id
int64 17
1.89B
| cases
stringlengths 8
539k
| labels
stringlengths 38
1.25k
| instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|
110,818,159 |
The appellant has impugned the compensation awarded on 09.08.2011 to the mother and minor children of the deceased/accident victim.The appellant contends that the vehicle, being a Maruti Van bearing Registration No. DL2CJ6269, was not involved in the accident, no evidence was led to prove that the said vehicle was involved in the accident and that the Mechanical Inspection Report of the vehicle was not prepared at the time of the accident.It is argued that Smt. Ram Dulari/respondent No.1, mother of deceased Maharaj Singh deposed that she did not have documentary proof apropos her deceased son's income MAC.APP.359/2012 Page 1 of 8 at the time of the accident, The learned counsel for the appellant refers to her cross-examination recorded on 01.11.2010, which reads as under:-359/2012 Page 1 of 8" The deceased was earning Rs.20000/- per month while working as a Gardener in a nursery in the area of Uttam Nagar.I cannot tell the name of the nursery.I cannot say as to how I stated that the deceased was earning Rs.20,000/-.I do not know if I stated so in my claim petition."He also refers to her conflicting pleadings in her affidavit in evidence which reads as under:-The deponent stated that accused no.2 (driver Sh.Sunil of the maruti van bearing no.DL-2CJ-6269) was being driven in a rash and negligence manner hit the deceased Maharaj Singh and due to that accident the deceased was dead.The deponent further stated that the owner of the maruti van bearing no.DL-2CJ- 6269 is Sh.Nishant Goyal s/o Sh I.C.Goyal r/o c-4/152 Yamuna Vihar Delhi.The copy of the registration certificate of the maruti van bearing no.DL-2CJ-6269 is exhibited as PW1/10."He contends that this deposition demolishes the very evidence on which the entire case is based i.e. the particulars of the vehicle involved in the accident and the averment that the deceased was earning an amount of Rs.20,000/- per month were never established.He argues that it has also not been proven that the injuries sustained by the victim Maharaj Singh because of the accident, resulted in his death.It records that the driver of the vehicle admitted to the fact that he himself was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident, after which he brought the victim in a TSR to the MAC.APP.359/2012 Page 2 of 8 hospital where the latter was declared brought dead.The FIR also records that the Head Constable and Constable who visited the site found the vehicle i.e. Maruti Van bearing registration No.DL 2CJ 6269 and the cycle on which the deceased was riding.The Constable was directed to stay at the site and the Head Constable proceeded to go to the hospital.359/2012 Page 2 of 8On the issue whether the deceased Maharaj Singh sustained fatal injuries in the aforementioned accident due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No.DL2CJ 6269 driven by respondent No.2 and owned by respondent No.1, the Trial Court observed as follows:-Petitioner no. 1 has filed her affidavit Ex.PW1/1 and deposed on the very same lines as mentioned in the petition.She also placed on record the certified copy of criminal proceedings Ex. PW 1/6 to PW1/9 of the case registered vide FIR no. 893/07 registered at the police station Malviya Nagar.She stated that respondent no. 2 Sunil Kumar was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident in a rash and negligent manner and hit the deceased.(1980) 3 SCC.The learned counsel for the appellant states that a criminal case was instituted under Section 279/304A of the Indian Penal Code against Mr. Sunil Kumar, the driver of the vehicle at the time of the accident, this driver has been acquitted after being given the benefit of doubt in the said case.The present appeal has only to do with the vehicle which was involved in the accident.The learned counsel for the appellant argues that the vehicle had already been sold by the appellant to a third party before the accident.The Court notes that however, in his written statement, the appellant denied that the accident had taken place with the alleged offending vehicle.the relevant portion reads as under:-That the contents of para 16 of the petition are wrong and denied, because no accident took place with the alleged offending vehicle, hence the respondent No.2 did not MAC.APP.359/2012 Page 4 of 8 commit any accident with the injured person.359/2012 Page 4 of 8xxxx xxxx xxxxThat the contents of para 23 of the petition are wrong and denied.It is submitted that no accident took place with the Maruti Van No.DL-2CJ-6269 and the respondent No.2 never driven the vehicle in rash and negligent manner and hit the deceased Maharaj Singh.It is submitted that the said vehicle was not in possession of the answering respondent.Rest of the averments are denied for want of knowledge.It is submitted that the respondent No.l is the owner of the vehicle but the vehicle is not the offending vehicle.There is no question of vicarious liability as no accident took place with the above said vehicle.Hence not liable to pay any compensation."In his evidence by way of affidavit dated 09.02.2011, the appellant stated as under:-That it is submitted that no accident took place with Maruti Van No.DL-2CJ-6269 and the respondent No.2 never driven the vehicle in rash and negligent manner and hit the deceased Maharaj Singh.It is submitted that the respondent No.1 was the owner of the vehicle but the vehicle is not the offending vehicle.There is no question of vicarious liability as no question of vicarious liability as no accident took place with the above said vehicle.Hence not liable to pay any compensation.That said vehicle Maruti Van No.DL-2CJ-6269 was sold to Shri Rajesh vide Sale Letter and affidavit.Hence there is no question that the said vehicle was ever driven by the respondent No. 1 as alleged.The said documents were lost on 05.02.2009 and in this respect I filed the NCR No.270/22009 to the Police Station Bhajan Pura."359/2012 Page 5 of 8359/2012 Page 7 of 8 against the driver was lodged; and (iv) recovery memo and mechanical inspection report of offending vehicle and vehicle of the deceased.These documents are sufficient proofs to reach the conclusion that the driver was negligent.
|
['Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
110,822,395 |
Suresh (A5) is the maternal uncle of Harish (A1) and Hema (A6) is the wife of Suresh (A5).2.2 Harish (A1) was a software professional.The family comprising Harish (A1), Natarajan (A2), Usha (A3) and Arun (A4) was living in the ground floor portion of the house at Door No.21, Inner Circular Road, Kilpauk Garden Colony as tenants, in the first floor of which, Shyam Frederick (P.W.4), landlord, was living.Suresh (A5) was working in the Chennai Central Cooperative Bank, Aminjikarai Branch.2.3 Yogapriya, the deceased in this case, was the daughter of Suryanathan (P.W.2) and Dhanalakshmi (P.W.3) and the elder sister of Senthil (P.W.1).Suryanathan (P.W.2) was the owner of Senthil Bikes who were the authorised dealers for Hero Honda bikes.2.4 Suryanathan (P.W.2) and Suresh (A5) knew each other well and through Suresh (A5), the marriage alliance of Harish (A1) and Yogapriya was fixed.The betrothal was held on 28.08.2005 and thereafter, the marriage was 2/18http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.After marriage, Yogapriya was living in her matrimonial home with her husband and in-laws.Suresh (A5) and Hema (A6) were living separately.On 06.05.2007, at 9.00 p.m., Yogapriya committed suicide in her matrimonial home by hanging.At that time, Harish (A1) had gone out to buy some snacks and DVD and Natarajan (A2) had gone out for buying fruits.On hearing the child crying from inside the bedroom, Usha (A3) and the servant maid Leena (P.W.6) broke open the bedroom door and found Yogapriya hanging.They sent word to Harish (A1) and Natarajan (A2), who returned home soon and lowered the body.The family requested Dr. Balasubramaniam (P.W.7) and Dr. Beena (P.W.8) (their neighbours) for medical help and both the said doctors examined Yogapriya and advised the family to take Yogapriya immediately to a nearby hospital.Accordingly, Yogapriya was rushed to Rigid Hospital in New Avadi Road in the car driven by Thirumurugan (P.W.5), where, she was declared brought dead.1/18http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A. No.153 of 2012 2 The precis of the germane facts that gave rise to this criminal appeal is as under:2.1 Harish (A1) is the son of Natarajan (A2) and Usha (A3).Arun (A4) is the younger brother of Harish (A1).2.6 Yogapriya's parents were informed of this and on a written complaint (Ex.P.1) given by Senthil (P.W.1), Anbazhagan (P.W.14), Inspector of Police, registered a case in Cr. No.284 of 2007 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. on 06.05.2007 at 11 p.m. and prepared the printed FIR (Ex.P.13).3/18http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A. No.153 of 2012 2.7 Since the death of Yogapriya was within seven years of marriage, the investigation of the case was taken over by Rajamani (P.W.15), Assistant Commissioner of Police, who went to the place of occurrence and prepared the observation mahazar (Ex.P.4) and rough sketch (Ex.P.5).He also seized the rope (M.O.1) that was used by Yogapriya for hanging and the broken latch (M.O.2) under mahazar (Ex.P.5).2.8 On the requisition of the Investigating Officer, Rajagopal (P.W.11), Tahsildar, conducted inquest over the body of Yogapriya and during inquest, he examined Suryanathan (P.W.2), Dhanalakshmi (P.W.3) and Harish (A1).The statements of Suryanathan (P.W.2) and Dhanalakshmi (P.W.3) were marked as Exs.P.2 and P.3 respectively.In his evidence as well in the inquest report (Ex.P.9), he has stated that there are incriminating materials only against Harish (A1) with regard to demand of house of his parents-in-law and that there are no materials to implicate the other accused.2.9 Dr. S. Kuppusamy (P.W.10) performed autopsy on the body of Yogapriya and in his evidence as well in the post-mortem certificate (Ex.P.6), has opined that Yogapriya would appear to have died of asphyxia due to hanging.He did not observe any external injury, except the ligature mark around Yogapriya's neck.4/18http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A. No.153 of 2012 2.10 After examining witnesses and collecting various reports, the police completed the investigation and filed a final report in P.R.C. No.27 of 2009 before the V Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai, under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC or alternatively under Section 306 IPC against Harish (A1), Natarajan (A2), Usha (A3), Arun (A4), Suresh (A5) and Hema (A6).2.11 On appearance of the accused, the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. were complied with and the case was committed the Court of Session in S.C. No.196 of 2009 and was made over to the Court of Session, Chennai, for trial.2.12 The trial Court framed charges under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC and also framed an alternative charge under Section 306 IPC against the accused.When questioned, the accused pleaded “not guilty”.2.13 To prove the case, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses and marked 21 exhibits and 41 material objects.2.14 When the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on the incriminating circumstances appearing against them, they denied the same.However, Harish (A1) gave a written explanation under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denying the allegations and explaining the circumstances, under 5/18http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A. No.153 of 2012 which, his wife Yogapriya committed suicide.On the side of the accused, no witness was examined.However, one exhibit, i.e., invitation of baby shower function, was marked in the cross-examination of one of the prosecution witness.2.15 After considering the evidence on record and hearing either side, the trial Court, by judgment and order dated 24.02.2012 in S.C.No.196 of 2009, acquitted A2 to A6 of the charges, however, convicted and sentenced Harish (A1) as under:Provisions under Sentence which convicted S.498-A IPC One year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.50,000/- in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment.3 Calling into question the correctness of the aforesaid conviction and sentences passed by the trial Court, Harish (A1) is before this Court.4 Heard Mr.V.Karthic, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr.R.Vivekananthan, learned counsel on record for the appellant, Mrs.P.Kritika 6/18http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A. No.153 of 2012 Kamal, learned Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) and Mr. S. Ananthanarayanan, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. S.M. Nandhie Devhan, learned counsel on record for Suryanathan (P.W.2).5 Before adverting to the contentious submissions raised at the bar, it may be apposite to state here that the prosecution has proved the following facts beyond a peradventure:➢ The relationship of the parties;➢ Conduct of betrothal on 28.08.2005;➢ Solemnization of marriage on 10.03.2006;➢ Birth of child on 20.12.2006; and ➢ Death of Yogapriya due to suicide by hanging.6 Mr. V. Karthic, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant took this Court to the complaint (Ex.P.1) lodged by Senthil (P.W.1), Yogopriya's brother and submitted that except a general statement that the accused had harassed Yogapriya for dowry after marriage, there is no other material in it.He further contended that Senthil (P.W.1/de facto complainant) suspected foul play in the death of his sister Yogapriya and wanted a thorough investigation; only subsequently, the witnesses started improving their case by contending that all the accused were demanding more and more dowry and that the 7/18http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A. No.153 of 2012 accused wanted the family of Yogapriya to transfer their ancestral house in the name of Yogapriya and on that score, they subjected her to cruelty and that had resulted in her death.He also took this Court through the evidence of various witnesses to show that immediately on coming to know of the death of Yogapriya, the family members of Yogapriya came with a gang comprising lawyers and assaulted everyone including Harish (A1) and laid a siege around the police station insisting that the police should implicate all the family members of Harish (A1), including his uncle and aunt who were living elsewhere.He therefore contended that the whole prosecution was engineered with the help of legal minds to fix the entire family of the accused.He further contended that the jewels that were given by the family of Yogapriya during marriage were kept in the joint locker in the name of Usha (A3) and Yogapriya in Chennai Central Cooperative Bank, where, Suresh (A5) was working; all these clearly show that the accused were avaricious and were torturing Yogapriya for more dowry and that had resulted in she committing suicide leaving behind her kid.8/18http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A. No.153 of 2012 8 Mrs. Kritika Kamal, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), while supporting the arguments advanced by Mr. Ananthanarayanan, also submitted that Harish (A1), in his statement to the Tahsildar during inquest, has spoken to about the Valasarawalkam land which only shows his guilty mind.9 This Court gave its anxious consideration to the submissions made across the bar.10 As rightly contended by Mr. Ananthanarayanan, learned Senior Counsel, the failure of Senthil (P.W.1/de facto complainant) to give full details of the nature of dowry harassment in the complaint (Ex.P.1) cannot be said to be fatal.However, this Court finds that in the evidence of Senthil (P.W.1/de facto complainant), Suryanathan (P.W.2) and Dhanalakshmi (P.W.3), there are material improvements qua their previous statements which have been elicited and established as required under Section 145 of the Evidence Act.11 The nub of the prosecution case is that at the time of betrothal, the parents of Yogapriya had come forward willingly to transfer a piece of land belonging to them in Valasarawalkam after three years, since it was under mortgage; however, after marriage, the accused started pestering them to effect the transfer immediately; when they agreed to transfer that land, the accused 9/18http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A. No.153 of 2012 wanted them to transfer their ancestral house in Nungambakkam instead of the Valasarawalkam land.12 Senthil (P.W.1/de facto complainant), in the cross-examination, has admitted that in the complaint (Ex.P.1), he has not stated anything about the demand for the Valasarawalkam land or the ancestral house.Suryanathan (P.W.2), father of Yogapriya, has, in his statement to the police, stated that he had himself voluntarily come forward to give the Valasarawalkam land to his daughter, whereas, in the Court, he has stated that the accused had demanded that land.His previous statement was brought to his notice and the contradiction was established in the cross-examination of the Investigating Officer (P.W.15).Dhanalakshmi (P.W.3), mother of Yogapriya, has very clearly stated that it was Natarajan (A2), Usha (A3), Suresh (A5) and Hema (A6), who demanded that they cannot wait for three years for the transfer of the Valasarawalkam land and that they wanted it immediately.None of these witnesses has stated as to when they went to the house of the accused, where, the demand for the ancestral house in Nungambakkam was made by the accused.10/18http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A. No.153 of 2012 13 At this juncture, it may be relevant to analyse the contention of Mr.V.Karthic with regard to the situation that was created by Yogapriya's family on the date of the incident.13.1 Thirumurugan (P.W.5), the driver who carried Yogapriya to Rigid Hospital, has stated in his examination-in-chief, that Yogapriya was admitted in the Rigid Hospital; her family members came with four or five persons and they started beating Harish (A1) and also him (P.W.5).13.2 Anbazhagan (P.W.14), Inspector of Police, who registered the FIR (Ex.P.13), has stated that around 10.30 p.m., Senthil (P.W.1/de facto complainant) came with about 200 persons comprising advocates and others to the police station and created ruckus; they laid a siege around the police station and insisted upon the police demanding the arrest of the accused; he (P.W.14) called for additional police force from the nearby G3 Police Station to disperse the crowd and give protection to the family of the accused.13.3 Senthil (P.W.1/de facto complainant), in the cross-examination, has further admitted that after the incident, a case was registered against him by the Aminjikarai police.11/18http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A. No.153 of 2012 13.4 Suryanathan (P.W.2), Yogapriya's father, has admitted in the cross-examination that he was a friend of Suresh (A.5) and the marriage proposal was brought through Suresh (A.5).13.5 Dhanalakshmi (P.W.3), has admitted in the cross-examination that she gave interview to the TV channels.13.6 Thus, the evidence on record clearly shows that Yogapriya's family was demanding the scalp of all the family members of Harish (A1), including his distant relatives like Suresh (A.5) and Hema (A.6).But, assuming for a moment that such a demand was made by the accused, that was not in connection with the marriage and was independent of it.13/18http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A. No.153 of 2012 16 In the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, they have implicated all the six accused in every aspect of the case and the trial Court has rightly wished away the evidence qua Natarajan (A.2), Usha (A.3), Arun (A.4) and Suresh (A.5) and had acquitted them.
|
['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
110,822,691 |
Mr. V.S.Deokar with Ujawala Karpe for the Applicants.Sagar A. Joshi for the respondent no.1.Mr.M.G.Patil , APP for the Respondent No.2-State.2 Applicants are seeking special leave to appealunder Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 ('Cr.P.C.' for short).3 Deceased Tanaji Hanumant Bhagare hadinstituted complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, FirstClass, Mangalvedha, Solapur.After enquiry directed underShivgan 1/4 ::: Uploaded on - 13/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 14/03/2020 10:35:20 ::: 15-ALP-157-::: Uploaded on - 13/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 14/03/2020 10:35:20 :::2019.odtSection 202 of the Cr.P.C., process was issued againstPrathamesh Patil and Mahadev Gandule for the ofencespunishable under Sections 420 and 468 read with Section34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC' for short).4 Tanaji examined himself.In cross-examination,he had admitted that the dispute relating to the property inquestion was pending before the Sub Divisional Ofcer.Besides, the learned counsel for the applicant, today oninstructions, also submitted that the legal representativesof Tanaji have instituted suit in respect of the property inquestion, in the Court of competent jurisdiction.5 It is the complainant's case that Tanaji's fatherhad purchased land admeasuring 5 R in the year 1990 fromMahadev Gandule being part of Survey No.327/1 andfurther land admeasuring 5 R of the same Survey No.327/1from one Padvale.It is alleged that Mahadev Ganduletransferred land, i.e., 327/2 to Prathamesh Prakash Patil(Accused No.1) vide lease deed dated 2nd September, 2009,who had allegedly constructed petrol pump on land bearingShivgan 2/4 ::: Uploaded on - 13/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 14/03/2020 10:35:20 ::: 15-ALP-157-::: Uploaded on - 13/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 14/03/2020 10:35:20 :::Thus, the suit has been instituted by thecomplainant against Prathamesh Prakash Patil and MahadevGandule for the appropriate reliefs in the Court ofcompetent jurisdiction, and till date, it is pending.It may bestated that Tanaji died in the year 2017 and thereafterpresent applicants were prosecuting the complaint beforethe learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class.However, it maybe stated that the applicants did not lead the evidence orbring on record any material, in support of charge of forgeryand cheating.In the absence of evidence, the learned TrialCourt has correctly recorded fndings in paragraph 10 of itsjudgment, which has been impugned herein.Paragraph 10reads as under:::: Uploaded on - 13/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 14/03/2020 10:35:20 :::::: Uploaded on - 13/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 14/03/2020 10:35:20 :::
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
110,825,216 |
3497/2020 Page 3 of 212. Notice in this application was issued on 11.11.2020; whereupon status report dated 18.11.2020 has been filed by the State alongwith a copy BAIL APPL.3497/2020 Page 1 of 21 of the prosecutrix's statement dated 22.08.2020 recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C.
|
['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.
|
110,830,259 |
20.08.13 Item No. 79 Court No.17 A.B.Item No. 79And In the matter of: Santosh Jana & Ors.- versus -The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Mr. Manoranjan Jana For the Petitioners Mr. Anwar Hossain For the State The Petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Ramnagar Police Station Case No. 185 of 2013 dated 17.7.2013 under sections 143/144/148/325/326/379 of the Indian Penal Code, have applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioners and the learned Advocate for the State.We have considered the case diary and the injury report.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Kanchan Chakraborty, J)
|
['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
110,833,643 |
3 In the present petition, it is contended that the petitioner is abusinessman involved in the business of supplying building material.He hasobtained necessary Permit and Licence.He is carrying out the said businessunder the name and style as "Yash Building Material Supplier" at Jalgaon.The present petitioner was the informant in case No.117/2014, which waslodged against one Ganesh Sapkale and others, which was in respect ofmurder of one Shamkant Gawali.Ganesh Sapkale and others have been released on bail.Theappeal is waiting for its turn to be decided.But he was fortunately saved onlydue to the licenced revolver with him.Again the petitioner and his fathermade representation giving details about what had happened, to theappropriate authorities.The petitioner contends that the said threats to hislife is still persisting from Ganesh Sapkale and his friends.4 It has been further contended that the petitioner had lodgedcriminal case against one Ashok Sadare, who was Police Inspector in Jalgaon ::: Uploaded on - 27/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/01/2020 08:08:48 ::: 4 Cri.The said complaint was sent for investigation under Section 156(3) ofCr.1 Rule.Rule made returnable forthwith.By consent, heard boththe sides for final disposal.The family members, particularly, sisters ofGanesh Sapkale were trying to pressurize the petitioner and his familymembers by giving threats to him, so that he can give a suitable statement inthe Court of Sessions at Jalgaon.At the instigation of Ganesh Sapkale his ::: Uploaded on - 27/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/01/2020 08:08:48 ::: 3 Cri.WP_609_2019_Jdsister lodged a complaint under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code againstthe petitioner.The threat, to the life of the petitioner and his family fromGanesh Sapkale and his family member, came to be true, as said GaneshSapkale and others attacked the brother of the present petitioner, in order totake revenge.In the said assault the brother of the petitioner Kishorsustained multiple injuries and ultimately succumbed to the same.The petitioner hasfiled Criminal Appeal No.405/2016 before this Court and the said appeal hasbeen admitted.P.C.. After registration of the said First Information Report, theSuperintendent of Police and another Police Inspector of Crime Branch werepressurizing him for the withdrawal of the complaint.However, AshokSadare, against whom the First Information Report was lodged, committedsuicide and on the basis of Suicide Note, informant and others have beenbooked under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.The petitioner has been released on anticipatory bail.The matter wasinvestigated and the investigation agency has filed 'C' Summary Report.Thesaid report was not accepted by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,Nashik, and therefore, one of the accused had preferred Criminal Revisionapplication No.70 of 2018 before Sessions Court at Nashik.The learnedAdditional Sessions Judge, Nashik relegated the matter to learned JudicialMagistrate First Class for deciding the matter afresh.Accordingly, thelearned Magistrate has heard all the persons concerned and accepted the saidreport, as there was nothing brought in the investigation, which would showinvolvement of the petitioner and others, in the alleged crime.Petitioner had made severalrepresentations against illegal excavation made in Jalgaon district.It wassupported by the Revenue Authorities also.However, the authorities gotannoyed due to filing of complaints by the petitioner and the point raised by ::: Uploaded on - 27/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/01/2020 08:08:48 ::: 5 Cri.WP_609_2019_Jdthe petitioner against the Revenue corrupt officials.At the instance of thoseofficers, notice was issued under Section 144 (2) of Cr.P.C. to the petitioner.He replied the same.However, order of issuing detention was passed againstthe petitioner.The said detention order was challenged by the petitionerbefore the Committee and the Committee opined that there is nothing onrecord to show that the detention was necessary, and therefore, ultimately hehas been released.At the time of renewalalso the petitioner had contended, that there is still threat to his life as wellas to the life of his family members.When the licence was renewed, thenabruptly in the middle the respondent No.2 cannot have any jurisdiction tocancel the said licence and permit.The order of revoking his Arms Licence isillegal, as there was no offence against the petitioner regarding the misuse ofthe weapon.Opportunity for hearing wasnot given to the petitioner before cancelling the licence and therefore, he hadapproached this Court by way of filing Criminal Writ Petition No.1781 of ::: Uploaded on - 27/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/01/2020 08:08:48 ::: 6 Cri.It came to be decided on 20.04.2018 and the matter was relegatedagain to the District Magistrate, Jalgaon to hear the petitioner and then topass the order.After re-hearing of the matter, once again the cancellation ofthe licence given to the petitioner for possessing Arm, has been confirmed.5 It is contended that there was no subjective satisfaction by thelearned District Magistrate and further he failed to see, that at the time ofrenewal there was no offence pending against the petitioner.Hence, this writpetition has been filed for the aforesaid prayers.::: Uploaded on - 27/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/01/2020 08:08:48 :::::: Uploaded on - 27/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/01/2020 08:08:48 :::::: Uploaded on - 27/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/01/2020 08:08:48 :::::: Uploaded on - 27/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/01/2020 08:08:48 :::7 It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner, that he was theinformant in Crime No.117/2014 registered with Jalgaon Taluka PoliceStation on 11.10.2014, for the offence punishable under Section 302 readwith Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and it was against Ganesh Sapkaleand two others.It was in respect of murder of one Shamkant Gawali.Therewas pressure and threats from Ganesh Sapkale's family to the petitioner, andtherefore, he made a representation-cum-complaint on 13.10.2015 withSuperintendent of Police, Jalgaon, stating that he has been falsely involved bythe sister of Ganesh Sapkale.Again 2-3 representations were made on the ::: Uploaded on - 27/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/01/2020 08:08:48 ::: 7 Cri.WP_609_2019_Jdsame ground.Though he was shown to be an accused in an offence underSection 354 of the Indian Penal Code, it was the result of the plot hatched upby Ganesh and his sister.Father of thepresent petitioner lodged report about the same.In the said complaint, it wasstated that the incident had taken place on 08.11.2016, which was againstMahesh Wani, Pintu Koli, Ganesh Sapkale, stating that they have tried to killhim.A complaint application was given to Superintendent of Police.The Armis 0.32 bore revolver.In the meantime, on the complaint lodged by the presentpetitioner regarding the harassment by the Police Officer Ashok Sadare,Sadare committed suicide, in which other police persons were also involved.On the basis of the Suicide Note left by Mr. Sadare, the investigation hadstarted.The investigation was done by Crime Investigation Department andthen the Investigating Officer had submitted 'C' Summary before the learnedMagistrate.When it was not accepted, co-accused persons had filed revisionand in the said revision directions were given to the learned Magistrate to ::: Uploaded on - 27/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/01/2020 08:08:48 ::: 8 Cri.WP_609_2019_Jdconsider the Summary as per law.Thereafter, the learned Magistrate hadconsidered the arguments of the informant as well as the prosecution andhad perused all the investigation papers.The reportsfrom various Departments as well as Police Authorities were called.Therefore, no occasion arose for Collector, Jalgaon to cancel the licence.When initial order of 17.07.2017 was passed, it was only on the basis ofsurmises of the Collector that he may use the Arm for threatening theRevenue Officers and staff, as he is indulged in transportation of sandbusiness, illegally.It was also contended that he has a criminal background,which was not then supported at all.Therefore, the impugned orders need to be set aside.::: Uploaded on - 27/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/01/2020 08:08:48 :::::: Uploaded on - 27/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/01/2020 08:08:48 :::8 In order to buttress his submissions, the learned Advocate for thepetitioner has relied on the decision in Ajay Jayawant Bhosale vs.Commissioner of Police and others, 2016 (5) Mh.L.J. (Cri.) 68, wherein it has ::: Uploaded on - 27/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/01/2020 08:08:48 ::: 9 Cri.::: Uploaded on - 27/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/01/2020 08:08:48 :::The provisions of the Arms Act particularly section 13 to 17 indicate that once a licence is granted under the Act, the same shall be renewed from time to time unless there exists a ground of refusal as enumerated under Section 14 of the Act."Further relying upon the said decision, this Court in CriminalWrit Petition No.1618 of 2017 in the matter of Sunil Ramnarayan Mantri vs.The District Magistrate, Jalgaon and others on 20.12.2017 quashed the orderpassed by the learned District Magistrate, Jalgaon cancelling and revokingthe Arms licence.9 Affidavit-in-reply has been filed by Dipmala Jaypal Chaure, SubDivisional Officer, Jalgaon i.e. on behalf of the respondent No.2 and one ::: Uploaded on - 27/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/01/2020 08:08:48 ::: 10 Cri.WP_609_2019_JdGanesh Sukhdeo Chavan, Assistant Police Inspector, Jalgaon Taluka PoliceStation has filed affidavit-in-reply on behalf of the respondent No.3 andobjected the petition.Further, the said licence was granted to him, taking into considerationthe case, which was filed against Ganesh Sapkale, in case of murder ofbrother of the present petitioner.However, said Ganesh Sapkale and othershave been acquitted by the competent Court and since the acquittal there isabsolutely no grievance by the present petitioner, that still the threat to hislife persists.The present petitioner was involved in agitations againstrevenue officers and had even gone to the office of Collector at mid night tostage Dharna.Chart has been given, as to which offences were against thepresent petitioner.It is reproduced here for the sake of convenience.::: Uploaded on - 27/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/01/2020 08:08:48 :::Even a preventive action was taken against the petitioner andthe report was submitted by the Police Authorities to the District Magistrate ::: Uploaded on - 27/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/01/2020 08:08:48 ::: 11 Cri.WP_609_2019_Jdfor cancellation of Arms Licence of the petitioner.Based upon the said reportand after hearing the parties, the licence has been cancelled.It is cancelledfor the public safety and public peace, as contemplated under Section 17(3)::: Uploaded on - 27/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/01/2020 08:08:48 :::(b) of the Arms Act.10 Learned APP has made submissions on the same line of theseaffidavits-in-reply and further submitted that when the incidents ofthreatening the life of Revenue Officers who are objecting to the illegal sandexcavation are on rampant for the public safety and for public peace, suchsteps are necessary.There was subjective satisfaction of the DistrictMagistrate, on the report of the Police Authorities, and therefore, the licencehas been rightly cancelled.11 At the outset, the charge, that has been given in the affidavitfiled on behalf of respondent No.3, which has been reproduced in the earlierparagraph, would show that all those details about the crime against thepetitioner were available to the competent authority when the Arms Licencewas granted to the petitioner.Inspite of those crimes, it appears that on thesubmissions made by the Police Authorities as well as Tahsildar, stating thatin view of the threat to life to the petitioner as his brother was killed earlier,they had no objection to give Arm Licence to him.When admittedly, therespondents or any other authority had not come with a case that there was ::: Uploaded on - 27/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/01/2020 08:08:48 ::: 12 Cri.WP_609_2019_Jdany misuse of the licence by the present petitioner, it is hard to believe thatmerely because he is in a business of supplying the building material, hewould use the said Arm against the Revenue Authority, cannot be a ground tocancel the licence which was granted to him.In his order dated 17.07.2017as well as subsequent order after hearing the petitioner on 15.05.2018 thoseold cases are mentioned again to state that there is criminal background ofthe petitioner.It appears that neither the learned District Magistrate nor theDivisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik (order dated 13.02.2019)have considered that the learned Magistrate has accepted the "C" Summaryreport in respect of Crime No.450/2015 registered with Panchwati PoliceStation, Nashik.The subjective satisfaction was there, at the timeof issuance of licence, though that case was pending against the petitioner.As regards the offence punishable under Section 3, 7 of the EssentialCommodities Act are concerned, in both the cases the petitioner has beenacquitted by the competent authority, way back in the year 2008 itself.The ::: Uploaded on - 27/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/01/2020 08:08:48 ::: 13 Cri.WP_609_2019_Jdrespondents have not stated that after the grant of licence the presentpetitioner is involved in any serious offence, which would be dangerous tothe public safety or public peace.::: Uploaded on - 27/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/01/2020 08:08:48 :::::: Uploaded on - 27/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/01/2020 08:08:48 :::There was no hurdle forauthorities to lodge any report and take action against the petitioner, if hewould have been involved in such an offence.Without taking action, merelyon the basis of some suspicion, it cannot be stated that there is danger to thepublic from the present petitioner, if he is allowed to continue to have a saidArm.The Advisory Board had taken that decision thatthere was no sufficient cause for the detention of the petitioner.Therefore,now, both the authorities on the point of cancellation of Arms cannot bankupon the same action for detention of the petitioner.Perusal of theimpugned orders and the report, that was submitted by the Police ::: Uploaded on - 27/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/01/2020 08:08:48 ::: 14 Cri.WP_609_2019_JdAuthorities, would show that merely because some illegal activities are beingcarried by some other persons, it cannot be protracted, that the petitionerwould be involved in such activity.Cancellation of licence cannot be on thebasis of surmises of the authority.In other words, the subjective satisfaction,which is the basic activity or ingredient for cancellation of the licence, cannotbe based on surmises and conjectures of the authority.There has to be aconcrete evidence.::: Uploaded on - 27/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/01/2020 08:08:48 :::13 As regards the acquittal of the accused, against whom the fatherof the petitioner had lodged report in respect of murder of the brother of thepetitioner is concerned, though those accused persons have been acquitted,the appeal is still pending before this Court.The apprehension of thepetitioner regarding threat to his life and also the satisfaction, that wasarrived at, by Tahsildar and the Police Authorities, when the licence wasgranted to him, was required to be considered.The respondents have notproduced inquiry report in respect of allegation about threat to life of thepetitioner, after the acquittal of those accused persons.Therefore, whenfresh inquiry has not been done, after the acquittal of those accused persons,there was no reason for the respondents to say that, that threats on the basisof which the licence was granted, is not in existence.The ratio laid down inAjay Bhosale's case (supra) will have to be taken a note of another fact, that ::: Uploaded on - 27/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/01/2020 08:08:48 ::: 15 Cri.WP_609_2019_Jdis required to be seen, that the learned District Magistrate appears to havetaken a drive in respect of cancellation of Arms in his district.No doubt, each case will have to be considered on its ownmerits, yet, the fact is required to be considered, that under the presumptionof maintaining public peace there shall not be an encouragement and go byeto the provisions of law, when such action for cancellation/revocation oflicence is undertaken.::: Uploaded on - 27/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/01/2020 08:08:48 :::14 In the light of the above said observations, the impugned ordersare required to be set aside, on the ground of non application of mind andsubjective satisfaction of the authorities in revoking/cancelling the licenceand confirmation thereof by the superior authority.If the authority renews the licence, then the Arm isrequired to be given back to the petitioner.With these observations,following order is passed.::: Uploaded on - 27/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/01/2020 08:08:48 :::confirming his own order dated 17.07.2017 regarding revocation of ArmPermit/Licence of the petitioner being Arm Licence/Permit No.AJL, 10/2016and the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashikdated 13.02.2019 in appeal No.7 of 2018 are hereby quashed and set aside.3 The competent authority to take note of the observations of thisCourt.In the present Judgment, in case, the petitioner files an applicationfor renewal of licence, the renewal of licence be as per the provisions of lawand in case, the licence is renewed, the respondent authorities to return theArm to the petitioner.::: Uploaded on - 27/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/01/2020 08:08:48 :::
|
['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
110,872 |
The matter for decision in this Rule lies within a narrow compass but it is necessary to mention the facts in some detail, The petitioner was appointed Director of Industries, Bengal in 1937 and was made the Agent of the Government of India in 1911 for procurement and supply of War materials.In October 1944 he was appointed Deputy Director General (Pro. duotion) and Controller of Supplies, Bengal Circle.On 26th October 1945 the petitioner's residence was searched, it is said, at the instance of the Special Police Establishment, Ministry of Home Affairs.On 14th August 1947 the petitioner was placed under suspension.120B, 161,16S, etc., Penal Code.Case No. 1 was against the petitioner only, the charge being for conspiracy with one Sripati Mukherjee and others under Section 120B, read with s. 166, Penal Code.There were also specifics charge of overt acts alleged to come within Section 165, Penal Code with referenoe to gifts and the like said to have been taken for himself and other offioera and gifts of money said to have been procured by the petitioner from Sripati Mukherjee and for named subordinates of the petitioner.These sums of money are the subject-matter of four separate oases, viz., oases Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7 of 1947, against the respective accused.Case No. 2, was against the petitioner and two others under Section 120B, read with Section 161, Penal Code, the charge alleged being for obtaining and accepting money from Sripati Mukherjee at the rate of approximately 40 p. o. of the profits made from contract for jute and cotton tents.The remaining case no. 3 was against the petitioner and one other.The general allegations against the petitioner appear sufficiently foe the present purpose from the foregoing.The cases were opened for three days, viz., 6th to 8fch January 1948, and evidence was led on 9th February 1948 starting in case No. 2 with the evidence of Sripati Mukherjee.It should be said that the special tribunal has a number of cases in hand at one time and it appears to be the practice of the tribunal to fix a suitable number of dates consecutively for a particular case and then to adjourn for a period of some weeks, in the meantime taking up other cases.Sripati Mukherjee was examined in chief for five days, that is, up till 14th Fe-bruary and the case was adjourned until 5th March.Between 14th February and 6th Maroh this Court was moved for a rule which was disposed of without delaying the proceedings before the tribunal; the subject-matter of the rule and its result is not now material.The petitioner's learned Counsel took up the cross-examination of Sripati Mukherjee in case No. 2 on 9th July continuing until 14th July and again from 18th August to 95th August.On 25th August a medical certificate was filed on behalf of the accused R E. be y, one of the accused in case No. 2 to the effect that he was incapable of standing his trial.On 30th August the petitioner moved this Court for a rule against the said order praying that cross-examination of Sripati Mukherjee in case no. 1 be not taken up until his cross examination and reexamination in case No. 2 were finished, submitting that the order of 28th August would seriously prejudice the petitioner.The proceedings in Oases Nos. l and 2 having been stayed oases Nos. 4 to 6 were fixed for cross-examination from 8th to 11th September.On 8th September the Public Prosecutor informed the Court that the witness Sripati Mukherjee was confined to bed and unable to attend with the result that the oases were adjourned after certain other witnesses had been cross-examined.After a further investiga-tion of the physical and mental condition of the accused B. K. be y, the tribunal ordered that further proceedings against him be postponed and that case No. 2 be proceeded with without him; case No. a was fixed for hearing from 19th November 1948, On 19th November the Public Prosecutor asked for an adjournment on the ground that Sripati Mukherjee was too ill to attend Court for cross examination.He put in a medical certificate from Dr. A, E. be y Choudhury, Professor of Medicine, B. G. Ear Medical College, Caloutta.The case was adjourned to 18th December.On 17 to December a letter from Sripati Mukherjee with two medical certificates, one from the practitioner already referred to and another from a cardiologist on the staff of B. G. Ear Medical College and Hospital was put in.The witness stated that his health being completely shattered he is unable to give any further evidence.One of the certificates was to the effect that the witness required "a course of prolonged rest, treatment and change of climate for three months from date" and the other stated that the witness needed "rest, be to physical and mental, for a prolonged period which may be six months or more."On 18th December 1948 learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted to the tribunal that there was no likelihood of Sripati Mukherjee being "able to give evidence in any reasonable near future...." learned Counsel asked for a letter from Sripati Mukherjee to one E. N. Mukherjee, who appears to be the Superintendent of Special Police Establishment;, Calcutta, dated 17th November 1948 should be called for in order to get a more complete progress history of Sripati Mukherjee's illness.The tribunal heard arguments and stated that they would pass orders on the following week.The order dealt with the matter somewhat fully.It states inter alia that on 13th December 1948 the Public Prosecutor asked for a further adjournment up to the end of February 1949 on the ground that the witness was seriously ill.It refers to the certificates and continues Mr. A. K. Basu, counsel for accused 1 opposing the motion for adjournment unreservedly accepts Dr. be Choudhury's certificate and does not contest the last of the witness's present incapacity.This is, on its face, the observation of the learn ed members of the tribunal.
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
110,877,967 |
This criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 11.04.2018 made in C.A.No.339 of 2017 on the file of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, Coimbatore district.2 The facts leading to prefer this revision are as follows:The case of the prosecution is that the respondent police registered a case against the revision petitioner in Cr.No.06 of 2015 for the offence under Sections 420 r/w. 511 of IPC.After investigation, the respondent police has laid a charge sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Coimbatore.Before the trial Court, in order to prove the case of the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.6 were examined and Exs.P1 to Ex.P3 were marked.On the side of the defence, no one was examined and no documents were marked.The learned Magistrate after completing the trial, found the accused persons guilty of the offence under Sections 420 r/w. 511 of IPC and convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 months each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for two months each, against which, the revision petitioner preferred the Criminal Appeal in C.A.No.339 of 2017 before the learned First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.http://www.judis.nic.in 3 3 The learned Sessions Judge after hearing the arguments and perusing the materials available on record, found that there was no merit in the appeal.Therefore the judgment of the trial Court was confirmed and the appeal was dismissed, against which, the revision petitioner preferred this present criminal revision before this Court.4 The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a false case has been foisted against the revision petitioner.There is no document produced to link that the present complaint was filed against the petitioner and there are material contradictions between the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the case of the prosecution.The learned Magistrate as well as the lower Appellate Court have failed to consider the fact that P.W.1 has foisted a false complaint against the appellant and the FIR was filed belatedly and there is no proper explanation given for delay in filing the complaint.Both the Courts below had failed to see the seizure of photo album and amount of Rs.5,000/-. P.W.1 has deposed in his chief examination that the photos relating to his social services were published in the newspaper, but during the investigation by the police, he has stated that he has not filed those photographs.These material contradictions have not been considered by the Courts below.Further, he submitted that the revision petitioner has not cheated the complainant and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.In this case, both the Courts below failed to see that the prosecution has failed to prove the said facts.Therefore, the benefit of doubt should have been extended to the revision petitioner and the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court warrants interference.6 The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that the charge against the accused was that both the accused have approached P.W.1, the defacto complainant and have stated that they were procuring the Doctorate Degree from American University for the service rendered by P.W.1 in the field of social work.They have showed several albums and that Doctorate degree would be conferred on 28.02.2015 at a function organized at Chennai.The revision petitioner and the other accused pressurized P.W.1 for getting the Doctorate Degree and demanded Rs.3,00,000/- and gradually they reduced the amount and agreed to receive ahttp://www.judis.nic.in 5 sum of Rs.55,000/-.Accordingly, P.W.1 asked the revision petitioner to come to a specific place.At the same time, he has informed the police about the plan.The Sub Inspector was present at the spot and watching the incident.The revision petitioner herein has gone there to collect the money.At that time the police intervened and on seeing the police the revision petitioner tried to escape but he was apprehended by the police and he was produced before the police station.But no FIR has been registered.Subsequently, complaint was given to District Crime Branch and the respondent police has registered the First Information Report.The evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.4 are corroborated with each other.Both the Courts below rightly appreciated the evidence of prosecution and the contradictions pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner would not go to the root of the matter and vitiate the case of the prosecution.The main allegation against the revision petitioner is that this petitioner and the other accused promised to get the Doctorate Degree for defacto complainant's social service, for which they demanded a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- and gradually they reduced the amount to Rs.55,000/-.Ordinarily, therefore, it would not be appropriate for the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same when the evidence has already been appreciated by the Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge in appeal, unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of the High Court which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice...”In the result, this Criminal Revision is dismissed.Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Coimbatore.The I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.http://www.judis.nic.in 8 P.VELMURUGAN, J., dh Crl.R.C.No.338 of 2019 and Crl.
