levelled against this petitioner and his grievances are only against the investigating agency that they have not done fair investigation.Therefore, he has filed an Original Petition and the same is also pending before this Court and related Special Leave Petition is also pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.Except the said information, he has not given any allegations against the petitionerhttp://www.judis.nic.in 5 herein.6. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) and perused the materials available on record.During the pendency of the case, the petitioner herein has filed this petition to quash the charge sheet filed against him.As submitted by the learned Senior Counsel and on a careful perusal of the report filed by the first respondent under Section 173 of Cr.P.C., prima facie there is no allegation against the petitioner, except that the petitioner was present at some distance place on the date of occurrence.It is fit case for quashing the charge sheet pending against the petitioner herein.In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the charge sheet laid against this petitioner alone is quashed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.However, it is made clear that if the case is transferred to any other Investigating Agency, the said agency can do the investigation fairly, this order will not affect the investigation to be conducted by such agency.18.07.2019 Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking Order/Non speaking order rli ToThe Special Metropolitan Magistrate, CCB and CBCID Cases, Egmore, ChennaiThe Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.http://www.judis.nic.in 7 P.VELMURUGAN, J., rli Crl.OP.No.15585 of 2019 and Crl.M.P.No.7727 of 2019
|
['Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
110,812,923 |
sm CRM No.8261 of 2015 In the matter an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 04.09.2015 in connection with Chanditala P.S. Case No.224 of 2015 dated 02.07.2015 under sections 326/325/323/341/354B/379/506/ 34/120B of the Indian Penal Code And In Re:- Abdul Karim Mallick & Ors.... Petitioners Mr.Ansuman Bera .. for the petitioners Mr.Imran Siddiqui .. for the State.The petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Chanditala P.S. Case No.224 of 2015 dated 02.07.2015 under sections 326/325/323/341/354B/379/506/ 34/120B of the Indian Penal Code, has approached this Court for anticipatory bail.Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the parties.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Malay Marut Banerjee, J.) 3
|
['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 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.
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.