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
110,878,489 |
This is third application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.The applicant has been arrested on 24.3.2017 in connection with Crime No.156/2017 registered by Police Station Civil Line, District Vidisha for offence punishable under Sections 370, 370-A, 344, 506, 120-B, 376(2)(DHA), 376(GHA), 372 of IPC.It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that initially the prosecutrix was examined and partially cross-examined and thereafter her cross-examination could not be concluded because the Court working hours were over and now the prosecutrix is not appearing and thus there is a delay in the trial.Per contra, the application is opposed by the counsel for the respondent/State.Accordingly, the Investigating Officer is directed to ensure that the prosecutrix appears before the Trial Court for her remaining cross-examination.With aforesaid observation, the application is dismissed.
|
['Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,108,904 |
(a) P.W.1 is the son of the deceased Rani.They were residents of Anjugam Nagar, Tiruvottiyur.The deceased was residing in the first floor while P.Ws.1 and 2 along with their children were residing in the second floor.All other parts of the building were rented out to different tenants.P.W.4 one Pushpa brought A-1 and introduced to the deceased.Thus A-1 came as a tenant in respect of the terraced portion on a rent of Rs.500/-, and there was a thatched shed put up.A-1 commenced his garment business.Those machines were put in use.The business went in loss, and hence they decided to stop the business.The deceased wanted to sell five sewing machines.A-1 brought a purchaser who gave an advance of Rs.3000/-; but he did not come back.Thereafter, A-1 brought another person on 28.7.2005, and all the five sewing machines were sold for Rs.32,500/-. A-1 retained Rs.500/- towards his commission and balance Rs.32000/- was actually paid to the deceased.At that time, A-1 demanded Rs.3000/- which was paid as advance on the earlier occasion; but the deceased told him that A-1 was to make payment for which it has got to be adjusted.P.W.1 was also present at that time.Uttering the words "I would see to them", A-1 left the place.(b) On 29.7.2005, A-1 asked P.W.1 to give a blue print of the garden belonging to his father-in-law for the purpose of purchase.P.W.1 was in his father-in-law's house on 31.7.2005 night where P.W.2 and the children were available.At about 8.30 P.M., A-1 phoned to P.W.1 stating that he visited their house and met the deceased, and she was going outside after locking the house.P.W.1 replied that A-1 could better go to Perambur to his father-in-law's house and collect the blueprint.Accordingly, A-1 went to Perambur and collected the blueprint at about 9.45 P.M. telling that he was on his way to Triplicane.(c) At about 10.50 P.M. that day, P.W.1 leaving his wife and children in her parent's house, came to their house and found the room where the deceased was living, locked.He was under the impression that as informed by A-1, the deceased had gone outside.Since the key was with his wife P.W.2, who was in the parent's house, he went to the terrace and was lying there during night hours.Next morning P.W.1 informed to P.W.2 that the key was not available, and he needed the key since he was standing outside and asked her to come immediately.Accordingly, on 1.8.2005, in the morning hours, she came back at about 9.15 A.M., and with the duplicate key available in the hands of P.W.2, the portion was actually opened.It was found dark.When they got inside, they found the dead body of the deceased with stab injuries on different parts of the body.Apart from that, Rs.50000/- cash and 20 sovereigns of jewels were found missing.Then P.Ws.1 and 2 raised a distressing cry.(d) P.W.3, who is running a tea shop nearby, came there.Equally, the neighbours also came nearby.P.W.3 gave a statement to the effect that he was running a tea stall near Sugam Clinic at Tiruvottiyur; that at about 5 or 5.30 P.M., on 31.7.2005, A-1 and A-2 came to the shop and were staying over there for two hours; that at that time, A-1 went outside and was phoning often; that at about 7.30 P.M., they left the shop; and that he found A-1 having a black rexine bag in hand.(e) P.W.5 is residing in the opposite house to that of the deceased.All of them came to know about the occurrence on the previous night.They gave their statements.(g) Immediately P.W.1 from the place of occurrence rushed to the respondent police station where P.W.16, the Inspector of Police, was on duty.He gave Ex.P1, the report, on the strength of which a case came to be registered in Crime No.1967 of 2005 under Sections 302 and 380 of IPC.The printed FIR, Ex.P17, was despatched to the Court.(h) P.W.16 took up investigation, proceeded to the spot, made an inspection and prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.P2, and also a rough sketch, Ex.He recovered material objects from the place of occurrence.The photographs were caused to be taken, and the finger print expert was also called.The expert took all the finger prints available from the place.Then the Investigating Officer conducted inquest on the dead body of Rani in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared an inquest report, Ex.20.From the evidence of P.W.1, it would be quite clear that P.W.1 leaving his mother in the house went to father-in-law's house on 31.7.2005 where his wife P.W.2 was staying with the children; that at about 8.30 P.M., he received a phone call from A-1 that he had gone to the house where the deceased was staying, and he met her and wanted to get the blueprint.P.W.1 has further stated that A-1 informed him that the deceased had closed the house and had gone outside; that in reply, P.W.1 has told him that he was staying in the father-in-law's house at Perambur, and A-1 can come and collect the same; and that accordingly, A-1 went over there and collected the blueprint at about 9.45 P.M. and left the place as if he was going to Triplicane.P1, the report.According to his evidence, when he came to the house of the deceased, it was found locked, and he took the words of A-1 as true, and the portion in the first floor was actually kept closed, and since the key was with his wife, who was in the parental home, he went to the terraced portion and was lying there that night, and the next morning, he phoned to P.W.2, who immediately came over there, and with the help of the duplicate key, they opened the doors, and it was in darkness, and they found the dead body in a pool of blood, and the jewels were actually missing.(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) State appeals.2.Challenge is made to a judgment of the Additional Sessions Division, Fast Track Court No.I, Chengalpattu, made in S.C.No.398 of 2005 whereby both the respondents herein stood charged under Sections 302 read with 34 and 397 read with 392 IPC, and on trial, they were acquitted of the charges.3.Short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated as follows:The dead body was sent to the Government Hospital along with a requisition, Ex.P14, for the purpose of autopsy.(i) P.W.15, the Professor of H.O.D., Department of Forensic Medicine, Stanley Medical College and Hospital, on receipt of the said requisition, conducted autopsy on the dead body of Rani and found 20 injuries.He issued a postmortem certificate, Ex.P15, with his opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries.(j) Pending investigation, the Investigating Officer arrested A-1 and A-2 at about 4.00 P.M. on the day.They gave their confessional statements voluntarily, which were recorded in the presence of witnesses.The admissible part of the confessional statement of A-2 is Ex.P5, and that of A-1 is Ex.M.Os.1 to 15, 17 and 18, jewels, and M.O.16 series, Rs.50000/- produced by them, were recovered under mahazars.They also produced M.Os.20 and 21, knives, and M.Os.25 and 26, shirt and pant respectively worn by A-1 at the time of occurrence, which were recovered under mahazars.They were sent for judicial remand.The material objects were subjected to chemical analysis which brought forth Ex.P11, the chemical analyst's report, and Exs.P12 and P13, the serologist's reports.On completion of investigation, the Investigator filed the final report.4.The case was committed to Court of Session, and necessary charges were framed.In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution marched 16 witnesses and also relied on 20 exhibits and 29 material objects.On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused were questioned under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses which they flatly denied as false.No defence witness was examined.Hence this appeal at the instance of the State.9.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would further add that in the case on hand, the prosecution relied on the circumstantial evidence which would clearly indicate the nexus of the accused with the crime; that even the scientific evidence adduced by the prosecution was in their favour; that M.Os.25 and 26, shirt and pant respectively, have been recovered from A-1 pursuant to the confessional statement voluntarily made; that they were all sent along with the other material objects for analysis; that even the gold bangles, M.O.14, and the knives, M.Os.20 and 21, recovered from the accused, were found to contain B group blood and that were tallying with the blood group of the deceased; that under the circumstances, the prosecution has brought forth all the necessary circumstances pointing to the guilt of the accused leaving no doubt, much less reasonable doubt; that the trial Court has not taken into consideration any of the aspects, but has found the respondents not guilty on the flimsy grounds; that the same was actually lacking in reason; rather, it was perverse, and hence it has got to be set aside, and they have got to be dealt with in accordance with law.10.Contrary to the above contentions, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondents that it is true that the occurrence, according to the prosecution, has taken place at about 8 or 8.30 P.M. on 31.7.2005; that P.W.1 has given the complaint at about 10.30 A.M. on 1.8.2005; that the FIR has reached the Metropolitan Magistrate along with Ex.P1 at about 12.00 Noon; that all these documents have been clearly fabricated in order to suit the convenience of the prosecution case; that even from the evidence of P.W.1, it would be quite clear that he had got the prior motive against A-1; and that there was a suggestion made to P.W.1 that the deceased mother was retaining all the rental recovery, and he had quarrels with his mother, and therefore at or about the time it was he who left the house, and under the circumstances, there was all possibility that the crime could have been committed by him.13.Added further the learned Counsel that much reliance was placed by the prosecution on the evidence of P.W.9 for the recovery of the jewels namely M.Os.1 to 14, 17 and 18 from A-1 and A-2; that it was a joint recovery; but the evidence was otherwise; that according to P.W.9, no specific recovery was made; that the recovery was made from both of them; that the case of the prosecution that a particular item was recovered from A-2, and the other item was recovered from A-1 was inconsistent with the evidence of the Investigating Officer and also the statements recorded under Sec.161 Cr.P.C.; that all would go to show that the alleged recovery could not have been made as put forth; that even the photographer has categorically stated that the bangles which were alleged to have been recovered were actually in the dead body when the dead body was taken to postmortem; that when the postmortem was done, these bangles should have been handed over to P.W.1 or one of the relatives; on the contrary, recovery was shown as if it was done from A-1 at the time when he was arrested; that this would be contrary to the prosecution case and would also tell upon that these jewels which were marked as M.Os.1 to 14, 17 and 18 were actually not recovered and in order to make up a case, it was actually thrusted into the prosecution story in order to strengthen the case, but in vain.14.The learned Counsel would further add that the trial Court has rightly rejected the evidence of P.Ws,3, 5 and 6 as they could not have seen the accused at all; that it would be quite clear that they were all chance witnesses; that at the time of cross-examination, their evidence became shaky; that under the circumstances, the trial Court was not ready to believe their evidence; that the prosecution as is expected in law never placed the necessary circumstances nor proved its case, and the trial Court was perfectly correct in rejecting the prosecution case and hence the judgment of the trial Court has got to be sustained.15.The Court paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made and also looked into the materials available.16.The gist of the case of the prosecution is that A-1 and A-2 entered into the house of the deceased Rani, caused her death and robbed the jewels which were actually placed before the trial Court.At this juncture, it is pertinent to point out that at the time of cross-examination, he has stated that his mother has told him that she was in possession of Rs.50000/-, and it cannot be actually put in bag, and that Rs.50000/- was found missing along with the jewels.P1, the report, would also indicate that the jewels and Rs.50000/- were missing.At this juncture, it remains to be stated that immediately P.W.1 had gone to the police station and gave Ex.P1, the report, and thereafter the case came to be registered at 10.30 A.M. where the entire narration of the incident has been given.Immediately on the registration of the case, the FIR has reached the Magistrate at about 12.00 Noon.All would go to show that the narration which was made at the earliest point of time and also as spoken to by P.W.1 has got to be taken as true and genuine.21.Apart from the above, to its advantage the prosecution had the evidence of P.Ws.3, 5 and 6. P.W.3 was a tea shop owner having a tea shop nearby the house of the deceased.According to him, A-1 and A-2 came to his shop and were staying over there for two hours till 7 or 7.30 P.M., and A-1 went outside and was phoning, and thereafter he came at about 7.30 P.M. and thereafter both of them met the deceased, and A-1 had M.O.19 rexine bag in hand.This M.O.19, rexine bag, belonged to the deceased, and this was also spoken to by P.W.1 in the box.This has actually been recovered from A-1 at the time when he was arrested and his confessional statement was recorded.22.As far as the evidence of P.W.5 is concerned, according to him, he was staying in the opposite house, and at about 8.30 P.M., he was sitting outside in a chair, and he found A-1 and A-2 entering into and coming out of the house of the deceased after locking the house, and they went from the place.According to P.W.6, he was a tenant in the first floor of the house of the deceased.At about 8.30 P.M. he came down to go to a shop, and at that time, he found A-1 and A-2 closing the house and were just moving from the place.Even as per their evidence, it would be quite clear that they knew A-1 all along the period since he was actually doing his business in the terrace.Hence they had got occasion to see him every day and also during the relevant time.From the evidence of P.Ws.3, 5 and 6 it would be quite clear that they could have seen them.The learned trial Judge on the flimsy reasons has rejected the testimony of these three witnesses.The comment made by the trial Court for rejecting the evidence, in the considered opinion of the Court, would clearly indicate that it cannot be taken as reasons at all.Then the FIR has reached the Magistrate at 12.00 Noon.A-1 was arrested along with A-2 at about 4.00 P.M. At the time of arrest, according to the evidence of P.W.9, they came forward to give a confessional statement which was recorded by P.W.16, the Investigator, pursuant to which, they have produced the material objects, and except only one item, others have been recovered from A-1 along with two knives, M.Os.20 and 21, apart from M.Os.25 and 26, shirt and pant respectively.3.The first respondent / A 1
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
110,895,242 |
When her husband returned from the market it was late night.She has further stated that on next day, at about 10 AM, she had gone to wash clothes on nearby hand pump and when she returned after two hours, she found the victim lying on the cot, and her breath was very shallow.When asked, she informed her that there is no purpose for her to live and as Mahesh Gupta has committed rape she is not able to show her face and due to which she has consumed poison.She has further stated that then she infomed her husband, but before any treatment could be provided she breathed her last.Then she lost consiousness.This information of death clearly suggests that information of suicide was given in police out post Bhagwant Nagar at the earliest.After that when a suicide note was received by family members, then FIR was lodged in police out post on 14.2.2008, at about 12:10 PM.Heard Smt. Neelam Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant, and Shri Sharad Dixit, learned AGA for the State respondent.This criminal appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 30.5.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No.1, Unnao in case crime no.142 of 2008, Police Station Vihar, District Unnao (State v. Mahesh Gupta) in Sessions Trial No.433 of 2008 by which the appellant was convicted under Section 376 IPC and was directed to undergo 10 years RI, and also directed to pay fine of Rs.2000/-.In default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo three months additional RI.Information regarding committing suicide was given to police out post concerned.When a note of dying declaration was found in the papers of the deceased, FIR was lodged in Police Out Post Bhagwant Nagar, Police Station Bihar, District Unnao on 14.2.2008 by the father of deceased, at about 12.10 noon.It was mentioned in the FIR tat when inquired of the reqsons of suicide he came to know that on 11.2.2008, his daughter - the victim was alone in her house.In the meantime, Mahesh Gupta, son of Mahadev Gupta entered into her house and committed rape.The victim has informed her mother on the same day in the evening, but her mother did not inform him due to fear.The victim has committed sucide on 12.2.2008 by consuming poisonous substance.Along with this FIR, suicide note written by the victim/deceased was annexed.During investigation suicide note was taken by the Investigating Officer.A fard Ex.Ka.2 was prepared.In order to ascertain that the hand writing on the suicide note is of the victim, a copy containing the hand writing of the victim was also taken by the Investigating Officer, and a fard Ex.Ka.4 was prepared.Post mortem was conducted.Viscera was preserved.After investigation charge under Sections 376, 306 IPC was framed.Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.The statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which he denied his involvement in rape, and also stated that she committed suicide due to harassment of her family members, and he has been wrongly implicated, and wrong suicide note has been prepared.Learned court below, aafter going through the evidence on record and hearing the arguments, acquitted the accused for the charge under Section 306 IPC and convicted him under Secton 376 IPC, and directed to undergo 10 years RI and also to pay fine of Rs.2000/-.Feeling aggrieved, this criminal appeal has been filed.There is sufficient delay in lodging of report.Occurrence took place on 12.2.2008 and FIR was lodged on 14.2.2008, but there is no plausible explanation.It was further submitted that prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.Statement of other three sisters of the victim has not been recorded.Container of poison was not recovered from the possession of victim and source of procurring poision has not been proved.There is no report of hand writing expert to prove that suicide note is in the hand writing of the victim.The evidence of father is hearsay evidence and is not believable.Learmed AGA has opposed the appeal and submitted that viscera was sent for chemical analysis and from the report it contains aluminium phosphide, hence the theory of suicide is proved.As father and mother of the deceased has proved the hand writing, then if, at all, there was any doubt, then the appellant could have prayed for hand writing expert, but that has not been done.It was further submitte dthat there cannot be eye witness of rape and simply no body saw him into the house and exiting from the house is no proof of his innocence.From a perusal of entire evidence on record it is clear that dying declaration or letter in which the victim has mentioned her plight and reasons for committing suicide is most important piece of evidence and if letter is found to be written by the victim, then it will certainly lead to the guilt of the accused appellant.9. Ex.Ka.21 is the information, which father of the deceased has given to the Incharge Out Post Bhagwant Nagar, Police Station Bihar, District Unnao on 12.2.2008 regarding suicide of his daughter - the victim, aged about 18 years.In this, it has specifically been mentioned that his daughter has consumed some poisonous substance.Ka.20 is copy of G.D. Entry of this information.It reveals that at about 3:05 PM, this letter was given at Out Pose Bhagwant Nagar, Police Station Bihar, District Unnao.On receiving this information, S.I. Suresh Chandra Shukla started for the place of occurrence.S.I. Suresh Chandra Shukla has stated on oath that on receiving information regarding suicide of the victim he recorded the statement of Ramesh Chandra Verma.12. PW-5 Head Constable Narendra Bahadur Singh has stated on oath that on 12.2.2008 he was posted at Out Pose Bhagwant Nagar, Police Station Bihar, District Unnao and on that date, at about 3:05 PM, Ramesh Chandra Sharma gave a written information regarding suicide of her daughter.This witness has proved the entry of G.D. As Ex.S.I. Suresh Chandra Shukla PW-6 has stated in his examination in chief that on receiving this information, he visited the place of occurrence, prepared inquest report and letters to CMO and other officers.This witness has proved panchayatnama Ex.Ka.17 and other letters Ex.He further stated in his cross examination that it was evident from the dead body that deceased has consumed some poisonous substance.He did not find any suicide note in the room where dead body was found.Suicide note was given to him after two days, i.e. on 14.2.2008 by the informant, and on that very day, case was registered.He further stated that in the suicide note date and time of rape has not been mentioned.PW-2 is mother of deceased.She has stated that on 11.2.2008 her husband had gone to work as carpenter in Bagwant Nagar market.She had also gone to the market for some work, and her daughter was alone in the house.When she returned his daughter was weeping.When asked, she told her that Mahesh Gupta has committed rape.The clothes of her daughter were torn, then she asked her daughter to remain silent, as it will be treated as disgrace.She further stated that she ask her daughter not to tell this to her father, as there talk of her marriage was going on.She was sent to the doctor accompanied by another person.She remained ill for 2 - 3 days.When her husband returned after last rites it was late night and she was sleeping after taking some medicine.She has further submitted that when panchayatnama was prepared she was with the doctor at Bhagwant Nagar.Next day her younger daughter Arti gave diary of the victim in which suicide note was kept.This witness proved the suicide note to be in the hand writing of her daughter.After getting the suicide note her husband asked her, then she narrated entire story.She was further asked that as to why he was not informed earlier, then she replied that she kept mum because publicity would have given her daughter bad name.Then her husband went to Bhangwant Nagar Out post and lodged report.This witness has further proved copy of her daughter, which is material Ex.This witness has further stated that songs in the copy are in the hand writing of her daugher.She has seen her daughter writing songs in that copy.In her cross examination she has admitted that she is educated up to class V.There is evidence on record that the deceased committed suicide on 12.2.2008, at about 11 AM, and the information of suicide was given by the father of the deceased to In-charge, Police Out Post, Bhagwant Nagar through his written application Ex.Ka.21, and it was registered in G.D. on that date at entry no.12, at about 3:05 PM.In this application, it has been clearly mentioned that his daughter is consumed poison, and committed suicide, please inquire about the reasons of suicide and take necessary steps.Thus, she was acquanted with hand writing of the deceased.It also proves that as soon as suicide note was discovered, it was handed over to the Investigating Officer by the father of the deceased and mother PW-2, who is fit person to be familiar with hand writing of her daughter has proved the hand writing of suicide note to be of her daughter, who had committed suicide.Viscera report Ex.Ka.22 clearly proves consumption of poison aluminium phosphide.During cross examination though it has been said that the appellant has been implicated due to enmity, but there is no cogent evidence regarding enmity.The absence of motive for false implication also proves the prosecution version.From the discussions made above, it is clear that prosecution has established beyond doubt that victim/deceased was raped by the appellant on 11.2.2008 in the noon.The prosecution has been able to prove the charge of offence under Section 376 IPC beyond reasonable doubt.The appellant has rightly been convicted by the trial court.
|
['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
110,897,267 |
Now having regard to what transpires therefrom and taking the same together with other materials collected during investigation, the prayer for anticipatory bail stands rejected.
|
['Section 448 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.
|
110,908,365 |
This Jail Appeal has been preferred by the appellant, Laxman from jail against judgement and order dated 22.10.2016 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Meerut in Sessions Trial No. 237 of 2014, State Vs.Laxman whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 and 504 I.P.C. and has been sentenced with life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 50,000/- and in default of fine, two years simple imprisonment under Section 302 I.P.C. and two years' R.I. with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, six months simple imprisonment under Section 504 I.P.C. and it is further directed that both the sentences shall run concurrently.In brief, the prosecution case is that informant, Om Veer, P.W.1 gave a written report, Exhibit Ka-1 at P.S. Kakarkheda, District Meerut stating therein that he and his brother, Laxman S/o Aasrey R/o Village Bawli Khas, P.S. Kakarkheda, District Meerut had 40 square yards land in partnership near his house in which informant used to keep his uphley and cow-dung etc. and at the time of occurrence, he had sown barsi on the said land.His brother, Laxman used to abuse him off and on and used to threaten him pertaining to the said land.On 26.10.2013, he along with his son, Brijesh @ Monu were sitting in their house, at about 4:30 p.m., in the meantime Laxman came there and started abusing him and asked him as to by whose permission, he had sown barsi on the said land and that he would be set right today.At this his son, Brijesh @ Monu uttered as to why he was abusing his father and thereafter, Laxman took out the pistol and made fire upon Brijesh @ Monu and getting hit by the same, Brijesh @ Monu fell down.After hearing the sound of fire, many residents of the mohalla reached there, seeing them, Laxman fled from there.As a result of the said injury, his son died and therefore report was lodged.Upon receipt of the said written report, Case Crime No. 898 of 2013 was registered at the said P.S. under Sections 302 and 504 I.P.C. against accused Laxman.He also prepared memo of plain-soil and blood-stained soil collected from the place of occurrence and on information received from informer, arrested the accused, Laxman and recovered from his possession the weapon used in commission of offence i.e. one country made pistol of 315 bore along with an empty cartridge and in regard to that, a separate case was registered against him under Section 25 of Arms Act. He also recorded statement of the accused the same day.On 26.10.2013, he along with his companion, Constable Som Pal Singh, Constable, Pramod Kumar, Constable Rakshak Singh and Constable Ashok Kumar departed from the police station by official jeep vide report no. 46 time 17:10 p.m. for search of wanted criminals and vide report no. 58 time 21:20 hours, summoned constable Ranpal Singh and when they all reached near Bansal Engineering, information was received from informer that the accused suspected to be involved in murder which took place in the evening at Pawli Ghas was about to proceed from there towards railway gate and was out to flee.After receiving this information, he tried to obtain public witnesses but none became ready, thereafter, after having taken search of each-other, the police party together with informer reached the place which was pointed out by him and after being shown the said person at a distance of 100 paces form there, the accused, Laxman was arrested by them near the temple and upon his search, one country made pistol of 315 bore along with an empty cartridge which was stuck in the said country-made pistol were recovered from him and about it, he stated that by the said pistol, he had murdered his nephew, Brijesh.Upon making such confessional statement, he was taken into police custody on the spot itself, this witness got the recovery memo prepared by head-constable, Ram Pal Singh at the said place and the said articles were sealed on the spot.The accused along with recovered weapon was brought to the police station and case was registered.In C.D. parcha no. 4 dated 16.11.2013, he recorded statement of Smt. Usha W/o Omvir, Smt. Mamta W/o Yogesh, Smt. Guddi W/o deceased, Brijesh.On 29.11.2013 in C.D. parcha no. 5, he recorded statement of doctor Dinesh Kumar and Home-Guard, Baleshwar.On 12.12.2013 in C.D. parcha no.6, he recorded statement of Constable, Bharat Giri, Head-Constable, Ranpal Singh, Constable Pramod Kumar, Constable Gagan Singh and Constable Ashok Kumar.The possession on the said land was that of the informant and in their portion of the land, crop of barsi was sown.Laxman after reaching there, started abusing and opened fire upon Brijesh which hit his left hand and in the side and as soon as it hit him, he died.At the time when fire was made, he (P.W.1) was standing there in front.When both her sons reached hospital, she had become unconscious.The names of her sons are Neeraj and Sonu, her husband had reached hospital subsequently.His son is known as Monu @ Brijesh.At the time of occurrence, she was at the distance of five paces from him.Her sons had received injury in left hand and in the side.Her daughter-in-law, Mamta and her husband, Om Vir were on the spot.As soon as her son received injury, he fell down and died.She had not gone to the police station nor could she tell as to who else had gone to the P.S. She does not know whether the body was taken to the P.S. or somewhere else.The dead body was brought next day after the post-mortem.The field regarding which there is dispute is located in front of house of both the sides i.e. informant and accused but does not know as to at how many metres distance would the same be.She has no awareness about the directions.The field in which barsi was kept was in her name.Prior to this occurrence, she had gone to the police station to complain against the accused, Laxman in respect of usurping her land and showing high-handedness but she does not know when the said application was given at the P.S. but no action was taken by police on her application.Quarrel with respect to land had happened several times and the villagers also knew about the said dispute between them.She has denied that on 26.10.2013, she had called Laxman and she has also stated it to be wrong that she, her husband, Omvir, after calling Laxman had done marpeet with him and she also denied that her husband had fired upon Laxman which by mistake had hit her own son and that she and her husband had falsely implicated the accused in this false case.13. P.W.3, Udai Vir Singh has stated that on 26.10.2013, he was posted as S.I. at P.S. Kakarkheda and on that date, the proceeding of panchayatnama of the deceased, Brijesh @ Monu was completed in village Pauli Ghat.This witness after having perused paper no. 10 a/1, panchayatnama, 10a/3 R.I. Report, 10a/4, C.M.O. report, 10a/5 form no. 13, 10 a/6 photo lash, 10 a/10 sample seal stated that they were in his hand-writing and signature which were marked as Exhibits Ka-2, Ka-3, Ka-4, Ka-5, Ka-6, Ka-7 respectively.In cross-examination, this witness has stated that he was posted at P.S., Kakarkheda for about two years and had visited the place of occurrence with S.O. at about 5:10 p.m. but does not know as to who had given information of this occurrence at the police station.There is open place in front of the house where incident happened.Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.On 22.12.2013 in parcha no. 8, he recorded the depositing of the recovered country-made pistol and cartridge at F.S.L. On 25.12.2013 in parcha no. 9 of C.D., he after having concluded the investigation against the accused, Laxman, filed charge-sheet no. 703 of 2013 which is Exhibit Ka-11 in his hand writing.The case property pertaining to Crime No. 498 of 2013 and 900 of 2013 was brought before court in sealed condition by pairokar which was opened and out of the said cloth, 315 bore country-made pistol and one empty cartridge of 315 bore and two empty cartridges of 315 bore (tested) were presented before court, the empty cartridge which was taken out from the barrel of country-made pistol was marked as E.C. (I) and two other empty cartridges, T.C. (I) and T.C. (II) were there.This witness has identified the said country-made pistol and the cartridges to be the same which were recovered from the accused person in court thereafter, the charge was framed against the accused appellant on 8.07.2014 under Sections 302 and 504 I.P.C. to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.In order to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt form the side of prosecution, Om Vir, father of the deceased as P.W.1, Usha, mother of the deceased as P.W.2, S.I. Udai Vir Singh who has proved the panchayatnama and other relevant papers relating to the post-mortem as P.W.3, Dr. D.K. Sharma who conducted the post-mortem of the deceased as P.W.4 and Mahavir Singh, I.O. as P.W.5 have been examined by way of oral evidence.Thereafter the prosecution evidence was closed and the statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which entire evidence which has been gathered by the prosecution against him has been stated to be false and it has been stated by him that dispute between him and his brother Om Vir was settled in year 2006 by Raj Kumar Prajapati, Pradhan.He had Rs.20,000/- due upon Omvir in lieu of which one biswa land was given to him which was situated near his house.On the date of incident, the deceased Monu had caught hold of him from behind and Omvir had made a fire upon him with an intention to kill which actually hit the deceased, Monu whereby he died on the spot.After having considered the entire evidence and having heard both the learned counsel for the parties, learned trial court has convicted the accused appellant under afore-mentioned sections and, therefore in the present appeal, we have to see as to whether in the light of arguments made by learned Amicus Curiae, the appreciation of evidence has been correctly made by the trial court or not or whether impugned judgement deserves to be set-aside.Before proceeding to form opinion in this regard, we have to go through the evidence which has been brought on record from the side of prosecution.P.W. 1, informant, Om Vir has stated in examination-in-chief that the accused present in court, Laxman is his real brother while the deceased Brijendra @ Monu is his son.Prior to this incident, he had a dispute with the accused pertaining to land because accused often used to give life threats.On 26.10.2013, he along with his son, Brijesh (deceased) was sitting at about 4:30 p.m. at his house, in the meantime, Laxman (appellant) came there and started abusing him saying as to by whose permission, he had sown the crop of barsi on the said land and that he would teach him lesson today.Thereafter his son told the accused (his tau) as to why he was abusing his father thereafter the accused took out pistol and made fire upon Brijesh @ Monu in front of him, by which he fell down.After hearing the sound of fire, many persons of the vicinity came there seeing whom accused, Laxman fled from the spot.His son had died soon after getting hit by the bullet.He had dictated the report about this occurrence to Rahimuddin of his village which was given by him at the police station, whatever was stated by him, the same was written therein as after having written the same, he had read over the same to him and had got his thumb impression affixed upon it.He has further stated that the same day, the Daroga Ji had come at the place of incident for preparing panchayatnama in which he was also made a panch and this witness identified his thumb impression on paper no. 10 a/2 and also stated that at the time of incident, his wife Usha, his son's wife Mamta and Smt. Guddi who is wife of deceased, Brijesh @ Monu were present and other villagers were also present there.In cross-examination this witness has stated that the incident happened on 26.10.2013 at about 4-4:30 p.m. in front of his house on road.The dispute between them related to land, half of which was that of Laxman, accused and half belonged to him which was ancestral property.Laxman had fired upon his son Brijesh @ Monu.After the fire was made and when alarm was made, Laxman fled from there.At the time of occurrence, his wife, Usha, his sons, wife, Mamta wife of deceased, Guddi were also present there and all of them had seen this incident.At the time of occurrence, there was no other persons present except his family members and subsequently many villagers had also arrived there which included Rajendra, Moni, Kiran Pal, Dhire and others.About 5:00 p.m., police had also come and had taken away the dead body with it and thereafter, panchayatnama was also done.They had brought the dead body after post-mortem having been conducted, the next day, he does not recollect.He had dictated the report to Rahimuddin which is Exhibit Ka-1 which bears his thumb impression and denied that the accused, Laxman had not made fire and also denied that he was not on the spot and that he had falsely implicated Laxman with a view to usurping his land.10. P.W.2, Smt. Usha, wife of Om Vir has stated in examination-in-chief that about a quarter to two years ago at about 4:00 p.m., she, her son, Brijesh @ Monu, her husband and children were present in their house, the accused present in court i.e. Laxman Kumar had started abusing them and when his son, Brijesh asked him not to abuse, he (accused) opened fire upon him by which his son who died on the spot.The land in question was being used by her for the purposes of making cakes of cow-dung (Kanda) and because of this reason, she used to have quarrel with her jeth (accused) who used to indulge in marpeet also.About this occurrence, the report was lodged by her husband, Om Vir at the police station.The Inspector had come to her house in order to investigate the case and had recorded her statement and she had narrated the entire incident to him.In cross-examination this witness has stated that the distance between the place of incident and her house is 5-6 paces; the incident happened at about 4:30 p.m. and at that time, she was few paces away from the spot where incident happened.She had snatched the country-made pistol from the hands of accused, Laxman.He was trying to fill cartridges in the same.At that time she, her husband, Om Vir and her daughter-in-law, Guddi and Mamta were also present there.The fire was made by right hand.In her neighbourhood, Dhiraj Pal and Dharam Vir etc. were living.She had also gone to the police station along with her both daughter-in-laws and husband.The police had arrived at about 5:00 p.m. and had taken away the deceased but she does not recollect whether any writing work was done in respect of dead body but again stated that her statement was recorded by police the next day at her house in village.She was in a non-plussed condition and was crying.She does not know as to who others were crying.He son was lying at a distance from her equivalent to verandah.She does not know as to who all had come there, though she had reached there within two minutes and there, her son had died.There was stampede like situation but she could not tell as to how many persons had rushed to that place.She also does not know as to where her husband was at that time although near the dead body, one Brij Pal of the said mohalla was taking liquor.After the Brijesh had received injury, they had taken him to doctor, they had gone to two hospitals.She had taken the dead-body in the tempo but she does not know the name of Modipuram hospital.The said tempo belonged to Kumhar (potter) which belonged to son of Rajendra.Both the hospitals had refused admission to Brijesh saying that he was not alive.Further she had stated that she had dispute going on with Laxman pertaining to partition of land although she was in possession of her part of the land and Laxman was in possession of his part of land.The entire land was about two bighas.She had showed barsi in half portion.The occurrence had taken place near diwali but she could not tell the year.At the time of occurrence, she was in the vicinity of the place of occurrence.The fire was made by Laxman after taking out pistol from his 'anti'.Her son was fired upon at his both hands.The field and the house are situated close to each-other.He could not tell their names and has refused the suggestion that the entire proceedings was done by him sitting at the P.S.Dr. Dinesh Kumar Sharma has been examined as PW4 who has stated in examination in chief that on 27.10.2013 the dead body of Brijesh @ Monu son of Omvir aged about 20 years resident of village Pawli Khas, P.S. Kankerkhara, District Meerut was brought for postmortem which was identified by his elder brother Neeraj and younger brother Yogesh.His body was brought in a sealed condition by Constable Bharat Giri, Home Guard, Baleshwar of P.S. Kankerkhera and found the following ante-mortem injuries on his body.i) Gun shot wound of entry, size: 3cm x 3cm x track moving to left side of chest cavity - right side of chest cavity - subcutaneous tissue of right axilla - Muscle of right shoulder outer aspect in deltoid r.g. Margins of wound inverted; no singeing, no scorching present.Wound of entry is 7 cm above and upto left nipple at 10 'O clock position.Sri Mahavir Singh, PW5 who is Investigating Officer has stated in cross-examination that after registration of the case and having recorded the statement of the informant which would have consumed about 45 minutes, his departure was made from police station at 17.10 hours.The investigation of case pertaining to section 302 IPC was assigned to him and he had reached the place of occurrence along with force and had inspected the place of incident, conducted Panchayatnama, collected blood stained soil and plain soil from the place of incident and gathered information about the accused Laxman.After conclusion of Panchayatnama, the dead body of the deceased was despatched to mortuary for postmortem and prepared site plan.He remained at the place of incident for about 2-2.30 hours and after leaving behind the Sub Inspector there, he went out in search of the accused and at about 9.45 A.M. he reached near Bansal Engineering College.Prior to that HCP Rampal was called and informer also met them there, who had informed that the said place would be about 4 kms.away on the route which goes to railway station.He denied that he did not ask the passers-by to be a witness of arrest of the accused.The informant had indicated about the accused Laxman although at the time of arrest of the accused, informer was not with him.The accused Laxman was arrested at 22.10 hours and his personal search was made.He had not recorded the statement of the accused Laxman on the spot.After getting the investigation, he did not record the time when he assumed the investigation in case diary although departure for investigation and time of the same was endorsed in G.D. He had recorded the statement of informant Omvir.While deposing before the court, the informant Omvir during his cross-examination in respect of paper no. 8Ka/3 has stated that "Tamancha Apne Ghar Par Dalkar Gaya Tha".It is wrong to say that it was recovered from the accused Laxman from the place of incident.This witness has further stated that PW2 Smt. Usha has stated in cross-examination that "Maine Laxman Key Hath Se Katta Chhena Tha" (she had snatched the country made pistol from the hand of Laxman).He denied that he had not gone to the place of incident and completed the entire investigation sitting at the police station itself.Further, he had stated that he had tried to collect information from the residents of the locality where the place of incident was located but he had not recorded the statement of any such person and had only recorded the statement of eye witnesses.He also does not know that there was enmity between Laxman and Omvir pertaining to land and further stated that it was wrong to say that Omvir had told accused Laxman as to why he had sown 'Barsheem' on his land and because of that Maar-Peet took place between them and then Brijesh @ Monu (deceased) caught hold of accused Laxman and then Omvir made fire upon Laxman the same hit Brijesh instead of Laxman.He also denied that he had picked up Laxman from his home and has falsely implicated him in a case under section 25 of the Arms Act.Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that in the present case compliance of section 157 Cr.P.C. has not been made which mandated that a copy of FIR must be sent to the Magistrate concerned having jurisdiction forthwith/at the earliest.There may be an explanation for delay.There was variation even with regard to the place of the occurrence.PW1and his wife having been separated for nearly two decades, it was doubtful if he could have witnessed the incident stated to have taken place at the place of his estranged wife.Similarly the PW2 wife of informant has also stated in examination in chief that the incident happened at about 4.30 P.M. on the date of occurrence when she, her son Brijesh @ Munna (deceased), her children and husband were present at home and it was then that the accused Laxman had come there and had given effect to the occurrence.It is also worth-mentioning here that both the witnesses are eye witnesses, being father and mother of the deceased and were present at the place of occurrence, cannot be doubted as it is very natural that they would have been sitting in the evening at about 4.30 p.m. on the date of incident along with their children when this occurrence happened.The Investigating Officer, Mahavir Singh though has stated in examiantion in Chief that after having inspected the place of incident at the instance of informant, he had prepared site plan which is Exhibit Ka-8 and we find that Exhibit Ka-8, the place of occurrence, has been shown by 'A' where deceased was fired upon and blood was found spread there; by 'X' is shown the place from where the accused was stated to have fired upon the deceased and the distance between 'A' and 'X' is mentioned to be 7 paces; by 'B' is shown the place where informant and the deceased had sown crop of 'Barseem' and upon this only, dispute has arisen between both the sides; by arrow is shown the direction where the accused after having made fire upon the deceased, fled towards eastern side.This site plan does not show the occurrence to have taken place at the house of deceased which is little away from the place shown by 'A'.There is no distance shown by the Investigating Officer between the place shown by 'A' and the house of the deceased.It is settled position of law that the statement of eye witnesses would prevail over what has been disclosed in this regard by the Investigating Officer and we at most would treat this to be a lacuna committed on the part of the Investigating Officer.As we have already held that the testimonies of PW1 and PW2 who are parents of the deceased, do not appear to be doubtful and their presence is established at the place of occurrence at the date and time of the occurrence, therefore, we are of the opinion that the defence would not get any benefit on account of this error which appears to have been committed by the Investigating Officer.It may also be emphasized here, much stress was laid by the learned counsel for the appellant that the charge framed by the trial court is also erroneous as in the said charge the place of incident is mentioned to be the house of the informant as it was the case of prosecution that the accused made shot upon the deceased after entering the house of the informant/deceased, while in the statement of PW1 and PW2 it is stated that the occurrence took place in the deceased's house, nowhere has it been got clarified by these witnesses whether the said incident took place inside the house or outside the house of the informant.Therefore, we would not hold it to be a discrepancy that in the charge the place of incident was referred as inside the house while in the statement made by PW1 and PW2, the same is said at the house.Therefore, we also hold that merely because in the charge the place of incident has been referred to be inside the house, would not cause any prejudice to the accused.The next most important argument which has been made by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the testimonies of PW1 and PW2 did not find support/corroboration by the postmortem report as the doctor who conducted the postmortem, has stated that the deceased had received one gun shot wound of entry on the right side of the chest and tattooing was found over outer aspect of the left shoulder of left arm and ribs of left chest wall was found fractured, while PW 1 has stated in cross-examination that the accused fired at the deceased by his country made pistol which hit him on left hand and on the side and as soon as he got hit by the same, he died and PW2 has stated in cross-examination that the fire hit her son on the left hand and on the side and after getting hit by the same, her son had died.For tattooing to be there, the said fire ought to have been made from close range.We would like to mention here that we have already come to the conclusion that the Investigating Officer has failed to show the correct place of incident in the site plan as he has not shown it to be house of the deceased, rather has shown it to be the open place belonging to the accused, therefore, the distance from where the fire was made, as is shown to be 7 paces would, also not be held proved and we find that the said fire was made by the accused from a close range at the house of the deceased by which he had died.The shot of injury, though has been shown in the postmortem to be right side of the chest as regards injury no. 1 and left shoulder as regards injury no. 2 and fracture of ribs of left side chest as injury no. 3, we find that all these injuries were possible to have been caused by making fire at the deceased by the accused from a close range.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
110,909,878 |
The applicant is stated to have fleen from the place of occurrence.Heard Mohd. Zakir, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Irshad Hussain, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.The applicant has no other reported criminal antecedent.Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and his antecedents, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.The applicants is directed to produce a certified copy of this order before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned within ten days from today, who shall ensure the compliance of present order.Order Date :- 2.8.2019 Gaurav
|
['Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
110,910,551 |
of the Indian Penal Code, Charge Sheet No. 45 of 2015 dated 6.2.2015 under Sections 341/323/325/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.Apprehending arrest in connection with Murshidabad Police Station Case No. 560 of 2014 dated 26.10.2014 under Sections 325/326/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, Charge Sheet No. 45 of 2015 dated 6.2.2015 under Sections 341/323/325/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, this application for anticipatory bail has been filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.( Patherya, J.) ( Samapti Chatterjee, J. )
|
['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
132,721,047 |
Heard arguments.Perused case diary and material on record.This is the second bail application filed by the applicants under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail as they apprehend their arrests in Crime No.309/2016 registered at Police Station Bari of Raisen district against them and co-accused persons namely Rajkumar, Shivaji, Kamlesh Singh, Chhotelal and Birendra @ Munna for the offences punishable under Sections 294, 323, 506, 34 and later added 324 and 326 of the IPC.According to the prosecution, on 24.07.2016 applicant's Vimlesh cow strayed into the paddy field of one Krishna Kumar and destroyed the crops.Thereupon, Krishna Kumar made a complaint in this regard to applicant Vimlesh.Thereafter, he gave filthy abuses to Krishna Kumar and inflicted a farsa-blow on his right hand.Upon hearing commotion, Anil, Pratap Singh and Chandan Singh came to his rescue.Thereupon, applicant Devendra inflicted a farsa-blow on the head of Anil.Co-accused Shivaji slapped Chandan Singh and he and Rajkumar committed marpeet with Pratap Singh.In the meantime, co-accused persons Kamlesh, Chhotelal and Birendra came to the place of occurrence and exhorted the applicants and other co-accused persons to commit marpeet with the members of complainant party.Krishna Kumar's cousin Ashok lodged the FIR on the date of incident itself.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the police initially registered a case under Sections 294, 323, 506 and 34 of the IPC and released the applicants and other co-accused persons on bail.Later, the police added offence under Sections 324 and 326 of the IPC.He submits that the applicants have not so far misused the liberty having been on bail.He submits that the applicants are permanent resident of village Chanbar, the place of occurrence and that they have no criminal antecedents.He submits that this Court has granted relief of anticipatory bail to the other co-accused persons vide order dated 14.09.2016 passed in M.Cr.In the course of arguments, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the decisions rendered in Sayra Bi and others Vs.State of M.P. (2006) SCC Online 169 and Jagannath and others Vs.Upon these submissions, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants.Learned Panel Lawyer submits that the police granted bail to the applicants when the MLC reports of the injured were not available.He submits that as per CT Scan reports, injured Anil and Pratap sustained grievous injury with sharp edged weapons on their vital parts of bodies.Upon these submissions, he opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants.On due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions raised on behalf of the parties by their counsel, the roles attributed to the applicants and distinguishable on facts from those co-accused persons who have been granted anticipatory bail by this Court and non-applicability of the law laid down in the aforesaid citations but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants.Hence, their bail application is dismissed.Certified copy as per rules.(RAJENDRA MAHAJAN) JUDGE haider
|
['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 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.
|
132,723,986 |
Shri Rakesh Jain, Divisional Manager, Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation, Ujjain is present before this Court in person.Matter is heard with consent of both the parties.This application is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashment of F.I.R. Dated 25.07.2015 in Crime No.116/2015, Police Station-Sarvan, District-Ratlam and also for quashing the charge-sheet arising out of the same Crime Number bearing No.222/2016 dated 12.08.2016 filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class Sailana, District Ratlam.The charge-sheet is filed against the applicant under Section 304 of IPC.The applicant was the representative of the contractor, who entered into a contract with Madhya Pradesh Road Construction Corporation Limited.The company in whose favour the work was granted, was known as 'M/s Agroh Ratlam Tollways Private Limited' and the contract was known as 'Concession Agreement for Development of Ratlam - Sailana-Banswada (SH-39) Road on BOT (Toll + Annuity) Basis'.According to prosecution story, on 25.07.2015 at about 5:45 in the morning, the vehicle bearing registration No.MP 09 GF 8378, which was driven by driver Tej Singh S/o Chhaganlal in which, onions were loaded and there were some passengers also, reached on the culvert near village Amba.The right side of the vehicle was struck in the mud and the vehicle fell down from the culvert, due to which, Taj Monammad and Mohammad Hasan died.During the investigation, it was found that the approach road to the culvert was damaged due to heavy rainfall and due to this reason, the vehicle fell down in Nala, which caused death.After investigation, charge-sheet was filed under Section 304 of IPC against the present applicant, who was the In- charge of the company in whose favour the work was alloted.Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that there was unexpectedly heavy rains on the date of incident.16 inches of rain fall was recorded within 24 hours and due to which the water was flowing over the culvert and due to this reason, the approach road was damaged and a deep pit was created as the material used for making the approach road flowed away with the water.The accident took place as the driver failed to notice the pit created by heavy flow of water and the vehicle fell down.Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that during the investigation, the Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation Limited got the culvert and the approach road inspected by L.N. Malviya, who was appointed as consultant for the work and his report dated 06.08.2015 was filed by him.According to the report, the concrete structure of the culvert was found in sound condition and damage to the approach road was due to heavy and unexpected rainfall on that particular day.According to learned counsel for the applicant it was vis- major or act of god, and therefore, responsibility cannot be assigned to any particular person.Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State submits that the work was also inspected by Engineers of Public Work Department and according to their report, the present applicant in whose possession the road was, failed to take necessary step for warning the vehicles plying over the road.According to the report, he failed to do the necessary petrolling on the road.Shri Rakesh Jain, Divisional Manager, Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation informed the Court that no fault was found in construction of the road and the culvert was damaged only due to heavy and inordinate rainfall that took place on the date of incident.He further submitted the copy of the agreement and according to which, the contractor was not under liability to undertake petrolling on the road.On the contrary, the agreement mentioned that he was to facilitate petrolling by the police during such conditions.It was known to everybody that there was heavy rainfall on that particular day and it was the duty of the responsible District Officers to take necessary measures in respect of the bridges and culverts felling under their jurisdiction.The construction agency could not be held responsible for any negligence Prama facie there appears to be no evidence to attribute any negligence on part of the present applicant and no case is made out under Section 304 or 304(A) of IPC.Accordingly, this application is allowed.The F.I.R. and charge-sheet arising out of Crime No.116/2015, Police Station-Sarvan, District-Ratlam is hereby quashed.The applicant is discharged from offence under Section 304 of IPC.Certified copy as per rules.(ALOK VERMA)
|
['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
13,272,458 |
Certified copy of the statement of prosecution witnesses recorded before the trial court have been filed.The father of the deceased Durjan Prajapati (PW/1) declared hostile because he did not made any allegation that any cruelty or demand of dowry was made with the deceased.Similarly the mother of the deceased Smt. Kusum Rani (PW/2) has also been declared hostile.Smt. Sugar Bai (PW/3) who is the aunt of the deceased has also been declared hostile.All independent witnesses have turned hostile.(S.K. GANGELE) JUDGE MISHRA
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', '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.
|
1,327,371 |
The deceased, Kaliyan, was the husband of A-3. A-1 is the brother andA-2 is the father of A-3. P.W.2 is the niece, while P.W.3 is the daughter ofthe deceased.A-3, her husband, the deceased, and P.Ws.2 and 3 were allliving under the same roof.A-1 and A-2 were also living nearby.Then and there, she used to complain about the sameto A-1 and A-2 who in turn, used to warn the deceased.All of them took a decision to do away with him.On 19.10.2000 at about1.00 A.M., when P.Ws.2 and 3 were sleeping inside the house, the accused came inside and asked them to go out; but, they refused.Immediately, A-1 sat onthe chest of the deceased and throttled him.A-2 squeezed the testicles andA-3 was by their side.After finishing the crime, they went away.This waswitnessed by P.Ws.2 and 3. A-3 and P.Ws.2 and 3 were sitting outside because they were intimidated by A-1 and A-2 that P.Ws.2 and 3 should not open theirmouth.P.W.3 due to fear, informed to P.W.4, a nearby shop owner, who inturn, informed to P.W.5, the Village Menial, at about 9.00 A.M. He informedto P.W.1, the Village Administrative Officer, who went over to the place ofoccurrence and found the dead body of Kaliyan.Then, he proceeded toCuddalore O.T. Police Station, where P.W.12, the Sub Inspector of Police waspresent.At about 1.45 P.M., P.W.1 gave a report, Ex.P1, to P.W.12, on thestrength of which a case came to be registered in Crime No.1090 of 2000 underSec.174(3) of Cr.P.C. Ex.P11, the printed First Information Report, wasdespatched to Court.3. P.W.13, the Inspector of Police, took up investigation, proceededto the spot, made an inspection in the presence of two witnesses and preparedEx.P2, the observation mahazar, and Ex.P13, the rough sketch.He conductedinquest on the dead body of Kaliyan in the presence of panchayatdars andwitnesses and prepared Ex.P14, the inquest report.On interrogation of thewitnesses present, the Investigating Officer came to know that it was a caseof murder.Then, he altered the provisions of law to Sec.302 of I.P.C.Ex.P15, the express report, was sent to Court, and further investigation wasproceeded with.Thereafter, the dead body of Kaliyan was sent to theGovernment Hospital along with a requisition for conducting autopsy.4. P.W.9, the Senior Assistant Surgeon, attached to Government HeadQuarters Hospital, Cuddalore (N.C.), on receipt of the requisition, conductedautopsy on the dead body of Kaliyan and found the following factors:"R.M. Present in all limbs.Eyelids closed.Nose - No discharge of blood Mouth & lip swollen.Throat - Bloated with skin blasters present.Abdomendistended with gas, scrotum and penis swollen.Edematus, on cut section ofscrotum gushes of foul smelling gas came out."The Doctor issued Ex.P4, the postmortem certificate, with his opinion that thedeceased would appear to have died of Asphyxia and death would have occurred 36 to 40 hours prior to postmortem.He also found alcoholic contents in thestomach.Hence, thebail bonds executed by the appellants 2 and 3 shall stand cancelled, and thefine amounts if any paid by them, will be refunded to them.As regards thefirst appellant, the Sessions Judge shall take steps to commit him to prisonto undergo the remaining period of sentence imposed upon him.(N.D.,J.)(M.C.,J.) 26-9-2005Index: yesInternet; yesTo:(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) This is an appeal by the appellants three in number, who stood chargedand found guilty by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddalore, as statedbelow.(1) A-1 was charged under Sections 302 and 506(II)(2 counts) ofI.P.C., found guilty as per the charges and sentenced to undergo lifeimprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default of which to undergoRigorous Imprisonment for six months, under Sec.302 of I.P.C. and alsosentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months under Sec.506(II) ofI.P.C. under each count.(2) A-2 was charged under Sections 302 read with 34 and 506(II) ofI.P.C., found guilty as per the charges and sentenced to undergo lifeimprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default of which to sufferRigorous Imprisonment for six months, under Sec.302 read with 34 of I.P.C.and also sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months underSec.506(II) of I.P.C.(3) A-3 was charged under Sec.302 read with 34 of I.P.C., for whichshe was sentenced to imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/-in default of which to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months.The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can bestated thus:Tongue - protruded.Jaws - clenched.Teeth - complete.Ears - No bleedings.On 22.10.2000, A-1 and A-3 were arrested, when A-1 gave a confessional statement, which was recorded.P.W.13 gave a requisition tothe Judicial Magistrate for recording the statements of P.Ws.2 and 3 underSec.164 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, P.W.11, the Judicial Magistrate No.II,Cuddalore, recorded the statements of P.Ws.2 and 3, which were marked asExs.P9 and P10 respectively.On 31.10.2 000, A-2 was arrested.All thematerial objects recovered from the place of occurrence and from the deadbody, were sent to the Forensic Sciences Department for chemical analysispursuant to a requisition given by the Investigating Officer.On completionof investigation, the Investigating Officer filed the final report before thecommittal Court.The case was committed to Court of Session, and necessary chargesreferred to above, were framed against the appellants/accused.In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused,the prosecution marched 13 witnesses and relied on 15 exhibits and 4 materialobjects.No defence witnesses were examined.On hearing thearguments advanced by either side, the trial Court found theappellants/accused guilty as per the charges, and awarded the punishmentsreferred to above.Hence, this appeal at the instance of the appellants.The learned Counsel appearing for the appellants inter alia madethe following submissions:In the instant case, P.Ws.2 and 3 were examined as eyewitnesses.Thereafter, P.W.5 informed to theVillage Administrative Officer P.W.1, and it was P.W.1, who gave Ex.P1 thereport on the strength of which a case came to be registered.While theevidence of P.W.2 was like that, the same could not be believed.Both P.Ws.2and 3 were close relatives of the deceased.The Court heard the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side)on the above contentions.The Court paid its full attention on the submissions made, andmade a thorough scrutiny of the available materials.It was also the case of the prosecution that at thattime, the deceased, Kaliyan, was in a drunken mood and was also sleeping.From his evidence, itwould be clear that A-1 sat on the deceased, strangulated him and caused hisdeath directly, which injury, according to the medical opinion, was fatal.The other contention put forth by the learned Counsel for theappellants that there was a quarrel preceding the occurrence, and therefore,the act of the first accused would not fall within the ambit of murder cannotbe accepted legally, since there is no material to show that there was anyquarrel that preceded the occurrence.Under the circumstances, the act of thefirst accused would clearly fall within the ambit of murder, and the lowerCourt has found him guilty and awarded life imprisonment, which, in theopinion of this Court, does not require any interference by the Court.In the result, the conviction and sentence imposed upon theappellants 2 and 3 are set aside, and they are acquitted of the charges framedagainst them.So far as the first appellant is concerned, the conviction andsentence imposed upon him are confirmed.Accordingly, this criminal appeal ispartly allowed.1.The Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddalore.2.The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore.3.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Cuddalore.4.The District Collector, Cuddalore.6.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Cuddalore.7.The Superintendent, Special Prison for Women, Vellore.8.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.9.The Inspector of Police, Cuddalore O.T. Police Station Cuddalore.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
132,746,736 |
Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.Applicant apprehends arrest in connection with offences punishable u/Ss. 324, 323, 506/34, 325, 326 of IPC registered as Crime No. 873/2007 at Police Station Dabra, District Gwalior.Learned Government Advocate for the State opposed the application and prayed for its rejection by contending that on the basis of the allegations and the material available on record, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out.Accordingly, this first anticipatory bail application deserves to be and is, therefore, dismissed.A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for information .as per rules.
|
['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
132,747,955 |
Shri Dharmendra Yadav, learned counsel for the complainant.Heard on IA No.6494/2018, that is an application for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of appellant - Gajrajsingh S/o Fatehsingh.The appellant has been convicted for offence punishable under Sections 307 and sentenced to R.I. for 10 years with fine of Rs.10,000/- and under Section 25 (1) (B) of the Arms Act and sentenced to RI for two years with fine of Rs.1,000/-, with default stipulation.As per prosecution case, on 29/06/2015 at about 5.00 p.m., the accused persons formed an unlawful assembly and made attempt to kill the persons named Anarsingh.It is further alleged that the members of unlawful assembly caused inujry to Anarsingh in the series of same the accused persons also caused injury to Daulatsingh.It is also alleged that the accused persons caused injury by lathi and sword to the injured persons and, thereafter, the complainant lodged the FIR at Police Station - Sonkatch at Crime No.477/2015 for the commission of offence under Sections 307, 147, 148, 149 and 506 of IPC.The trial Court vide its order dated 21/08/2018 acquitted the accused under section 506, Part-II of IPC, but convicted the appellant under Section 307 of IPC and Section 25(1) (B) of IPC and sentenced him as aforementioned.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the case due to previous enmity.HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH :INDORE BENCH Cri.He further submits that the prosecution witnesses have stated inconsistent and contrary statement to the prosecution story and there are material contradiction with respect to seizure.The conclusion of the trial will take considerable long time.However, subject to final out come of this appeal, jail sentence of the appellant may be ordered to be suspended.On the other hand, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State as well as learned counsel for the complainant opposes the prayer and prays for rejection of the application.On due consideration of the aforesaid and other material evidence which has come on record, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, IA No.6494/2018 is allowed.The substantive jail sentence of the appellant is suspended subject to his depositing the fine amount and furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 14th March, 2019 and, thereafter, on all subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry in this behalf.Certified copy as per rules.(Ms. Vandana Kasrekar) Judge pn Preetha Nair 2019.01.31 12:44:54 +05'30'
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 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.
|
132,748,972 |
This criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 15.09.2012 made in C.A.No.17/2012 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri.2 P.W.1 is defacto complainant.Aggrieved against which, the accused had preferred an appeal in C.A.No.17 of 2012 before the learned Principal District Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri.The first appellate Court, after giving due opportunities to both the parties, by judgment dated 15.09.2012, has confirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Magistrate.4 Aggrieved against the said judgment dated 15.09.2012, the accused has preferred the present criminal revision before this Court.5 The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the alleged occurrence took place on 25.11.2009, but P.W.1 gave a complaint only on 11.01.2010, after the lapse of 45 days, which is not acceptable in law.The above delay has not been explained by both P.W.1/defacto complainant and the respondent police.Originally there was a quarrel between P.W.2 and the petitioner/accused, P.W.1 is only intervened and pacified the quarrel and hence he has no role to play in the alleged occurrence.Both the trial Court and first appellate Court have failed to consider the above aspects and convicted the petitioner/accused, which warrants interference of this Court.6 The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police would submit that admittedly there was delay in lodging the complaint, but, mere delay is not a ground to acquit the accused.P.W.1 & P.W.4 has clearly stated about the occurrence and the Doctor P.W.5, who gave treatment to the defacto complainant, has given wound certificate, which reveals that he sustained injuries in the left ear upper lobe measuring 3 x 2 cm missing with fresh bleeding, pain over the left and right hand and pain over head and stomach.The wound certificate given by the Doctor P.W.5 has been marked as Ex.Both the Courts below, considering the above facts, have convicted the accused, which does not warrants any interference of this Court.7 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police and perused the materials placed before the Court.
|
['Section 325 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.
|
101,871,540 |
b. The Engineer was not correct in certifying the quantities of embankment at Ramsnehighat Bypass with earth obtained from the Contractors borrow area at the rates agreed against Item No. 2.02 of the BOQ.c. The action of the Engineer in directing the use of borrow earth instead of flyash to complete the construction of the Ramsnehighat bypass embankment was driven by economic considerations in the interest of NHAI.Mr. Adarsh B. Dial, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant has made a submission that the appeal against the O.M.P.No.1556/2014, being FAO(OS) 192/2017 has been dismissed by FAO(OS) (COMM) 154/2017 Page 1 of 17 this Court.He also states that out of four claims in the present appeal, three claims being claim Nos.1, 2 and 3 are common to claim Nos.1, 3 and 4 in OMP (COMM) 1556/2014 (FAO (OS) 192/2017).According to him, the Division Bench of this Court having dismissed the FAO (OS) 192/2017, this appeal should also follow the same outcome.FAO(OS) (COMM) 154/2017 Page 1 of 17We may state that while deciding the OM(COMM) 156/2016, the learned Single Judge has on claim No.1, which is with regard to fixing of claim number of new / appropriate rate for varied works of construction of the embankment at Ramsnehighat Bypass with borrow earth obtained from the contractor's borrow areas, in place of flyash embankment as provide for in the contract, which is similar to claim No.1 in FAO (OS) 192/2017 which claim states as under: "Re.Claim No.1- "Non-Approval of appropriate rates for the varied works of construction of embankment o Faizabad bypass with earth obtained from Contractor's own borrow pit".On this claim, the learned Single Judge has held as under:In this context, the Court would like to refer to the following findings of the impugned majority Award:FAO(OS) (COMM) 154/2017 Page 2 of 17This change was required to be regularised by a variation order.Insofar as the claim No.3 which is in para materia to claim No.4 of FAO (OS) 192/2017, the learned Single Judge has, in the impugned order, held as under:Dispute/Claim No. 3 concerned withholding of part payment due towards price adjustment on foreign currency portion from IPC.As per Clause 72.2 of the GCC, the payments were to be made in proportion of 87.5% in Indian Rupees and 12.5% in Euros.Clause 70.3(c)(viii) provided for the total value of the work to be expressed as FAO(OS) (COMM) 154/2017 Page 9 of 17 the total value of work in Indian Rupees and value of work in Euro.The Contract stipulated with 15% of the foreign currency portion is fixed and not liable for price adjustment.Accordingly, the adjustable portion towards salaries of expatriate staff and labour, and plant machinery and spares was adjustable being 85% of the foreign currency payment.FAO(OS) (COMM) 154/2017 Page 9 of 17However from IPC 21 onwards, the Engineer revised the certification after applying a factor of 85% over and above the adjustable portion of foreign currency payment corresponding to only 72% of Euro component being adjustable as compared to 85% as permitted by the contract.The AT, on the analysis of the above clauses, held that since both parties had agreed that HCCL would receive payments both in Indian Rupees and in Euros, HCCL was entitled for payment of price adjustment on 85% of foreign currency component and the balance 15% of the foreign currency component was non- adjustable.This non-adjustable foreign currency part has no relation with the reduction factor of 0.85 applicable in the formula for working out the price.No other reason, for incorporation of the said factor, in the formula, is forthcoming from the record, neither could any such reason be elucidated, at the Bar, by learned counsel for the appellant.We are unable, therefore to discern any infirmity in the reasoning of the Arbitral Tribunal in this regard, or in the impugned decision of the learned Single Judge to uphold the same."FAO(OS) (COMM) 154/2017 Page 12 of 17Insofar as the claim No.4 is concerned, the same is with regard to fixation of appropriate rates for additional work of construction.The learned Single Judge against the claim No.4 has held as under:It is pointed out by NHAI that the construction of the viaduct in place of retaining wall and underpass with a total length of 937 metres was a variation order and instructions for this variation were issued by NHAI and the Engineer.The case of HCCL was that since no rates were available in the Contract, suitable new rates had to be fixed.The case of NHAI and the Engineer was that the rate of construction of viaduct was available in the Contract Agreement.In terms of Clause 52.1 of the GCC, HCCL was entitled to BOQ rates.The question before the AT was whether HCCL would be entitled to BOQ rates as adopted by the Engineer or rates derived on the basis of actual cost of input or price as claimed by HCCL.The case of HCCL was that it was FAO(OS) (COMM) 154/2017 Page 13 of 17 also entitled to new rates of the viaduct on account of change in the physical conditions referred to in Clause 12.2 of the GCC.NHAI submitted that the change in structural arrangement of the work from KM 82.6 to KM 84.13 was on account of technical requirement due to low bearing capacity of soil.This, according to NHAI, was a known phenomenon.A contractor as experienced as HCCL could not be held to be unaware of such situations.Consequently, treating it as a variation under Clause 12.2 and asking for new rates to be fixed was not tenable.FAO(OS) (COMM) 154/2017 Page 13 of 17The majority accepted the plea of HCCL that in the category of works referred to in Bill No. 6 of BOQ, there was no nomenclature of viaduct.The majority accepted the plea of HCCL that:This would have been economical.Also the shuttering and temporary structures required including the method of launching would have been less time consuming and different."However, this was limited to the extent of designs provided and the scope of work indicated in the tender.HCCL was neither the designer nor was it assigned the work of soil exploration.An entirely different situation arose during the course of FAO(OS) (COMM) 154/2017 Page 15 of 17 construction.FAO(OS) (COMM) 154/2017 Page 16 of 17No costs.CM No. 27595/2017 Dismissed as infructuous.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
101,874,605 |
A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioners subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J. ) 2
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
101,875,426 |
i) On 08.12.2009 at about 10.00 pm., near to the I.C.F., Primary School when the act of appellant is questioned by P.W.2 Dhilip Kumar, he abused in filthy language, pulled his shirt and fisted on his face due to which he lost the balance and fell down.The said act is questioned by P.W.1-Purushothaman for which the appellant took out the bottle from the dust bin, broke it and by using the broken bottle piece stabbed the defacto complainant (P.W.1) with force on his abdomen and later by using the same broken glass bottle assaulted the P.W.2 on his left side chest.Further, the accused made criminal intimidation as to cause death if they complain to the police and went away from the place with the girl.ii) After hearing the news, P.Ws.3 and 4 who are the parents of P.W.1 and 2, came to the scene of occurrence and took P.W.1 and 2 to the K.M.C. Hospital for giving necessary treatment.In Kilpauk medical college Hospital, P.W.6 Mani was working as doctor.He admitted P.W.1 and P.W.2 and issued Accident Register Copy in respect to P.Ws.1 and 2 under Ex.P5 and P6 respectively.Thereafter, P.W.7 treated P.W.2 Dhilip Kumar and issued certificate under Ex.P3 stating that the injury sustained by him is simple in nature.In the same way, P.W.11 Dr.S.Venugopal treated P.W.1 and issued a certificate under Ex.P8 in which he gave opinion as the injury sustained by P.W.1 is grievous in nature.After the registration of the case, he handed over the case records to the Inspector of Police for investigation.After receiving the case records, he rushed to the place of occurrence and in the presence of P.W.6 and one Maran he prepared a observation mahazar under Ex.In the said case, he was convicted for the offence under Section 307 (2 Counts) and sentenced to undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo 3 months rigorous imprisonment for each count.Further, he was convicted for the offence under Section 323 IPC and sentenced to undergo 3 months rigorous imprisonment.Apart from that, he was further convicted for the offence under Section 506(ii) IPC and sentenced to undergo 2 years rigorous imprisonment.Against the said conviction and sentence, the appellant stands before this Court., I.C.F., Police Station.Thereafter, he went to the police station and registered a case in Crime No.658/2009 under SectionS 341, 323, 324, 307, 506 (Part 2) IPC.P9 is the First Information Report.Further, he draw the rough sketch under Ex.After the preparation of those documents, he went to the hospital in which P.W.1 and P.W.2 admitted and recorded statements from the injured as well as from the witnesses who saw the occurrence.v) During the course of investigation on 09.12.2009 at about 10.30 am., near New Avadi Road, he arrested the accused and recorded the confession statement from the accused.In the confession, the accused admitted the guilt and he was willing to identify the weapon, which was used for the commission of offence.Further, he took the investigation officer and the witness to the scene of occurrence and handed over the broken glass to the investigation officer, the same was recovered by the investigating officer under the cover of mahazar.On the same day in the evening hours, he recovered blood stained lungi and shirt from P.W.1 under the cover of mahazar.After recovering the same, he had taken steps to send it for chemical examination.Subsequently, after receiving chemical examination report, he completed the investigation and laid charge sheet.vi) In the trial Court, after taking cognizance, charges have been framed against the accused for the offence under Sections 307 IPC (2 counts) 323 and 506(ii) IPC.After framing the charges, 13 witnesses were examined on the side of prosecution besides 15 documents are marked as Ex.After concluding the trial, the learned Additional District and Sessions judge came to the conclusion that the appellant is found guilty for the offences under Sections 307(2 counts), 323 and 506(ii) IPC and sentenced him to undergo the period already mentioned.Now challenging the said conviction, the appellant approached this Court by way of this appeal.Heard the arguments of Mr.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit his contention in three folds.According to him,2.Material objects are not recovered as stated by the investigating officerSerology report not produced4.no independent witnesses were examined on the side of prosecution.With regard to the first contention raised by the counsel, it is true, at the time of admitting PW.1 and 2 in the hospital, P.W.1 stated before the doctor that the alleged occurrence had happened near to ICF Police Station, another injured i.e., P.W.2 stated before the doctor that the alleged occurrence had happened in ICF.In this regard, on going through the charges framed against the appellant, it appears that it was mentioned that the alleged occurrence had happened near ICF Primary School.With regard to this contention, the learned Government Advocate would submit the places which were mentioned as above are all situated one by one, since the occurrence has happened at 10.00 pm.It is not easy to name the correct location.Now, considering the submissions made by either side, it is true in the rough sketch prepared by investigating officer, it was mentioned that the railway protection force, newly constructed building and I.C.F Colony, primary school are situated one by one.Further, the distance between the ICF Primary School is only 50ft from the Police Station.Since the name mentioned by the witnesses are situated as one by one calling the occurrence place in different name would not affect the case of prosecution.With regard to the second contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, it appears that P.W.6 is the witness who attested the recovery mahazar.According to him, broken bottle used for the commission of offence was recovered through the appellant.In this regard as per the evidence given by the doctor, who treated P.W.1 it was mentioned that at the time of getting treatment, P.W.1 stated that he was assaulted by using knife.On the other hand, P.W.2 stated that he was assaulted through the weapon without any identification.In this regard, on going through the evidence given by P.W.1 it is seen that he stated in the chief examination, by using the broken glass piece, the appellant assaulted him.As per the evidence given by the P.W.1 in the chief examination, he clearly stated that the appellant used only broken glass.The said evidence given by him is clearly corroborated through the evidence of another injured Dhilip Kumar.Further in this case, in support of the prosecution P.W.5 Vidya was examined as eye witness to the alleged occurrence.In the said circumstances the evidence given by P.Ws.1, 2 and 5 with regard to the weapon used by the appellant is convincing one.So the contradiction available in the evidence given by the doctor is not a ground for allowing the appeal.The 3rd contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that serology report was not marked in this case.In the said circumstances, even though, the investigation officer stated in his evidence as the blood stained cloth is recovered, he had not stated any thing with regard to obtaining serology report.Since the evidence given by P.Ws.2 and 5 is cogent and convincing one, non-marking of the serology report alone is not fatal to conclude the appeal in favour of the appellant.Finally, the learned counsel made a submission before this Court that no independent witnesses were examined on the side of the prosecution.It is true that except P.W.1, 2 and 5, no other witnesses were examined on the side of the prosecution to elicit the alleged occurrence.In this regard, P.W.5 stated in his evidence that previous to the occurrence, he knew the appellant.Further on the side of the appellant, there is no contention that P.W.5 is a interested witness in this case.It is already settled that solitary testimony of single evidence is sufficient to hold the case of prosecution is true one, subject to the condition that the evidence is wholly reliable one.In this case, the evidence given by P.W.1 and 2 is in the form of cogent and convincing one.Further, on going through the evidence given by P.Ws.1 and 2 the alleged occurrence had happened without any motive and knowledge.But, in the trial Court, the appellant is convicted for the offence under Section 307 (2 counts) IPC.Now coming to the point of punishment as per the case records, at the time of offence the appellant is aged about 20 years.Hence, while confirming the conviction for the offence under Section 326 IPC, the sentence awarded is modified to 3 years R.I. and for Section 324 IPC, the sentence awarded is modified to 1 year.Bail bonds, if any, executed by the appellant would remain cancelled forthwith and the trial Court is directed to secure the presence of appellant and commit him to the prison to serve the rest of the sentence imposed on him.Further it is ordered to run the sentence concurrently.It is also directed that the period of sentence already undergone by the appellant shall be given set off, as required under Section 428 Cr.P.C.Accordingly, appeal is partly allowed.27.06.2018Index: Yes/NoAT R.PONGIAPPAN,J.The Additional District Court & Fast Track Court No.V, ChennaiCrl.A.No.655 of 201027.06.2018
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
101,881,480 |
14] The victim, who is examined as P.W.2, states that she was beaten by her father when she returned home after attending the 15th August programme in school.She went to the accused and disclosed that she was beaten by her father and was told that the victim should accompany his friend Vinay Pande, is the deposition.17.01.2006 in Sessions Trial 126/2005 delivered by the 11 th Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, by and under which, the appellant (hereinafter referred to as "the accused") is convicted for offence punishable under section 363 of Indian::: Uploaded on - 16/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2017 01:42:35 ::: apeal28.06.J.odt 2 Penal Code (IPC) and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to payment of fine of Rs.500/-, and, is further convicted for offence punishable under section 366 of IPC and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to payment of fine of Rs.1000/-.The accused is however, acquitted of offence punishable under section 376 of IPC.::: Uploaded on - 16/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2017 01:42:35 :::2] Heard Shri R.M. Daga, the learned counsel for the appellant-accused and Ms. R.V. Kaliya, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.3] The learned counsel for the accused Shri R.M. Daga submits that the judgment and order impugned is manifestly erroneous since the prosecution has failed to prove that the victim was a minor.The learned counsel would submit that even if the entire evidence is taken at face value, the prosecution has failed to establish offence under section 363 or 366 of IPC.In view of the failure of the prosecution to prove that the victim was a minor, charge under section 363 of IPC must necessarily fail, is the submission.The further submission is that since the evidence::: Uploaded on - 16/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2017 01:42:35 ::: apeal28.06.J.odt 3 overwhelmingly suggests that the victim voluntarily and of her own accord joined the company of the accused, it is axiomatic that the prosecution has not proved offence punishable under section 366 of IPC.::: Uploaded on - 16/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2017 01:42:35 :::4] Per contra, Ms. Kaliya, the learned A.P.P. supports the judgment and order impugned and submits that the learned Sessions Judge has recorded findings which are unexceptionable on facts in law.5] The First Information Report is lodged by P.W.1 Prabhakar Rao on 23.08.2004, on the basis of which offence came to be registered against the accused under section 363 and 366 of IPC.6] The gist of the report is that P.W.1 Prabhakar Rao is the father of the victim then aged 14 to 15 years and studying in 9th standard in Kendriya Vidyalaya, Nagpur.The accused Ashokkumar Tiwari is the son of a colleague one::: Uploaded on - 16/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2017 01:42:35 ::: apeal28.06.J.odt 4 Ramlakshtra Tiwari.Ashokkumar was conducting tuition classes from a rented premise near C.R.P.F. Gate-II and the victim was one of the students.Ashokumar used to visit the house of the informant.The informant searched for the victim in the campus and then having come to know that Ashokkumar Tiwari was also not traceable since the day victim went missing, the informant suspected that the victim was kidnapped by Ashokkumar.::: Uploaded on - 16/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2017 01:42:35 :::7] During the course of investigation PSI Mahadeo Chavan visited the spot, prepared the spot panchnama in presence of the witnesses, recorded the statements of witnesses, arrested the accused and referred him for medical examination.The blood sample of the victim was collected and seized and she was also referred for medical examination and radiological test, the school leaving certificate of the victim was collected and seized and after completion of the investigation charge-sheet was submitted before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court 9, Nagpur who committed the proceedings to the Sessions Court.::: Uploaded on - 16/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2017 01:42:35 ::: apeal28.06.J.odt 5 8] The learned Sessions Judge framed charge vide Exh.5 under sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.The defence is of total denial, as is obvious from the statement recorded under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the trend of cross-examination.::: Uploaded on - 16/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2017 01:42:35 :::(ii) Mahadeo s/o Kerba Maske Vs.It must be held that the prosecution has not established that the age of the victim was less than 18 years.In view of the said submission, I intend to evaluate the evidence on determination of age of the victim, before I proceed to deal with the other issues arising for consideration.10] Concededly, the ossification test or the radiological examination (Exh.41 and 42) opine that the radiological age of::: Uploaded on - 16/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2017 01:42:35 ::: apeal28.06.J.odt 6 the victim is 16 years 1 year.::: Uploaded on - 16/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2017 01:42:35 :::However, P.W.14 states that the entry was taken on the basis of the school leaving certificate issued by the earlier school.In the cross-examination, it is elicited from the said witness thus:Today, I have not brought the original birth certificate or the xerox copy of original birth certificate of Jayalaxmi issued by the local authority.It is the practice followed by our school while giving admission to the students that on the basis of the Transfer Certificate of the student issued by the concerned school, we used to admit the student in our school.Whenever, the student intents to take admission in 1 st standard, we used to obtain or collect birth certificate of such student.It is true that I had no occasion to see the Original birth certificate of the student Jayalaxmi.::: Uploaded on - 16/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2017 01:42:35 :::12] In Alamelu and another Vs.The High Court has based its conclusion on the transfer certificate, Ext. P-16 and the certificate issued by PW 8 Dr. Gunasekaran, Radiologist, Ext. P-4 and Ext. P-5".The transfer certificate has been issued by a government school and has been duly signed by the Headmaster.However, the admissibility of such a document would be of not much evidentiary value to prove the age of the girl in absence of the material on the basis of which the age was recorded.The date of birth mentioned in the transfer certificate would have no evidentiary value unless the person, who made the entry or who gave the::: Uploaded on - 16/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2017 01:42:35 ::: apeal28.06.J.odt 8 date of birth is examined.She had also made no reference either to her age or to the transfer certificate.This petition was allowed.She also stated that the certificate has been signed signed by the father as well as the Headmaster.But the Headmaster has not been examined.Therefore, in our opinion, there was no reliable evidence to vouchsafe for the truth of the facts stated in the transfer certificate.The truth or otherwise of the facts in issue, namely, the date of birth of the two candidates as mentioned in the documents could be proved by admissible evidence i.e. by the evidence of those persons who could vouchsafe for the truth of the facts in issue.No evidence of any such kind was produced by the respondent to prove the truth of the facts, namely, the date of birth of Hukmi Chand and of Suraj Prakash Joshi.In the circumstances the dates of birth as mentioned in the aforesaid documents have no probative value and the dates of birth as mentioned therein could not be accepted." (emphasis supplied)::: Uploaded on - 16/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2017 01:42:35 :::He had also stated that it is likely that the age may vary from individual to individual.The doctor had also stated that in view of the possible variations in age, the certificate mentioned the possible age between one specific age to another specific age.On the basis of the above, it would not be possible to give a firm opinion that the girl was definitely below 18 years of age.::: Uploaded on - 16/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2017 01:42:35 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2017 01:42:35 :::Therefore, the trial court was correct in relying on the documents.::: Uploaded on - 16/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2017 01:42:35 :::The victim then states that she accompanied Vinay::: Uploaded on - 16/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2017 01:42:35 ::: apeal28.06.J.odt 14 Pande who left her in one Restaurant and at 02:00 p.m. the accused arrived along with one Kaushal Mishra.The accused put the fear of the father in the mind of the victim and offered that he would take the victim with him.The victim and the accused boarded an auto-rickshaw, proceeded to the bus stand, went to Pandhurna and stayed in a lodge for a day.The accused and the victim had sexual intercourse in the said lodge.The accused and the victim then took a train from Pandhurna intending to go to Delhi.In the meanwhile the victim fell ill and both the victim and the accused disboarded at Beena Railway Station.The accused took the victim to a Doctor who treated the victim and prescribed medicines.The victim and the accused halted in a lodge at Beena and again had sexual intercourse.The victim and the accused then proceeded to Delhi, however, again disboarded at Jhansi, stayed in a lodge at Jhansi, where again both engaged in sexual intercourse.The victim and the accused then travelled to Delhi on 19.08.2004 and stayed with the family of one Suresh Kumar.The accused came to know that a report was lodged by the father of the victim and asked the victim where they she wants to go.The accused left the victim at the house of her maternal aunt at Vijaywada.However, from the house of the maternal aunt the::: Uploaded on - 16/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2017 01:42:35 ::: apeal28.06.J.odt 15 victim was taken to lodge at Vijaywada where the accused again established sexual relationship.The victim has then deposed the events leading to the victim going back to the house of the father and the police inquiry.::: Uploaded on - 16/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2017 01:42:35 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2017 01:42:35 :::The victim admits to be love with the accused and having written a letter to the accused, the contents of which reveal deep and intense feelings for the accused.It may be useful to refer to the following observation of the Apex Court in the State of Karnataka vs. Sureshbabu Puk Raj Porral, 1994 Cr.L.J. 1216"When age of victim is doubtful, then question of taking::: Uploaded on - 16/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2017 01:42:35 ::: apeal28.06.J.odt 16 her away from lawful guardianship does not arise.More so, when victim herself deposed that she went with accused voluntarily.However, the second requirement that taking or enticing away a minor out of the keeping of the lawful guardianship is an essential ingredient of the offence of kidnapping".::: Uploaded on - 16/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2017 01:42:35 :::16] On a holistic appreciation of evidence on record, I am of the opinion, that the victim, who is not proved to be less than 18 years of age, left the house of her father willingly and of her own accord and joined the company of the accused.The accused and the victim travelled to many destinations together and the conduct of the victim is not suggestive of she being an unwilling partner in the relationship.17] The judgment and order impugned is set aside.18] The accused is acquitted of offence punishable under section 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 16/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2017 01:42:35 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2017 01:42:35 :::
|
['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
101,881,697 |
The petitioner is the husband.He is personally present in court.pk CRM No. 8049 of 2015 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 25.8.15 in connection with Saktipur P.S. Case No. 333/14 dated 11.11.14 under Sections 498A/323/406/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/ 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.And In the matter of:- Golam Kadir Sk.498A/323/406/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/ 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act has come to this court for anticipatory bail.An affidavit has been filed on his behalf and he is not admitting any of the allegations made against him but as a matter of good gesture and as it is his moral obligation of a husband to 2 maintain his married wife and one daughter, who is aged about one year, he has come out with an offer in paragraph 3 of the affidavit to maintain his wife and the daughter to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) per month and also undertaken that the maintenance for this month will be paid within a week from this date and thereafter by tenth of each succeeding month without prejudice to his right and contention.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State submits although he is not admitting that all the allegations are false but in view of this offer and undertaking now coming from the side of the petitioner, the husband, this court may consider his prayer for anticipatory bail favourably.Having regard to the above development and considering the undertaking given by the petitioner in the form of an affidavit in paragraph 3 to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/-(Rupees five thousand only) per month as consolidated amount of maintenance for the wife and child, in our opinion, no useful purpose will be served by taking him into custody and on the other hand, the justice will sub- served if the application is allowed on the undertaking given on his behalf.The prayer for anticipatory bail stands allowed.In the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer upon furnishing a Bond of Rs. 5,000/- on condition that after release the petitioner shall surrender before the regular court within four weeks thereafter.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.Affidavit filed in court be taken on record.Let a photostat plain copy of this order duly counter-signed by the Assistant Registrar (Court) be handed over to the learned counsel for the State to do the needful.(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Malay Marut Banerjee,J.)
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', '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.
|
101,882,057 |
Item No. 43And In the matter of: Rintu Sk.Baishnabnagar Police Station Case No.113 of 2013 dated 04.05.2013 under sections 147/148/149/435/436/324/326/307 of the Indian Penal Code read with sections 25(1-B)/27 of the Arms Act and sections 3 and 4 of E.S. Act, has applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioner and the learned Advocate for the State.After perusing the case diary and other relevant material, we find that there is no direct allegation against the present Petitioner and that he is similarly circumstanced as those who have already been granted anticipatory bail.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Kanchan Chakraborty, J)
|
['Section 436 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 326 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.
|
1,018,826 |
P.W. 9 is Surendra who is worker of 'Suvidha' hotel.He had noticed the accused appellant parking his cycle in front of the hotel and then going away.He had heard the cries of 'Thief Thief from the side of the house of Hanuman Prasad.JUDGMENT R.P. Gupta, J.This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1-10-1991 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Jaspur Nagar, Raigarh, in Sessions Trial No. 30 of 1990, arising out of Crime No. 10/90 of Police Station Jaspur Nagar, Raigarh.The appellant was convicted for having committed an offence under Section 394 read with Section 397 for committing robbery by use of dangerous weapon.He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years.The prosecution examined 15 witnesses in all.P.W. 1 is Vinod Kumar Jain, complainant and husband of Smt. Sanjana Jain, P.W. 4 is Hanuman Prasad, father of Vinod Kumar Jain, P.W. 13 is Smt. Sanjana Jain.Sanjana Jain had named the accused-appellant as the person who had looted her at the point of knife.Vinod Kumar Jain had stated that he knew the accused-appellant earlier to robbery and had seen him running away from his house, when he heard his wife's shout of 'CHOR CHOR' P.W. 3 is Manoj Jain, a shop-keeper, who had chased the accused.P.W, 2 is Satya Narayan, owner of the hotel 'Suvidha'.He had heard the shout of 'CHOR CHOR' raised by Hanuman Prasad.But on going there, he did not find any culprit.He then came back to his hotel and saw the accused in perplexed condition and people Were trying to apprehend him, but the accused continued running.P.W. 14 is Rakesh Sharma, who is a worker of 'Suvidha' hotel, on whose narration, Ex. D-l was recorded by the police.The accused came there after some time and they had asked him as to where he had been.The accused was in perplexed state.They even followed him for a short time and chased him, but he ran away and escaped, although he was chased by Satya Narayan, Vinod Kumar, Suresh and this witness also.P.W. 11 is a witness of chasing the accused on the date of robbery.He is shop-keeper nearby.He had stated that Vinod Kumar Jain had told him that Umesh had committed robbery at the point of knife in his house.This witness had conducted an identification parade of the recovered ornaments from witnesses Smt. Sanjana Jain and Bhauri Devi and they correctly identified the ornaments.He prepared the identification memo Ex. P 10, P.W. 12 Lata Devi is a witness before whom the identification parade of ornaments was conducted by the police.They heard the shouts of a police officer chasing this accused and he and others helped the police in over-powering the accused.The accused was apprehended by them and from his possession, gold ornaments were recovered.Other boys were Subodh Chourasia, Vinay Rakshit, Rameheswar Oza and Omprakash and others.P.W. 5 Subodh Chouresia turned hostile.He is a student and simply stated that he knew nothing about the accused.He was confronted with his previous statement to police in support of the prosecution story, but he denied the same.P.W. 7 is Vinay Kumar Rakshit.He is a shop-keeper and also supported the assertion of Imran Khan P.W. 6 about apprehension of this accused and recovery of gold ornaments from him, such as necklace, bangles, etc.P.W. 8 is Phoolchand Patwari, who had prepared the site-plan of the place of robbery.P.W. 15 is R.G.S. Goutam, A.S.I., who is the Investigating Officer.He had recovered the F.I.R. on the statement of Vinod Kumar Jain on 11-1-90 before whom Vinod Kumar Jain had produced a cycle which he seized.The accused denied that he committed any robbery.He said that he had gone to the hotel to take tea and people caught him shouting 'CHOR CHOR'.The learned trial Court found the evidence of the witnesses reliable and returned verdict of guilt of the accused.He found support from the F.I.R. Ex. P1 wherein the accused has been named.I have been taken through the entire evidence of the witnesses and also the documents, by the learned counsel of both the sides.He did not say whether the accused was made to muffle his, face at the time of arrest and recovery of ornaments from him.Similarly the evidence of first judicial remand of the accused was not produced which might have suggested in what condition the accused was produced-whether the accused was produced with muffled face and whether the Magistrate had instructed the accused to keep his face muffled, till he entered the jail, as he was to be identified by witnesses.This is a great lacuna in the identification proceedings of the accused.Law is settled that the prosecution must establish that the accused was not shown to witnesses, nor was there any opportunity for the witnesses to see and identify him at the time of arrest or before the identification parade and when the evidence about this is not produced, reliance on identification parade cannot be placed.A successful identification parade, at best, provides a corroborative piece of evidence.This has not been done.Thus a suspicion grows in mind about the fairness of the test identification parade and it has to be ignored and corroborated value cannot be given to that identification parade when a number of persons had joined and apprenhended the accused, it-would become known to the people of the locality that the accused had been apprehended.No suggestion was made to him that he saw the articles before the test-identification parade.
|
['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
101,902,864 |
(ORAL)Appellant, alongwith Smt.CRL.A. 244/2002 Page 1 of 5"Precisely, the brief facts of the case are that on 22.2.96 insp.V.K. Kalia, SHO P. S. Delhi Cantt.alongwith Head Constable was busy in supervising security arrangement in the area of PS Dahula Kuan and at about 1820 hours he received a wireless message from South West District Control Room that Jagdish Pehalwan had been stabbed.Thereafter, SHO, directed duty officer to send SI N.R. Nair to the spot.The duty officer handed over DD No. 56B to SI N.R. Nair who alongwith Const.Brij Mohan reached at the spot and found that Jagdish was lying on the road in the pool of blood.Smt. Leela Devi, wife of injured met with the IO and got recorded her statement.In her statement she has stated that about nice months ago, Baljeet alongwith his wife Bimla, his brother Veer Singh and Raghunath had burnt their jhuggi and her husband had reported the matter to the police and police arrested all the four abovesaid persons and due to this reason Baljeet was enimical towards them.Today at about 6.00 p.m. when her husband came to home after purchasing milk, Baljeet came there and started abusing them.They came out from the house and her husband told to Baljeet not to abuse them.In the meanwhile, Rajoo sister of Baljeet and his wife Bimla also came there and started abusing them and told to kill Jagdish.On this, Baljeet brought a knife from his house and Rajoo and Bimla started pelting stones on them.They sustained injuries and Baljeet also stabbed her husband on his chest.Blood was oozing out and he fell down on the ground.When she was going to report the matter with the police, Rajoo and Bimla stopped her forcibly.When she reached at the body of her husband again at that time he was dead.Baljeet, Rajoo and CRL.A. 244/2002 Page 2 of 5 Bimla ran away from there alongwith the knife.Legal action be taken against all the accused persons as they had killed her husband due to enimity.Thereafter, SI N.R. Nair got registered the case U/S 302/34 IPC.Further investigation was handed over to Insp.V.K. Kalia.Bimla, Smt. Rajoo and Rahul, was tried for the offences under Sections 302/212/34 of IPC on the allegation of murdering Jagdish on 22nd February, 1996 at about 05:45 P.M. near Jhuggi No.170/78, Village Jharoda, Pakki Lane by inflicting knife injury on the person of Jagdish.Trial court has relied upon the evidence of wife of the deceased; Rakesh (PW-6), who claims to be an eye-witness, and other evidence on record to convict appellant for the offence under Section 302 of IPC, but has extended benefit of doubt to co-accused of appellant.However, appellant's co-accused-Rajoo and Bimla have been convicted under Section 323 of IPC and have been sentenced by trial CRL.A. 244/2002 Page 1 of 5 court to the period already undergone by them.Vide impugned order of 21st September, 2001, appellant has been sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of `5,000/- for the offence under Section 302 of IPC.In default of payment of fine, trial court has ordered that appellant shall suffer simple imprisonment for three years.The facts, as noticed in impugned judgment, are as under: -During the investigation, Insp.V.K. Kalia inspected the spot, prepared the site plan, got the spot photographed, sent the dead body to the mortuary of Safdarjung hospital, called the crime team at the spot, taken into possession from the spot the blood of deceased, blood stained control sample of earth, controlled sample of earth, recorded the statement of witnesses, arrested the accused persons from the house of Rahul and IO also arrested Rahul as he gave shelter to accused persons Baljeet, Rajoo and Bimla.On 24.2.98 the post mortem on the dead body was conducted and after the post mortem the dead body was handed over to the relatives of the deceased.During investigation, the knife was also seized by the IO and the knife was sent to FSL aloongwith exhibit for analysis and after completion of investigation, the challan was filed in the court against the accused persons."CRL.A. 244/2002 Page 2 of 5While entertaining this appeal, the sentence awarded to appellant was suspended vide order of 10th September, 2002 as by then, appellant had undergone six years of imprisonment.The stand of appellant before trial court was of denial and no evidence was led by appellant.The weapon of offence, i.e. bloodstained knife, has been recovered at the instance of appellant.3. Learned counsel for appellant has rightly not assailed impugned judgment on merits, as upon perusal of evidence on record, we find that the prosecution case stands firmly established.However, it is yet to be seen as to what is the nature of offence committed.The precise submission of learned counsel for appellant is that instant case is of giving solitary blow to deceased and that appellant was not carrying any CRL.A. 244/2002 Page 3 of 5 knife at the time of this accident and so, it cannot be presumed that appellant had an intention to cause death of Jagdish.Our attention of this Court is drawn by learned counsel for appellant to order of 2nd December, 2002 whereby the amount of surety bond was reduced to `5,000/- and thereafter only, appellant had come out of jail and as per appellant's counsel, by then appellant had undergone imprisonment of more than seven years.CRL.A. 244/2002 Page 3 of 5Learned counsel for appellant relies upon Supreme Court's decision in Pappu Alias Hari Om v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2009) 11 SCC 472 to submit that in a case of single injury, the conviction has been altered from Section 302 to Section 304 Part II of IPC and the sentence has been reduced from imprisonment for life to custodial sentence of 8 years.So, it is submitted on behalf of appellant that in the instant case, the sentence awarded to appellant deserves to be reduced to the period already undergone by him as his conduct in jail has been good and because he has no previous involvement in any other criminal case.On the contrary, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State supports impugned judgment and order of sentence and submits that appellant had the intention to cause death of Jagdish (deceased) and so, decision relied upon by appellant's counsel is of no avail to the case of appellant and thus, the sentence awarded to appellant deserves to be maintained.After having heard both the sides and on perusal of evidence on record and the decision cited, we find that instant case is of causing of CRL.A. 244/2002 Page 4 of 5 solitary injury on the left side of the chest with a knife to deceased on account of a quarrel.In a somewhat similar case of Pappu (supra), accused had fired a single shot on the chest of deceased, as a consequence of exchange of hot words and Supreme Court had altered the conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 Part II of IPC and also reduced the sentence awarded to accused from imprisonment for life to rigorous imprisonment for eight years.CRL.A. 244/2002 Page 4 of 5In the facts and circumstances of this case and in view of afore- referred precedent, we are inclined to alter the conviction of appellant from Section 302 to 304 Part II of IPC and to reduce the sentence of imprisonment for life to rigorous imprisonment for eight years.Consequently, conviction of appellant stands altered from Section 302 to Section 304 Part II of IPC and the sentence awarded to appellant is also altered from imprisonment for life to rigorous imprisonment for eight years.This appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated above and is disposed of as such.(SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE (NAVIN CHAWLA) JUDGE MAY 05, 2018 s CRL.A. 244/2002 Page 5 of 5CRL.A. 244/2002 Page 5 of 5
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 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.
|
83,142,190 |
Heard both the sides.The learned advocate for the applicant submits that the incidentinvolves two episodes.First, the alleged offence committed inside themosque wherein in violation of the provisions of Epidemic Diseases Act andthe promulgation issued by the District Magistrate, the co-accused hadassembled without taking necessary precaution to avoid pandemic and madean attempt to offer prayers.The second episode regarding which there areallegations against the applicant is in respect of the subsequent incident 1/3 ::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 27/06/2020 01:59:26 ::: aba 438 2020.odtwherein the applicant and few other women are alleged to have peltedstones on the police party facilitating some of the accused who were nabbedby the police to escape.The learned advocate submits that there is nopredetermination.The incident had taken place on the spur of moment.She is ready to cooperate thepolice and in view of pandemic situation there is no need to allow herarrest.She may be granted bail.::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 27/06/2020 01:59:26 :::The learned advocate further submits that co-accused AminaPathan has been granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions court on22.06.2020 and therefore even on the ground of parity the applicantdeserves the same treatment.The learned A.P.P. opposes the application.In spite of grave situation of pandemic the co-accusedhave breached the directions of the District Magistrate and had assembledwithout taking necessary precaution.The applicant has helped some of theaccused to flee.She has been named in the F.I.R. and even has been namedin the statements of the police personnel.Her custodial interrogation is amust and the application may be rejected.The learned A.P.P. further submits that he has no instructions asregards grant of anticipatory bail to the co-accused and the applicant if shewants to derive any benefit on the ground of parity must produce a copy ofthe order of Sessions Court.Having heard both the sides and having perused the police papersit is apparent that the allegations against the applicant are in respect of thesecond episode only.Going by the allegations the incident has taken placewithout any premeditation.There was no preparation.It seems that havingseen the police personnel taking away the accused persons involved in thefirst episode that this second group of accused seem to have facilitated their 2/3 ::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 27/06/2020 01:59:26 ::: aba 438 2020.odtescape.No weapon was used.The allegation is only about of peltingstones.There are no criminal antecedents.The learned advocate for theapplicant has made an emphatic statement across the Bar about AminaPathan having been granted anticipatory bail by Sessions Court.Apparentlynothing is to be discovered by the applicant so as to make her presence inthe police custody necessary.Being a woman, on merits as well as on theground of parity she deserves to be granted anticipatory bail, obviously,subject to usual conditions.::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 27/06/2020 01:59:26 :::The application is allowed.In the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with CrimeNo.130/2020, registered with Bidkin Police Station, District Aurangabad,for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 114, 117, 188, 224, 225,332, 333, 353, 143, 147, 148, 149, 504 of the Indian Penal Code, underSection 135, 37(1), 37(3) of Bombay Police Act, under Section 51(b) ofDisaster Management Act 2005, and under Section 3 of Epidemic DiseaseAct 1897, she shall be released on bail on her executing personalrecognizance for an amount of Rs. 15,000/- and furnishing a solvent suretyin the like amount subject to following conditions :(a) She shall attend the concerned police station as and when called by the Investigating Officer and shall cooperate him till filing of the charge-sheet.(b) She shall not tamper the evidence or influence the witnesses.::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 27/06/2020 01:59:26 :::
|
['Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
83,142,307 |
P.K.BHASIN, J(ORAL) This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 16.9.1999 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in Sessions Case No.155/1998 whereby the appellant was convicted under Sections 328 and 379 IPC and the appellant has assailed his conviction as well as the sentences awarded to him for the commission of these offences.The prosecution case, in brief, is that on the night of 7/8-03 98 PW-5 Surender Kumar Singh, a resident of Rai Bareilly and who had gone to Faridabad, was sitting in the passenger hall at New Delhi Railway Station waiting for some train for going back to Bareilly.He was having one attach- case and one bag with him The appellant(hereinafter to be referred to as 'the accused') also came there at about 1 a.m. alongwith two attache-cases and sat near PW-5 and started talking to him generally and after he came to know from PW-5 during their talks that he was to go to Rai Bareilly the accused told him that he was also going to Rai Bareilly.While talking to PW- 5 the accused offered three cups of tea also to PW-5 and when third cup was offered a cream-biscuit was also offered to PW-5 which he ate.After eating the biscuit PW-5 became unconscious and thereafter the accused took the attach-case and the bag of PW-5 and started running away from there with the attach and bag leaving his own attachees there.At that time one coolie(PW-6 Chaudhary Ram) was also present in the passenger hall and he had been watching these two persons gossiping and taking tea and when he saw that after eating the biscuit offered by the accused to PW-5 with the third cup of tea PW-5 had lied down and the accused had hurriedly taken the attach-case and the bag, which as per the prosecution case belonged to PW-5, and started going from there he became suspicious Crl.12/2000 2 and asked the accused to stop but he did not stop and instead started running more speedily.PW-6 chased him upto some distance and managed to apprehend him.In the meantime one Head Constable Shri Krishan (PW-4) who was on routine duty at the railway station at that time along with two home guards also reached there and the accused was handed over to the Head Constable who interrogated the accused but he could not give any satisfactory answers.PW-5 Surender Kumar Singh was then taken to the Lady Harding Hospital by one home-guard while Head Constable Shri Krishan remained there with the accused.PW-5 Surender Kumar Singh was got admitted in hospital in unconscious state where he was examined and the doctor suspected it to be a case of drug intoxication(although as per the prosecution case no certain opinion about that could be given since stomach wash aspirates could not be prepared).Information that one Surender was brought from railway station and got admitted there in unconscious state was passed on to the Police Station at New Delhi Railway Station by the Constable on duty in the hospital and the same was recorded as DD No.9-B. Copy of that DD entry was handed over to ASI Arun Kumar(PW-7) for enquiry who then went to the hospital where he found PW-6 Surender Kumar admitted but was declared unfit for making a statement.PW-7 then came to the railway station where he met Head Crl.12/2000 3 Constable Shri Krishan and PW-6 Chaudhary Ram.The accused was also there.In view of the statement of PW-6 the accused was arrested and the attach-case and the bag which the accused was taking away with him, were taken into police possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW-4/B. The two attach cases left behind by the accused were also seized vide memo Ex. PW-4/C. Thereafter, ASI Arun Kumar prepared a ruqqa and got the FIR under Sections 328/379/411 IPC registered.From the railway station PW-7 took the accused to Lady Harding Hospital where by that time PW-5 Surender Kumar Singh had regained consciousness and immediately on seeing the accused recognized him to be the person who had offered him biscuit on eating which he had become unconscious.He also gave his statement to the investigating officer in which he also narrated the aforesaid facts and circumstances under which he came to be drugged by the accused.On the completion of usual investigation formalities charge-sheet was filed in Court against the accused under Sections 328/379/411 IPC and in due course his case came to be committed to the Court of Sessions where Crl.12/2000 4 charges under Sections 328/379 IPC were framed against him.The prosecution in order to establish its case examined seven witnesses in all including the victim Surender Kumar(PW-5) and the other eye-witnesses of the incident, PW-6 Chaudhary Ram.The accused when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. pleaded false implication.The learned trial Judge after examining the evidence adduced concluded that the accused had committed the charged offences and convicted him accordingly vide judgment dated 16.9.1999 and vide order 20.9.99 directed him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and also to pay fine of Rs.1000/- for his conviction under Section 328 IPC and to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment under Section 379 IPC.In this appeal the accused has assailed the said judgment and order of the trial Court.It was contended by Shri Sumeet Verma, learned counsel for the appellant(amicus curiae), at the outset that the accused had not been afforded a fair trial inasmuch as the accused was not represented by any counsel because of poverty and no legal aid was given to him by the trial Court and all the witnesses were cross-examined by the trial Judge himself.It was also submitted that conviction of the appellant in any event on the Crl.It was argued that the prosecution had adduced no medical evidence to establish that PW-5 had consumed some intoxicating substance and so offence under Section 328 IPC is not made out and further submission was that even for establishing the offence under Section 379 IPC there was no evidence to show that anything belonging to PW-5 was recovered from the custody of the accused.O.P. Saxena, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, supported the judgment of the trial court and submitted that there is no infirmity in the appreciation of evidence by the trial Court and the findings arrived at in the impugned judgment and so this appeal deserves to be dismissed.After examining the entire prosecution evidence and giving thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned amicus curiae and the leaned Addl.Section 328 I.P.C. reads as under :-I shall first deal with the evidence of the complainant coolie PW-6 Chaudhary Ram.On going through his examination-in-chief I find that he did not claim that the accused had offered three cups of tea to the victim PW-5 Surender Kumar Singh and further that along with the third cup of tea the accused had offered biscuit also to PW-5 or after eating that biscuit PW-5 had become unconscious.He had simply deposed that he had seen the accused and two other persons indulging in talks and having tea and biscuits/snacks at about 4/4.30 a.m. on 8-3-98 and further that the accused was apprehended at the spot with the attach-case of the passenger.He was not cross-examined by the APP and in reply to one of the many questions put to him in the nature of cross-examination by the trial Judge PW-6 came out with a different Crl.12/2000 8 version that there was one other boy also with the accused who had brought tea and one biscuit was taken by the accused.He further stated that that boy had offered biscuits.PW-6, however, did not claim that even the other boy had offered biscuit to the passenger(PW-5) or that the passenger ate biscuit at all although he had stated that the passenger had become unconscious after ten minutes.The learned amicus curiae had submitted that when this witness himself had not claimed in his chief- examination that the accused had offered tea and biscuits to PW-5 the learned trial Judge was not justified in asking the witness whether tea and biscuits were offered to the victim or not and putting such a question, which could have been put only by the prosecutor after getting the witness declared hostile, shows that the trial Judge wanted to make the testimony of this witness in conformity with the prosecution and thus the accused had not got a fair trial.On this point the learned Addl.Public Prosecutor's submission was that the learned trial Judge must have thought that the APP conducting the trial was not doing his job as was expected of him and so there was nothing wrong or improper if the witness was put certain questions to find out the truth even though those questions should have Crl.12/2000 9 been asked from the witness by the prosecutor.The accused himself had never asked for legal aid and so in appeal he cannot raise any grievance on this account.On this aspect, I find that in the impugned judgment itself the learned trial Judge has stated that since the accused was not represented by any counsel at the time of recording of prosecution evidence the Court itself had cross-examined the witnesses relying upon one judgment of Allahabad High Court reported in 1974 Crl.He deposed that on the night of 7/8-3-98 he had come to New Delhi Railway Station Crl.12/2000 10 from Haryana and was to go to his native place Rai Bareilley by train from that station.He was having one attach and one bag at that time with him.He sat in the passenger hall waiting for the train.He further deposed that the accused came to him at about 1 a.m. and at that time the accused was having two attach cases with him and asked him as to where he was going.He told the accused that he was going to Rai Bareilley and then the accused started talking to him and accused also offered him tea thrice and when he was offered tea for the third time at about 4/4.30 a.m. the accused had offered him a cream biscuit also and after taking that biscuit he had become unconscious.Referring to this part of the statement of the victim learned APP had submitted that this person had no enmity with the accused and so had no reason to depose falsely against the accused and his evidence has been rightly relied upon by the trial Court for this reason even in the absence of a definite medical opinion that this witness had actually consumed any intoxicating substance mixed in the tea or the biscuit.The submission of the learned amicus curiae was that even though an argument had been advanced before the learned trial Court that there was no medical evidence adduced by the prosecution to show that PW-6 had actually Crl.When the accused offered him biscuit at about 4.30 a.m. the victim became unconscious.The accused must have placed some trick................ PW6 Chaudhary Ram and PW5 Surender Kumar Singh have no reason to falsely involve the accused in such a serious case.when a person states on oath presumption is that he must have been deposed truly."It is clear from the statement of victim Surender Kumar that accused gave him biscuit and after taking the biscuit he became unconscious.It shows that drug clotted biscuit was given by the accused to the victim.When the evidence on the record is consistent and natural that immediately after taking the biscuit victim Surender became unconscious it is not material if the nature of the drug could not be determined.Direct evidence on the record has to be believed."PW-6 has, however, not claimed that besides the attach case and the bag anything else was also seized by the police or that the items mentioned in the seizure memo Ex. PW-4/B were there in the attach case and the bag.In any case, when this coolie was examined in Court the case property as shown in the seizure memo Ex. PW-4/B, which as per the prosecution case was recovered from the possession of the accused, was not produced in Court by the prosecution for getting the same identified from him as the victim had already got the same released on superdari and the prosecution had not ensured the production of those goods by the victim in Court when PW-6 was to be examined.When the victim himself was examined he had no doubt brought with him in Court some goods which he claimed to have been stolen on the date of the incident and those goods were exhibited also but since PW-6 was not present at the time of recovery of those goods allegedly from the possession of the accused it cannot be said that whatever goods PW-6 had produced in Court were actually recovered from the Crl.For the fore-going reasons, this appeal deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed.The judgment dated 16/09/99 and the order on sentence dated 20/09/99 passed by the trial Court are hereby set aside.Consequently, the appellant-accused stands acquitted of both the charges for which he was convicted.As a result of his acquittal, his bail bonds stand discharged.P.K.BHASIN, J November 7, 2008 gm/sh Crl.
|
['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
83,143,258 |
(a) PW1 Mahendra Malvia is the First Informant.On the day of the incident i.e. on 25th January 2012 itself, he lodged a report which resulted in registration of Crime No.23 of 2012 for offences punishable under Sections 399, 397 read with 34 of the IPC as well as under Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act with Kasturba Marg Police Station, Mumbai.According to the prosecution case, PW1 Mahendra Malvia along with his friend PW4 Mansi Sawant were chitchatting near the wall of Sanjay Gandhi National Park at Borivali.At that time, all appellants / accused by threatening them with a deadly weapon indulged in commission of robbery.At the point of knife, informant PW1 Mahendra Malvia was robbed off his cell phone, cash amounting to Rs.300/- as well as ear ring.Similarly, the cell phone of PW4 Mansi Sawant is also robbed in the incident in question.According to the prosecution case, accused persons have also taken documents such as identity card etc. from First Informant Mahendra Malvia.(b) Immediately after the incident of robbing themselves, PW1 Mahendra Malvia and PW4 Mansi Sawant raised hue and cry, avk 4/14::: Uploaded on - 03/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/10/2017 00:28:10 ::: 501-APPEALS-677-2013-1263-2013-700-2014-J.doc thereby attracting the public at large.The mob which gathered on the spot started chasing accused persons who were attempting to flee from the spot.Accused persons started pelting stones at the mob and threatening them with knives.At that time itself, police arrived at the spot in the patrolling van.The incident was made known to PW2 Mohd. Majawar, Assistant Sub Inspector from the police van.By that time, the mob had encircled accused persons.Police took them in custody.Personal search of accused persons came to be conducted and looted articles came to be recovered.::: Uploaded on - 03/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/10/2017 00:28:10 :::6 PW1 Mahendra Malvia and PW4 Mansi Sawant have stated that after committing this daring robbery, appellants / accused attempted to flee from the spot and therefore, both of avk 8/14::: Uploaded on - 03/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/10/2017 00:28:10 ::: 501-APPEALS-677-2013-1263-2013-700-2014-J.doc them raised hue and cry for help.As per version of both these witnesses, then public from the vicinity gathered and attempted to apprehend culprits.However, accused persons started pelting stones towards the crowd gathered there and threatened the crowd by pointing a knife at them.7 PW1 Mahendra Malvia and PW4 Mansi Sawant consistently deposed that then police jeep came there and police apprehended all three accused persons.8 Both these victims of crime namely PW1 Mahendra Malvia and PW4 Mansi Sawant were cross-examined at length but nothing could be brought on record from their cross-examination to disbelieve their version about the incident in question.9 The prosecution has also adduced evidence regarding post event happenings on the scene of occurrence.PW3 Sandeep Bij is a witness, who is a resident of Sanjay Gandhi National Park.On 25th January 2012, he had been to darshan of Gaondevi Mandir and while returning he witnessed the post event happenings.As per version of this witness, three thieves were running and persons from adivasipada were chasing them.This witness has stated that those thieves were threatening the mob by pelting stones.This witness had also joined the mob for attempting to apprehend appellants / accused.As per version of this witness, then police came and with the help of people, police apprehended appellants / accused persons.original accused no.1 Raju Pradhan, Criminal Appeal bearing No.1263 of 2013 is filed by the original accused no.2 Amin Mordiya, whereas, Criminal Appeal bearing no.700 of 2014 is filed by original accused no.3 Azharuddin Shaikh.By these appeals, avk 2/14::: Uploaded on - 03/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/10/2017 00:28:10 ::: 501-APPEALS-677-2013-1263-2013-700-2014-J.doc they are challenging the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Borivali Division, Dindoshi, Mumbai, in Sessions Case No.50 of 2012, thereby convicting all of them of offences punishable under Sections 341 read with 34, 392 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).For the offence punishable under Section 341 read with 34 of the IPC, they all are sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for 1 month apart from direction to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default, to suffer further simple imprisonment for 8 days, by each of them.For the offence punishable under Section 392 of the IPC, appellants / accused are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years apart from direction to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 2 years.Similar punishment is imposed on all of them for the offence punishable under Section 397 of the IPC.The learned Additional Sessions Judge has directed that substantive sentences shall run concurrently.2 Brief facts leading to the institution of these appeals can be summarized thus :::: Uploaded on - 03/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/10/2017 00:28:10 :::avk 3/14::: Uploaded on - 03/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/10/2017 00:28:10 ::: 501-APPEALS-677-2013-1263-2013-700-2014-J.doc::: Uploaded on - 03/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/10/2017 00:28:10 :::Routine investigation followed which ultimately resulted in filing of the charge-sheet.::: Uploaded on - 03/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/10/2017 00:28:10 :::(c) The accused persons, after hearing the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.In support of the charge, prosecution has examined in all five witnesses and ultimately the learned Additional Sessions Judge was pleased to convict all appellants / accused persons and they were sentenced as indicated in the opening paragraph of this judgment.PW1 Mahendra Malvia has narrated the incident to police in the van and then accused persons came to be arrested.As against this, PW2 Mohd. Majawar, A.S.I., has deposed that initially personal search of accused persons was taken as they were already apprehended and thereafter PW1 Mahendra Malvia and PW4 Mansi Sawant had disclosed the incident to police.PW1 Mahendra Malvia is deposing about personal search of the accused resulting in recovery of mobile.The spot cum seizure panchnama as well as arrest panchnama is not properly proved by the prosecution and no documentary evidence of ownership of looted articles is placed on record by the prosecution.As against this, the learned avk 6/14::: Uploaded on - 03/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/10/2017 00:28:10 ::: 501-APPEALS-677-2013-1263-2013-700-2014-J.doc APP justified the impugned judgment and order of conviction by stating that with the help of consistent evidence, guilt of the accused persons is proved by the prosecution.4 I have carefully considered the rival submissions and also perused the record and proceedings including deposition of witnesses and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution.Let us now examine whether the prosecution has established that appellants / accused, on 25th January 2012, had wrongfully restrained PW1 Mahendra Malvia and PW4 Mansi Sawant in furtherance of their common intention and whether there upon appellants / accused had robbed cell phones / cash amounting to Rs.300/-, gold ear ring and other articles from them by using deadly weapon like knife in commission of robbery.5 Considering the case set up against appellants / accused persons, evidence of victims of the crime in question is of great importance.Let us, therefore, first put on record what PW1 Mahendra Malvia and PW4 Mansi Sawant are stating about the avk 7/14::: Uploaded on - 03/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/10/2017 00:28:10 ::: 501-APPEALS-677-2013-1263-2013-700-2014-J.doc incident in question.Both of them, in unison, have deposed that on 25th January 2012, they were chitchatting near the wall of Sanjay Gandhi National Park.At that time, as per version of both these witnesses, appellant / accused no.1 Raju had slapped PW1 Mahendra Malvia and pointed a knife at his neck.PW1 Mahendra Malvia was threatened and then appellant / accused no.1 Raju relieved him of his cell phone as well as cash amounting to Rs.300/-, and identity card kept in his wallet.Both these witnesses congruously deposed that at the same time, appellant / accused no.2 Amin Mordiya pointed a knife at the neck of PW4 Mansi Sawant and snatched her cell phone.So far as third accused i.e. appellant / accused Azharuddin Shaikh is concerned, both these witnesses have stated that he gave a fist blow on the abdomen of PW1 Mahendra Malvia and snatched his gold ear ring.::: Uploaded on - 03/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/10/2017 00:28:10 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/10/2017 00:28:10 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/10/2017 00:28:10 :::The incident lasted for few minutes enabling them to have every opportunity to identify appellants / accused persons, who were apprehended on the spot itself by the police.Evidence of First Informant Mahendra is gaining corroboration from the First Information Report (FIR) lodged by him with promptitude.The avk 9/14::: Uploaded on - 03/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/10/2017 00:28:10 ::: 501-APPEALS-677-2013-1263-2013-700-2014-J.doc FIR at Exhibit 19 lodged by PW1 Mahendra Malvia soon after the incident is fully supporting his version about the incident in question.Except a few insignificant variations, entire evidence of PW1 Mahendra Malvia and that of PW4 Mansi Sawant is in tune with the prosecution case.::: Uploaded on - 03/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/10/2017 00:28:10 :::This witness has also deposed about personal search of accused persons and recovery of looted articles from them.avk 10/14::: Uploaded on - 03/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/10/2017 00:28:10 ::: 501-APPEALS-677-2013-1263-2013-700-2014-J.doc 10 PW1 Mahendra Malvia, PW4 Mansi Sawant as well as PW3 Sandeep Bij have categorically identified appellants / accused persons.PW1 Mahendra Malvia and PW4 Mansi Sawant have, on identification of appellants / accused in dock, categorically ascribed role played by each of them in the incident of robbery with deadly weapons.Both of them have stated that appellant / accused no.1 Raju by pointing a knife at the neck of PW1 Mahendra Malvia had snatched a cell phone, cash amounting to Rs.300/- and identity card from PW1 Mahendra Malvia.Both these witnesses have stated that appellant / accused no.2 Amin Mordiya by pointing out a knife at the neck of PW4 Mansi Sawant, had snatched a cell phone from her whereas, appellant / accused no.3 Azharuddin by giving a fist blow on abdomen of PW1 Mahendra Malvia had snatched a gold ear ring from him.11 Seizure has been effected by PW2 Mohd. Majawar A.S.I., who had also witnessed post event happenings in this crime.As per his version, during the course of patrolling, he along with Mhaiskar, driver of the patrolling vehicle, reached Sanjay avk 11/14::: Uploaded on - 03/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/10/2017 00:28:10 ::: 501-APPEALS-677-2013-1263-2013-700-2014-J.doc Gandhi National Park at Borivali and found that three persons were threatening the crowd by pointing knife and pelting stones.As per version of this witness, then PW1 Mahendra Malvia and PW4 Mansi Sawant approached him and disclosed the incident of robbing them, after he as well as other staff apprehended appellants / accused persons.PW2 Mohd. Majawar, A.S.I., stated that then personal search of appellants / accused was conducted on the spot itself in the presence of panch witnesses.Evidence of this witness reveals that apart from one knife, during personal search of appellant /accused no.1, a cell phone, cash amounting to Rs.300/- and identity card of PW1 Mahendra Malvia came to be recovered.From appellant /accused no.2 Amin Mordiya, cell phone of PW4 Mansi Sawant came to be recovered whereas, from appellant / accused no.3 Azharuddin, gold ear ring of PW1 Mahendra Malvia came to be recovered.Evidence of this witness is fully corroborated by contemporaneous seizure panchnama.There is nothing in his cross-examination to disbelieve his version about the incident in question.Articles recovered from appellants /accused persons were duly identified by PW1 avk 12/14::: Uploaded on - 03/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/10/2017 00:28:10 ::: 501-APPEALS-677-2013-1263-2013-700-2014-J.doc Mahendra Malvia and PW4 Mansi Sawant.::: Uploaded on - 03/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/10/2017 00:28:10 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/10/2017 00:28:10 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/10/2017 00:28:10 :::12 In the light of foregoing discussion, the prosecution has established that on 25th January 2012, at Sanjay Gandhi National Park, Borivali, appellants / accused had wrongfully restrained PW1 Mahendra Malvia and PW4 Mansi Sawant and threatening them with deadly weapon, committed robbery of their belongings.Sentence imposed on them for proved offences is also in consonance with offences held to be proved against them.avk 13/14::: Uploaded on - 03/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/10/2017 00:28:10 ::: 501-APPEALS-677-2013-1263-2013-700-2014-J.doc 13 Resultantly, the appeals are devoid of merit and therefore the order :::: Uploaded on - 03/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/10/2017 00:28:10 :::i) Appeals are dismissed.ii) In view of dismissal of appeals, pending applications also stand disposed of.::: Uploaded on - 03/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/10/2017 00:28:10 :::
|
['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
83,144,198 |
In particular, the ad hoc workinggroup on human rights in Chile, the Working Group on Enforced orInvoluntary Disappearances (WGEID) and the Inter-American Commission onHuman Rights (IACHR) developed an important doctrine on this right withregard to the crime of enforced disappearances.These mechanisms initiallybased the legal source for this right upon articles 32 and 33 of theAdditional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions, of 12 August 1949.Commentators have taken the same approach.However, although this right wasinitially referred to solely within the context of enforced disappearances,it has been gradually extended to other serious human rights violations,such as extrajudicial executions and torture.The Extra Judicial Execution Victim Families Association (petitionerno.1) in W.P. (Crl.) No. 129 of 2012 says that it is a registered trusthaving as its members the wives and mothers of persons whom they say havebeen extra-judicially executed by the Manipur Police and the securityforces (mainly the Assam Rifles and the Army).The Human Rights Alert(petitioner no. 2) also claims to be a registered trust.They arehereinafter compendiously referred to as the petitioners.Of these 1528 casesdocumented by the petitioners, they have made a more elaboratedocumentation of 62 cases.For the purposes of the writ petition filedunder Article 32 of the Constitution, they have referred to 10 specificcases (out of 62) where, according to them, eye-witness accounts exist ofextra-judicial executions but the police and the security forces havejustified them as encounters with militants.The details of these 10 casesare mentioned in the writ petition but it is not necessary for us toindividually discuss them.The petitioners say that not a single First Information Report (forshort ‘FIR’) has been registered by the Manipur police against the policeor the security forces even though several complaints have been made inrespect of the alleged extra-judicial executions.As a result of thefailure of the Manipur police to register an FIR not a single investigationor prosecution has commenced and the cries of anguish of the families ofthe victims have fallen on deaf ears.The petitioners say that the victims of the extra-judicialexecutions include innocent persons with no criminal record whatsoever butthey are later on conveniently labeled as militants.It is under thesecircumstances that the petitioners have been compelled to approach thisCourt under Article 32 of the Constitution for appropriate orders forsetting up a Special Investigation Team (for short ‘SIT’) of policeofficers from outside the State of Manipur to investigate instances ofalleged extra-judicial executions and thereafter prosecute the offenders inaccordance with law.Dr. Th.At the outset it may be stated that though both the writ petitionswere listed for hearing over several days, the sum and substance of thesubmissions related to the setting up of an SIT to investigate the allegedextra-judicial executions with a clear understanding that W.P. (C) No. 445of 2012 would be taken up for consideration later.About 30 extremist organizations operate in Manipur and all of them arevery powerful and heavily armed with sophisticated weapons, includingrocket launchers.Their aim and object is to form an independent Manipur byits secession from India.They have been indulging in violent activitiesincluding killing of civilians and security forces and law abiding citizensof Manipur to achieve their objective.They have also been intimidating,extorting and looting civilians for collection of funds and making effortsto get established abroad for influencing public opinion and securing theirassistance by way of arms and training in achieving their secessionistobjective.In the fourth affidavit dated 27th July, 2015 the NHRC has given theprogress in respect of 62 cases of which details are given in the writpetition.Subsequently, during the course of hearing, the up to dateinformation was given to us and therefore it is not necessary to refer tothe information given in the affidavit.Case 5 - Chongtham UmakantaThis incident in which Umakanta died has compelled us to come to theconclusion that though the manner in which he was picked up, as stated bythe complainant, cannot be accepted.The manner in which he dieddefinitely indicates that this could not have been an encounter.There is some truthin the allegations, calling for a deeper probe.In People’s Union for Civil Liberties it was alleged that twopersons from Manipur were killed in a fake encounter by the police.Thiswas denied by the police who averred that the deceased were killed in across-fire between the police and an unlawful organization in Mizoram.
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
83,144,876 |
Case diary perused and arguments heard.[2] As per prosecution case, on 11/6/2017 at about 8 p.m., when complainant was going to her house along with her daughter prosecutrix, on the way near Ravidas Temple, the appellant molest to the prosecutrix and caught hold her hand and when complainant rescue him the appellant also abused her and threatened her to kill.Thereafter, on 14/6/2017 she lodged the report.On that report, police registered Crime no.280/2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 354-D, 294, 506, 452, 427, 34 of the I.P.C., and Section 11(4), 12 of POCSO Act and also under Sections 3 (1)ba, da, dha, 3(2)(5-ka) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 and investigated the matter.During investigation, on 19/8/2017 police arrested the appellant.Being aggrieved by the impugned order, appellant filed this Criminal Appeal.[3] Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant has falsely been implicated in this matter.The incident has been allegedly occurred on 11/6/2017 while the prosecutrix lodged the report on 14/6/2017, there is no plausible explanation regarding the delay.The appellant is in custody since 19/8/2017, so appellant be released on bail.[4] Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer made by the appellant.[7] This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the appellant :The appellant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;The appellant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; andThe appellant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.C.C. as per rules.(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) JUDGE m/-
|
['Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
83,147,141 |
This petition has been filed with a prayer to quash the impugned First Information Report of Case Crime No.33 of 2010 under Section 498A I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, PS.Karchana District Allahabad.On the request of learned counsel for the petitioner this matter was referred to the Mediation Centre of this Cort.The report of the Mediation Centre shows that both the parties were not willing in mediation.Therefore this petition is being disposed of on its merit.Order Date :- 15.11.2010 Rk
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
83,158,480 |
/427/506 of the Indian Penal Code.Accordingly, it is prayed for quashing of said complaint case.(Tarun Kumar Gupta, J.)
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
83,158,812 |
vsd Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13537 of 2018 and Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.6110 and 2976 of 2018http://www.judis.nic.in 8/9 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13537 of 2018 25.10.2019http://www.judis.nic.in 9/9This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in Crime No.83 of 2017, dated 26.12.2017 on the file of the first respondent as against the petitioner.Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.83 of 2017 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 197, 198, 199, 406, 420, 417 and 418 of IPC., as against the petitioner.Hence, he prayed to quash the same.3.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) would submit that the investigation is still pending and this petition is in premature stage and hence, he prayed for dismissal of this petition.4.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.A.No.255 of 2019 dated 12.02.2019 - Sau.Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. the State of Maharashtra & ors., as follows:-If it appears on a reading of the complaint and consideration of the allegations therein, in the light of the statement made on oath that the ingredients of the offence are disclosed, there would be no justification for the High Court to interfere.http://www.judis.nic.in 4/9 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13537 of 20189. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel and examined the material on record, we are of the considered view that the High Court ought not to have set aside the order passed by the Trial Court issuing summons to the Respondents.A perusal of the complaint discloses that prima facie, offences that are alleged against the Respondents.The correctness or otherwise of the said allegations has to be decided only in the Trial.At the initial stage of issuance of process it is not open to the Courts to stifle the proceedings by entering into the merits of the contentions made on behalf of the accused.Criminal complaints cannot be quashed only on the ground that the allegations made therein appear to be of a civil nature.13.In view of the foregoing discussion, we allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore the aforementioned complaint case to its original file for being proceeded with on merits in accordance with law.O.P.(MD)No.13537 of 2018 FIR.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.However, the first respondent is directed to complete the investigation and file a final report before the jurisdictional Magistrate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.25.10.2019 Internet: Yes/No Index : Yes/No vsd To1.The Inspector of Police, CCB, Madurai City, Madurai District.2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in 7/9 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13537 of 2018
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
83,158,851 |
/324/325/326/307/354/427/506 of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of : Sukumar Biswas & Anr.... ... petitioners Mr. Amit Singh ... ... for the petitioners Mr. Rana Mukherjee, Mr. Antarikhya Basu ... ... for the State The petitioners seek anticipatory bail in connection with Tehatta P.S. Case No. 176 of 2018 dated 15.05.2018 under Sections 147/148/149/323/324/325/326/307/354/427/ 506 of the Indian Penal Code.The petitioners claim that the matter pertains to the panchayet election and many persons were named for extraneous considerations in the complaint.The State refers to the case diary and says that these petitioners were found to have been involved in the assault and rioting.Several persons connected with the complaint have already been granted anticipatory bail.Considering the nature of the incident and the circumstances, there may not be any need for the petitioners to be taken into custody as long as they attend the trial.In addition, the petitioners will also attend the trial on a regular basis on the dates fixed.In default of the petitioners attending the trial, the trial Court will be at liberty to cancel the defaulting petitioner's bail without reference to this Court.The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed subject to the conditions as indicated above.Certified copies of this order be immediately made available to the petitioners, subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Suvra Ghosh, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J.)
|
['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 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.
|
90,759,419 |
As prayed by learned counsel for the parties matter is heard finally.The applicants have challenged the order dated 26.9.2012 passed by the learned VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar in ST No.439/2012 whereby the charges of offences punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 34, 498-A of I.P.C were framed against the applicants.The prosecution's case in short is that the deceased Rajia on 19.9.2010 died at Tili Hospital, Sagar.A report was lodged to the concerned Police and investigation was initiated.The post mortem upon the body of the deceased was under taken and viscera was also sent for examination.No poisonous substance was found in the viscera.It was no where established that some poison was given to her.Under such circumstances, the death of the deceased was not caused due to assault caused by any of the applicants and therefore, prima facie it cannot be said that the death of the deceased was homicidal and therefore, neither any offence under Section 302 or 304 of I.P.C would be made out against the applicants.Some contusions were shown in the panchayatnamalash but, it appears that out of those contusions some of the blood marks were due to mortal lividity.No fracture was found below the contusions.Doctor who did the post mortem did not give any opinion that the patient was in shock due to assault and therefore, prima facie it could not be accepted that the death of the deceased was homicidal.If the applicants informed the concerned doctor about the illness of the deceased to save themselves from the conviction and sentence for a particular offence then offence punishable under Section 201 of I.P.C is made out against the applicant but offence under Section 302 of I.P.C shall not constitute.The learned Additional Sessions Judge has passed an order relating to the framing of the charges without considering the facts of the case.At the most offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 201 of I.P.C may be constituted against the applicants and no offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C shall be constituted.Under such circumstances, it appears that an error of law has been committed by learned Sessions Judge and therefore, it is necessary for this Court to make an interference by way of revision.Consequently, the revision filed by the applicant is hereby allowed.The order dated 26.9.2012 is hereby set aside.The applicants are discharged from the charge of offence punishable under Section 302 or 304 of I.P.C. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar is directed to consider and pass an order under Section 228 of Cr.P.C for trial of offence punishable under Section 498-A, 323, 201 of I.P.C.Copy of the order be sent to the trial for information and compliance.C.C as per rules.(N.K. Gupta) Judge bina
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 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.
|
90,760,804 |
Applicant Dadoman and Jainarayan carried out his beating by means of sticks.(07/12/2011) U.C. Maheshwari,J.The applicants/accused has preferred this revision under section 397 read with 401 of the Cr.P.C being aggrieved by Order dated 11.1.11 passed by the Court of Special Judge (constituted under the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act) (in short `the Act'), Satna in S.T.No.71/10 framing charges against them for the offence of section 341,294 (two counts) ,307, 307/34, 323 (two counts),506-II of the IPC and section 3(1)(x) of the Act.The facts giving rise to this revision in short are that the on dated 5.2.2010 at about 11 O' Clock in the night, the complainant Rambiswas Choudhary lodged the FIR at P.S Singhpur district Satna contending that at about 9.30 in the night, victim Krishna Kumar Mishra was at his field situated near river Garda.Rajesh alias Bhaiya Chaturvedi, Achchelal Choudhary and Jainarayan were also sitting in the adjoining field.At the same time, when Krishna Kumar Mishra was coming from his motorcycle, on the way near the field known in the name of `Palha', said Rajesh alias Bhaiya lashed with Farsa, Achchelal lashed with an Axe, Dadoman and Jainarayan lashed with sticks stopped him and asked the whereabouts of the Sarpanch.On saying by Krishna Kumar that he does not 2 know about him then all the aforesaid culprits by abusing him with filthy language started his beating.Achchelal Choudhary gave the blow of Axe on the head of the victim Krishna Kumar while the blow of Farsa was given on his head by Rajesh Chaturvedi.When the complainant Rambishwas and Ramdhani went to rescue the victim Krishna Kumar then they were also subjected to beating by the applicants resultantly all victims had sustained injuries with bleeding on different parts of their persons.On their shouting, some of the villagers came there then by giving the criminal intimidation to kill the complainant and other injured, the applicants fled away.On the aforesaid report, the offence of section 341,294,323 and 506-II of the IPC was registered against the applicants.Subsequent to registration of the offence, the applicants were sent to the hospital where their MLC reports were prepared.Out of them, victim Krishna Kumar Mishra was referred for x-ray.On carrying-out the same, the fracture of ulna bone of right hand was revealed.In investigation it was also found that the alleged incident with Rambiswas was happened with intention to humiliate him on account of his caste "Charmakar" (Kumra) covered under the Act. On completion of the investigation, the applicants were charge sheeted for the offence of section 307,341,294,324,323,506-B,427,325/34 of the IPC and section 3(2)(v) and 3(1)(x) of the Act. On evaluation of the charge sheet, the charge of section 341,294,307,307/34,323 (two counts) 294,506-B of the IPC and section 3(1)(x) of the Act was framed against the applicants.They abjured the guilt and thereafter being aggrieved by such order have come to this court with this revision.The applicants counsel after taking me through the copy of the charge sheet along with the impugned order and framed charges said that even on taking into consideration the face value of the charge sheet including the nature of the injuries 3 sustained by the victims and the other medical evidence as accepted in its entirety, the charge of section 307 of the IPC is not made out against any of the applicants.So far the other framed charges are concerned, he has not made any submission for discharging them from such charges.For discharging the applicants from the offence of section 307 of the IPC, he categorically stated that the victim Rambiswas and Ramdhani had sustained the simple injuries as stated by the doctor in their MLC reports while in the MLC report of victim Krishna Kumar Mishra as many as 11 injuries have been stated by the doctor.Out of them, injury No.4,6,8,9 and 10 are stated to be simple in nature while no opinion regarding injury No.1,2,3,5 and 7 was given by such doctor.For some of the injuries, victim Krishna Kumar Mishra was referred for x-ray and on carrying-out the same, only fracture of Ulna bone in right hand was revealed.He also stated that in entire charge sheet, any of the doctor has not opined that any of the injury sustained by Krishna Kumar Mishra was sufficient to cause his death in the ordinary course of the nature.In such premises, it could not be deemed that the applicants or any of them have committed the offence of section 307 of the IPC and pursuant to it the charge of section 34 of the IPC, till this extent is also not sustainable and, prayed to discharge the applicants from such charge of section 307 and 307/34 of the IPC by allowing this revision.On the other hand, responding the aforesaid argument, Shri Yogesh Dhande, Dy.He also said that in the interrogatory statement of Krishna Kumar, he categorically stated that such assault and beating was carried-out by the applicants with intention to cause his death.In such premises also, the impugned charge of section 307 or 307/34 IPC does not require any interference at this stage and prayed for dismissal of this revision.Having heard the counsel at length, keeping in view their arguments, I have carefully gone through the copy of the charge sheet along with the impugned order and the framed charges.Before proceeding further, I would like to reproduce the injuries sustained by the respective victims Shri Krishna Kumar Mishra, Ramdhani and Raniya alias Ramvishwas Charmakar.The same are as under :-(A) As per MLC report the victim K.K.Mishra sustained the following injuries :-(1) Reddish swelling indicated lower yu of right upper arm.Right elbow and upper y3 of right forearm.Advised x-ray.Injuries No.4,6,8,9 and 10 are simple.Advised x-ray for other injuries.Patient referred to district hospital.5 (B) As per MLC report victim Ramdhani sustained following injuries :-(1).Reddish contusion 5x3 cm left scapular region.Under advise, on carrying-out the X-ray of victim K.K.Mishra, the following report was given by the radiologist :-Except the fracture of Ulna bone, all other injuries sustained by Krishna Kumar Mishra deserve to be treated to be simple in nature.So far injury of aforesaid fracture of Ulna bone is concerned, the same could not be treated to be sufficient to cause death of a person in ordinary course of the nature.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
90,763,157 |
Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected and application dismissed.Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.( Patherya, J.) ( Debi Prosad Dey, J. ) 2
|
['Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
90,771 |
P.W.1, Subramanian and P.W.2, Selvi, are brother and sisters, belonged toMathur Village of Kallangudi.P.W.9, Saras, is the mother.P.W.13 Arayee andP.W14 Muthu, are their paternal Aunty and uncle.P.W.2 (herein after referred asprosecutrix) was married to one Muruganantham S/o.P.W.3, Kaliappan who belongedto Kallangudi Village of Devakottai.The said Murganandam was employed atSingapure.The prosecutrix was living with her in-laws at Kallangudi.Accordingto P.W.1, the brother of the prosecutrix, he had given a sum of Rs.25,000/- incash and 20 sovereigns of gold jewels to the prosecutrix for safe custody.Thecash and jewels were meant for the marriage of his younger sister.According tothe prosecutrix, on 06.11.1999, at 6.30 am she took the cash and jewels and wasproceeding to Kallangudi in order to hand over the same to his brother.When shewas waiting for bus to go to Devakottai, the appellants and along with one Pandicame in a taxi and told the prosecutrix that they can drop her at Devakottai.Believing the appellants, the prosecutrix got into the taxi.On reachingDevakottai they did not stop and the prosecutrix protested.The appellants gagedher and took her to Coimbatore and she was confined in a house.The firstappellant took the jewels and cash and handed over to the second appellant.Onthat night, the first appellant forcibly had an sexual intercourse with theprosecutrix against her will and consent.The prosecutrix protested but thefirst appellant over powered her.4.She was kept in the house for three days and every day the firstappellant had sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix against her will and shesustained injuries.After three days, the appellants brought her to Devakottai.Meanwhile, P.W.1 went to Kallangudi and enquired about her with P.W.3, father-in-law.He was told that P.W.2 left with jewels and cash on 6.11.1999 toMathur.P.W.1 came back to Mathur and found that she had not come back andenquired in various places.5.While so, the appellants left the prosecutrix at Aranthangi bus-standand promised to return the cash and jewels but they did not come back.On11.11.1999, she went to the house of P.W.15 at Keelanalli Kottai and on the nextday she went to P.W.14's house at Chithivayal.On 14.11.99,P.W.4 saw a paperadvertisement regarding the missing of P.W.2 and contacted P.W.1.P.W.2 was takento Mathur.6.On 15.11.1999, P.W.1 launched a complaint, Ex.(a) She had board on the taxi on her own will and she had not raised anyalarm till the tax reached Coimbatore.The Criminal Appeal is preferred against the conviction and sentencepassed by the learned Asst.Sessions Judge, Devakottai, in S.C.No.109 of 2003,dated 5.10.2004, for the offences under Section 366, 324, 376 and 392 r/w 34I.P.C.2.The appellants were charged for an offence under Section 366 IPC forkidnapping PW2, Selvi, on 06.11.1999 and also for wrongful restrain of thevictim.The first appellant is charged for an offence under Section 376 IPC forrape and also for robbery, and under Section 392 of I.P.C., for illegally takingcash and jewels from the victim.The second appellant is charged for the sameoffences r/w 34 IPC for having common intention.P1, with the Inspector ofPolice, Taluk Police Station, Devakottai, alleging that his sister Selvi wasmissing from 6.11.1999 and also alleging that the appellants had kidnapped her.P.W.18, the Inspector of Police, received the complaint on 15.11.1990 around12.10 p.m., and registered a case in Crime No.261 of 1999, for the offencesunder Section 363 I.P.C., and prepared Ex.P.6, the First Information Report andinitiated the investigation.Umadevi of Government Rajaji Hospital,Madurai, who was examined as P.W.17, had found that there is no injury on thebody of the prosecutrix and issued Ex.P5, Medical Certificate.The firstappellant was also subjected for medical examination and P.W.16,Dr.Thiyagarajan, examined him.The apparels of the prosecutrix Mos.1 to 3 wereseized and subjected for chemical analysis.7.On completion of the investigation, P.W.22, the then Inspector ofPolice, laid a charge sheet as stated above.On committal, the Learned Asst.Sessions Judge enquired.8.On examination of the witnesses and on perusal of the documents andmaterial objects, the learned Asst.Sessions Judge found that the prosecutionhas proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.The first accused was found guiltyfor the offences under Sections 366, 342, 376(2), 506(ii), and 392 I.P.C. andthe second accused also found guilty under the same offences read with section34 I.P.C. The Assistant Sessions Judge mostly relied on the sole evidence ofthe prosecutrix to drive home the guilt of the accused.9.Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the appellants have preferredthe present appeal on various grounds, more particularly on the ground that theprosecutrix is a consenting party, who had eloped with the first appellant andthe sole evidence cannot be relied on.The learned counsel pointedout that if she is not a consenting party she could have raised an alarm, whenshe was abducted in a car or at the place, where she was confined for threedays.The learned counsel further pointed out that she came to the house ofP.W.15 on 11.11.1999 and she has not revealed anything to him and she had goneto P.W.14's house and stayed for two days and had not confided any thing to herown aunt.The learned counsel pointed out that on seeing the paperadvertisement for woman, P.W.14 had informed P.W.1 and only thereafter, acomplaint was given by P.W.1, as if the appellants have kidnapped her.Thelearned counsel further pointed out that on 15.11.1999 itself, the appellantswere arrested for an offence under Section 366 I.P.C., and only on 23.11.1999,the prosecutrix was pressurized to give a statement of alleged kidnapping, rape,robbery and the other offences.The learned counsel further pointed out thatthe conduct of the prosecutrix and the delay in filing the First InformationReport would clearly demonstrate that only on the instigation of P.W.1 and thepressure from the family members, the prosecutrix has given a version offorcible intercourse against her will.The learned counsel also relied on theinfirmity in the investigation and also relied on the Medical Certificate issuedby the Doctor, which would show that there was no injury on the body of theprosecutrix and the opinion of the Doctor that the prosecutrix is accustomed tosexual intercourse.12.On the contrary, Mr.L.Murugan, Govt.Advocate (crl.side)submitted thatthe this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme court, in catena of decisions havereiterated that conviction can be based on sole testimony of the prosecutrix.13.The appellants are charged for the offences under Sections 366, 342,376(two counts) 392 and 506(ii) r/w 34 IPC.The appellants 1 and 2 were foundguilty for all the offences.According to P.Ws.1, 3, and 8, the brother, mother and father-in-law of the prosecutrix, she was found missing from 6.11.1999 and she left thehouse with some cash and jewels.P.W.11 would state that he saw the prosecutrixat Coimbatore at Ganapathipuram.When he came back to his Village, he came toknow about missing of P.W.2 and told that he saw her at Coimbatore.Only on11.11.1999, P.W.11 one Ramaiah saw her standing at Aranthangi Bus-stand and onenquiry, she told him that she is going to Keelanalli Kottai.On 11.11.1999,P.W.14 met her but the prosecutrix has not stated anything to him.On15.11.1999, the appellants were arrested under Section 363 and till 23.11.1999the prosecutrix has not given any statement implicating the accused for all theabove said offences.The prosecutrix is aged 24 years and having a child.Admittedly, there is no injury on the body of the prosecutrix.Mos.1 to 3 didnot show any blood stains or seminal stains.15.In a case of rape, there can not be a direct evidence to prove theguilt of the accused.The entire evidence is based on the prosecutrix'sversion.(b) She was with the appellants at Coimbatore for three days and she neverraised any alarm or protested.(c)P.W.12, a resident of her Village had seen her at Coimbatore Bus-standand she had not sought any help.(d) P.W.11, her relative had seen her at Aranthangi Bus-stand and she hadnot sought his help.(e) She had gone to P.W.14's house and stayed for a day and she had nottold anything.(f) She went to P.W.13's house and stayed for two days and she had notrevealed anything.(g) Eight days after the arrest of the appellants for an offence forkidnapping,she had given the statement implicating the appellants for theserious offences.20.According to P.W.1, only on 15.11.1999, she had revealed to him andeven thereafter, for eight days, she had not given any statement and only on23.11.1999, she had given a statement implicating the appellants for theoffences as stated above.21.Yet another circumstances would also reveal that there was enmitybetween the family of the first accused and the family of P.W.3, the father-in-law of the prosecutrix.The appellants as well as the prosecutrix known to eachother and belongs to the same Village.It is pertinent to note that the husbandof the prosecutrix is in abroad.A married woman, stated to have beenproceeding to her village from in-laws place, was kidnapped, robbed of herjewels and cash, confined and raped and still she has not revealed anything toanybody even after the arrest of the accused.I see a reason in the argument ofthe learned counsel for the appellant that the entire episode could be anaffair between the prosecutrix and the first accused except for the turn aroundby the prosecutrix to level the charge against the first appellant/accused forthe alleged kidnapping, wrongful confinement, rape and robbery.It is alsopertinent to note that nothing is recovered from the appellants, either cash orjewels.In my considered view, the sole testimony of the prosecutrix does notinspire confidence and not found to be reliable to convict the appellants forthe charges leveled against.Therefore, the conviction based on the soleevidence of the prosecutrix, which is not convincing, is not sustainable andliable to be set aside.The points are answered accordingly.23.In the result, the criminal appeal is allowed and the conviction andthe sentence passed by the learned Asst.Sessions Judge, Devakottai, inS.C.No.109 of 2003, dated 05.10.2004, is set aside and the appellants areacquitted.1.The Inspector of Police, Devakottai Taluk Police station, Sivagangai District.2.The Asst.Sessions Judge, Devakottai.3.The Addl.Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
|
['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
907,722 |
It is also alleged that at this juncture, the persons who were grazing their cattle, namely PW2 Ramkrishna, PW4 Nagnath and PW5 Laxman rushed towards the assailants to catch hold of them, but the said assailants left their bicycles at the said place and fled away.4 During the course of investigation, PW9 PSI Shankar Harale prepared the inquest panchanama (Exh.18) on 24.10.2004, as well as visited the spot of incident at Waka shivar and prepared the spot panchanama (Exh.35) and also seized three bicycles and two stones and blood stained clay and plain clay from the spot of incident.21 That takes us to the deposition of PW5 Laxman Maske, wherein he has stated that he knows appellant nos. 1 and 2 before the court, who belong to village Waghala.He also stated that he was present at his cattle shed and he heard noise while he was tying bullocks that, "Sanjay Mala Maru Nakos, Paise Ghe".Subsequently, appellant no.2 Baban caught hold of legs of victim Bapu Salgar and appellant no.1 Sanjay hit by means of stone on his head.22 During cross-examination, PW5 Laxman stated that he does not remember whether on the date of incident there was sun set or not, he also stated that he does not know whether there was cloudy sky.He further stated that he rushed towards the spot of incident after hearing noise from eastern direction.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:29:20 :::District Beed on 18.4.2007, convicting appellant nos. 1 and 2 herein for the offence punishable under Sections 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to undergo the term for life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default of payment of fine amount to suffer R.I. for six months; and also convicting appellant nos. 1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 394 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to undergo R.I. for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default of payment of fine amount to suffer R.I. for three months.2 The factual matrix are summarized as under :-It is the case of the prosecution that PW9 PSI Shankar Harale was attached to Shirsala police station at the relevant time I.e. in the month of October, 2004 and on 23.10.2004 at about 8.00 p.m. to 9.00 p.m. , on receipt of a telephonic call from Parli (R) police station about the murder and that dead body was lying ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:29:20 ::: 3 in the vicinity of Waka shivar, he along with police staff visited Waka shivar and found one dead body of a person, namely Bapu Rustum Salgar near tower line and about 10 people were present near the said dead body.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:29:20 :::3 The contents of the said complaint reveal that the complainant Ganpati and victim Bapu Salgar are brothers of each other and on 23.10.2004 at about 3.00 p.m. deceased Bapu Salgar borrowed Rs. 500/- from the complainant PW1 Ganpati and he had already amount of Rs.400/- with him and accordingly he possessed total Rs. 900/-.Thereafter at about 6.00 p.m. to 6.30 p.m. the victim Bapu Salgar proceeded towards the village on a rented bicycle along with two villagers.It is alleged that thereafter deceased Bapu Salgar was alone and on seeing that, accused no.1 Sanjay went to him near Waka shivar and hit a stone on him and thereby victim Bapu Salgar fell down.Thereafter accused no.2 Anna @ Baban caught hold of both the legs of victim Bapu Salgar, who fell in flat position and thereupon accused no.1 Sanjay lifted nearby lying heavy stone and hit it on the head of victim Bapu ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:29:20 ::: 4 Salgar and snatched Rs.800/- from the victim's custody.The said complaint further reveals that during the course of said occurrence of incident, the victim shouted and asked accused no.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:29:20 :::1 Sanjay to take money for him and requested not to assault him.Accordingly, during the investigation, he arrested appellant nos. 1 and 2 (original accused nos. 1 and 2) under the said crime on 26.10.2004 and prepared the arrest panchanamas (Exhs. 60 and 61 respectively) to that effect.It is also alleged that on 30.10.2004, accused no.1 Sanjay expressed his willingness to produce the clothes and accordingly memorandum panchanama (Exh.62) was prepared and thereafter appellant no.1 (original accused no.12) led the police personnel and panchas near the cattle shed of Tarkase and he produced two shirts from the wall of cattle shed which were seized under memorandum panchanama (Exh.63).::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:29:20 :::6 Thereafter during the course of investigation, PW8 PSI Ramesh Munde sent muddemal articles (Exhs. 1 to 9) to the office of Chemical Analyser for examination purpose along with the forwarding letter (Exh.64) and chemical analysis report thereof dated 13.10.2004 is produced at Exh. 23/C. Moreover, during the course of investigation, the postmortem report (Exh.57/C) was collected, which disclosed the cause of death of victim as cardio respiratory arrest due to injury to vital organ of brain.However, viscera was preserved.So also, the provisional cause of death certificate was obtained.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:29:20 :::Accordingly, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambajogai, District Beed framed the charge against accused nos.1 and 2 i.e. appellants herein at Exh.11 for the offences punishable under Sections 394 and 302 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.The appellants herein pleaded not guilty to the said charges and claimed to be tried.8 Accordingly, appellants herein faced trial under Sessions Case No. 35 of 2005 in respect of said charges.To substantiate the said charges, the prosecution examined in as much as nine witnesses, as mentioned below :-PW1 Ganpati Salgar Complainant - brother of the victim, who produced the complaint, dated 24.10.2004 at Exh. 27/C.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:29:20 :::is submitted that they have been falsely implicated in the present case and they are not concerned with the alleged offences and they are innocent.10 Before dealing with the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, it is necessary to advert to the material evidence adduced by the prosecution, and coming to the testimony of PW1 Ganpati in that respect, which discloses that he and victim Bapu Salgar are brothers and on 24.10.2004 victim Bapu Salgar borrowed Rs.500/- from him and the victim already was possessing Rs.400/- and accordingly the victim possessed in ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:29:20 ::: 8 all Rs.900/- and proceeded to Shirsala weekly bazar.He also stated that Barku Maske and PW2 Ramkrishna Salgar who were the alleged eye witnesses to the incident, informed him that while returning back at about 6.00 p.m. to 6.30 p.m. on bicycle when deceased Bapu Salgar came near Waka shivar near tower line, appellant no.1 Sanjay pelted a stone in the direction of victim and thereby he failed down and thereafter accused no.2 Anna caught hold of his both legs and fallen him down ig in flat position and appellant no.1 Sanjay assaulted him by means of a big stone on his head and thereby caused fracture of skull and thereafter appellant no.1 Sanjay snatched Rs.800/- from the victim.At this juncture, since victim was crying, nearby persons i.e. PW2 Ramkrishna, PW4 Nagnath and PW5 Laxman rushed to the said spot and tried to catch hold of the assailants, but they fled away leaving their bicycles at the spot of incident.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:29:20 :::11 During cross-examination, PW1 Ganpati clearly admitted that he has no personal knowledge about the incident of his brother Bapurao's murder.Moreover, omissions were taken out in the cross-examination in respect of the contentions that Barku Maske , PW5 Laxman and PW4 Nagnath stayed near dead ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:29:20 ::: 9 body of his brother and Barku Maske and Ramkrishna informed him about the said incident and subsequently PW1 Ganpati and other villagers went to the spot by tractor and so that bicycles were lying on the spot and head of his brother was broken and brain particles came out.So also suggestions were given to PW1 Ganpati that deceased Bapu Salgar was addicted to liquor and he used to sell liquor and at the time of incident he had consumed the liquor and he was not on talking terms with Bapu Salgar, but same were denied by him.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:29:20 :::12 After assessing the testimony of PW1 complainant Ganpati Salgar, it is clear that he has not witnessed the alleged occurrence of the incident and in categorical terms he admitted that he has no personal knowledge about the incident of his brother Bapurao's murder, and therefore, except recording the complaint by PW1 Ganpati which is produced at Exh.27/C, his testimony does not take the prosecution case forward in constructive manner to connect the appellants with the alleged crime.Accordingly, the deposition of PW1 Ganpati cannot be construed as useful testimony to the prosecution except recording the complaint Exh. 27/C on 24.10.2004 by him.13 That takes us to the deposition of PW2 Ramkrishna ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:29:20 ::: 10 Salgar, wherein he stated that the alleged incident took place on 23.10.2004 at about 6.00 p.m. to 6.30 p.m. and he had been to his land for taking the cattle for watering on stream and he saw that accused no.1 Sanjay and appellant no. 2 Anna @ Baban were proceeding on their bicycles from Waka to Waghala side.At a distance of aout 200 feet he also saw that both the accused persons left their bicycles and they were running towards village Waka and victim Bapu Salgar was coming from Waka to Waghala on the bicycle.He further stated that he saw on the bank of the stream that appellant no.1 Sanjay pelted stone in the direction of victim Bapu Salgar and due to that he left cycle and sat on ground.Thereafter appellant no.1 Anna @ Baban also had been there and he caught hold of his both the legs and thereupon the victim fell down facing the earth.At that time victim Bapu cried loudly, "Sanjay Maze Sarva Paise Ghe Mala Maru Nakos".::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:29:20 :::However, appellant no.1 Sanjay lifted a big stone weighing about 10 to 15 Kgs.by his both hands and assaulted on his head.PW2 Ramkrishna further stated that he tried to chase the assailants.PW5 Laxman also followed them, but both the accused ran away.He also stated that he saw the incident of pelting of stone on the head of Bapu Salgar from the distance of 200 to 250 feet.14 PW2 Ramkrishna further stated that he saw the victim, ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:29:20 ::: 11 his skull was damaged and blood was oozing and his brain was out of skull.Hence, PW4 Nagnath and PW5 Laxman stayed near the dead body and PW2 Ramkrishna and Barku Maske went to village Waghala, who informed about the incident to family members of victim Bapu and Sarpanch as well as police patil.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:29:20 :::16 During cross-examination, PW2 Ramkrishna categorically stated that there is facility for watering the cattle in his land.The topography of the spot of incident was brought on record through the cross-examination of PW2 Ramkrishna.PW2 Ramkrishna also stated in the cross-examination categorically ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:29:20 ::: 12 that he did not state about the incident in the night of 23.10.2004 to police and police brought him from police station for the purpose of spot panchanama and at about 2.00 p.m. he had been to police station Shirsala and at that time police seized clothes of Bapu Salgar.He also stated that his statement was recorded on 24.10.2004 at 2.00 p.m. prior to seizure panchanama of the clothes of the deceased.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:29:20 :::Considering the testimony of PW2 Ramkrishna Salgar, it is material to note that as stated by PW2 in his cross-examination that there was facility of watering to the catle in his land and therefore, question arises when there was facility of watering the cattle in his land, why PW2 Ramkrishna Salgar went to the stream for watering his cattle and no plausible explanation has been given by the prosecution in that respect.Moreover, even assuming for the sake of assumption without admitting that PW2 Ramkrishna witnessed the alleged incident dated 23.10.2004, the question arises why he remained silent till the next day i.e. 24.10.2004 when he was called for recording spot panchanama and why his statement was recorded on the next day ie.On 24.10.2004 at about 2.00 p.m. and why PW2 Ramkrishna did not disclose the occurrence of incident before police personnel on 24.10.2004 itself and the prosecution has miserably failed to give ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:29:20 ::: 13 the convincing explanation therefor.Hence, suspicion is created in respect of very presence of PW2 Ramkrishna at the place of incident at the relevant time i.e. at the time of occurrence of the incident and suspicion is also created whether PW2 Ramkrishna really witnessed the occurrence of the incident and accordingly the testimony of PW2 Ramkrishna Salgar cannot be construed as eye witness, since it comes under the cloud of suspicion, to connect the appellants with the alleged crime.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:29:20 :::18 Turning to the deposition of PW4 Nagnath Salgar, another eye witness, wherein he stated that he knows appellant nos.1 and 2 herein, who belong to his village and on the date and at the time of incident, he was grazing the bullocks in his land and at about 6.00 p.m. to 6.30 p.m. he heard voice of Bapu Salgar, who was saying that, "Mase Paise Ghe Pan Mala Maru Nako".On hearing his shouts, PW4 Nagnath, PW2 Ramkrishna, Barku Maske and PW5 Laxman ran towards Bapu Salgar and saw that accused no.2 Baban had caught hold of legs of Bapu Salgar and accused no.1 Sanjay lifted stone and assaulted on the head of Bapu Salgar.Accused left their bicycles and fled away towards the stone quarry.He also stated that they tried to chase the accused persons, but same was in vain.After some time, Sarpanch, police patil and brother of Bapu Salgar came to the spot of ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:29:20 ::: 14 incident.They saw that head of Bapu was broken and blood was oozing and he was lying in dead condition.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:29:20 :::19 During cross-examination, he gave the topography of the spot of incident.He also stated that at the time of incident, sun set could have been at 6.30 p.m. He also stated that he did not state before the police that he heard the noise of Bapu Salgar.Suggestion was given to him that deceased Bapu Salgar was having habit of drinking liquor, but same was denied by him.It was also suggested to him that he was not present at the time of occurrence of incident, but same also was denied by him.20 Considering the testimony of PW4 Nagnath, it is material to note that although he has stated in his deposition that at about 6.00 p.m. to 6.30 p.m. he heard voice of Bapu Salgar and on hearing his shouts, he and other villagers ran towards victim Bapu Salgar, PW2 Ramkrishna, another alleged eye witness, has not corroborated the testimony of PW4 Nagnath in that respect and PW2 has nowhere stated that on hearing the voice/shouts of deceased Bapu Salgar the nearby villagers rushed towards the spot of incident.In fact, PW2 Ramkrishna has nowhere stated in his deposition that on hearing the voice/shouts of victim Bapu Salgar, PW2 Ramkrishna and other villagers rushed towards him ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:29:20 ::: 15 and hence, the very prelude of arrival of PW4 Nagnath on the place of incident is in doldrums in respect of presence of PW4 Nagnath at the time of occurrence of incident and consequently witnessing of the very incident by him.The said aspect is substantiated by the very admission of PW4 Nagnath in his cross-::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:29:20 :::Thus, the testimony of PW4 Nangath Salgar cannot be construed as testimony of eye witness to connect the appellants herein with the alleged crime.He also stated that thereafter on hearing noise, he and Barku Maske rushed towards the direction of accused and noise, as well as PW2 Ramkrishna and PW4 Nagnath also rushed towards the spot, but appellant nos. 1 and 2 ran towards the quarry.He further stated that he and PW4 Nagnath Salgar stayed near the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:29:20 ::: 16 bicycle and where Bapu was lying in dead condition; whereas Barku Maske and PW2 Ramkrishna Salgar went to village Waghala.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:29:20 :::He also stated that he came to know about the names of accused persons at the time of preparing spot panchanama.He further stated that he had seen the accused persons in the court for the first time and he came to know about identification of accused nos. 1 and 2 in court only.23 The assessment of testimony of PW5 Laxman, which was put to the test of cross-examination, categorically diminishes his testimony, since he admitted in the cross-examination categorically that he came to know the names of accused persons for the first time while preparing spot panchanama and he saw the accused persons in the court for the first time, as well as he came to know about the identification of accused nos. 1 and 2 in court only.Hence, the alleged contention of PW5 Laxman that he ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:29:20 ::: 17 witnessed the alleged occurrence of incident comes under the doldrums and thereby the prosecution case sustains fatal blow.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:29:20 :::24 Lastly, turning to the deposition of PW6 Girjappa Salgar, wherein he stated that he knows accused nos. 1 and 2, who belong to his village and alleged incident took place on 23.10.2004 and on the date of incident, he had been to Shirsala for repairing his electric motor and he returned back at about 4.30 p.m. from Shirsala to Waghala.At about 5.30 p.m. he had been near land of Barku Maske since he was coming from Shirsala to his village by walk.He also stated that accused nos. 1 and 2 were on their bicycles from Shirsala and they overtook him.He further stated that Bapu Salgar was also going in the same direction, but accused persons were ahead of him.He further stated that he saw appellant no.1 Sanjay and appellant no.2 Baban and victim Bapu near land of Barku Maske.He also stated that appellant no.1 Sanjay lifted big stone and throw on the head of Bapu and appellant no.2 Baban caught hold of legs of Bapu and due to assault of accused persons, Bapu Salgar sustained head injury.Thereupon, PW5 Laxman, PW2 Ramkrishna and PW4 Nagnath rushed to the spot of incident, but the accused persons fled away from the spot leaving their bicycles there.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:29:20 :::25 During cross-examination, PW6 Girjappa stated that he cannot say day and Marathi month of occurrence of incident, but he stated that alleged incident took place on the 2nd day of Holi festival i.e. Dhulivandan.He further stated that there was no talk between him and accused nos. 1 and 2 and so also Bapu when they overtook him.The suggestion was given to him that he has not witnessed the said incident, but same was denied by him.Thus, considering the testimony of PW6 Girjappa, wherein he stated that accused nos. 1 and 2 herein, as well as victim Bapu Salgar when the accused persons over took him and they were ahead of victim Bapu, and considering the versions of the other eye witnesses and the version of PW6 Girjappa, there are apparent discrepancies in the theories advanced by each eye witnesses, and therefore, the testimony of PW6 Girjappa Salgar cannot be construed as the testimony of eye witness and same cannot be relied upon to connect the accused with the alleged crime.27 It is also material to note that the bicycles allegedly abandoned by accused nos. 1 and 2 were not seized under the spot panchanama and no convincing explanation has been given by the prosecution regarding the said lacuna, and hence, the said ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:29:20 ::: 19 aspect also diminishes the credibility of the prosecution case.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:29:20 :::28 Admittedly, the postmortem notes Exh.57/C disclose the cause of death of victim Bapu Salgar as cardio respiratory arrest due to injury to vital organ of brain, but the viscera was preserved, and therefore, there cannot be two opinions that deceased Bapu Salgar sustained homicidal death.Having the comprehensive view of the matter and after scrutinizing oral and documentary evidence, adduced and produced by the prosecution, and more particularly the testimonies of afore said eye witnesses, we are of the considered view that there are discrepancies, infirmities and lacunae in the prosecution case and the testimonies of above referred eye witnesses are not in consonance with each other and accordingly there are deformities in the prosecution case, which does not inspire confidence to connect appellant nos. 1 and 2 with the alleged crime.30 In the circumstances, the prosecution has failed to establish the nexus between the appellants herein and the alleged crime by convincing legal incriminating evidence against them, and, therefore, the present appeal deserves to be allowed.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:29:20 :::Since the appellants are in jail, they be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:29:20 :::
|
['Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
90,772,674 |
Heard finally.This is second bail application on behalf of the applicant under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. His earlier application was rejected vide order dated 16/7/2015 passed in M.Cr.It is further submitted that co-accused Hallu has been enlarged on bail vide order dated 30/6/2015 passed in M.Cr.C.No.8122/2015, who was arrested on 15/4/2015 and was also having lathi in his hands during the incident as alleged against the present applicant, therefore, there is parity between them.The applicant is in custody and conclusion of trial would take considerable time.On the aforesaid grounds, it is prayed that the applicant be released on bail.It is directed that applicant Captain alias Jaipal Singh be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/-(Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the committal Court/trial Court securing applicant's presence before the trial Court on all the dates of hearing fixed in this regard during trial.Certified copy as per rules.(SUBHASH KAKADE)
|
['Section 307 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.
|
90,777,027 |
This is first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. The applicant has been arrested in Crime No.462/2014 registered at Police Station, Tentara, District Morena, under Sections 294, 323, 324, 326 and 506-B of IPC.As per the prosecution case, the complainant was cutting his crop, Kamod Rawat, Patiram Rawat and Banti Rawat came there and left their cattle in the field of the complainant.When complainant objected and turned out the cattle then Kamod, Patiram and Banti started abusing and Kamod gave a Lathi blow, Banti gave axe blow on the wrist.Thereafter all the three accused gave beating to the complainant.On the report offence under Section 294, 323, 506-B of IPC has been registered.After receipt of medical report the offence under Section 326 of IPC has been added.It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has been falsely implicated.He has not committed any offence.The applicant was earlier released on bail, but later on offence under Section 326 of IPC has been added to harass the applicant.Trial will take some time.Therefore, the applicant be released on bail.2 M.Cr.Case diary perused.As per the medical report incised wound has been found on lower 1/3rd of left forearm.This injury has been caused by sharp cutting object.On x-ray examination fracture has been found over left ulna.The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; andThe applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.3 M.Cr.(D.K.Paliwal) Judge Patil
|
['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
90,778,321 |
169 15.07.2014 GB Court No.33 CRR 311 of 2013 Manoj Kumar Dey Vs.The State of W. B. & Anr.Mr. Anirban Mitra Mr. Prasenjit Saha .........For the Petitioner Mr. Anirban Mitra, learned counsel appears on behalf of the petitioner and files affidavit of service.Let it be kept with the record.None appears on behalf of the opposite party.Heard Mr. Mitra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.On perusal of the case record it appears to me that present application for revision has been filed praying for quashing the proceedings relating to Jorashanko Police Station case No. 544 dated 24.09.2010 under Sections 406/506 of the Indian Penal Code.The said property is a trust property.Kanai Lal Dey was one of the tenants at 1st floor of the said premises of 24B, Ram Kamal Sen Lane, Kolkata - 700073 in respect of one room with balcony, separate privy.After demise of said Kanai Lal Dey his son Manoj Kumar Dey, present petitioner has been entrusted with the said portion of the property as tenant for residential purpose only at a monthly rent as a legal heir of Late Kanai Lal Dey.The opposite party no. 2 Sri Murari Goswami protested all such illegal activities at the instances of the present petitioner as the several commercial activities were being done under the direction, supervision and instances of the present petitioner.The present petitioner became violent and abused the opposite party no. 2 in a filthy language.The matter was reported to police but no effect.It is the further case of the opposite party no.2 that the portion of the property in dispute is the trust property and it was entrusted to the accused that is the present petitioner for exclusive use and occupation for residential purpose but the present petitioner has misappropriated the said property converting it into commercial purposes for running businesses etc. Thus, the opposite party no.2 lodged complaint against the present petitioner under Section 406/506 of the Indian Penal Code.
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
90,779,600 |
Deceased Sangita was married to appellant no.1 prior to about 5 years of the alleged incident.After her marriage, she started residing with her husband and in-laws at village Imampur.The matrimonial family of deceased Sangita was consisting of her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law.As is revealing from the case of the prosecution, for initial three years, deceased Sangita was treated well by her husband as well as in-laws.However, since deceased Sangita could not conceive, the accused started ill-treating her.It was alleged that, both the accused used to humiliate deceased::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2018 00:52:28 ::: 3 94.2003Cri.Apeal.doc Sangita by calling her 'wanzoti' (oka>ksVh) (a woman who cannot conceive).It was further alleged that, on 07.12.1998 when deceased Sangita was cooking food on the stove, the appellants started humiliating her on account of her inability to conceive.It was also alleged that, the appellants abused deceased Sangita on that count and eventually poured kerosene on her person and set her ablaze.It was also alleged that, when deceased Sangita was engulfed in the flames, the appellants closed the door of the said room from outside.It was the further case of the prosecution that, the brother-in-law of deceased Sangita namely Ramesh tried to save deceased Sangita by dousing the fire and reached her to the Government Hospital.During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer got prepared the inquest panchanama, post-mortem examination was done of the dead body of deceased Sangita.The spot, where the alleged incident was stated to have occurred, was visited by the Investigating Officer and::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2018 00:52:28 ::: 4 94.2003Cri.Apeal.doc panchanama thereof was also prepared.The appellants were tried by the First Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar in Sessions Case No.23 of 1999 on the charges of having committed murder of Sangita Prakash Kale, the wife of appellant no.1 and the daughter-in-law of appellant no.2, by pouring kerosene on her person and setting her ablaze and also for having subjected her to cruelty.The learned trial Judge found the appellants guilty on both the counts::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2018 00:52:28 ::: 2 94.2003Cri.Apeal.doc and has, therefore, convicted both of them for committing the offences punishable under Sections 498-A & 302 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the 'I.P.C.') and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months each for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C., and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months each for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C. Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently.The appellants have preferred the present appeal questioning the legality and correctness of the order of conviction and sentence so passed against them.::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2018 00:52:28 :::While admitted in the Civil Hospital, the statement of deceased Sangita was recorded by the police and on the basis of the said statement, the crime was initially registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 307, 504 & 506 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. After the death of Sangita, the offence initially registered under Section-307 of I.P.C. was converted into an offence under Section 302 of I.P.C.::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2018 00:52:28 :::The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the necessary witnesses.The material on record reveals that, the dying declaration of deceased Sangita was recorded by one Ashok Vitthal Bhor (PW No.5), who at the relevant time was working as Special Executive Officer, at Ahmednagar.On requisition of the police, he visited the Civil Hospital at Ahmednagar on 08.12.1998 and recorded the statement of deceased Sangita during the period between 02:00 p.m. to 02:25 p.m. After completing the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the accused in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, at Ahmednagar.Since the offences alleged against the appellants were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2018 00:52:28 :::The learned First Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, then framed the charge against the accused on 08.08.2002, the accused did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried.In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined five witnesses and also placed on record the documentary evidence in the form of various panchanamas, post-mortem examination report and C.A. Reports.::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2018 00:52:28 :::::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2018 00:52:28 :::5 94.2003Cri.Apeal.doc The father of deceased Sangita namely Maruti Dagadu Nikam testified as the second witness of the prosecution.He did not fully support the prosecution and hence was required to be cross-examined by the learned APP.According to the accused, deceased Sangita suffered an accidental death.It was their contention that, on 07.12.1998 in the night when Sangita was cooking the food on the kerosene stove, it flared up and Sangita caught fire and suffered extensive burn injuries.The accused denied that, there was any ill-treatment to deceased Sangita from them.The accused have also denied the allegation that, they had poured kerosene on person of Sangita and set her on fire.The accused in their defence examined one Satish Prabhakar Mule, who had recorded the dying declaration of deceased Sangita on 07.12.1998 at Civil Hospital, Ahmednagar.In the dying declaration so recorded by::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2018 00:52:28 ::: 6 94.2003Cri.Apeal.doc the said witness, deceased Sangita is alleged to have stated that, she got accidentally burnt as the stove burst while she was cooking food.::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2018 00:52:28 :::The learned trial Court, after having assessed the oral as well as documentary evidence brought on record, held both the accused guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 498-A read with 34 of I.P.C. and sentenced them to suffer punishment as noted herein above.Aggrieved by, the appellants have preferred the present appeal.Shri Chatterji, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants - accused assailed the impugned Judgment on various grounds.The learned Counsel submitted that, the impugned Judgment is based on presumptions, surmises and conjectures.The learned Counsel further submitted that, the learned trial Judge has failed in appreciating that, the prosecution has intentionally attempted to suppress the first dying declaration recorded by Special Judicial Magistrate, Shri Satish Mule (DW No.1) on 07.12.1998, wherein the deceased had categorically stated that, she sustained burns accidentally.The learned Counsel submitted that, the prosecution has failed in explaining why more than one dying declarations were recorded of the deceased.The learned Counsel further submitted that,::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2018 00:52:28 ::: 7 94.2003Cri.Apeal.doc the evidence on record clearly demonstrates that, the second dying declaration recorded by PW-5 Ashok Vitthal Bhor does not bear any endorsement upon the same that, deceased Sangita was in a fit physical condition and conscious state of mind to give her statement.The learned Counsel submitted that, from the evidence on record, there is reason to believe that, the opinion of the doctor has been obtained by the police subsequently on a separate paper.The learned Counsel submitted that, no reliance could have been placed by the learned trial Court on such evidence.The learned Counsel further submitted that, there is absolutely no evidence on record so as to hold that, the appellants had subjected deceased Sangita to cruelty on any count.The learned Counsel submitted that, the trial Court has failed in appreciating that, had there been substance in the allegations made by PW-2 Maruti Dagadu Nikam, the father of deceased Sangita, that she was ill-treated by the appellants, he would have certainly filed a complaint against the appellants::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2018 00:52:28 :::The learned Counsel further submitted that, deceased Sangita was admittedly burnt to the extent of 92% and in such circumstances, serious::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2018 00:52:28 ::: 8 94.2003Cri.Apeal.doc doubts are raised 'whether she was in a condition to give her statement to PW No.5 Ashok Bhor on 08.12.1998 and affix her thumb impression thereon'.The learned Counsel further submitted that, the prosecution has utterly failed in brining on record any evidence to show that, the first dying declaration given by deceased Sangita was not voluntary.On the contrary, according to the learned Counsel, the circumstances on record clearly demonstrate that, the second dying declaration was given by deceased Sangita at the instance of her parents, who were constantly near her at the relevant time.::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2018 00:52:28 :::The learned Counsel for the accused relied upon the following Judgments:(i) P. V. Radhakrishna Vs.(ii) Gaffar Badshaha Pathan Vs.(iii) Narendra s/o.Vitthalrao Hingane Vs.The learned APP supported the impugned Judgment and order.The learned APP submitted that, the prosecution has duly proved the dying declaration of the deceased recorded by PW No.5 Ashok Vitthal Bhor.The learned APP submitted that, in the dying declaration recorded by PW No.5 Ashok Vitthal Bhor, deceased Sangita had specifically alleged that, the accused picked up quarrel with her on account of her inability to conceive::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2018 00:52:28 ::: 9 94.2003Cri.Apeal.doc and poured kerosene on her person and set her on fire.The learned APP submitted that, nothing has come on record in the cross-examination of PW No.5 Ashok Vitthal Bhor so as to discard or disbelieve his testimony.The learned APP submitted that, PW No.5 Ashok Bhor has deposed that, while recording the statement of deceased Sangita, he had obtained the certificate of the Medical Officer present there that Sangita was fit for giving her statement.The learned APP further submitted that, merely because the said Medical Officer has not made an endorsement on the document of the dying declaration itself, the said certificate cannot be discarded.The learned APP further submitted that, as has come on record in the evidence of PW No.2 Maruti Dagadu Nikam, the first dying declaration was given by deceased Sangita under the pressure of the accused persons.The learned APP submitted that, PW No.2 Maruti Dagadu Nikam has specifically alleged that, deceased Sangita was threatened with her life if she makes any complaint against the accused persons.The learned APP submitted that, in such circumstances, the Investigating Officer was fully justified in getting recorded the second dying declaration of deceased Sangita and considering the circumstances on record, the same has been rightly believed by the learned trial Court.The learned APP further submitted that, insofar as the ill-treatment to deceased Sangita is concerned, the evidence of PW-2 Maruti::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2018 00:52:28 ::: 10 94.2003Cri.Apeal.doc Dagadu Nikam is sufficient to hold the accused guilty.The learned APP submitted that, as has come on record, since deceased Sangita did not conceive even after four years of her marriage, the accused were aggrieved and had started harassing Sangita on that count.The learned APP submitted that, the unnatural death of deceased Sangita, since had occurred within 5 years of her marriage, presumption of ill-treatment has to be raised under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act. The learned APP further submitted that, merely because the Investigating Officer was not examined as a witness before trial Court would not nullify the existing evidence on record.The learned APP submitted that, the existing evidence on record itself is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused and the learned trial Court has rightly held the accused persons guilty for committing murder of deceased Sangita.::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2018 00:52:28 :::::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2018 00:52:28 :::In support of her argument, the learned APP relied upon the following Judgments:(i) Behari Prasad Vs.State of Bihar, Supreme::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2018 00:52:28 ::: 11 94.2003Cri.::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2018 00:52:28 :::(ii) Laxman Vs.State of Maharashtra, Supreme Court, decided on August 27, 2002(iii) Suresh Vishwanath Jadhav Vs.State of Maharashtra, 2006 CRI.L.J. 4277Perusal of the impugned Judgment reveals that, learned trial Judge has relied upon the dying declaration recorded of deceased Sangita by PW-5 Ashok Vitthal Bhor as well as the testimony of PW-2 Maruti Dagadu Nikam, the father of deceased Sangita.Deceased Sangita, in her said statement, had also disclosed to PW-5 Ashok Bhor that, her inability to conceive was the reason for her husband and mother-in-law to pour kerosene on her person and set her on fire.Deceased Sangita had also stated that, her brother-in-law namely Ramesh Kale extinguished the fire by putting quilt on her person and brought her in the hospital.Lastly, she has reiterated that, she had a complaint against Narmadabai Bhausaheb Kale i.e. mother-in-law and Prakash Bhausaheb Kale i.e. her husband.As has been observed by the learned trial Judge, the defence did not bring on record::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2018 00:52:28 ::: 12 94.2003Cri.Apeal.doc any circumstance in the cross-examination of PW-5 Ashok Vitthal Bhor so as to disbelieve his testimony before the Court.::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2018 00:52:28 :::It is the matter of record that, the accused examined DW-1 Satish Prabhakar Mule.It has come on record that on 07.12.1998 in the period between 10:55 p.m. to 11:10 p.m., he had recorded the statement of deceased Sangita in the Civil Hospital, at Ahmednagar.As deposed by DW-1 Satish Mule, it was stated by deceased Sangita in her said dying declaration that, when she was trying to start the kerosene stove for cooking food, it flared and because of that, she got burnt.It was also stated by deceased Sangita in her said statement that, she does not have any complaint against anybody in her house.As has been deposed by DW-1 Satish Mule, he had received a requisition from Police Station M.I.D.C. in the night of 07.12.1998 requesting him to come in the Civil Hospital, at Ahmednagar and to record the statement of Sangita Prakash Kale, who was burnt to the extent of 90%.DW-1 Satish Mule has also deposed that, before recording the statement of deceased Sangita, he had asked for the opinion of the Medical Officer in the Civil Hospital about the physical and mental fitness::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2018 00:52:28 ::: 13 94.2003Cri.Apeal.doc of deceased Sangita for giving her statement.Accordingly the concerned Medical Officer has certified deceased Sangita to be fit for giving her statement and had made the endorsement in that regard prior to recording the statement and also after recording of the statement.::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2018 00:52:28 :::The learned trial Judge has discarded the dying declaration at Exh.55 brought on record by the defence and has preferred to rely upon the dying declaration at Exh.42 recorded by PW-5 Ashok Vitthal Bhor.While criticizing the impugned judgment, the entire thrust of Shri Chatterji, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants was on the point that, where more than one dying declarations were recorded and the deceased made contradictory statements in the said dying declarations, in no case the accused could have been convicted on the basis of one of such dying declaration.Resultantly, we pass the following order."::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2018 00:52:28 :::The learned Counsel submitted::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2018 00:52:28 ::: 15 94.2003Cri.::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2018 00:52:28 :::::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2018 00:52:28 :::::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2018 00:52:28 :::16 94.2003Cri.It was also the argument of the learned Counsel that, it was incumbent on part of the prosecution to explain the circumstances why a second dying declaration was required to be recorded of deceased Sangita, when on 07.12.1998 itself her declaration was recorded by DW-1 Satish Mule.In absence of any such explanation from the side of the prosecution, according to the learned Counsel, no reliance can be placed on the subsequent dying declaration recorded of the deceased.The learned Counsel had further submitted that, from the circumstances on record, it is so explicit that, the second dying declaration was the result of constant tutoring by the mother and father of deceased Sangita.The learned Counsel submitted that, it has come on record that, mother of deceased Sangita was all the while along with her.The learned Counsel submitted that, the possibility of the father and mother of deceased Sangita to have compelled deceased Sangita to give a statement falsely implicating the accused is difficult to be ruled out.The learned Counsel further submitted that, the second dying declaration at Exh.42, otherwise also deserves to be ignored and discarded for the reason that, the prosecution has not brought on record any evidence showing that, while giving her such statement, deceased Sangita was in fit physical::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2018 00:52:28 ::: 17 94.2003Cri.Apeal.doc and mental condition.::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2018 00:52:28 :::It was also the submission of the learned Counsel that, if the evidence of PW-2 Maruti Dagadu Nikam is to be believed that, deceased Sangita had disclosed to him that, she was being humiliated and tortured by accused persons on account of her inability to conceive and that was the reason that she was burnt by accused persons by pouring kerosene on her person, it would have been the natural conduct of PW-2 Maruti Dagadu Nikam to immediately approach the nearest Police Station and to lodge the report against the accused persons and he would not have waited till the death of deceased Sangita.We have carefully perused the impugned Judgment.The learned trial Judge has disbelieved the dying declaration recorded by DW No.1 Satish Mule observing that, the statement so given to DW No.1 Satish Mule by deceased Sangita does not appear to have been given voluntarily and possibility that, the same was given under the pressure of the husband and mother- in-law cannot be ruled out.The second reason, which the learned Judge has assigned is that, the circumstances on the spot as well as the burn injuries caused to deceased Sangita have raised serious doubt whether such injuries could have been caused in an accident, stated to be happened because of flaring::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2018 00:52:28 ::: 18 94.2003Cri.As has been observed by the learned trial Judge, burn injuries noticed to have been caused to deceased Sangita indicate the possibility of somebody pouring kerosene on her person.The learned Judge has recorded a conclusion that, it were the accused only who poured kerosene on person of deceased Sangita causing her burn injuries to the extent of 90%.::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2018 00:52:28 :::We have carefully perused the evidence of DW-1 Satish Mule as well as the evidence of other witnesses.We have examined the medical evidence on record.It is apparently revealed that, the conclusion recorded by the learned trial Judge that, when DW-1 Satish Mule had been to Civil Hospital for recording the statement of deceased Sangita, persons who were present near Sangita were all her relatives from the matrimonial side, is based only on surmises.There is nothing on record to show, who were the persons present near deceased Sangita at the relevant time and whether they were the relatives and if yes, whether from the matrimonial side or parental side.The further conclusion recorded by the learned trial Judge is also based on conjecture and does not have any factual base.We have also come across some of the observations made by the learned Special Judge, which are wholly unconscionable.In para 8, which runs in about 7 pages, at one place, the learned Judge has::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2018 00:52:28 ::: 19 94.2003Cri.Apeal.doc made the following observations :::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2018 00:52:28 :::"It is an admitted fact that, deceased Sangita had been set on fire in her house at the matrimonial home, where she was residing with accused.It has been proved by the prosecution that, accused nos.1 and 2 had set her on fire at the time of accident."On what basis the learned Judge has recorded the aforesaid conclusion is not understood.When it is the specific defence of the accused that, deceased Sangita got accidentally burnt, the observation made by the learned trial Judge that, "it is an admitted fact that, deceased Sangita had been set on fire" appears wholly unconscionable.Further observation made by the learned Judge that, "it has been proved by the prosecution that, accused nos.1 and 2 had set her on fire at the time of accident" is more unconscionable.If according to the learned Judge catching fire by deceased Sangita was an accident, how the learned Judge has also observed that, accused nos.1 and 2 had set her on fire at the time of accident meaning thereby that Sangita suffered a homicidal death.Further, there is no direct evidence on record to show that, accused nos.1 and 2 set Sangita on fire.At least, we have not come across any such unimpeachable evidence to reach to any definite conclusion that, it were accused nos.1 and 2, who set on fire deceased Sangita, except the dying declaration at Exh.42, recorded by PW-5 Ashok Bhor, the reliability of which we will have to independently::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2018 00:52:28 ::: 20 94.2003Cri.Apeal.doc examine hereinafter.We are, thus, unable to subscribe the reasons which are assigned by the learned trial Judge for rejecting the dying declaration at Exh.55 recorded by DW-1 Satish Mule.::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2018 00:52:28 :::State of Maharashtra (cited supra), it was argued by Shri Chatterji that when the dying declaration at Exh.42 shows that, incident caused accidentally and the subsequent dying declaration at Exh.55 show otherwise and when there is no material to show any suspicious circumstance around the dying declaration at Exh.42, which absolve the accused, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused.::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2018 00:52:28 :::::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2018 00:52:28 :::21 94.2003Cri.As against it, learned APP, Mrs Vaishali S. Chaudhari, placing her reliance on the another Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Suresh Vishwanath Jadhav Vs.State of Maharashtra (cited supra) submitted that, the circumstances which are involved in the present case are as similar to the circumstances which were involved in the cited case.The learned APP submitted that, in the said matter also, two dying declarations were recorded and in first dying declaration the deceased had stated that, she got burnt due to bursting of stove and in second dying declaration she implicated her husband.The learned APP further submitted that, the Division Bench had in detail examined the evidence on record and had accepted the second dying declaration to be the truthful version of the deceased having regard to the other circumstances on record, more particularly, the situation on the spot of occurrence and nature of burn injuries caused to the deceased.The learned APP submitted that, in the instant matter also, deceased Sangita in her first dying declaration has stated that, she got burnt due to bursting of stove and in the second dying declaration she has implicated her husband and the mother-in-law.The learned APP further submitted that, if the situation on the spot of occurrence is seen, the fact allegedly stated by deceased Sangita in her first dying declaration that,::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2018 00:52:29 ::: 22 94.2003Cri.Apeal.doc she caught fire due to bursting of stove when she was cooking the food does not appear to be a truthful version.The learned APP submitted that, the spot panchanama does not depict that, around the stove some utensils were also noticed so that an inference can be drawn that, at the relevant time deceased Sangita was preparing food or has made preparation for cooking food.The learned APP submitted that, had it been the fact that, deceased Sangita was attempting to start the kerosene stove for the purpose of cooking and while doing so it got flared or burst and the kerosene was sprinkled on her person, around the said kerosene stove, it must have been noticed that, there were utensils required for cooking food and also the other essential articles like the vegetables, oil, flour, water etc. The learned APP submitted that, the spot panchanama does not show that any of such articles were noticed on the spot.The learned APP submitted that, situation at the spot completely rules out the story of the defence that, at the relevant time deceased Sangita was starting kerosene stove for cooking food.::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2018 00:52:29 :::The learned APP further submitted that, if the nature of burn injuries is considered, in no case, it can be accepted that, the said injuries could have been caused because of flaring of the stove.The learned APP submitted that, when deceased Sangita was burnt to the extent of 90%, the injuries so caused::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2018 00:52:29 ::: 23 94.2003Cri.Apeal.doc to her indicate the possibility of only homicidal death and not accidental.The learned APP further submitted that, as has come on record in evidence of PW-2 Maruti Dagadu Nikam, deceased Sangita had disclosed to him that, her husband and mother-in- law poured kerosene on her person and set her on fire by picking quarrel with her on account of her inability to conceive.The learned APP submitted that, conjointly considering the facts stated in the aforesaid dying declaration by deceased Sangita, the situation as was existing on the spot and the testimony of PW-2 Maruti Dagadu Nikam, there remains no doubt that, deceased Sangita suffered a homicidal death and it were the accused, who set her on fire on the date of incident.::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2018 00:52:29 :::The learned APP submitted that, in the case of Suresh Vishwanath Jadhav Vs.State of Maharashtra (supra) the Division Bench of this Court had relied upon the second dying declaration considering the circumstances on record and in the instant case also the same course deserves to be followed and the conviction recorded by the learned trial Judge needs to be maintained.As noted earlier, in absence of any cogent and sufficient evidence, though we are unable to agree with the finding recorded by the learned trial Judge that, the persons who::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2018 00:52:29 ::: 24 94.2003Cri.Apeal.doc were present, when DW-1 Satish Mule had been to the hospital for recording the dying declaration of deceased Sangita, were the relatives of deceased Sangita from the matrimonial side and the dying declaration so given by deceased Sangita to DW-1 Satish Mule was thus under the pressure of the said relatives and more particularly of the accused persons and have also noted that, some of the observations made and conclusions recorded by the learned trial Judge are wholly unconscionable and have therefore rejected the same also, we find that some of the doubts raised by the learned APP in regard to the dying declaration at Exh.55 indicating that Sangita got accidentally burnt, are difficult to be ruled out.::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2018 00:52:29 :::From the situation as was existing on the spot of occurrence, it is difficult to accept the contention of the defence that, at the relevant time deceased Sangita was starting the kerosene stove for preparing the night meals and while doing so the said kerosene stove flared up because of which deceased Sangita caught the fire.Had it been the fact that, deceased Sangita was attempting to start kerosene stove for preparing the night meals, around the stove the essential articles like vegetables, water, oil, flour etc., and also the utensils for cooking the food must have been noticed around the said stove.Non existence of any of such article near or around the stove creates::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2018 00:52:29 ::: 25 94.2003Cri.Apeal.doc serious doubt about the case of accidental death sought to be made out by the defence.::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2018 00:52:29 :::Similarly, looking to the nature and location of burn injuries all over the body of deceased Sangita and the percentage of the said burn injuries to the extent of 92% also create serious doubts about the theory of accident.Having regard to the fact that, back of deceased Sangita had also been completely burnt, the possibility of somebody pouring the kerosene on person of deceased Sangita is difficult to be ruled out.The C.A. Reports also spell out that, so far as the clothes of deceased Sangita, which were put for test for detection of kerosene, the kerosene residues were detected on all those clothes.As was submitted by the learned APP, the aforesaid circumstance apparently are indicative of somebody pouring kerosene on person of deceased Sangita and not of an accidental death.After having considered the evidence as aforesaid, the fact allegedly stated by deceased Sangita in her dying declaration at Exh.55 that she got accidentally burnt as the kerosene stove flared up, appears to be quite doubtful and difficult to be accepted.::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2018 00:52:29 :::::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2018 00:52:29 :::26 94.2003Cri.However, as because the story put forth by the defence that, deceased Sangita suffered accidental death is shrouded with doubts, merely on that basis it would be unsafe to hold the case of homicidal death as has been pleaded by the prosecution to have been proved.It will have to be closely scrutinized whether the evidence brought on record by the prosecution to prove that, deceased Sangita suffered homicidal death and it were the accused who knowingly and intentionally caused her death by pouring the kerosene on her person and setting her ablaze, is worthy of credence and whether the evidence so brought on record unimpeachably indicates the guilt of the accused and sufficiently proves the complicity of the accused in commission of the alleged crime.In order to prove that, deceased Sangita suffered homicidal death and the accused are the culprits, the thrust of the prosecution is on the evidence in the form of dying declaration of deceased Sangita recorded by PW-5 Ashok Bhor and on the testimony of PW-2 Maruti Nikam, father of deceased Sangita.Medical and forensic evidence is equally placed reliance upon to prove the allegations against the accused persons.First, we would prefer to scrutinize the evidence as about the second dying declaration of deceased Sangita on record.::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2018 00:52:29 :::::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2018 00:52:29 :::27 94.2003Cri.As has been deposed by PW-5 Ashok Bhor, at the relevant time he was working as the Special Executive Officer, at Ahmednagar and on 08.12.1998 police person of M.I.D.C. Police Station, Ahmednagar had been to him with a letter requesting him to record the dying declaration of deceased Sangita, who was stated to be admitted in Civil Hospital, Ahmednagar.As has been further deposed by PW-5 Ashok Bhor, he thereafter reached to Civil Hospital, Ahmednagar and met resident Medical Officer and informed him about the letter received to him from the police for recording the dying declaration of deceased Sangita.PW-5 Ashok Bhor has further deposed that, the said doctor then had examined deceased Sangita and informed him that, she was in a position to give her statement.It has also come on record in his evidence that, the said doctor had made an endorsement in his presence on one paper.After having perused the said paper at Exh.41, PW-5 Ashok Bhor deposed that, the said paper bears the endorsement and the signature of the said doctor and it is the same document on which in his presence the endorsement was made by the said doctor.PW-5 also deposed that, he had obtained the endorsement/certificate of the said::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2018 00:52:29 ::: 28 94.2003Cri.Apeal.doc resident Medical Officer on the letter addressed to him by the police, instead of taking the endorsement on the document of dying declaration because he forgot at that time to obtain the endorsement on the paper / document of dying declaration itself.It has further come on record in the evidence of PW-5 Ashok Bhor that, then he recorded the dying declaration of deceased Sangita in question and answer form.PW-5 Ashok Bhor also deposed that, in her dying declaration, deceased Sangita had stated to him that, her husband and mother in law set her on fire for the reason that, she was unable to conceive.PW-5 Ashok Bhor also deposed that, after the dying declaration so given by deceased Sangita was written by him, he read over the contents of the said declaration to deceased Sangita and she admitted the contents so recorded to be true and correct.PW-5 Ashok Bhor has further deposed that, he then obtained the left thumb impression of deceased Sangita on the said dying declaration and also made his signature on the said declaration evidencing that, the said declaration was made before him.The said dying declaration was shown to PW-5 Ashok Bhor during the course of his evidence before the Court and on perusal of the same, he had identified the said document and had stated that, the document so shown was the same declaration, which was in his hand writing and was bearing his signature and the office seal over it.::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2018 00:52:29 :::::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2018 00:52:29 :::::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2018 00:52:29 :::29 94.2003Cri.It was vehemently argued by the learned APP that, through the evidence of PW-5 Ashok Bhor the prosecution has fully proved the dying declaration given by deceased Sangita on 08.12.1998, wherein she has specifically disclosed that, accused nos.1 & 2 poured kerosene on her person and set her on fire.It was also argued by learned APP that, as has been deposed by PW-5 Ashok Bhor, deceased Sangita was certified to be fit for giving her statement by the resident medical doctor before recording her statement.It was also argued by learned APP that, nothing was brought on record through the cross-examination of PW-5 Ashok Bhor so as to discard or disbelieve his evidence.According to the learned APP, the dying declaration of deceased Sangita has been proved beyond reasonable doubts through the evidence of PW-5 Ashok Bhor and it alone was sufficient to hold the accused persons guilty for knowingly and intentionally causing the death of deceased Sangita by pouring kerosene on her person and setting her on fire.It was also argued by the learned APP that, the objection raised by Shri Chatterji, learned Counsel for the accused that, since there was no endorsement on the dying declaration that, the declarant was in a fit physical and mental condition, no reliance can be placed on such dying declaration,::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2018 00:52:29 ::: 30 94.2003Cri.State of Maharashtra (cited supra).The learned APP submitted that, as has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the mere fact that, the endorsement was made not on the declaration but on the application would not render the dying declaration suspicious in any manner if the Magistrate in his evidence states that, he had ascertained from the doctor whether she was in a fit condition to make a statement.::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2018 00:52:29 :::The submissions as were made by the learned APP were opposed by Shri Chatterji, the learned Counsel appearing for the accused, with equal vehemence.The learned Counsel inviting our attention to the document at Exh.41 submitted that, letter allegedly issued to the Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Ahmednagar was not issued by PW-5 Ashok Bhor, but was admittedly issued by the Police Sub-Inspector of the M.I.D.C., Police Station.The learned Counsel submitted that, PW-5 Ashok Bhor has also admitted the said fact in his cross-examination.The learned Counsel further submitted that, such course was wholly impermissible and raises serious doubt whether in fact the endorsement as is appearing on the document at Exh.41 was made by the concern Medical Officer before recording of the::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2018 00:52:29 ::: 31 94.2003Cri.Apeal.doc statement by PW-5 Ashok Bhor.::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2018 00:52:29 :::Inviting our attention to the F.I.R. in the matter, the learned Counsel submitted that, the said FIR is in fact a complaint given by deceased Sangita and the same has been recorded by the same PSI, under whose signature, the letter at Exh.41 was issued to Medical Officer of the Civil Hospital.The learned Counsel submitted that, there is every reason to believe that, on the basis of the endorsement made on Exh.41 said PSI had recorded the statement-cum-complaint of deceased Sangita.The learned Counsel submitted that, from the aforesaid evidence, it is quite clear that, the physical and mental fitness of deceased Sangita was not ascertained by PW-5 Ashok Bhor before recording the statement of deceased Sangita and the requisition at Exh.41, which was issued by PSI, M.I.D.C. Police Station before his recording the statement-cum-complaint of deceased Sangita has been malafide shown to be the requisition issued before recording the statement of deceased Sangita by PW-5 Ashok Bhor.The learned Counsel submitted that, reasonable doubts are certainly created whether the very essential requirement of ascertaining the fitness of deceased Sangita before recording her statement at Exh.42 was complied with or not.::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2018 00:52:29 :::::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2018 00:52:29 :::32 94.2003Cri.The learned Counsel submitted that, the justification given by PW-5 Ashok Bhor in his testimony before the Court that, he forgot to obtain the endorsement on the paper / document of the dying declaration is quite improbable and unbelievable.The learned Counsel further submitted that, as has been deposed by PW-5 Ashok Bhor, he had obtained the endorsement / certification of the resident Medical Officer on the letter addressed to Medical Officer by police, instead of taking the endorsement on the paper of dying declaration.The learned Counsel submitted that, when as per his own contention, PW-5 Ashok Bhor had obtained the endorsement from the resident Medical Officer on the letter addressed to the said Medical Officer by police, instead of taking the endorsement on the paper of dying declaration, there appears no relevance in the further fact stated by PW-5 Ashok Bhor that, he forgot to obtain such endorsement on the paper of dying declaration.The learned Counsel further submitted that, the aforesaid conduct of PW-5 Ashok Bhor raises serious doubt about the facts stated by him that, he obtained the certification from the resident Medical Officer.The learned Counsel further submitted that, PW-5 Ashok Bhor in his cross-examination has candidly admitted that, he at his own did not ascertain whether deceased Sangita was in::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2018 00:52:29 ::: 33 94.2003Cri.Apeal.doc a position to give her statement.The learned Counsel submitted that, in view of the aforesaid admission given by PW-5 Ashok Bhor coupled with the fact that, the dying declaration recorded by him did not bear any endorsement from the Medical Officer certifying that, the declarant was in a condition to give her statement, there remains no evidence on record to show that, deceased Sangita was in a fit condition when she gave her statement to PW-5 Ashok Bhor.In the circumstances, according to learned Counsel no reliance can be placed on the dying declaration so recorded by PW-5 Ashok Bhor.::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2018 00:52:29 :::It was also the contention of the learned Counsel Shri Chatterji that, having regard to the medical evidence on recored also the only inference which emerges is that, at the relevant time there was no possibility of deceased Sangita to be in a condition of giving her statement.The learned Counsel invited our attention to the cross-examination of PW-3 Dr. Bhaskar Nanasaheb Rananavre, wherein he has explained that, due to burn injuries, the blood becomes thick and resultantly the percentage of fluid from the blood goes on decreasing.It was also explained by PW-3 Dr. Bhaskar Rananavre that, oxygen supply to the brain is made through the fluid in the blood and if the fluid in the blood gets decreased because of the thickness of the blood, the person concern may::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2018 00:52:29 ::: 34 94.2003Cri.Apeal.doc go in coma within 5 to 6 hours after his blood becomes thick.The learned Counsel invited our attention to the specific admission given by PW-3 Dr. Bhaskar Rananavre that, the injuries as were noticed on the dead body of deceased Sangita were suggestive of the possibility of her going in coma before recording her statement by PW-5 Ashok Bhor.The learned Counsel submitted that, the dying declaration stated to have been recorded by PW-5 Ashok Bhor, was admittedly recorded after the period of about 18 hours of receiving the burn injuries by deceased Sangita.In the circumstances, according to the learned Counsel, there was no possibility of deceased Sangita to be in a condition for giving her statement to PW-5 Ashok Bhor.::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2018 00:52:29 :::The learned Counsel further submitted that, even if it is assumed that, deceased Sangita was in a condition to give her statement to PW-5 Ashok Bhor, the further possibility of her being tutored by her mother and father is difficult to be ruled out.The learned Counsel submitted that, the evidence on record clearly suggests that, for whole of the period the mother and father of deceased Sangita were at her side in the Civil Hospital at Ahmednagar after they arrived in the night of 07.12.1998 till the death of deceased Sangita.The learned Counsel further submitted that, there::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2018 00:52:29 ::: 35 94.2003Cri.Apeal.doc are serious doubts whether the left thumb impression alleged to be obtained by PW-5 Ashok Bhor below the dying declaration at Exh.41 is of deceased Sangita.The learned Counsel submitted that, as has been stated by PW-3 Dr. Bhaskar Rananavre, deceased Sangita was burn from nail upto shoulder, and had suffered the deep burn injuries because of which the entire surface layer was burnt.The learned Counsel further submitted that, serious doubts are raised about the said thumb impression to be of deceased Sangita on one more ground that, no one including PW-5 Ashok Bhor has attested the said left thumb impression to be of deceased Sangita.::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2018 00:52:29 :::The learned Counsel further submitted that, there is no signature of PW-5 Ashok Bhor below the statement at Exh.42 as well as an endorsement that, he recorded the said statement according to the version of deceased Sangita.The learned Counsel further submitted that, the alleged signature of PW-5 Ashok Bhor on the alleged dying declaration at Exh.42 is at the left corner of the said dying declaration.Inviting our attention to the said signature, the learned Counsel submitted that, when the entire dying declaration is appearing to have been recorded in::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2018 00:52:29 ::: 36 94.2003Cri.Apeal.doc blue ink, the signature of PW-5 Ashok Bhor is curiously in the black ink.The learned Counsel submitted that, as has been deposed by PW-5 Ashok Bhor, the alleged dying declaration at Exh.42 was recorded by him in his own hand writing.In the circumstances, according to the learned Counsel, serious doubts are created of the alleged signature of PW-5 on the said document in the different ink than used while recording the whole of the remaining statement and there is reason to believe that, PW-5 had subsequently made the said signature.::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2018 00:52:29 :::The learned Counsel further submitted that, the alleged dying declaration cannot be relied upon for one more reason that, a leading question was put to the declarant as to "rqEgkyk dks.kh isVoys fdaok tkGys?" which suggests that it was presumed by PW-5 Ashok Bhor that, it was a case of homicidal death.The learned Counsel also invited our attention to question no.12 in the said proforma dying declaration, which is to the effect "rqEgkyk tkGqu ?ks.;kps @ tkG.;kps dkj.k dk; ?" The learned Counsel submitted that, the said proforma seems to have been prepared presuming that, the person whose statement has to be recorded in the said proforma is either set on fire by somebody or has himself or herself set on fire as an attempt of suicide.The learned Counsel submitted that, it would be very unsafe to rely upon the dying declaration recorded in::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2018 00:52:29 ::: 37 94.2003Cri.Apeal.doc such a proforma.::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2018 00:52:29 :::State of Maharashtra (cited supra), deceased therein while giving her second dying declaration had specifically disclosed the reason for not giving the names of the persons, who poured kerosene on her and set her on fire in her first dying declaration as she was threatened by them that, if she implicates their names, her small daughter would be killed.The learned Counsel submitted that, that was the main reason that, the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid matter find it expedient to rely upon the second dying declaration though there was on record first dying declaration wherein the deceased had stated that, she caught fire due to bursting of stove.The learned Counsel submitted that the aforesaid Judgment may not apply to the facts in the present case.::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2018 00:52:29 :::::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2018 00:52:29 :::38 94.2003Cri.The learned Counsel submitted that, for all the aforesaid reasons, no reliance can be placed on the evidence brought on record by the prosecution in the form of the dying declaration of the deceased at Exh.42, which is shrouded with all serious doubts.Various objections noted as above raised by Shri Chatterji, learned Counsel appearing for the accused, in regard to the dying declaration at Exh.42 deserve serious consideration since the learned trial Judge has based the conviction of the accused mainly on the basis of the said dying declaration.There can be no dispute that, dying declaration can be the sole basis for conviction, however such a dying declaration has to be proved to be wholly reliable, voluntary and truthful and further that, the maker thereof must be in a fit medical condition to make it.It is not in dispute that, the dying declaration at Exh.42 does not bear any endorsement thereon by the Medical Officer as about the fitness of deceased Sangita to give her statement.State of Maharashtra (cited supra) though it was sought to be canvassed by the learned APP that, merely because an endorsement was made by::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2018 00:52:29 ::: 39 94.2003Cri.Apeal.doc the Medical Officer not on the declaration, but on the application would not render the dying declaration suspicious in any manner, the law laid down in the aforesaid Judgment may not apply to the facts of the present case in view of the fact that, in the instant matter PW-5 Ashok Bhor in his evidence has not stated that, he himself had ascertained the fitness of deceased Sangita to give her statement before recording her statement.What has been stated by PW-5 Ashok Bhor in his evidence is the fact that, "I had not ascertained myself about the condition of said patient as to whether she was in a position to give her statement.I had recorded the statement because doctor had certified that, she was in a position to give statement." It is not in dispute that, the doctor who has allegedly certified deceased Sangita to be fit for giving her statement, has not been examined by the prosecution.Even the name of the said Medical Officer/ Doctor has nowhere been disclosed in the entire prosecution evidence.::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2018 00:52:29 :::In fact, the question arises as to why PW-5 Ashok Bhor did not issue the request letter to the concern Medical Officer in the Civil Hospital to certify whether deceased Sangita was in a fit condition to give her statement, before actually recording her statement.It is the normal practice that, when the declarant is in the hospital, it is the duty of the person recording the declaration to record the statement in presence of::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2018 00:52:29 ::: 40 94.2003Cri.Apeal.doc the doctor and after being certified by the said doctor that, the declarant was in a fit state of body and mind to make the declaration.Besides, the person who records the dying declaration must satisfy himself that, the dying man/woman is making a conscious and voluntary statement and that his/ her understanding was normal.PW-5 Ashok Bhor has not provided any explanation as to why he himself did not issue the request letter to the concern Medical Officer.Had the said doctor been examined as a prosecution witness, no further question would have arisen.Since the said doctor has not been examined and as has been deposed by PW-5 Ashok Bhor, he himself had also not ascertained the fitness of deceased Sangita to give her statement, serious doubts are raised whether deceased Sangita was really in a fit condition to give her statement at Exh.42, when the same was recorded by PW-5 Ashok Bhor.::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2018 00:52:29 :::Further, the suo-motu explanation given by PW-5 Ashok Bhor for not obtaining the fitness of deceased Sangita by the Medical Officer on the dying declaration itself has created serious doubts as well as confusion.According to PW-5 Ashok Bhor, he recorded the statement only after obtaining the fitness of deceased Sangita, but the mistake he committed was that, he wrongly obtained the certification on the requisition issued to the Medical Officer by the police.It is thus evident that, PW-5 Ashok::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2018 00:52:29 ::: 41 94.2003Cri.Apeal.doc Bhor did not forget to obtain the certification as deposed by him in his testimony before the Court, but he committed the mistake.The question is when did PW-5 Ashok Bhor realized that, he has forgotten or committed mistake in not obtaining the certification on the dying declaration; whether before recording of the statement or while recording the same or after recording was completed.In all these contingencies, PW-5 Ashok Bhor could have once again obtained the certification from the concerned Medical Officer on the dying declaration, even though earlier he had obtained the same on police requisition.Why such course was not adopted by him, has not at all been explained by PW-5 Ashok Bhor.::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2018 00:52:29 :::After having considered the facts as aforesaid, the doubt as has been raised on behalf of the accused that, the certification of deceased Sangita to give her statement as is existing on record at Exh.41 was not obtained before recording of the statement at Exh.42 and was not obtained by PW-5 Ashok Bhor, is difficult to be ruled out.The submission made by Shri Chatterji, learned Counsel appearing for accused that, the certification at Exh.41 was obtained by the PSI, who recorded the statement-cum-complaint of deceased Sangita, on the basis of which, the offence was registered against the accused treating the said complaint as FIR, does not appear improbable.::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2018 00:52:29 :::::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2018 00:52:29 :::It is the requirement of law and also the established practice that, the dying declaration should be read over and explained to the declarant and declarant should admit the same to be correct, then there should be an endorsement to that effect on the dying declaration by the person, who recorded it.The dying declaration at Exh.42 nowhere bears any such endorsement by PW-5 Ashok Bhor, who is stated to have recorded the said dying declaration, to the effect that, he had read over the said dying declaration to deceased Sangita and that, deceased Sangita had admitted the same to be correct.It is also rule of prudence that, after recording the dying declaration and reading over the same to the declarant and making the endorsement in that regard as mentioned in the para above, the person who records it has to obtain the signature or the thumb impression of the declarant, as the case may be, below the said dying declaration and attest the said signature or the thumb impression to be of the declarant by making specific endorsement in that regard.Perusal of the dying declaration at Exh.42 demonstrates that, the thumb impression alleged to be of deceased Sangita below the said declaration has not been attested by anyone including PW-5 Ashok Bhor, who is stated to have recorded the same.::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2018 00:52:29 :::::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2018 00:52:29 :::43 94.2003Cri.It is further revealed that, there is no signature of PW-5 Ashok Bhor at the bottom of the declaration at Exh.42 or at the side of the alleged thumb impression of deceased Sangita.Ordinarily, the person, who records the dying declaration, is expected to sign the said declaration at its bottom and preferably at the side of the signature or the thumb impression as the case may be of the declarant.In the dying declaration at Exh.42, PW-5 Ashok Bhor has put his signature in the side margin of the said document and that too not at the bottom portion, but on the middle portion.It is further noticed that, though the entire other contents of the dying declaration at Exh.42 are written or scribed in blue ink, the signature of PW-5 Ashok Bhor is curiously in black ink.As deposed by PW-5 Ashok Bhor, he himself had written down the statement/declaration of deceased Sangita in his own hand writing and had put his signature thereafter.From the fact that, the entire dying declaration recorded at Exh.42 by PW-5 Ashok Bhor when is in blue ink, signature of PW-5 thereon is in black ink, the doubt expressed by the defence that, the dying declaration at Exh.42 was not signed by PW-5 Ashok Bhor immediately after it was recorded by him, but was signed at some later point of time, cannot be said::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2018 00:52:29 ::: 44 94.2003Cri.Apeal.doc to be improbable.::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2018 00:52:29 :::The objections raised by Shri Chatterji, learned Counsel for the accused, as about the format of the dying declaration at Exh.42 also cannot be said to be unreasonable.It is true that, the said format contains the leading questions.Question no.10, which reads as "rqEgkyk dks.kh isVoys fdaok tkGys?** (who ignited or set you on fire?) is undoubtedly presumptive.We are afraid to what extent it would be safe to rely upon the dying declaration recorded in such a printed proforma.In the dying declaration recorded at Exh.42, deceased Sangita has admittedly not disclosed that, on earlier::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2018 00:52:29 ::: 45 94.2003Cri.Apeal.doc day i.e. 07.12.1998 also, her dying declaration has been recorded and that, the facts stated by her in the said dying declaration that, she got burnt because of the bursting of stove and further that, she does not have any complaint against anybody, were stated by her under the pressure of her husband and mother-in-law since they had threatened her with her life, if she does not give such a statement.::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2018 00:52:29 :::In the case of Suresh Vishwanath Jadhav Vs.After having considered the discrepancies as above, we have no hesitation in our mind in observing that, the dying declaration at Exh.42 was impregnated with number of suspicious circumstances, which create doubts regarding the::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2018 00:52:29 ::: 46 94.2003Cri.Apeal.doc genuineness of the said dying declaration.Such a dying declaration can hardly be sufficient as an unimpeachable document and according to us, it was quite unsafe to base the conviction of the accused on the basis of such evidence.::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2018 00:52:29 :::In the instant case, the version of homicide set up by the prosecution as well as the version of accident set up by the accused, both appear to be highly improbable and do not inspire confidence to believe either version.In this state of things, when two incredible versions confront us, we have to give benefit of doubt to the accused and it would be unsafe to sustain the conviction.The contradictions in the two dying declarations coupled with the other circumstances on record, leave us with no option but to attach little weight to these dying declarations.None of the dying declaration inspire confidence in its truthfulness and correctness so as to rely upon it.The conviction of the accused, based on such evidence, cannot be sustained.Before parting with the Judgment, we are constrained to observe that, the manner in which the instant case was tried before the trial Court was highly objectionable.More worrying factor is that,::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2018 00:52:29 ::: 47 94.2003Cri.Apeal.doc in such a serious matter, the Investigating Officer did not enter into the witness box.One Ramesh Kale, who was stated to have made an attempt of extinguish the fire around deceased Sangita and who was stated to have reached Sangita in the hospital, was an important witness who could have thrown light on the incident as it had occurred.The prosecution has not examined him.In absence of any corroboration to the facts as were deposed by PW-2 Maruti Dagadu Nikam, the father of deceased, it would have been very unsafe to hold the accused persons guilty for the offences, with which they were charged.In the circumstances, we reiterate that, the only option before us is to acquit the accused by giving them the benefit of doubt.Hence, the following order.::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2018 00:52:29 :::i) The Judgment and order dated 12.12.2002 passed by First Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar in Sessions Case No.23 of 1999 is quashed and set aside.ii) The appellants namely Prakash s/o Bhausaheb Kale and Narmadabai w/o Bhausaheb Kale are acquitted of all the charges levelled against them.iii) The bail bonds of the appellants - accused stand cancelled.::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2018 00:52:29 :::::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2018 00:52:29 :::::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2018 00:52:29 :::
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
9,086,439 |
The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Mr. Kamalesh Chandra Saha For the Petitioners Mr. Rudradipta Nandy For the State The Petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Baduria Police Station Case No. 182 dated 26.3.2013 under sections 498A/306/34 of the Indian Penal Code, have applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioners and the learned Advocate for the State.We have seen the case diary.Since the charge sheet has been submitted, the Petitioners shall appear before the concerned Court within fifteen days from today.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Kanchan Chakraborty, J)
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
90,864,486 |
The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.268 of 2019, dated 17.07.2019, on the file of the first respondent Police station.The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that though the case has been registered for the offences under Sections Section 21(1) of Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act and 379 of IPC, complaint has not been given by the authorised officer and thereby the First Information Report has to be quashed.She would also submit that taking into consideration various judgments of this Court as well as Apex Court, the respondent police will complete the investigation and file final report.Recording the same, this Criminal Original Petition is closed with a direction to the first respondent police shall take into 3/4http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.17941 of 2019 A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.vsg consideration the above judgments and complete the investigation and file final report before the concerned court within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.O.P.(MD).No.18171 of 2019 4/4http://www.judis.nic.in
|
['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
90,871,356 |
P.No.431/05 Page 1 of 19In brief the allegations of the prosecution against the petitioner are that, he is the owner of Shop No. 23, DDA Market, Shanti Store, Punjabi Bagh, Delhi.On 22.10.2002, the said four-storeyed building, which was under construction, collapsed.This resulted into death of six labourers and grievous injuries to eight labourers.Admittedly, petitioner was not present at the spot Crl.P.No.431/05 Page 5 of 19 when the building collapsed.It is also not in dispute that petitioner was a layman and did not know the technicalities of construction of a building and he left the entire job at the hands of the contractor and therefore, glazy consented to every step or advice or instructions given by the contractor to his labour for carrying out necessary construction.ARUNA SURESH, J.Impugning the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 25.4.2005 whereby the trial court, while discharging the petitioner for offences under Sections 304A/308 of Indian Penal Code Crl.P.No.431/05 Page 1 of 19 (hereinafter referred to as IPC) concluded that, prima facie a case for offences under Sections 304 Part II/308 IPC was made out against the petitioner.Injured Arun Kumar, who was working as mason in the said building made a statement to the police in the hospital and on his statement FIR No. 832/2002 for offences under Sections 304/308/427/34 IPC was registered at Police Station Punjabi Bagh against the petitioner and co-accused Mohd. Kaif.Petitioner was arrested and released on bail.Co-accused, Mohd. Kaif the contractor could not be arrested and was declared proclaimed offender.It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it was the contractor who was responsible for the construction work and he had employed the labour for carrying out necessary repairs/ renovation/construction in the building, the contractor used to receive payment from the Crl.P.No.431/05 Page 3 of 19 petitioner, the construction material also used to be procured by the contractor himself, he used to give necessary instructions to the labour for carrying out the work.Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that at the relevant time petitioner had undergone heart surgery and was not physically fit to visit the spot nor, he was present at the time when the building collapsed.He urged that the order of the trial court dated 25.4.2005 is based on conjectures and surmises and not on prima facie evidence available on record, is bad in law and deserves to be set aside.P.No.431/05 Page 2 of 19P.No.431/05 Page 3 of 19Mr. O.P. Saxena, learned APP for the State has submitted that as per the complaint, petitioner along with the contractor had been ignoring the cautions which were being given to them by the mason and insisted on expediting the work which resulted into collapse of the building and therefore, being owner of the premises, he was in the knowledge that such act could cause death of any of the labourer working there and therefore, the trial court was right when it observed that prima Crl.P.No.431/05 Page 4 of 19 facie offences under Section 304 Part II read with Section 308/34 IPC were made out against the petitioner and prayed that revision being without merits deserves dismissal.P.No.431/05 Page 4 of 19Undisputedly, the petitioner who happened to be accused No. 1 before the trial court is the owner of the collapsed building.It is also not in dispute that petitioner had engaged the services of contractor Mohd. Kaif for the job of construction under an oral contract.There was a sanctioned building plan and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi was also collecting house tax from the petitioner after its inspection and assessment.(The house assessment of the entire fourth storeyed building has been questioned by the prosecution.) It was for the MCD to see if any unauthorized construction was being carried on at the premises owned by the petitioner.Be that as it may, this is not an issue to be considered by this Court in this revision petition.P.No.431/05 Page 5 of 19Complainant was working as a mason and was in the know of technicalities of the building construction.He had worked with Mohd. Kaif earlier also.
|
['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
90,874,800 |
03.10.13 Item No. 92 Court No.17 A.B.Item No. 92And In the matter of: Ajimul Haque & Ors.- versus -The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Mr. Sayan De For the Petitioners Mr. Prasun Datta Mrs. Zarin N. Khan For the State The Petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Jalpaiguri Kotwali Police Station Case No. 755 of 2013 dated 07.06.2013 under Sections 341/325/379/307/34 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 other relevant material on record including the injury report.Considering the nature of injuries there is no need for the custodial interrogation of the Petitioners in this case.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.D (Nishita Mhatre, J) (Ranjit Kumar Bag, J)
|
['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
9,087,487 |
Case diary is available.This is first bail application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.The applicant has been arrested on 20.12.2017 in connection with Crime No.880/2017 registered by Police Station Kotwali, District Vidisha for offences punishable under Sections 452,327, 323, 294, 506-B and 34 of IPC.It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that according to the prosecution case, the applicant along with the main accused Surendra Sharma went to the school, abused the lady teacher and asked for the Director of the school.
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
90,875,221 |
Heard on IA No.24991/2016, repeat application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail on behalf of the appellant-Prem Narayan Paliwal @ Sonu.I have perused the objection.The appellant has been convicted for commission of offences punishable under Sections 306 and 506-Part II of IPC and awarded jail sentence RI ten years and seven years respectively with fine of Rs.100/- each offence.Allegation against the appellant is that he had tortured the deceased due to which she had committed suicide.The deceased in her dying declaration Ex.P/3 stated that the appellant had made phone call to her and asked her to come to him, failing which he would kill her.The deceased was died due to burn injuries.She set herself on fire.It is directed that on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- along with one solvent surety of like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court, the appellant Prem Narayan Paliwal @ Sonu, be released on bail with a further direction to appear before the Registry of this Court on 15.05.2017 and on such other dates as are fixed by the office in this regard till disposal of this appeal.C. C. as per rules.(S.K. GANGELE) JUDGE vkt
|
['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
90,880,853 |
Shashi Kant Singh, relating to Crime No.661 of 2006 in the impugned judgement and order.Briefly narrated prosecution allegations against the appellants are that on 31.11.2006 at 11.00 a.m. A1 and A2 accompanied with acquitted socio criminis Chedi Singh, father of A1 fired upon injured Rudresh Kumar Singh when he was sitting and chatting with co-villagers Aras Nath Singh and Tej Narain Singh r/o village Chilahar, district Buxar (Bihar) in front of his gun shop and thereby causing grievous fire arm injuries to all the three of them.Virendra Singh, Rangnath Singh and the informant Durgesh Kumar Singh, PW1, witnessed said incident and rushed to the spot forcing assailants to flee away from the spot on a motorcycle towards Barui crossing.Injured were rushed to Singh Nursing Home,(correct name being Singh Medical and Research centre), Varanasi in a car accompanied by Virendra Singh and Rangnath Singh.Written report Ext. Ka-1, about the occurrence was scribed by informant Durgesh Kumar Singh P.W.1 who got it registered at 12.15 a.m. at police station Jamania, district Ghazipur at a distance of five Kms.as crime no.642 of 2006 U/S 307 IPC.Later on same witness had registered F.I.R. and GD entries for offence U/S 3/25 Arms Act against A1 relating to crime No.661 of 2006 on 7.12.2006 at 6.30 p.m. vide Rapat No.30 and, during trial, has proved those documents as well as Ext. Ka-4(Chik F.I.R)and Ext. Ka-5(GD entry).S.I. Ram Chandra Mishra P.W.9, commenced investigation into the crime, copied the Chik FIR, GD entry, penned down 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the informant, conducted spot inspection and prepared site plan Ext. Ka-22, collected blood stained and plain earth, empty cartridge, pellets and prepared their recovery memos Ext. Ka-23, arrested A2 on the following day, prepared his arrest memo Ext. Ka-24, endeavoured to record statements of injured persons on 15.11.2006 at Singh Nursing Home, Varanasi but could not record it and then endeavour to copy medical examination and injury reports of the injured persons but was informed by the uncle of injured Rudresh Kumar Singh that he will collect the injury reports and will hand it over to him (P.W.9).Thereafter on 22.11.2006 I.O. endeavour to record 161 Cr.P.C. statement of injured Rudresh Kumar Singh at his house but was informed by his servant that he is unfit to give any statement.P.W.9 again endeavoured to record 161 Cr.P.C. statement of injured Rudresh Kumar Singh on the following day but failed in his endeavour.Subsequent investigation was conducted by S.I. R.P. Yadav P.W.8, who commenced it on 25.11.2006, interrogated the appellants on 27.11.2006 and two days thereafter recorded 161 Cr.P.C. statement of injured Rudresh Kumar Singh.On 1.12.2006 P.W.8 copied injury reports, X-ray reports and X-ray plates of Tej Narain Singh and Aras Nath Singh.He also collected the bullets recovered from the body of the injured.On 2.12.2006 second I.O. interrogated witnesses Virendra Singh and Rangnath Singh.On 3.12.2006 P.W.8 moved application for taking remand of A1 and after obtaining it took him out from jail custody from district jail, Ghazipur at 10.11 a.m. and along with Constables Banarasi Yadav, Dharmendra Kumar Chauhan, Arvind Kumar, Dharmendra Yadav accompanied with driver Ramjeet Yadav started at 12.40 afternoon and brought A1 to Canal Road near Harijan Basti, Daruli from where, it is alleged, that A1 took out a .38 bore revolver and informed the I.O. that it was this weapon which was used by him in commission of aforesaid crime.He is receiving indoor treatment under the guidance of General Surgeon at S.M.R.C. Varanasi.(iii) Resection of 1 and 1/2 of ileum end to end anastomosis done.(iv) Laperotomy wound closed is layers.Note:- Still the patient is receiving indoor treatment under the guidance of General Surgeon at S.M.R.C.Exhibit 10 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN This is to certify that Mr. Rudresh Kumar Singh S/o Late Udai Narayan Singh a resident of vill-Deorhi, P.O. Doudpur, P/S Jamania, District-Ghazipur is admitted at Singh Medical and Research Centre, Varanasi on 13.11.2006 at 1.30 p.m. for the treatment of Fire Arm injury back (Right Side) and right thigh.He is receiving indoor treatment under the guidance of General Surgeon (SMRC) at S.M.R.C. Varanasi.He is operated by the General Surgeon (S.M.R.C.) on 13.11.06 at S.M.R.C. Varanasi.(i) Both entry and exit wound right thigh active bleeding.He is receiving indoor treatment under guidance of General surgeon and physician at Singh Medical and Research Centre, Varanasi.He is operated by the General Surgeon (SMRC) on 13.11.06 at SMRC Varanasi.Pt is a known diabetic.OPERATIVE NOTE: (i) Extensive laceration and multiple perforation of distal ileum extending up to I/c junction.(ii) Haemo facco peritoneum 1 and 1/2 litre.(iii) Extensive lacerations of mesenting.OPERATIVE NOTE:(i) Right paramedian laperotomy done.(ii) closure of distal perforations done.(iii) Repair of mesenting tear done.(iv) Perforated ileal loop just proximal to perforation brought out as tump ileostomy done.(vi) Life saving I.C.D. done on right side (Haemethorax-2 litres of colleerd blood) on 13.11.06 under G.A.Note-Still the patient is receiving indoor treatment under the guidance of G.S. & Physician at S.M.R.C. Varanasi.Exhibit 14 Patient's Name : Mr. Tej Narain Singh Doctor's Name : Dr. T.N. Verma Date 13.11.2006 CHEST X-RAY PA VIEW & ABDOMEN ERECT Homogeneous opacity blunting right CPA silhonetting right hemidiaphragm seen.Multiple small radio-opaque shadows seen at the lavel of T-8 on right side in midline.What dents prosecution story substantially is the perceptible contradictions in the ocular testimonies vis a vis medical reports.Exhibit Ka-16, Ka-17, Ka-18, which has been proved by PW 7, indicates that Arash Nath Singh was examined at SSPG Hospital at 5.45 pm on 13.11.2006, while Rudresh Kumar Singh was medically examined at 6 pm and Jai Narayan Singh was examined at 7.10 pm.All the three persons were brought to the said hospital by three different individuals in different vehicles.Arash Nath Singh was brought to the hospital by Rang Nath Singh his brother, Rudresh Kumar Singh was brought to the hospital by Babban Singh SI, PAC Ram Nagar who is his uncle and Jai Narayan Singh was brought to the hospital by Rameshwar Singh his brother.Prosecution case is made suspect from the noting in the medical examination reports and the certificates issued by Singh Medical and Research Centre, Varanasi.Two appellants Shashi Kant Singh(A1) and Pintoo @ Amrendra Singh (A2) have challenged their conviction under Section 307/34 IPC and imposed sentence there for 10 years R.I. with fine of Rs.25,000/-, the default sentence being one year further R.I. and appellant Shashi Kant Singh has also questioned correctness of his conviction under Section 3/25 Arms Act with imposed sentence of two years R.I. with fine of Rs.10,000/-, the default sentence in lieu of payment of fine being six months further R.I. both convictions and sentences imposed by Additional Sessions Judge, FTC Ist, Ghazipur in the impugned judgement and order dated 14.11.2008 passed in S.T. No.47 of 2007, State Shashi kant Singh and others relating to Crime No.642 of 2006 and connected S.T. No.48 of 2007, State Vs.Subsequent thereto constables witnesses of recovery were interrogated.A.C.J.M., Ghazipur took cognizance of the offences on 29.1.2007 and registered Criminal case No. 310 of 2007,State Vs.Shashi Kant Singh and others.A1 was also charge sheeted U/S 3/25 Arm's Act on 30.1.2006 vide Ext. Ka 26, on the basis of which Case No. 661 of 2006 , State versus Shashi Kant Singh was registered in court.PW8 during trial has also proved material exhibits bullet (Ext.1) and recovered revolver(Ext.2).He had dispatched bullet and revolver for forensic examination and Forensic Science Laboratory, Lucknow, report dated 26.6.2007 is on the record, but the same has not been exhibited.According to the prosecution case injured were brought to Singh Medical and Research Center first but were not given any treatment there and were asked to go to SSPG hospital Varanasi and after their return from SSPG that they were admitted in Singh Medical and Research Center and were operated upon.Injuries of injured as has been testified by Dr. Chandra Kishor Prasad Sinha, PW 7 as noted in Exhibit Ka-16 to Ka-18 are as follows:-Exhibit 16 Examined Arash Nath Singh aged about 50 years S/o Late Ram Deni Singh vill Deorhi, P/O Doudpur, District Ghazipur at SSPG On 13.11.2006 time 5.45 PM B/B Mr. Rang Nath Singh Brother M/I Black mile 4 cm above Rt.side above neck 1- LW 0.5 cm x 0.5cm length and breath IBW margin inverted cavity deep 3cm below from umblicus region dressing material present on the wound.2- LW 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm length and breadth cavity deep 10 cm below from right illiac crest at Rt hip region All injuries were KUO , advised x-ray abdomen and expert opinion , duration fresh , injury is caused by fire arm object Ext Ka 17 Examined Mr. Rudresh Kumar Singh aged about 45 years S/O Late Udai Narayan SinghR/O Dehari PS Daudpur district Ghazipur at SSPG hospital on 13.11.2006 6pm B/B Mr. Babar Singh SI Ram Nagar Varanasi ( Chacha)1.L.W. 0.8 cm x 0.5 cm length and breadth inverted margin DNP 15 cm below left scapular notch dressing pad present.2.L.W. 1Cm x 1 cm length and breadth DNP 13 cm below from RT Illiac crest dressing pad present Opinion- All injuries are KUO and advised x-ray at back of abdomen and Rt thigh and expert opinion , Injury is caused by fire arm object , duration fresh.Ext Ka 18 Examined Tej Narayan Singh aged about 46 years S/O Mr Paras Nath Singh R/O Chilhar Distt.Buxar Bihar at SSPG on 13 .11.2006 time 7.10 pm B/B Rameshwar Singh ( Brother)1.L.W. 1Cm x 0.5 cm length and breadth DNP 4.5 cm away from umblical toward Rt side dressing pad present on wound2.L.W 1.1 cm x 1 cm length and breadth x DNP 12 cm below from Rt side abdomen dressing pad present.Opinion- All injuries are KUO and advised x-ray of abdomen and expert opinion , injuries are caused by fire arm object fresh duration.Subsequent medical examination reports of the injured from Singh Medical and Research Centre Private Limited, in order of their exhibits are Ext.Ka-7, Ka-8, Ka-9(Aras Nath Singh), Ext. Ka-10, 11, 12(Rudresh Kumar Singh) Ext. Ka-13, 14, 15 (Tej Narain Singh).Contents of these medical reports in order of their exhibits are reproduced below:-Exhibit 7 Patient's Name Mr. Arash Nath Singh Doctor's Name Dr. T.N. Verma Date 13.11.2006 Report CHEST X-RAY PA VIEW Trachea is central Bony cage is normal Both lung fields are clear Both CP angles are clear Heart shadow is normal Dome of diaphragm show normal contour.IMPRESSION: NORMAL SKIAGRAM OF CHEST.This is to certify that Mr. Arash Nath Singh S/o Late Ram Deni Singh a resident of Vill-Deoruli, P.O. Doutpur, P/S- Jamania, District Ghazipur is admitted at Singh Medical and Research Centre, Varanasi on 13.11.06 at 1.30 p.m. for the treatment of Fire Arm injury Abdomen & right Hip active bleeding.Both entry and exit wound.he is operated by the General Surgeon on 13.11.06 at S.M.R.C. Varanasi.(i) Extensive laceration and multiple perforates of proximal jejunum and proximal and mid ileum laceration of mesentry.(ii) Haemoperitoneum 1 and 1/2 litre.(iii) Both entry & exit wound thigh & abdomen.(i) Right Paramedian Laperotomy done.(ii) Closure of proximal Perforations done.(ii) Only entry wound back Bullet removed embedded in Para spinal muscles.(i) Separate vertical inersions back given.(ii) Bullet removed embedded in Para Spinal muscles.(iii) closure of wound done.(v) post wound left GS draw.Note:- Still the patient is receiving indoor treatment under guidance of General Surgeon at S.M.R.C., Varanasi.This is to certify that Mr. Tej Narayan singh S/o Mr. Paras Nath Singh a resident of vill-Chilahar, P.O. Indaur, P/s Itari, District Buxar (Bihar) is admitted at Singh Medical and Research Centre Varanasi on 13.11.06 at 1.30 P.M. for the treatment of Fire Arm injury chest and Abdomen.Haemoperitoneum 1 and 1/2 Litres.After receiving the charge sheets finding offences triable by Sessions Court,Magistrates committed both the cases to Session's court ,where it were registered as S.T.No. 47 of 2007, State Vs.Shashi Kant Singh and others, and S.T.No. 48 of 2007, State versus Shashi Kant Singh.Additional Sessions Judge F.T.C.-I, Ghazipur charged the appellants for offences under Section 307/34 I.P.C. on 30.3.2007 and additionally charged A1 U/S 3/25 Arm's Act. Since all the charges were abjured by the accused who all claimed to be tried that their trial commenced treating S.T. No. 47 of 2007 for charge of attempt to murder as leading case.During trial, in it's endeavour to bring home the charges, prosecution examined informant Durgesh Singh PW-1, injured Aaras Nath Singh PW-2, injured Rudresh Kumar Singh PW-3, injured Tej Narayan Singh PW-4 as fact witnesses.SI Brijesh Dubey, who registered both the FIRs PW -5, Dr. T.N. Verma PW-6, Dr. Chandra Kishore Prasad Sinha PW-7, SI Rameshwar Prasad (retired) second I.O. PW-8, SI Ram Chand Mishra first I.O. PW-9, Sri Ram Jiyawan Yadav PW-10 were formal witnesses.In their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C., while refuting prosecution allegations all the three accused pleaded their false implication.They examined Vishambher Pandey as DW-1 in their defence.Additional Session's Judge, F.T.C.-I, concluded that guilt of two appellant A1 and A2, could only be established by the prosecution for the charge of attempt to murder U/S 307/34 I.P.C. and charge U/S 3/25 Arms Act against A1 was also established beyond any shadow of doubt and consequently convicted both the appellants for the aforesaid offences and implanted the sentences as has already been inked in the opening paragraph of this judgment.Since trial judge found prosecution to be unsuccessful in bringing home guilt of accused Chhedi Singh and was also unable to dislodge his alibi, that the trial court gave him benefit of doubt and acquitted him, which acquittal has now attained finality.Hence this appeal by A1 and A2 challenging their convictions and sentences.I have heard Smt. Kamla Singh, learned advocate for the appellants in support of the appeal and learned AGA in opposition and have perused the trial court record.Medical reports were manufactured and fabricated in connivance with relative sub inspector of injured Rudresh Kumar Singh posted in Ram Nagar, Varanasi and who had got him admitted in the hospital.It was this sub inspector who had informed the I.O. that he will collect medical examination reports and will hand them over to him and this was obviously done to aggravate nature of injuries and get medical examination reports manufactured.It was in conspiracy with that sub inspector that all the injury reports in Singh Medical and Research Center, Varanasi, and SSPG hospital Varanasi got manufactured and cooked up.Timings recorded in the various medical reports vis a vis ocular testimonies contradicts each other indicating that entire medical examination reports have been fabricated.Injured left Govt. hospital without any discharge slips and got themselves admitted in a private hospital so that they can fabricate injury reports suited to their interest.Trial Judge disbelieved participation of one of the accused relying upon his alibi, which acquittal has become final and consequently prosecution witnesses are not wholly reliable and their depositions suffers from the vices of embellishment and false implication.It was therefore argued that on the same evidence appellants should not be convicted as they deserves the same treatment.Auxiliary submissions are that the I.O. intentionally and deliberately delayed interrogating injured witnesses only to suit informant's case to falsely implicate the appellants.FIR and 161 Cr.P.C. statements have been made ante-timed and ante-date.No independent witness had come forward to support prosecution case and hence the fact witness cannot be relied upon.Noting of injuries in the accidental register, not informing police by the doctor at SSPG Varanasi albeit it was a medico legal case, leaving hospital without any discharge slips, accompanying of sub inspector Babban Singh and his intervention in the investigation all are circumstances indicating that none of the prosecution witnesses are reliable and entire prosecution story is cooked up and manufactured and therefore appellants be acquitted.None of the injured or eye witnesses could identify the miscreants and that is why none of injured informed the doctors about the assailants and manner of their sustaining injuries at the earliest opportunities.Since no body had any idea about the shooters therefore doctor at SSPG Hospital, Varanasi did not inform the police about the medico legal case.It was further argued that prosecution is suppressing the real genesis of the incident and testified a cooked up version.In SSPG Hospital, Varanasi, all the injured were found to have been earlier medically attended to as their injuries had dressing materials which fact is belied by ocular testimonies of injured witnesses themselves.It was further submitted that the injured persons left SSPG Hospital, Varanasi all of sudden without intimating hospital authorities and got themselves admitted in Singh Medical and Research Center, Varanasi only to get their injury reports manufactured and cooked up.It was next contended that motive behind the incident is after thought and cause of false implication of the appellants is that A1 had earlier lodged the FIR against PW-3 and informant for offences under Sections 307, 348, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., at P.S. Jamania on 19.1.2006 as crime no. 21/2006 and to escape punishment in that crime that the appellants have been falsely implicated.It was further submitted that PW-3 is a person having criminal background and is involved in many cases of cheating in the garb of getting jobs and had numerous persons behind his soul who were in the look out to eliminate him and some of those unknown persons had executed the incident who could not be identified and consequently, vindictively, that appellants have been falsely implicated.Surgeon Dr. Ankit Agarwal, who had operated upon the injured, was deliberately withheld by the prosecution to testify nature of injuries sustained by the injured because he was not ready to toe the line of the prosecution and hence charge U/S 307 IPC should not be countenanced.Castigating the investigation, it was submitted that conduct of both the I.O.s do not inspire any confidence and their depositions have been directly and substantially contradicted by fact witnesses on all important material aspects of the matters.Recovery of firearm alleged to be at the pointing out of A1 is planted recovery and there is no independent corroboration of such a recovery and hence prosecution failed to establish charge U/S 3/25 Arms Act and for that offence A1 deserves to be acquitted.Both the I.O.s toe the line of bolstering up prosecution as was advised to them by the relative S.I. and they had not conducted investigation fairly and judiciously which has left much to be desired.Another limb of submission is that none of the incriminating circumstances were put to the appellants in their examination U/S 313 Cr.P.C. and resultantly they can not be utilized against the appellants to nail them for the charge of attempt to murder.In this respect learned counsel has relied upon some of the decisions of the apex court , which shall be referred to in the later part of this decision at an appropriate stage.Pulling down curtain of the arguments, it was submitted that prosecution has failed to establish appellant's guilt and they be acquitted of both the charges.Presence of three injured persons at the scene of the incident can not be doubted and in absence of any motive to falsely implicate their evidences can not be brushed aside.Concludingly it was submitted that appeal lacks merits and be dismissed.I have considered the rival contentions and have gone through the evidences on record.Summation of facts and critical analysis of prosecution evidences and exhibits surfaces some very disquieting features of the entire prosecution story.To start with incident is alleged to have occurred in day light when all the injured were sitting and chatting in front of gun shop of injured Rudresh Kumar Singh after approaching them on a motor cycle but very queeriously it is not mentioned that the assailants had approached the spot on a motor cycle.Further the fact that accused escaped from the spot on motorcycle has not been put to the accused also in their statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. FIR can't be encyclopedic nor every minute detail is required to mentioned thereunder but this does not mean that vital facts with which incident is alleged to have started and which form part of the incident and can not go un-noticed and more significantly which fact affects credibility of prosecution witnesses and it's version be also eschewed to be recorded there under.Further informant PW1 is not sure with what weapon incident was committed.He is the owner of a gun shop and was cross examined in detail on that aspect of the matter.How then informant could not identify the weapon.It seems that all theses significant facts were kept in a lurch to be adjusted as and when suited to prosecution case.Another significant aspect is that after the incident informant did not accompany the injured to the hospital nor made any attempt to provide them with medical aid at Ghazipur itself and instead allowed them to be carried to Varanasi , at a distance of more than fifty kilometers with providing any medical aid.Record reveals that this was done at the behest of SI Babban Singh , because he could have got the reports manipulated.Complacency with which informant acted after alleged to have witnessed the incident belies his presence at the spot.His statement that injured were rushed to Varanasi soon after the incident is belied by deposition of PW3 , an injured witness of the incident.Authenticity of his deposition rests upon credibility of his deposition.Analysis of his depositions surfaces many bizarre conduct indicating that he was not present at the spot.In his statement before the I.O. he had deposed that assailants had fired sheltering them selves behind Marshal car.He could not divulge with whose car injured were dispatched to Varanasi although he had arranged it.No number of motor cycle or it's make is mentioned any where nor during investigation it was surfaced.None of the two I.O.s made any attempt to get that fact verified.Further there is no description of type of weapon used by the assailants.On this aspect of the matter PW1 and other fact witnesses were tested in cross examination at length but they could not give confidence inspiring answers.Albeit prosecution side was a fire arm dealer yet they failed to disclose the type of fire arm used by the assailants.Further presence of PW 1 at the spot is highly doubtful.He is not an injured in the case.According to his deposition gun shop was in his name but no attempt was made to assault him although one of the motive for assault was that accused were denied purchasing of bullets free of costs.Thus those circumstances which have not been put to the accused during their examination U/S 313 Cr.P.C. can not be utilized against them.Defence has also questioned various medical reports and their contradictions vis a vis with ocular testimonies .Fairness of investigations and reliabilities of depositions of fact witnesses have also been thrown open to challenge.Further what is perceptibly clear is that the vehicle in which the three injured were carried to Varanasi, whether it was Tata Sumo or Marshal Jeep is not clear.Another significant feature of the case is that after the incident, injured persons were rushed to Varanasi and were brought to Singh Medical and Research Center.According to depositions of all facts witnesses they were not given any medical treatment there at that time and were asked to go to SSPG hospital Varanasi to get their injuries examined.But when these injured reached SSPG hospital there the doctor found that injuries of injured were already attended to as those injuries had dressing material on them.Prosecution witnesses , specially injured persons, failed to account for the same as to when and where they were given medical aid prior to their examination in SSPG Varanasi.This indicate suppression of vital information from the court and on such a deposition it is difficult to place any reliance.According to the said report, the three injured persons were brought to Singh Medical and Research Centre, Varanasi on 13.11.2006 at 1.30 pm and were got admitted there.Thus the two medical examination reports contradicts each other.If the injured persons were examined at SSPG Hospital in the evening of 13.11.2006, their admission in Singh Medical and Research Centre, Varanasi in the afternoon is a false fact and this aspect makes all certificates issued by Singh Medical and Research Center suspect and indicate that they were manipulated and cooked up.It is categorical depositions of all the injured that they were brought to Singh Medical and Research Centre, Varanasi but were not given any treatment.PW-2 at internal page 2 of his deposition testified that after the incident the three injured were carried to Singh Medical and Research Centre, Varanasi where doctor told them to go to Kabirchaura Hospital (SSPG Hospital).They were taken to SSPG Hospital where they were given treatment and their injuries were examined.It is also testified that prior to said medical examination they were not given any medical help.Subsequent thereto they had returned back to Singh Medical and Research Centre, Varanasi where their X-ray was done.PW-7 in his examination-in-chief at internal page 2 and 3 of his depositions also testified the same fact that they were medically examined at Kabirchaura Hospital and it was only after their medical examination that they were got admitted in Singh Medical and Research Centre, Varanasi.Thus the unerring categorical depositions of these witnesses where that they were first medically examined at SSPG Hospital and then were admitted in Singh Medical and Research Centre, Varanasi.Had this fact been correct, admission of the three injured witnesses at Singh Medical and Research Centre, Varanasi at 1.30 in the afternoon, as is mentioned in exhibit Ka 9, 10 and 13 is not correct.This fact throws grave doubt on the medical examination reports submitted by the prosecution and indicates that the prosecution is suppressing an important aspect of the whole incident.Another negative feature in the prosecution case is that when the injured persons were brought to SSPG Hospital, some medical treatment was already given to those injured persons as has been disclosed by Dr. Chandra Kishore Prasad Sinha PW-7 at internal page 8 of his depositions wherein the doctor has testified that he has not mentioned exit wound in the injuries of any of the three injured as there was dressing material on those injuries and, therefore, it was difficult to locate entry and exit wounds.He has further deposed that since there were bandaged on the injuries at the time of medical examination, therefore, looking to the nature of injuries, he has deposed regarding its duration.In view of above statement by PW-7, it is clear that prior to their admission in SSPG Hospital, injured were taken to some other hospital where they were given treatment.It is also the deposition of PW-7 that since none of the injured had disclosed him about the manner in which they had sustained injuries, it was because of that reason that their injuries were noted in the accidental register by him.Another damaging feature of the case is that at the earliest opportunity none of the injured disclosed names of the assailants to any of the doctors neither in SSPG nor Singh Medical and Research Center.They had also not informed to them as to how and in what manner they had sustained those gun shot injuries.According to PW 1 he had started to lodge the FIR after injured were sent to Varanasi and therefore injured were not informed whether any FIR was registered against the accused or not and in such an eventuality non disclosure of names of assailants to the doctor makes depositions of injured persons suspect.What is dicey is also the fact that by none of the two hospitals police was informed albeit, it was a medico legal case.Police at Varanasi thus was kept at bay ostensibly for the reason that FIR at Ghazipur could be manipulated.It does not stand to reason why SI Babban Singh, who accompanied his injured nephew to Govt. hospital SSPG also did not inform the doctor regarding assailants and the manner in which he had sustained injuries.This fact, creates doubt in the prosecution story.Belated disclosure compels this court not to rely upon testimonies of injured persons.On the said aspect support can be had from following decisions of the apex court:-State of Karnataka v. Venkatesh:AIR 1992 SUPREME COURT 674 wherein it has been held as under :-Another negative aspect of prosecution case is that 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the injured persons could be recorded very belatedly with out forthcoming of a convincing explanation from the injured them selves.It is not that the I.O. failed to record them at the earliest opportunity but the injured themselves eschewed it to be recorded.No where it has been brought on record that the injured were unable to get their statement recorded when I.O. had approached them but for one reason or the other they escaped from giving their statement to the I.O. as has been disclosed by PW-9 SI Ram Chandra Mishra.According to his deposition, he had conducted investigation from 13.11.2006 to 25.11.2006 and during this period, he has not been able to interrogated the injured persons at all because of their excuses.Deposition of the I.O. that he had endeavoured to record their statement while they were hospitalized in Singh Medical & Research Centre, Varanasi, is also not convincing and acceptable, as none of the doctors from the Singh Medical Hospital, Varanasi ever testified that when the I.O. had come to record the statements of the injured, they were not in a position to give statements.From the medical reports also it is not born out that injured persons were unable to give statements to the I.O. On such factual aspect it not difficult to conclude that intentionally and deliberately 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the injured were not recoded for many days to adjust prosecution version.This fact further erodes the credibility of prosecution case.Additionally, P.W.9 stated that he had endeavoured to collect the injury reports and the X-ray reports from Singh Medical Center but uncle of Rudresh Kumar Singh, S.I. Babban Singh informed him that he will collect all the papers and will submit it to the police.This deposition by P.W.9 goes a long way to indicate that S.I. Babban Singh was interfering with the investigation.It is the case of the defence that the appellants have been falsely implicated in the present case at the behest of said S.I. Babban Singh because of the old enmity and the F.I.R. about the present incident was recorded anti-time.This belated dispatching of the FIR , on analysis of entire facts of the case assumes importance to indicate that the same was registered ante timed and this creates a doubt on the authenticity of the first information report and the earliest version of the prosecution.Defence has suggested that GD was stopped and F.I.R. was registered after due consultation and deliberation.In this respect, it is noted that no other crime whatsoever was registered either prior or subsequent to registration of the crime of the present incident on the date of the incident, which fact has been testified by PW-5 I.S. Brijesh Dubey at internal page no.3 of his deposition and therefore possibility of registration of ante time FIR can not be ruled out.In view of the above, it is difficult to conclude that the injured witnesses are telling the truth as at the earliest opportunity they did not inform the doctor about the incident.Had they knew the assailants, there would have been no difficulty for them to divulge the incident to the doctor at the time of their medical examination.Since the prosecution is suppressing the material fact of taking the injured to unknown hospital where they were given first aid and their injuries were attended to with their belated 161 Cr.P.C. statement and a belated disclosure, makes the prosecution case suspect.This fact makes the medical report from Singh Medical Research Center suspect.Another noticeable feature of the case is surreal conduct of informant PW 1 and his deposition taken as whole projects that he is not a truthful witness and was not present at the scene of the incident when it happened.He himself is not an injured person.Fire arm shop license was in his name but no attempt was made to assault him.Although he is brother on one of the injured he did not carry him to the hospital soon after the incident to avail him medical aid and instead left him to reel under pain and bleed to death.It is noted here with astonishment that according to injured they were provided first medical aid only at 5.45 pm in SSPG Varanasi, which fact too was found false causing serious dent in the prosecution version.The incident is alleged to have occurred in Jamania District Ghazipur but none of injured was taken to district hospital at Ghazipur and instead they opted to get medical aid at a distance of more that fifty Kms in a private hospital at Varanasi.This was done ostensibly for the reason that the prosecution, with the help of the said S.I. Babban( Babar) Singh was in better position to get medical report tickled with.It is because of this reason that no blood stained cloths of any of the injured was handed over to the I.O. nor the same was endeavoured to be seized and when I.O. attempted to collect medical reports, he was told by relative SI that he will collect it and will hand it over to him indicating there by that medical reports were not ready by that date.This is a serious lapse on the credibility of prosecution version.NO independent witness has come forward to support prosecution and all interested partisan and enemical witnesses have been examined who all have testified parrot like statements and when tested in cross examination they have faltered on every aspect.Injured witnesses even did not allow I.O. to interrogate them at the earliest opportunity.Further according to prosecution version incident occurred at 11 a.m. and injured were rushed to Varanasi to Singh Medical research Centre but there they were not given any medical aid and therefore they came to SSPG hospital where they where given medical treatment for the first time.This time was 5 .45, 6 and 7.10 p.m. If this version is to be believed then all the three injured remained in that very condition in which they had sustained injuries for all this long six hours which do not inspire any confidence at all.Why they did not inform the police to get quick medical aid.Inspite of advise of X-ray , why they left SSPG hospital without any discharge slips and without getting them x-rayed.All this facts remains unexplained and makes prosecution version unconvincing difficult to sooth ever inquisitive mind.In SSPG they were found to have medical bandage on their injuries and it does not stand to reason why prosecution is suppressing this fact of medical attendances prior to SSPG Varanasi.On this aspect injured version is directly contradicted by medical reports and consequently indicates that injured witnesses are not wholly reliable and they have not disclosed true version of the incident.Another argument against the impugned judgment which goes a long way against the prosecution is that under 313 Cr.P.C. incriminating circumstances have not been put to the accused at all.In this respect, I have perused the questions formulated in 313 Cr.P.C. which were put to the accused .It is also not mentioned that they intended to kill Rudresh Kumar Singh and in that endeavour, Arash Nath Singh and Tej Narain Singh also sustained injuries.Formulated question no.1 is wrong statement of fact as the common intention was to cause murder only to Rudresh Kumar Singh and in that shooting spree Arash Nath Singh and Tej Narain Singh sustained injuries per chance.The deposition of the witnesses is that Chhedi Singh has instigated on which all the three assailants fired at Rudresh Kumar Singh and in that shooting two other injured sustained injuries.In that case the High Court had acquitted the accused on the ground that his statement which led to the recovery of gandasa, the weapon of offence was inadmissible.The accused Deoman had made a statement to hand over the gandasa which he stated to have thrown into a tank and got it recovered.The trial court convicted the accused for the offence of murder.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
90,883,675 |
3] The prosecution case, in nutshell, can be stated as under:The complainant Smt. Lata Vilas Khilare (PW-3) wasresiding with her husband Vilas Khilare (PW-4) at Buldana.Theparents of Smt. Lata (PW-3) were residing at village Sundarkhed,District-Buldana.The accused are also the residents of villageSundarkhed.As a result of it, her husband lost control ofthe vehicle and they both along with their son, aged about six yearsold, fell down.When accused no.1 assaulted the husband of Smt. Lata ::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2017 00:56:20 ::: 3 Judg cr app 203-11.odt by fist and kick blows, accused no.2 started assaulting Lata with fistsand kick blows on her abdomen, accused no.3 caught hold of her bothhands tightly, when the accused no.1 was assaulting her husband.Theaccused no.1 also assaulted on the abdomen of Smt. Lata.At therelevant time, the accused no.3 said not to leave them.4] It is the case of the prosecution that at the time ofincident, Smt. Lata (PW-3) was carrying pregnancy of about 2.½months.As the accused persons assaulted on her abdomen, it startedbleeding, therefore, she along with her husband immediatelyproceeded to Buldana Police Station to lodge her complaint.At thattime two accused were present in the police station.5] At the relevant time, Head Constable B.No.4 Judg cr app 203-11.odt Lata was admitted in the said hospital.Thereafter, Lata was shifted to theGovernment Medical Hospital, Aurangabad.Thesaid N.C. complaint reveals that when the complainant Sangita waspresent in her house, she was abused and threatened to kill over thedispute of lodging report earlier.7] The police from Buldana Police Station gaveunderstanding to the complainant Lata as well as the accused personsherein at the relevant time.Thetestimony of PW-3 shows that on 21.1.2006 she along with herhusband had gone to Sundarkhed on motorcycle with her husbandand child aged about six years.While returning from Sundarkhed at7.45 p.m. or 8.00 p.m., when they were near Saint Joseph School,there was a speed breaker.Therefore, her husband slowed down thespeed of motorcycle.At that time, suddenly accused no.1- Samadhanassaulted her husband on his face by fist.Due to which, her husbandlost control and she along with her son fell down from the motorcycle.Her son also received injury on his head.The accused no.1- Samadhanpulled her husband and started assaulting him with fist and kickblows.Thereafter, accused no.3- Sangita assaulted her bymeans of kicks on her stomach and fell her down.When PW-3 felldown accused no.2- Shalini caught her both hands.::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2017 00:56:20 :::carrying pregnancy, despite the same they assaulted her by means offist and kick and blows on her stomach.PW-3 was carrying pregnancyof 2.½ months at the relevant time.She further stated that at thattime Vatsalabai and her son Gajanan was passing by on motorcycle,they stopped there and rescued her from the hands of accused.Theyinformed Vatsalabai.Her parents came and they took her to PoliceStation, Buldana.PW-3 stated that the accused were already presentand they were lodging report against her and her husband.Thereafter, PW-3 lodged her complaint.She was then referred togovernment hospital at Aurangabad.She was aborted in the said hospital.After her discharge,PW-3 given a written complaint (Exh.18) on 30.1.2006 at BuldanaPolice Station.12] During the cross-examination, it was suggested that therelationship of PW-3 and her husband was not cordial and herhusband used to suspect her fidelity.PW-3 denied the said suggestion.It was further suggested that because of her family dispute she was inmental stress and she was aborted due to the said stress.ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal has been directed against the judgment andorder dated 6.1.2011 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Buldanain Sessions Case No. 81/2010, whereby the learned trial acquitted the ::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2017 00:56:20 ::: 2 Judg cr app 203-11.odt accused under Section 316 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.2] I have heard Shri D.A. Sonwane, the learned counsel forthe appellant and Shri Bissa, the learned Additional Public Prosecutorfor the respondent No.4-State.None appeared for the respondentNos.::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2017 00:56:20 :::It is the case of the prosecution that on the day ofincident dated 21.1.2006, Smt. Lata along with her husband and herson visited her parents' place at Sundarkhed.While returning backfrom Sundarkhed, at about 8.00 p.m., near the Saint Joseph Schoolsuddenly the accused nos. 1 to 3 came in front of their vehicle, at thattime the vehicle was slowed down by the husband of Smt. Lata due tospeed breaker.Suddenly, the accused started assaulting the husbandof Smt. Lata by fist-blows.Thereafter, allthe three accused assaulted her and her husband brutally with fist andkick blows.It is the case of the prosecution that at the relevant timeVatsalabai Laxmanrao Jadhao (PW-2) and Gajanan LaxmanraoJadhao (PW-1) were present at the place of incident and they rescuedthem from the hands of accused persons.::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2017 00:56:20 :::1683 wasattached to Buldana Police Station, recorded the N.C. Complaintbearing no. 100/06 under Sections 504, 506, 323 of the Indian PenalCode in the N.C. Complaint register.Thereafter, the said constabletook Lata to Government Hospital at Buldana for medical treatment.::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2017 00:56:20 :::::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2017 00:56:20 :::The accusedwere arrested and the charge-sheet was filed against the accused inthe Court of learned J.M.F.C., Buldana.The case was committed tothe Court of Sessions.The charge was framed by the learned learnedSessions Judge.On appreciation of the evidence and hearing of bothsides, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused as aforesaid.::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2017 00:56:20 :::::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2017 00:56:20 :::vehemently argued that the learned trial Judge has not appreciatedthe testimony of the victim and her husband as well as the doctor inright perspective and has erroneously acquitted the accused.Thelearned counsel for respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 remained absent.10] I have carefully gone through the record of the case.Fewimprovements were suggested in the testimony of PW-3 regarding thefact that her son received injury to his head Vatsalabai and Gajanan ::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2017 00:56:20 ::: 7 Judg cr app 203-11.odt informed her parents about the accident.One more improvement ispointed out that according to PW-3, she had stated before the policethat one month prior to the incident while she was proceeding, theaccused had pointed out fingers towards her, he questioned him andcalled her father and husband and thereafter they forcibly took theaccused to the Police Station.He was prosecuted and, therefore, theaccused had assaulted them as he was enraged by him.The saidimprovement shows that there was some dispute between PW-3 andthe accused persons.::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2017 00:56:20 :::13] The testimony of PW-4 who is the husband of theprosecutrix shows that on 21.1.2006 at about 8.00 p.m. whilereturning from Sundarkhed when they were near Saint Joseph School,their vehicle had slowed down because of the speed breaker.At thattime, accused no.1 came in front of them and assaulted him and onface by fist blow.PW-4 then fell own along with his wife, child andvehicle.Accused nos. 2 and 3 pulled his wife and started assaultingher with fist, kick and blows and accused no.1 started assaulting him.Vatsalabai and her son, who were passing by separated them.Hefurther stated that accused no.1 also gave two kick blows on thestomach of his wife.After sometime, his in-laws came to that placeand took them to Police Station.::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2017 00:56:20 :::::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2017 00:56:20 :::Police Station and they had lodged the complaint against him and hiswife.His wife was taken to Buldana Civil Hospital and thereaftershifted to Aurangabad.His wife was aborted in the said hospital.PW-4 categorically stated that the accused had assaulted them because ofearlier quarrel which had taken place one month prior to the incident,at that time case was registered against accused no.1 under Section151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.15] In the cross-examination, it was pointed out to PW-4 thathis relations with his wife were strained, as he had lodged reportagainst his wife in the Police Station, suspecting her character.PW-4admitted the said fact.He also admitted that his wife had also lodgedreport against him alleging ill-treatment.However, the said suggestionis not in any manner related with the present case and the testimonyof PW-4 that the accused persons assaulted him as well as his wife on21.1.2006 remains unshaken.16] As far as the medical evidence is concerned, the MedicalOfficer- PW-5 stated that on 21.1.2006 at about 9.30 p.m., heexamined Smt. Lata Khilare.PW-5 noticed blunt injury over abdomenwith three months A.N.C. (pregnant).On 26.1.2006 she was referred to Government Medical ::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2017 00:56:20 ::: 9 Judg cr app 203-11.odt College Hospital, Aurangabad for further treatment.PW-5 issuedmedical certificate (Exh.23) of Lata.According to PW-5, Lata hadsustained grievous injury and the cause of injury was due to the hardand blunt object, which was fresh in nature.She further opined thatthe injury might have caused due to fist and kick-blows overabdomen.It was suggested to PW-5 which he admitted that the injuryis possible by fall from a motorcycle or scooter and abortions are morefrequent in first three months of pregnancy.::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2017 00:56:20 :::17] On careful scrutiny of testimony of the prosecutionwitnesses, it is noticed that no doubt, the Medical Officer has opinedthat due to the fall from the motorcycle, the injury can be caused.However, significantly, the Medical Officer has also stated that therewas blunt injury over abdomen with three months pregnancy.18] It is also clear from the testimony of PW-3 and PW-5 thatimmediately after the incident they proceeded to police station andLata reported the incident to Police Station.The non-cognizable complaintbearing no. 100/06 recorded at 20.35 hours, clearly shows that Latagave her oral report that on 21.1.2006 at 7.00 p.m., the accusedpersons assaulted accused Sangita and her husband Samadhan Gawai, ::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2017 00:56:20 ::: 10 Judg cr app 203-11.odt abused her, threatened to kill her and assaulted her on her abdomen.The entry indicates that Lata had immediatelyreported the matter to police.Similarly the entry at 22.00 hours alsospeaks about the same incident regarding the complaint lodged byLata against the accused persons.::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2017 00:56:20 :::19] Significantly, Lata had complained against accused no.1Samadhan and accused no.3 Sangita and not against accused no.2Shalini Lahane.It is significant to notethat name of accused no.2 Shalini does not appear in the said N.C.complaint and whereas the complaint (Exh.18) shows that theaccused no.2 Shalini Lahane was also involved in the alleged offence.20] From the above said evidence, it is noticed that theaccused persons might have assaulted the victim (PW-4).Therefore, ::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2017 00:56:20 ::: 11 Judg cr app 203-11.odt it cannot be said that the accused persons had intention to assault thevictim so that the death of her unborn child would be caused.21] In this regard, Section 315 of IPC reads as under :-::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2017 00:56:20 :::I do not find that accusedpersons had any intention that the child in womb should be killed andwith a knowledge that if at all they assault the victim, her unbornchild would die, the accused persons had assaulted the victim.Moreover the said fact is stated by the victim, after adelay of 10 days when she lodged her complaint (Exhibit-18).23] In case of Mahendra Pratap Singh Vs.State of Uttar Pradeshreported in (2009) 11 SCC 334, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under;::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2017 00:56:20 :::"Appraisal of evidence and on considering the relevant attending circumstances, it is found that two views are possible, one for acquitting the accused and other for convicting the accused, in such a situation, rule of prudence should guide the High Court, not to disturb the order of acquittal made by the trial Court, unless confusion of the trial Court drawn on evidence on record are found to be unreasonable and perverse or unsustainable, the High Court should not interfere with the order of acquittal".24] From the above said discussion, it is noticed that thelearned trial Judge has rightly acquitted the accused.Inview thereof, the appeal is hereby dismissed.JUDGEIngole ::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2017 00:56:20 :::::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2017 00:56:20 :::
|
['Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
90,891,005 |
Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT.IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HER COUNSEL.IN CASE OF HIS ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) RECORDING OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. IF IN THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT ABSENCE OF THE APPLICANT IS DELIBERATE OR WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THEN IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT SUCH DEFAULT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PROCEED AGAINST HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.Since the bail application has been decided under extra-ordinary circumstances, thus in the interest of justice following additional conditions are being imposed just to facilitate the applicant to be released on bail forthwith.Needless to mention that these additional conditions are imposed to cope with emergent condition-:The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.Order Date :- 1.10.2020 Sumit S
|
['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
2,421,099 |
1. Rule.Rule made returnable forthwith and heard with the consent oflearned Counsel for the parties.Trupti 1/10 ::: Uploaded on - 11/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2020 20:32:22 ::: 2-wp-146-2020.doc::: Uploaded on - 11/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2020 20:32:22 :::2. Commissioner of Police, Thane in exercise of the powers conferredunder Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities ofSlumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-offenders, Dangerous Persons, VideoPirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons Engaged in Black-Marketing ofEssential Commodities Act, 1981 (Maharashtra Act No. LV of 1981)(hereinafter referred to as "M.P.D.A. Act") read with Government Order,Home Department (Special) No. MPDA-0619/CR-121/SPL-3 (B) dated28th June, 2019 has ordered the detention of Jaggu Sardar @ JagdishTirathsing Labana @ Punjabi, resident of Barrack No. 356, Room No. 7,Sonargalli, Shiru Chowk, Ulhasnagar No.2, Dist.Thane (hereinafterreferred to as "detenu") vide order No.Pursuant to this order, the State Government vide order dated 21stNovember, 2019 approved the detention and directed the detenu to bedetained for a period of twelve (12) months on the basis of reportsubmitted by the Advisory Board constituted under M.P.D.A. Act. Boththe orders are impugned in the present Petition.The validity of the impugned orders has been challenged onvarious grounds enumerated in the Petition but following main groundshave been pressed into service by the detenu :::: Uploaded on - 11/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2020 20:32:22 :::(iii) Non-explanation of subjective satisfaction.The object and scope of detaining a person under Section 3 of theM.P.D.A. Act is maintenance of public order, peace and tranquility.Thedetaining authority in the order of detention has also recorded as under :"Whereas, I the Commissioner of Police of the Police Commissionerate Thane is satisfied with respect to the person known as Jaggu Sardar @ Jagdish Tirathsingh Labana @ Punjabi, (Age 38 yrs) R/o. Barrack No. 356, Room No.7, Sonargalli, Shiru Chowk, Ulhasnagar No.2, Dist.Thane, that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, it is necessary to make an order directing him to be detained under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons Engaged in Black-Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 (Mah.Act No. LV of 1981) (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act")".Thus, while passing the order of detention, the object of Section 3of the M.P.D.A. Act as noted hereinabove was uppermost in the mind ofdetaining authority.Trupti 3/10 ::: Uploaded on - 11/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2020 20:32:22 ::: 2-wp-146-2020.doc::: Uploaded on - 11/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2020 20:32:22 :::Joshi, learned Counsel for the petitioner/detenu, hasvehemently outlined threefold submissions.Secondly, the order ofdetention was passed without considering representation made by thedetenu and, Thirdly, the detention order suffers from material irregularityinasmuch as the detaining authority has failed to explain subjectivesatisfaction which is required for passing of the order of detention.( Mohammed Mustafa s/o.Mohammad Mastan Versus The State ofMaharashtra).In opposition, learned APP would contend that detenu has failed todemonstrate as to how there was non-application of mind before passingof detention order.According to him, it is wrong to say that the detainingauthority considered the old cases while issuing the order of detention.Rather, detaining authority relied on C.R. No. I-331/19 under SectionsTrupti 4/10 ::: Uploaded on - 11/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2020 20:32:22 ::: 2-wp-146-2020.doc387, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code read with under Sections 37 (1),135 of Maharashtra Police Act and C.R. No. I-347/19 under Sections387, 386 read with under Sections 4,25 of Arms Act read with underSections 37 (1), (135) of Maharashtra Police Act of Ulhasnagar PoliceStation, Thane and in-camera statements of witnesses "A" and "B"recorded on 29th August, 2019 and 2nd September, 2019 respectively andit is only thereafter being satisfied the detaining authority passed thedetention order.::: Uploaded on - 11/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2020 20:32:22 :::The learned APP then next contended that despite givingopportunities to the detenu, no such representation, as is claimed to hasbeen moved, was ever presented either to the office of detainingauthority or before the State Government and in such circumstances,there was no question of deciding or considering the representation ofthe detenu.The learned APP then lastly submitted that after verifying thetruthfulness and genuineness of the statements of witnesses recorded inthose crime numbers and as also having regard to in-camerastatements, the detaining authority arrived at a subjective satisfactionand accordingly the order of detention came to be passed.There beingno merit in the contentions of the detenu, the same is liable to bedismissed, argued learned APP.Trupti 5/10 ::: Uploaded on - 11/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2020 20:32:22 ::: 2-wp-146-2020.doc::: Uploaded on - 11/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2020 20:32:22 :::Let we qualifythis with reasons.It appears from the record that there are two relied upon cases ofUlhasnagar Police Station C.R. No. I-331/19 under Sections 387, 504,506 of the Indian Penal Code read with under Sections 37 (1), (135) ofMaharashtra Police Act came to be registered against the detenu on 22 ndAugust, 2019 and is pending in the concerned Court whereas C.R. No. I-347/19 under Sections 387, 386 read with under Sections 4,25 of ArmsAct read with under Sections 37 (1), (135) of Maharashtra Police Act ofwas registered on 31st August, 2019 and was under investigation at thetime of conveying the detenu the grounds of detention.It must be kept inmind here that detention order came to be passed on 14 th October, 2019.Thus, the above noted crime numbers had just been registered andfound the basis for passing of order of detention.In both the above noted crime numbers, the detaining authoritycarefully took into consideration the statements of all the witnesses.Italso considered the gravity and seriousness of the offences allegedlycommitted by the detenu.Then, there are in-camera statements ofwitnesses "A" and "B".Trupti 6/10 ::: Uploaded on - 11/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2020 20:32:22 ::: 2-wp-146-2020.doc::: Uploaded on - 11/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2020 20:32:22 :::Importantly enough, the truthfulness of both these in-camerastatements were verified by ACP, Ulhasnagar Division.The detaining authority, while appreciating in-camera statementsand as also taking into consideration the registration of those two crimenumbers i.e. C.R. Nos. I-331/19 and I-347/19, was of subjective viewthat the citizens of the localities and area from where those in-camerastatements came to be recorded were under constant shadow of threatsat the hands of detenu and that amounted to acting in a mannerprejudicial to the maintenance of public order, peace and tranquility.From the above, what this leads to, it should need no stressing, isthat the detaining authority was not oblivious of impending threats anddisturbance having regard to the propensity of the detenu indulging incriminal activities.Admittedly, those in -camera statements and as alsothe said crime numbers thus enabled detaining authority to arrive atsubjective satisfaction.What is at any rate more pertinent is that indeed there was notonly application of mind but subjective satisfaction as well.To note thatthere was no irregularity on this count would be but fair comment.Trupti 7/10 ::: Uploaded on - 11/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2020 20:32:22 ::: 2-wp-146-2020.doc::: Uploaded on - 11/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2020 20:32:22 :::A very loud claim has been made by the detenu that the order ofdetention came to be passed without considering representation madeby him.The detenuwas also apprised of his right to make a representation to the detainingauthority, if he so wished and was also given the name of authority towhich representation was to be made.Not only that, he was also madeaware of his right to make any representation to the Advisory Boardagainst the detention order and his right of personal hearing by theAdvisory Board.We have already pointed out from the affidavit-in-reply of thedetaining authority that no such representation was ever received by thedetaining authority, a fact which is not at all controverted or assailed bydetenu in any form and shape.If at all any representation was moved bydetenu as is canvassed all along, it was incumbent on the part of theTrupti 8/10 ::: Uploaded on - 11/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2020 20:32:22 ::: 2-wp-146-2020.docdetenu to furnish the details thereof and acknowledgment of hisrepresentation having so received by the competent authority.This being so, we are not inclined toentertain the ground of non-consideration of representation at the handsof detaining authority.::: Uploaded on - 11/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2020 20:32:22 :::
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
242,119 |
It is alleged that Shobha was asked by her mother to bring a packet of salt.So she alone was proceeding to a shop near the bus stop square.There is a mori i.e. the drainage in between quarters 79 and 80 in Ordinance Factory Area.When Shobha was passing through the mori, these appellants who were sitting there called her, inasmuch as appellant No. 1 Rahul was known to her.It was prosecution case that the appellants No. 1 first asked Shobha to come with him near Besarami shrubs on back side of mori, but when Shobha refused and proceeded ahead, his companion the appellant No. 2 Sopan caught her hand and both of them lifted Shobha towards Besarami shrubs.It was alleged that they made Shobha to lie, they raised her frock and removed her nicker and then committed sexual intercourse with her one after the another.On return from that place to home, Shobha narrated the incident to her family members and her father then took her to the police station where Shobha's statement was recorded as First Information Report, on the basis of which Crime No. 41/91 was registered, without loss of time, Shobha was referred to the Primary Health Centre for medical examination.The police also recorded statements of her father Raghunath and brother Tulshiram.Clothes on her person, namely frock and nicker were attached under panchanama and immediately spot panchanama was also made.On 13th April, 1991 they were arrested.Their clothes were also seized.ORDER A. D. Mane, J.These two appeals arise out of an order of conviction and sentence passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon on 9thAugust, 1995, in Sessions Case No. 71/1992, against the appellants for offence punishable under section 376(2)(f) & (g) of the Indian Penal Code.The appellants were convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. One thousand on cash count in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one year with a direction that both the sentences to run concurrently.It may be stated that both these appellants are represented through two different advocates and, therefore, these appeals are disposed of by this common judgment.The appellants were tried for the aforesaid offence on an allegation that on April 11, 1991 at about 11.00 p.m., they lifted one Shobha, aged below 12 years and took her in open space surrounded by Besarami shrubs away from the main road and committed sexual intercourse one after the another forcibly.They were also sent to medical examination.After recording certain statements of witnesses and obtaining school Certificates about the age of the prosecutrix, police filed chargesheet.To the charge that was framed at Exh. 10, the appellants denied the same and pleaded not guilty.Their defence was one of total denial.It was stated by the appellants that 3-4 days of the alleged incident, a quarrel between Shobha's brother Tulshiram and the appellants took place on account of demand of money and in which Tulshiram was injured and to wreck the vengeance a false case was lodged.The learned trial judge, on going through the prosecution evidence, particularly the evidence of prosecutrix Shobha and medical evidence, convicted the appellants for the aforesaid offence punishable under section 376(2)(f) and (g) of the Indian Penal Code.The question, therefore, arose, whether there was a rape or an attempt to rape, in the light of the evidence adduced by the prosecution.Shri Karmarkar as well as Shri Sabnis, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants took us through the relevant record of the case.Indeed both of them argued that the evidence adduced by the prosecution falls short to bring home the guilt to the accused for the offence or rape.In this context, it has been submitted that the prosecution has not examined the mother or the father of the prosecutrix.It has also been submitted that the story, as narrated by Shobha and which has been disclosed in the first information report is not from the prosecutrix herself but on the dictation of her father.It is, therefore urged that the evidence of the prosecutrix was risky to be believed and acted upon.The learned Counsel further urged that though the clothes on the person of the prosecutrix were seized and they were sent for examination to the Chemical Analyser besides the samples of semen from the appellants, that the prosecution for no reasons, best known to them, adduced the evidence in regard to the certificate of the Chemical Analyser to show that any circumstantial corroborating testimony of prosecutrix could be obtained from thereby.It is, therefore submitted that uncorroborated testimony of prosecutrix ought not to have been believed by the trial Court.It is also submitted that the medical evidence, as spoken to by Dr. Udaysing Patil (P.W.3) shows that no marks of violence could be noticed except abrasion of about 2" in length horizontal on left breast on the other body of the prosecutrix.It has also been submitted that hymen was intact though elastic and internal examination was not possible as small white spots over hymen and part of vulva were present.It is further submitted that the medical evidence shows that there were laceration on posterior commissure of vulva about 1/2 cm.x 1/2 cm.present and bleeding through laceration was also present.But, according to the learned Counsel, this is not the conclusive evidence to come to the conclusion that there has been penetration as required under the ingredients of offence punishable under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.On the other hand, Babhulgaonkar, learned APP submits that there was hardly any reason for the prosecutrix to come with the accusation of having sexual intercourse by the appellants forcibly on that day in the night.It is submitted that defence, as suggested, was palpably unbelievable in a given circumstances of the case.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also urged that the testimony of the prosecutrix, though minor, is a sworn testimony and nothing can be elucidated from her version in the cross-examination as to whether her narration is the outcome of any tutoring either from her mother or father.The conduct of the prosecutrix was natural.There was no loss of time to file the police complaint as soon as matter was disclosed by her to elderly members in the family.It is true that the police have collected circumstantial evidence in the nature of presence of semen and blood stains both on the legs of the prosecutrix or the clothes of the prosecutrix, but as is evident from the report from the Chemical Analyser, the result was inconclusive and, therefore, perhaps the prosecution has not relied upon that piece of evidence, but nevertheless no adverse inference can be drawn about the truthfulness of the prosecution version.We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions urged by the learned Counsel for the appellants as well as on behalf of the prosecution.It is clear that the testimony of the prosecutrix is worthy of credence and does not suffer from any legal infirmity so as to discredit it entirely.The evidence of the prosecutrix is fully corroborated by the circumstantial evidence and her conduct appears to be natural.The medical evidence shows that though the age of the prosecutrix could be ascertained between 10 to 15 years, she had developed secondary sexual characteristic.Except abrasion of two inches on left breast, no other marks of violence could be noticed by the doctor while she was examined.It is, however, to be noted that doctor noticed blood steaks from thigh to legs extending over through on both sides present.Not only that, there was blood trickling through vaginal slit.It is true that, according to the doctor, the hymen was intact, but there were laceration of posterior commissure of vulva about 1/2 cm.x 1/2 cm.showing bleeding through laceration.
|
['Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
24,213,486 |
Hon'ble Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi,J.(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi,J.)2. Heard Mr. Subodh Kumar assisted by Sri Udit Chandra, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Ali Murtaza, learned A.G.A. for the State.Perused the lower court's record.The facts in brief are that on 19.10.1989, at about 7.00 A.M. the complainant Dinanath along with his uncle (Chacha) Harishwar and aunt (Chachi) Pan Kunwar was working on field.Deceased Harishwar was ploughing the field, his wife Pan Kunwar was picking out dry grass from the field and the complainant Dinananth was cleaning the grass grown on the corners and boundaries ("Mend") of the field when suddenly, accused Maikoo and Babu Ram, both armed with guns and accused Badshah armed with a country made pistol, emerged from the 'Arhar' field adjacent to the field of the complainant.Accused Babu Ram exhorted with the words "vkt vPNk ekSdk gS ekj yks lkys dks" on which, all of them opened fire on Harishwar with intention to kill him.Harishwar ran for his life towards the village, and all the three accused followed him while continuing to fire on him.As a result, Harishwar sustained several firearm injuries, causing his death on the spot.During the hue and cry, witnesses Jograj and Chandrapal reached there and challenged the accused persons.Seeing the witnesses, all the assailants ran away towards the west making good their escape.The assailants being armed with firearms, the informant and the witnesses could not dare to follow them.Leaving the widow of the deceased near the dead body, the informant went to Police Station and gave oral information about the incident, on the basis of which, FIR was registered against the appellants u/s 302 I.P.C. at Crime No. 148 of 1989 and relevant entries were made in the general diary.The case was investigated by Inspector Rajendra Singh Malik, who proceeded to the scene of occurrence, where he conducted the inquest proceedings, sealed the dead body and after necessary documentation sent it to the Chief Medical Officer for postmortem.The Investigating Officer collected three empty cartridges from the spot and prepared recovery memo.He collected blood stained soil and plain soil from the spot and prepared memos.A blood stained 'Dhoti' was also recovered and its Fard was prepared.The site plan was prepared and statements of witnesses were recorded.On internal examination zygomatic bone, left jaw and right jaw were found broken.The base of skull was found fractured.Thorax was found normal.The muscles of the left side were found severed.This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 13.3.1991 passed by II Additional Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur, in S.T. No. 33 of 1990, whereby the appellants Maikoo, Baboo and Badshah have been convicted and sentenced u/s 302 read with section 34 I.P.C. with life imprisonment.There after the investigation was conducted by second Investigating officer, who after concluding the investigation, submitted charge sheet against all the appellantsThe postmortem on the dead body of Harishwar was conducted by Dr. R. K. Awasthi, PW3, on 20.10.1989 at about 3.30 P.M., who found that the deceased was aged about 32 years.Rigor mortis had passed from the upper limb of his body and was present in lower limb.The following ante mortem injuries were found on the dead body of the deceased:-Gunshot wound of entry 1.5 cm x 1.5 cm x bone deep on the left side chest, 1.5 cm below ear.Blackening present, margins inverted.Gunshot wound of entry 1.5 cm x 1.5 cm x cavity deep 8.5 cm above at 10 O' Clock position, on umblicus, connecting through and through with wound of exit.Gunshot wound of exit 2.5 cm x 2.5 cm x cavity deep right side of back.Gunshot wound of entry 1 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep 1/3 back of right thigh.cm x 2.5 cm x muscle deep connecting through and through injury no. 4, 1/3 of antereo lateral aspect of right thigh.No blackening, margins everted.Gunshot wound of entry 1.5 cm x 1.5 cm x bone deep, 2 cm away from anus right side blackening present, margins everted.Abdomen peritoneum was found cut and the tongue was also found cut.Small intestines were found cut on several places and it was empty.Spleen was found full, The gall bladder was found empty.23 small metallic pellets and wadding pieces were found in the body.The case being exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, was committed to such court, where charge u/s 302 read with 34 I.P.C. was framed against the appellants, all of whom denied from the charge and claimed to be tried.The prosecution in order to prove its case produced six witnesses in all including two witnesses of fact and four of formal character.A brief description of the witnesses produced by the prosecution is as follows:-PW1 is the first informant Dinanath, who is the real nephew of the deceased Harishwar, PW2 is Pan Kunwar, who is the widow of the deceased.Both these witnesses have supported the prosecution case.PW3 is Dr. R. K. Awasthi, who has conducted postmortem.PW4 is Constable Indar Singh, who has taken the dead body for postmortem in a sealed condition.PW5 is Head Moharir Ram Dayal Prasad, who has registered case against the appellants on the oral information received from the complainant Dinanath.He has prepared the check report (Ext. Ka-1) and has made relevant entries in the general diary (Ext. Ka-3).PW6 is S.H.O. Vinod Bihari Sharma, who is the second Investigating Officer, who was entrusted investigation because the first investigating officer R. S. Malik had gone on long leave.He has recorded statements of remaining witnesses, he has sent the incriminating materials recovered by the first Investigating Officer to Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical examination and after conclusion of investigation, has filed charge-sheet in this case.PW6 has given secondary evidence of the investigation done by the first Investigating officer and has proved the documents prepared by the first investigating officer by identifying his handwriting and signatures on those documents.No other witness was produced by the prosecution.After conclusion of prosecution evidence statements of the appellants u/s 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded in which they denied from the truthfulness of all the questions put to them and stated that they have been falsely implicated by the complainant due to enmity.However, when they were asked whether they intend to say anything about their involvement in this case, all of them answered that they do not want to say anything.No evidence was produced by any of the appellant in his defence.Trial court, after a detailed discussion of evidence, found the appellants guilty and punished all of them under Section 302/34 by the impugned judgment.The legality and correctness of impugned judgment has been challenged by learned counsel for appellants inter alia on the following grounds:-Only two witnesses of fact have been produced in this case by the prosecution and both are close relatives of the deceased.Both these witnesses are highly interested witnesses.In absence of any independent witness the prosecution case becomes wholly doubtful.In the FIR two witnesses Jograj and Chandra Pal have been named, who are said to have reached at the spot, but none of them has been examined during the trial,which belies the truthfulness of the prosecution story.There is no recovery of any arm or weapon either from the possession of any of the appellants or on their pointing out and only on the basis of recovery of three empty cartridges from the field, it cannot be said that the accused-appellants were the assailants who had fired on deceased Harishwar.The empty cartridges recovered from the field have not been produced in the court.The inquest report shows that one column of it has been left blank, which raises a doubt.No motive has been assigned to the appellant for committing the murder of Harishwar.An earlier incident of quarrel, stated by PW-1 as motive behind the occurrence, had admittedly been subsided on the intervention of neighbours.In the absence of any motive, the prosecution story fails.There are three accused persons all having assigned the same role of firing thus it is not ascertained as to who was the author of fatal injury.There are contradictions, omissions and improvements in the statements of witnesses, therefore it was neither safe nor proper for the learned trial court to place reliance on their statements to convict the appellants.The description of ante-mortem injuries in the postmortem report shows that out of six gunshot wounds injuries nos. 1, 2, 4 and 6 are wounds of entry whereas injury nos. 3 and 5 are exit wounds.In injury nos. 1 and 6 blackening was found present, whereas no blackening was found on the gunshot wound of entry injury no. 4, which indicates that the injuries have been caused by firing from different distances, whereas as per prosecution story, all the accused were firing from the same distance.Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently contested the appeal by arguing that prompt FIR has been lodged in this case by the informant giving no room to any deliberation or consultation.He has next contended that the presence of all the accused on the spot has been duly proved by the eyewitnesses.All the accused having prior acquaintance with the witnesses, and the incident being of daylight; there was no question of any mis-identification.Learned AGA has further contended that it does not make any difference if the witnesses are near relatives because a near relative will be the last person falsely implicating an innocent, while exonerating the real culprit.It has further been contended that all the accused in this case have been convicted on the basis of their joint liability u/s 34 I.P.C., therefore, it was not necessary to specify as to who was the author of fatal injury sustained by the deceased.On the aforesaid grounds learned AGA has submitted that as the learned trial court has considered each and every aspect of the matter and has passed a well discussed and well reasoned judgment, requiring no interference by this court.We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties.In order to test the veracity of prosecution story and to find out truth, it is necessary to discuss and analyse the statements of prosecution witnesses.PW1 Dinanath (complainant/ nephew of the deceased) has stated that the deceased Harishwar was his uncle.Earlier in connection with a drain, an altercation had taken place between the deceased and accused Babu and Maiku but due to intervention of neighbours, the matter was subsided.However, Babu at that time had threatened them with the words that "Harishwar considers himself a big Gunda and they will teach him a lesson within eight days".PW1 has further stated that on the date of incident when his uncle Harishwar was ploughing his field, he was cleaning grass grown on the 'Mend' of the field and his aunt (Chachi) was picking dry grass from the field, at about 7.00 A.M., the accused Babu, Badshahah and Maiku, all armed with guns and country made pistols emerged from the adjacent 'Arhar' field of Shyam Pal.Accused Babu exhorted with the words that it is the best time to kill Harishwar, on which, all of them started firing on Harishwar.Harishwar ran towards the village for his life and all the accused appellants chased him while firing on him with their firearms.After running for a few steps, Harishwar fell down and succumbed to those firearm injuries.Hearing alarm, Jograj and Chandra Pal reached at the spot, then the accused ran away towards the west.All of them being armed with firearms, The witnesses could not dare to follow them.Leaving his aunt near the dead body he went to Police Station and lodged an oral report.Whatever he dictated, the Head Constable scribed and the same was read over to him.Then he put his signature at the bottom of the report.Nothing has been elicited from their statements so as to cause a shadow of doubt on their credibility.In furtherance of their common intention they opened fire and when the deceased tried to save his life they chased him, at the same time continuing to fire on him resulting into his instantaneous death.Therefore, all the appellants are rightly held jointly liable by the learned trial Court for the death of the deceased Harishwar.The prosecution case finds corroboration from the documentary evidence including postmortem report, inquest report, recovery memos of empty cartridges, blood stained soil, blood stained Dhoti and also from Forensic Science Laboratory report.The doctor during postmortem has recovered 23 pellets and wads from the body of the deceased and the cause of death has been found to be firearm injuries.On a careful scrutiny of the impugned judgment, we are of the considered opinion that the learned trial court has not left any stone unturned while analysing the evidence and after a thorough appreciation of the evidence, has given a well reasoned judgment, convicting and sentencing the appellants, which does not require any interference by this appellate court.The appeal is devoid of merits and it is liable to be dismissed.The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
|
['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.
|
24,216,872 |
The respondents 2 to 12 herein are the accused in S.C.No.222/2008 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court - 2, Cuddalore.Durairaj (the revision petitioner herein) lodged a complaint to the first respondent Police on 09/08/2005 alleging that there was rival between his family (Govindasamy group) and the respondents 2 to 12 (Shanmugam vagaiyara) regarding the administration of Malaimurugan Temple in their village.2.On 09/08/2005 when the family members of Govindasamy group went to the temple to offer pongal, the accused persons/respondents 2 to 12 restrained them.On the same day, in continuation of the dispute, at about 6.00 pm, when the petitioner herein along with his father, Rajamanickam and others passing through the South Street of the village, the respondents 2 to 13 herein armed with weapons attacked the father of the petitioner saying that he is the root cause for the dispute, so, he must be done away.http://www.judis.nic.in 33.The second respondent cut the left hand of Rajamanickam with knife; the third respondent cut his left leg; the fourth respondent cut his left thigh; the 5th rerspondent cut his left leg; the 6th and 7th respondents cut his left hand and the 9th respondent cut his right hand.When one Rajavelu tried to prevent Rajamanickam getting hurt, Rajavelu was attacked by second respondent with knife on the left hand; the 3rd respondent attacked him with knife on left hand shoulder; the 5th respondent attacked him with knife on left leg; the 6th and 7th respondents attacked him on left hand; the 9th respondent attacked him on his left hand and the 8th respondent attacked him on the left hand fingers.4.In the same incident, one Murugesan was assaulted with knife by the 5th respondent on his head and the 12th respondent attacked him with wooden log on his left hand.The defacto complainant Durairaj (revision petitioner) was attacked by the 4th respondent with knife on his left side scalp; the 11 th respondent attacked him with wooden log on his left collar bone and the 10th respondent attacked him with wooden log on his left shoulder.19 exhibits and 8 material objects were marked.Pending trial, one of the accused Senthil kumar ( A-2) died.Whereas, PW-4 Arumugam, who accompanied these injured witnesses to the Temple in the morning and in the evening to talk peace with Shanmugam vagaiyara (the accused party) had deposed corroborating the other prosecution witnesses.He has implicated A-1 for inciting the attack onhttp://www.judis.nic.in 5 PWs-1 to 3, PW-9 and Murugesan.The wound certificates issued by him pertaining to the injured persons were marked as Exs.8.The accused persons were arrested and based on their confession statements, material objects were recovered in the presence of independent witness Elanchezian ( PW-6).The admissible portion of the confession statements of the accused persons, Radhakrishnan, Kandasamy and Sundaramoorthy are marked as Exs.5.Based on the complaint preferred by the defacto complainant, the first respondent Police has taken up the investigation and filed final report against the respondents 2 to 12 for offences under sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 325, 326, 307 r/w 149 IPC.6.Before the trial Court, the prosecution has examined 12 witnesses.Murugesan one of the injured person also died.PW-1 Durairaj who is the defacto complainant had deposed about the specific overt acts of each of the accused persons causing injuries to him, to his father Rajamanickam (PW-3) and to Murugesan (deceased).He has identified the weapons used by the accused persons for assault.7.The other injured witnesses Rajamanickam (PW-3) and Rajavelu (PW-9) have deposed about the injuries they sustained and the persons who caused the injuries on them.P-6,7 and 8 respectively.The recovery mahazars are marked as Exs.9.The trial Court on appreciation of evidence has held that, the prosecution has proved that the accused persons 1 to 12 ( A-2 died pending trial ) have formed unlawful assembly with common knowledge.A-1,A-3 to A-8 and A-12 were found to be armed with dangerous weapons.With the deadly weapons, they have attacked PWs-1,2,3,9 and one Murugesan.The injuries caused with knowledge and are likely to cause death.They all shared the common knowledgehttp://www.judis.nic.in 6 of causing death.Hence, they were found guilty of offence under section 307 r/w 149 IPC.10.Having held guilty of major offence of attempt to commit murder, the other charges under sections 323, 324, 325 and 326 IPC, the trial court held that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond doubt the specific overt act to attract these offences.The medical evidence and the ocular evidence clearly proves that the accused persons were armed with weapons and attacked the prosecution witnesses who went to have peace talk.12.The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that, it was a planned murderous attack on PW-3 and others.Thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 7 previous enmity between the two groups led to deadly attack on PWs- 1,2,3,9 and one Murugesan.The said Murugesan lost his speech in the said attack and died later.The accident report of Murugesan marked as Ex P-13 and the deposition of PW-10 - Doctor Senthil Kumar clearly proves that Murugesan sustained fracture in to the attack.Likewise, the injuries sustained by Rajavelu (PW-9) were grievous in nature as per Ex.Therefore, for the proved facts, the sentence imposed on the accused is very less and inadequate.13.Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 12 would submit that, the trial court has failed to consider the fact that the accused persons were attacked by the prosecution witnesses two days earlier and facing trial.To escape from prosecution, they have come up with a false allegation that the injuries they sustained on 09/08/2005 was due to the alleged assault by the respondents 2 toIn fact, the respondents have preferred appeal against the sentence and the same is pending.In so far the injuries found on the witnesses, it is the defence theory that on the date of occurrence, the prosecution parties had fight with one Indirakumari group and sustained injuries.The said Indirakumari was also sustained injurieshttp://www.judis.nic.in 8 and admitted in the same hospital at the same time.The trial court has failed to give due consideration about this fact.14.Heard the learned counsel for both parties and their rival submissions.15.This Court had the advantage of deciding the appeals and revisions arising from S.C.No.215/2008 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court – 2, Cuddallore, the case against prosecution parties in this case launched by the accused parties.Conveniently referred as Govindasamy vagaiyara and Shanmugam Vagaiyara respectively.Veerapandi (PW-8) is the 8 th accused in that case.17.In the said background, the trial court has considered the factors like delayed FIR; embellishments; exaggerations found in the prosecution case; the injuries sustained by the injured witnesses and the weapons used.Since, the prosecution witnesses not able to correlate specific injuries to specific overt acts of an accused and the weapond used, but, could only able to prove that they all shared common object of causing death, had rightly held them all guilty of offence under sections 307 r/w 149 IPC., and sentenced A-1, A-3 to A- 8 and A-12 to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment for offence under section 148 IPC; sentenced A-9 to A-11 to undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment for offence under section 147 IPC; sentenced A-1, A-3 to A-12 to undergo 3 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default 6 months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under sections 307 r/w 149 IPC.The period of substantive sentence ordered to run concurrently.Period of imprisonment already undergone to be set off.18.The cumulative assessment of fact and act of the accused persons had led to impose the above sentences by the trial Court.After lapse of 14 years from thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 10 occurrence, the victim and the accused who are hailing from same village should be allowed to suffer the punishment without alteration so as to avoid exhuming their difference.The trial court which had the opportunity of noting the demeanour of the witnesses and the accused who were vice versa in the other case had rendered a well balanced judgment of conviction and sentenced, on proper appreciation.There is no ground to interfere the same.19.In the result, the Criminal Revision is dismissed and the order passed in S.C.No.222 of 2008 dated 05.07.2010 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Cuddalore is confirmed.The trial Court is directed to secure the presence of the accused persons to undergo the remaining period of sentence, if any.23.04.2019 jbm Index: Yes/No Speaking order/non speaking orderhttp://www.judis.nic.in 11 To1.The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Cuddalore.2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.3.The Criminal Section, High Court, Madras.http://www.judis.nic.in 12 G.JAYACHANDRAN.J., jbm Order made in Crl.R.C.No.613 of 2012
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
24,222,115 |
SG Allowed CRM 7216 of 2018 In Re.An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.In the matter of:Sk Danger and othersThe State of West Bengal Mr Tapas Kumar Ghosh Mr Tanmoy Chowdhury ... for the petitioners.Mr Madhusudan Sur Mr Rudradipta Nandy ... for the State.The petitioners seek anticipatory bail in connection with Kankartala Police Station Case No.21 of 2017 dated April 1, 2017 under Sections 147/148/149/333/353/379/307 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 3 and 4 of E.S. Act, Section 9 of the Maintenance of Public Order Act, Sections 25/27/35 of the Arms Act and Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.It is the submission of the State that the petitioners had violated one of the conditions previously attached that the petitioners would not enter any place within Birbhum District, except attending the court and meeting the investigating officer when called.The State refers to records obtained from service 2 providers demonstrating that the mobile telephones used by the petitioners reveal that they had entered Birbhum District on several occasions during the time that the condition was imposed.At first, the petitioners contended that merely because a tower on the Bengal-Jharkhand border indicated that the petitioners or the mobile telephones of the petitioners were within the range of such tower, it would not imply that the petitioners had violated the condition imposed since the range of the tower could also reach parts of Jharkhand and beyond Birbhum District.However, it does not appear that such explanation can be accepted in view of the precise GPS technology now in place that can identify the exact location of a mobile telephone and, consequently, the carrier thereof.The petitioners submit unconditionally that the petitioners will abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed and will keep themselves outside Birbhum District if such condition is imposed again.The State says that the petitioners are notorious criminals and have dismal antecedents.The petitioners are entitled to another chance and are found to be entitled to anticipatory bail, as long as they comply with the conditions stipulated hereinbelow.The benefits conferred in terms of this order may be enjoyed if the petitioners do not enter any place within the jurisdiction of Burdwan and Birbhum Districts till the completion of the trial except for the purpose of attending court and for answering the specific calls made by the investigating officer.Accordingly, in the event of arrest, the petitioners are directed to be released on bail upon furnishing bonds of Rs.10,000/-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.It will be imcumbent on the petitioners to first disclose each of their mobile telephone numbers to the arresting officer and furnish individual undertakings that the petitioners would use only such mobile numbers and no other during the currency of this order.The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed on the conditions indicated above.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioners, subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
|
['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 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.
|
24,229,842 |
Shri Vishwanath Singh Tomar, learned counsel for the complainant.IA.9633/2019, an application preferred under Section 301(2) of Cr.P.C. is taken up, considered and allowed for the reasons mentioned therein.Accordingly, Shri Vishwanath Singh Tomar, learned counsel and his associates are permitted to assist the public prosecutor.This third repeat criminal appeal u/S 14-A(2) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act assails the order dated 22.08.2019 passed by Special Judge (Atrocities), District Gwalior whereby application preferred by the appellant herein u/S 439 Cr.P.C. has been rejected.The earlier criminal appeal was dismissed on 22.10.2019 (Cra.9014/2019) on merits with liberty to come again after investigation is over.The appellant has been arrested by Police Station Bahodapur, District Gwalior in connection with Crime No.530/2019 registered in relation to the offences punishable u/S.366 of IPC and u/S.3(2)(va) of THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cra.9707.2019 [Dev Verma @ Rahul Gupta Vs.State of M.P. and another] 2 SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities)Learned counsel for the State submits that Sections 365, 364 IPC have also been added after discovery of dead body.He opposes the appeal and prays for its rejection by contending that on the basis of the allegations and the material available on record, no case for grant of bail is made out.Consequently, present appeal stands dismissed with liberty to come again after examination of main witnesses.(Sheel Nagu) Judge pd PAWAN DHARKAR 2019.11.2 8 14:48:36 +05'30'
|
['Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
24,231,747 |
This Habeas Corpus Petition is filed, by the wife of the detenu, namely, Murali @ Muralidharan, aged 32 years, son of Janarthanan, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records, in CMP.No.41/Goonda/Salem City/2014 dated 15.9.2014, passed by the 2nd Respondent, detaining the detenu, under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982)the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, branding him as a Goonda, in the Central Prison, Salem and to quash the same and to direct the Respondents to produce the body of the detenu and set him at liberty forthwith.Though several grounds have been raised in this Habeas Corpus Petition, Mr.R.Sankarasubbu, learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned detention order only on the ground of non-supply of copy of the bail applications filed in similar cases, referred to in the grounds of detention, for arriving at the subjective satisfaction that there is likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail, which has affected the constitutional right of making an effective and purposeful representation to the authorities concerned, thereby vitiating the detention.However, he submitted that the copy of the bail applications were not supplied to the detenu.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.It is seen from paragraph 5 of the Grounds of Detention that in a similar case registered at Salem City Central Crime Branch Cr.No.42/2011 under sections 120(B) r/w 147, 148, 341, 323, 307, 465, 468, 471, 406, 409, 420 IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act 1959 and Section 13(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, bail was granted to the accused by the High court, Madras in Crl.In another similar cases registered at Salem Town Police Station Cr.No.1792 of 2011 under section 302 IPC and Cr.No.246 of 2012 under sections 341, 392 r/w 397, 427 and 506(ii) IPC, bail was granted to the accused by the Principal Sessions Judge, Salem in CMP.No.3749 of 2011 on 22.12.2011 and by the High Court, Madras in Crl.OP.No.25955 of 2012 on 19.11.2012 respectively.However, on a perusal of the Paper Book furnished by the Prosecution, it is seen that it does not contain the copy of the bail applications filed in similar cases.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
24,237,858 |
Prosecution case in nut shell is that the complainant is a divorcee who got divorce in the year 2004 and is having a 12 years old child.She met the petitioner in the year 2002 and they started meeting quite often in Delhi.In the month of March, 2003, the complainant went to Germany where the petitioner had come to meet her and they spent time together.Thereafter they met several times in Delhi and became close to each other.In July, 2003, the complainant came to know from the mother of the petitioner that Crl.P.447/2009 Page 1 of 15 the petitioner is already married and when the complainant confronted the petitioner, he told her that his marriage lasted for two months and that his divorce case is pending.In the month of September, 2004, he invited the complainant to visit him in London and arranged for her to and fro ticket and also gave her some money for her personal use in London.During their stay in London the complainant and the petitioner became intimate with each other and also had physical relations but only after the petitioner promised and assured her that he would marry her after his divorce from his first wife from whom he had a son.Thereafter they kept on having intimate relationship and had a live-in relationship.It is further alleged that on 18th October, 2007, when the petitioner was returning back to London from Delhi, the complainant went to the IGI Airport at around 11:00-11:30 AM and found the petitioner holding the hands of a lady whose name she came to know later as Amrita Das.The prosecution evidence is still going on.As such, at this stage, there is no ground for setting aside the impugned order or quashing the FIR.Record reveals that initially the complainant through her counsel Crl.P.447/2009 Page 4 of 15 appeared, however, for the last number of hearings, neither the complainant nor her counsel appeared to address arguments.P.447/2009 Page 4 of 15I have given my considerable thoughts to the respective submissions of learned counsels for parties and have perused the record.Initially, the complainant lodged FIR No. 426/2007 on 18.10.2007 at Police Station IGI Airport inter alia on the allegations that she was in a 'live- in relationship' with the petitioner for more than 5 years and was involved with him physically, emotionally and mentally.The petitioner had promised to marry her as soon as possible but few days back she came to know that petitioner was getting married to someone else, so she came to IGI Airport to remind his promises and refresh memories.Petitioner promised her to solve the matter and took her to the visitors' lounge where he started arguing with her.In the meantime, he went to washroom and gave his passport to her to keep in safe custody.While coming from toilet he was bit angry and pushed her out from visitors' lounge abused and threatened to kill her.She was trying to make him calm but he suddenly became violent and started hitting her.He pulled her breast and punched on her head, face and neck.Many people came to her rescue but he punched on her breast and ran away.He got a cab and went out of scene but while running he forgot his passport with her.On the basis of these allegations, FIR under Section 354/506 IPC was registered.Subsequently, on 15.02.2008, she got the present FIR under Section 376 IPC registered with Police Station Connaught Place.There the prosecutrix was between 15 years and 17 years living in a village and right from the beginning she refused to participate in the act but the accused kept on persisting and persuading her.The fact that the police took four months to register the second FIR is also a pointer to the difficulty in early inferring the offence of rape in these circumstances."The FIR No. 426/2007 registered with PS IGI Airport was quashed by observing as under:-The petitioner's contention is that on 18th October, 2007 he had come to IGI Airport as he was a solicitor in London and was returning back to London.He had not denied about live-in relationship with the complainant but had stated that his parents did not agree to this marriage because of certain reasons.He was to catch flight of Virgin Atlantic Airlines to London and he reached airport around 12.05 pm with his fiance and was about to enter departure building when Crl.P.447/2009 Page 6 of 15 complainant called him from behind and asked him to talk for about five minutes.He agreed to talk and while talking she snatched his passport from his shirt pocket and told that she would not return the passport unless he accompanied her and solemnized marriage with her in a temple forthwith.He told her that he had to report at check-in counter latest by 12.35 pm.The complainant after taking her passport went to ladies toilet and did not come out till 12.45 pm, he missed his flight.After coming out from toilet she told him that she had torn away his passport and flushed it.Complainant also started screaming and shouting at him that she would not allow him to marry another woman.Many people were looking at them.She left the place in a scooter and told him to come to her sister's house.He went to her sister's house kept waiting there but she did not come there.It seems the quarrel had taken place when the petitioner was to enter the departure building as there is no visitors' lounge at IGI Airport (International) and the visitors have to stay outside the departure building where taxis and cars drop the passengers who have to catch flight.There are several gates at the departure building and each gate is manned by security persons, no one can enter the departure building without an air-ticket and a passport or without a security pass.The police post is at one corner of the departure building itself and police station is downstairs near arrival building.The same are accordingly quashed.P.447/2009 Page 15 of 15The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 397/401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for setting aside the order on charge dated 06.08.2009 and charge framed on the same date by the learned Additional Sessions Judge u/s 376/420 IPC in case FIR No.63/08 registered with Police Station Connaught Place.The petitioner misbehaved and physically assaulted the complainant for which she got an FIR registered u/s 354/506 IPC at Police Station IGI Airport.Ultimately, the petitioner did not marry the complainant and got married to the lady who was with him at the Airport.Hence this case was got registered.P.447/2009 Page 1 of 15On behalf of the petitioner, Sh.Ajay Burman, Advocate assailed the framing of the charge against the petitioner on the ground that the registration of the instant FIR is a gross misuse of process of Court, inasmuch as, in the first FIR registered against the petitioner u/s 354/506 IPC dated 18th October, 2007, all the allegations pertaining to Section 376 were there.In fact the second FIR is nothing but explanatory to the first FIR.This complaint could at best be Crl.P.447/2009 Page 2 of 15 supplementary statement of the complainant and if according to the Investigating Officer of the case, case u/s 376 IPC was required to be registered, the said Section could have been added in the first FIR itself but on the same facts two FIRs could not have been registered.The Court in exercise of its power u/s 428 Cr.P.C. has the power to quash the FIR while quashing the order on charge.It is further submitted that the averments made in the FIR itself reflects that the parties were known to each other for a substantial period and were having live-in relationship.There cannot be misconception of fact that the petitioner had physical relation with the complainant on the promise of marriage, inasmuch as, both the parties were already married having children.The divorce of complainant took place in the year 2004 only whereas the petitioner was also married and his divorce had not taken place.That being so, it cannot be said that there was any promise of marriage in order to bring the case within the meaning of misconception of facts.Reliance was placed on the following judgments for submitting that present is a glaring case of abuse of process of law and while setting aside the order on charge, the FIR itself be quashed:-(i) Prashant Bharti vs. State of NCT of Delhi, (2013) 9 SCC 292 Crl.P.447/2009 Page 3 of 15P.447/2009 Page 3 of 15(ii) Deepak Gulati vs. State of Haryana,(2013) 7 SCC 675(iii) Uday vs. State of Karnataka, AIR 2003 SC 1639(iv) Harish Kumar vs. State of NCT of Delhi, Crl.M.C. No. 3877/2009 (Delhi High Court)(v) Sunil Vishnu Salve vs. State of Maharashtra, 2006 (3) Crime 49 (Bombay High Court)(vi) Sekhar vs. State, 1995 (3) Crimes 840 (Madras High Court)(vii) Sarimoni Mahate vs. Amulya Mahato & Anr., (2002) Cri.LJ 3271 Jharkhand High Court.(viii) Jayanti Rani Panda vs. State of West Bengal, 1984 Cri.(ix) Dilip vs. State of Maharashtra, Crl.WP 179/2008 (Aurangabad Bench of Bombay High Court)(x) Manjit Singh Gyan Singh vs. State of Gujarat, Crl.P. 375/2014 (Gujarat High Court)(xi) Alok Kumar vs. State & Anr., Crl.M.C.No.299/2009 decided by Justice Shiv Narayan Dhingra.Learned Additional Public prosecutor for the state, on the other hand, submitted that in the first FIR, there was no allegation of commission of rape.There was no bar to registration of FIR u/s 376 IPC in view of the allegations contained in the second complaint.Moreover, at the time of framing of charge only a prima facie view was required to be taken and that being so, the charge was rightly framed.Petitioner filed Crl.M.C.No.299/2009 for quashing FIR No.426/2007, Crl.P.447/2009 Page 5 of 15 Police Station IGI Airport under Section 354/506 IPC.P.447/2009 Page 5 of 15The facts of the case as narrated in two FIRs show that there was admittedly a live-in relationship between the Petitioner and the complainant for more than five years.The petitioner found that he could not go ahead with the marriage although at one point of time the parties had proposed to marry each other.The circumstances narrated preclude an automatic inference on absence of that consent of that complainant.Thereafter he learnt about lodging of this FIR.P.447/2009 Page 6 of 15It is submitted by the petitioner that the allegations made by the complainant about molesting her were preposterous and the FIR was lodged with mala fide intention to prevent the petitioner from going to London where petitioner was practicing.The complainant subsequently lodged another FIR under Section 376 IPC against the petitioner with the same motive.From the allegations made by the complainant, it is apparent that when the complainant started 'live-in relationship' with the petitioner, the petitioner had not even divorced his previous wife though it seems was living separate from her.The complainant was having a child while the petitioner was also having a child. 'Live-in relationship' is a walk-in and walk-out relationship.Thus, people who chose to have 'live-in relationship' cannot complain of infidelity or immorality as live-in relationships are also known to have been between married man and unmarried woman or between a married woman and an unmarried man.It is admitted case of the complainant that she herself came to IGI International Airport when she learnt that the petitioner was going back to London and was about to marry someone else and it is complainant's own case that she could not tolerate this and wanted to remind the petitioner of good old days and promises.She subsequently lodged an FIR under Section 376 IPC against the petitioner.These facts make it abundantly clear that sole design of the complaint was to prevent the petitioner from leaving India because petitioner had decided to walk out of the live-in relationship between the parties.The alleged incident reported by complainant had taken place around 12.30 p.m., the FIR was lodged at 4.00 pm when the police post is at the corner of the departure building.The four and half hours difference in lodging of FIR shows that the FIR was lodged after a considerable long time with a design to deposit passport of the petitioner with the police so late that the passport of the petitioner was not returned to the petitioner.This is clear from the subsequent events as the petitioner was not returned his passport by police and his LoC was opened by the police.P.447/2009 Page 8 of 15 relationship was not a marriage but it was a relationship of convenience where two parties decide to enjoy company of each other at will and may leave each other at will.However, despite entering into 'live-in relationship' with the petitioner, she could not tolerate that petitioner should marry someone else and when the petitioner was about to leave India with his fiance and was at the airport, she went to the airport with the sole motive, which is clear from the sequence of events, to prevent petitioner from flying out from India and to teach him a lesson.She had been lived with the petitioner in London.She knew that the petitioner was working in London.She enacted the events in such a manner that the petitioner could not get hold of his passport for considerable long time and could not leave India for that period.She made allegations of rape against the petitioner.P.447/2009 Page 8 of 15I consider that the FIR No. 426/2007 PS IGI Airport was got registered against the petitioner out of malice in order to wreck vengeance on the petitioner because petitioner refused to continue live-in relationship with the complainant, after due deliberations.The incident is of 12.30 pm (around) FIR's registration time is 4.00 pm, MLC of complainant was done at 7.15 pm showing no external injuries on her body.The allegations that accused petitioner, despite his fiance being there handed over his passport to her for safe custody are preposterous.It is not her case that he was wearing clothes with no pockets.There is no reason a man would hand over his passport to a woman who had come to airport only to quarrel with him.Keeping in view the above circumstances, I consider that it is a fit case where FIR should be quashed to prevent the misuse of criminal justice system for personal vengeance of a partner of 'live-in relationship'.The petition is allowed.FIR No. 426/2007 PS IGI Airport is hereby quashed."In view of the quashing of the first FIR wherein the averments made in the present FIR were also considered, the continuance of the present FIR would tantamount to gross misuse of the process of Court.The same parameters would naturally be available for later stages as well.The power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, at the stages referred to hereinabove, would have far reaching consequences, inasmuch as, it would negate the prosecution's/complainant's case without allowing the prosecution/complainant to lead evidence.It sets the criminal law into motion and marks the commencement of the investigation which ends up with the formation of opinion under Section 169 or 170 of Cr.P.C., as the case may be and forwarding of a police report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. It is quite possible and it happens not infrequently that more informations than one are given to a police officer in charge of a police station in respect of the same incident involving one or more than one cognizable offence.In such a case he need not enter every one of them in the station house diary and this is implied in Section 154 of Cr.P.C. Apart from a vague information by a phone call or a cryptic telegram, the information first entered in the station house diary, kept for this purpose, by a police officer in charge of a police station is the First Information Report - F.I.R. postulated by Section 154 of Cr.P.C. All other informations made orally or in writing after the commencement of the investigation into the cognizable offence disclosed from the facts mentioned in the First Information Report and entered in the station house diary by the police officer or such other cognizable offenses as may come to his notice during the investigation, will be statements falling under Section 162 of Cr.P.C. No such information/statement can properly be treated as an F.I.R. and entered in the station house diary again, as it would in effect be a second FIR and the same cannot be in conformity with the scheme of the Cr.P.C. Take a care where an FIR mentions cognizable offence under Section 307 or 320 I.P.C. and the investigating agency learns during the investigation or receives a fresh information that the victim died, no fresh FIR under Section 302 I.P.C. need be registered which will be irregular; in such a case alteration of the provision of law in the first FIR is the proper course to adopt.From the above discussion it follows that under the scheme of the provisions of Sections 154, 155, 156, 157, 162, 169, 170 and 173 of Cr.P.C. only the earliest or the first information in regard to the commission of a cognizable offence satisfies the requirements of Section 154 Cr.P.C. Thus there can be no second F.I.R. and consequently there can be no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence or the same occurrence or incident giving rise to one or more cognizable offences.On receipt of information about a cognizable offence or an incident giving rise to a cognizable offence or offences and on entering the F.I.R. in the station house diary, the officer in charge of a Police Station has to investigate not merely the cognizable offence reported in the FIR but also other connected offences found to have been committed in the course of the same transaction or the same occurrence and file one or more reports as provided in Section 173 of the Cr.P.C."That being so, in view of the further details given by the complainant, the Investigating Officer was empowered to make further investigation and then to forward the same with one or more further reports as contemplated under Sub Section 8 of Section 173 Cr.P.C but under the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, there could not have been second FIR on the Crl.P.447/2009 Page 14 of 15 basis of same allegations.P.447/2009 Page 14 of 15The first FIR has already been quashed.The SLP filed by the complainant against the quashing of FIR was dismissed.That being so, First Information Report registered u/s 376 of the Penal Code against the petitioner and the consequential charge sheet as also the framing of the charges by the Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi on 6th August, 2009 deserves to be quashed.The petition stands disposed of.
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
242,430 |
The prosecution case as has been unfolded before us is as follows :-The Appellants, Tukaram and Tulshiram, who were accused Nos.1 and 2 respectively, were the brothers of the victim Sopan.They have two other brothers, namely, Namdev and Sahebrao.The mother of the Appellants and the victim inherited some property.Namdev, one of the brothers, approached Sopan, the victim, and requested him to seek a partition of the property which was being looked after by Tukaram and Tulshiram.The victim thereafter approached Tukaram and Tulshiram at his parent's house at Koprevasti.He was accompanied by his wife and daughter.Sopan requested Tulshiram and Tukaram, in the presence of his wife, daughter, Namdev and his parents to partition the property.Irked by this request, Tulshiram dealt a blow on the head of Sopan with a stick.Blood started oozing out from the head injury.Thereafter, both the accused lifted the victim and threw him on the ground resulting in a further injury to the victim.Both the accused fled from the scene.JUDGMENT Nishita Mhatre, J.1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 30th January 2001 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Pandharpur in Sessions Case No.120 of 1999, the Appellants have preferred this Criminal Appeal against the conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "the I.P.C.") and sentence of life imprisonment and a finding of Rs.1000/-.Namdev attempted to catch them but was unsuccessful.Namdev then called Dr. Ranaware who declared the victim dead.A complaint was lodged and the accused were arrested.Both the accused were tried before the Sessions Court, Pandharpur and have been convicted under Section 302 read with 34 of the I.P.C. for committing the murder of their brother Sopan.We have perused the entire evidence with the assistance of the learned Advocate for the Appellants as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.The prosecution has sought to establish its case by examining seven witnesses, three of them being eye witnesses.Five witnesses have also been examined by the accused in their defence.PW1 and PW2 are the panch witnesses for the spot panchnama and the inquest panchnama respectively.PW3 is the Doctor who was called by Namdev and who declared Sopan dead.PW4 is the wife of Sopan who was an eye witness to the entire incident.She has deposed that at about 3.00 p.m. on 13th August 1999 she and her daughter, Pretabai, PW5 accompanied Sopan to the house of his parents.She has stated that they visited the parents in order to meet the accused who lived with the parents so that the property inherited by her mother-in-law, PW6 could be partitioned.She has further stated that the accused were not present when she arrived at the residence of her in-laws with Sopan and PW5, but reached the scene thereafter armed with sticks.Sopan then requested them to allot a share of the property to Namdev after partitioning it.Both the accused, according to PW4, asked the victim to refrain from advocating Namdev's cause.They started abusing the victim and then accused No.2 dealt blow with a stick on the head of the victim due to which he fell down.Blood started oozing out from the head injury caused to the victim.PW4 has then stated that the accused lifted her husband and flung him on the ground.Namdev tried to catch both the accused but they fled away from the scene.She has also averred that PW3 arrived at the scene at the request of Namdev and declared Sopan dead.This evidence of PW4 has not been shaken in the cross-examination.PW5, the daughter of Sopan and who was also an eye witness to the incident, has corroborated her mother's evidence in all material particulars.PW6 is the mother of the Appellants and the victim.She was also an eye witness to the incident.However, she has denied the presence of PW4 and PW5 at the time of the incident.This witness has been declared hostile.However, on being cross-examined by the Additional Public Prosecutor, she has admitted that Namdev was seeking a partition of the property and that both the accused were not consenting to the same.She has also admitted that Sopan was attempting to convince the accused to part with the share of Namdev.She has then deposed in her cross-examination that Tukaram had gone to the Sugar factory at 1.00 p.m. on that day and had returned only at 6.00 p.m.. However, a perusal of the evidence of PW6 shows that she has not denied that the accused caused a bleeding injury on the head of the victim and he succumbed to that injury.PW7 is the Investigating Officer.The defence witnesses have been essentially examined to establish the case of the accused No.1 that he was not present when the incident occurred and was in fact at the Sugar factory.DW2 claimed to have seen Tukaram at the factory at 2.00 p.m. and at 5.15 p.m. He has also stated that the factory is about 7 to 8 kms.away from the residence of the accused and that Tukaram used to commute on a motor-cycle.DW5 has deposed that he saw accused No.1 i.e. Tukaram at around 3.45 p.m. at the Sugar factory.This witness had placed on record the xerox copy of a receipt to establish that Tukaram had purchased 5 kg.sugar on that day.The witness also produced a card showing that the purchase had been made by Tukaram on the day of the incident.However, he has admitted that neither the time nor the signature of the purchaser are required to be noted in the register nor is the time of purchase mentioned on the receipt or on the card.On a consideration of the entire evidence before us, we find that there is no doubt that the death of Sopan was homicidal.There is ample evidence to indicate that the accused were responsible for the death of Sopan.Although PW6 has turned hostile, it was obviously with a view to protect her sons.On a reappraisal of the evidence of PW4, the wife of Sopan, which has been corroborated by PW5, we find no difficulty in accepting the case of the prosecution that the death of Sopan is a culpable homicide.However, we are unable to concur with the findings of the Sessions Court that it amounted to murder.All the witnesses have deposed that Tulshiram dealt the victim a stick blow on his head which caused a bleeding injury.The accused then lifted the victim and forcefully tossed him onto the floor which possibly aggravated the injury.The intention to commit murder has not been established by the prosecution.Obviously, the accused were enraged because of Sopan's insistence to part with the share of the property which fell to the lot of Namdev.As a result of this, Tulshiram dealt a stick blow to Sopan.All these circumstances indicate that although the accused have committed a culpable homicide, it does not amount to murder.6. Accused No.1, Tukaram's alibi that he was not present when the incident occurred because he was in the Sugar factory has not been established.Each of the defence witnesses have stated that they noticed him in the Sugar factory either before or after 3.00 p.m. when the incident occurred.The distance between the Sugar factory and the residence of the accused is about 7-8 kms.There is evidence on record that accused No.1 commuted on a motor-cycle.Therefore, he could obviously cover the distance in a very short while.There is no positive evidence to show that accused No.1 was not present when the incident occurred.There is no reason to doubt the testimony of PW4 and PW5 who have both deposed that accused No.1 was present when the incident occurred.We, therefore, set aside the conviction and sentence of the accused under Section 302 I.P.C. The accused are instead convicted under Section 304 Part I of the I.P.C. They are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years.However, they will be entitled to the normal set off.Appeal accordingly partly allowed.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
24,246,872 |
i)Adverse Cases:Name of the Police station and Crime No.No.1366/2014341, 384 and 506[ii] IPC2S7 Madipakkam PS Cr.No.1496/2014 379 IPC3S1 St.Thomas Mount PS Cr.No.694/2014341, 384 and 506[ii](The order of the Court was made by S.TAMILVANAN.,J) Challenge is made to the order of detention passed by the second respondent vide Proceedings in BDFGISSV No.1745/2014 dated 08.11.2014, whereby the petitioner's husband/detenu herein, viz., Appu @ Jayakumar, son of Palani, aged 35 years, was ordered to be detained under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) branding him as a "GOONDA".As per the grounds of detention dated 08.11.2014, passed by the second respondent, the detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:(ii) Ground Case:No.1496/2014 registered by S7 Madipakkam Police Station and he has not filed any bail application in the 2nd adverse case and the bail application filed by him in the ground case before the Principal District and Sessions Court, Chenglepet in Crl.M.P.No.3085/2014 was pending as on the date of the passing of the detention order.M.P.No.593/2009 and at V-5 Thirumangalam Police Station, in Crime No.160/2013 under Sections 341, 294(b), 336, 427, 397 and 506(ii) IPC wherein bail was granted by the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai in Crl.AND C.T.SELVAM, J.The detenu is directed to be released forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.(S.T.,J.) (C.T.S.,J.) 22.04.2015vsiToThe Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.H.C.P.No.3251 of 2014
|
['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
24,249,810 |
Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.The applicant has filed this sixth application u/S 439, Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.This is repeat bail application after rejection of the earlier one which was dismissed on merits vide order dated 27.03.2017 passed in M.Cr.C. No.2921/2017 with liberty to come again in case trial gets further delayed.It is alleged that applicant was wielding Lohangi.C.8577/2017 be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties, each of Rs.25,000/-, to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court.This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant :-The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;The applicant will mark his attendance at the concerned trial Court once in a fortnight.A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.as per rules.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
2,425,118 |
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records in STC.No.204 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Salem, and quash the proceedings therein.For the sake of convenience, the petitioner and the respondent will be referred to as the accused and the complainant respectively.The complainant issued a statutory notice dated 22.01.2018 to the accused and in response to the said notice, the accused issued a reply notice dated 07.02.2018, contending that the Yarn was of inferior quality and therefore, he had returned the products back to the complainant and had issued stop payment instructions to his bank.However, the complainant has initiated a prosecution in STC.No.204 of 2018, before the Judicial Magistrate-I, Salem, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the accused.The accused received the summons for his appearance before the trial Court on 12.04.2018 and immediately, he has filed the present quash petition on the ground that the complainant has initiated the present prosecution in Salem District, but the accused is admittedly from Coimbatore District and therefore, the trial Court should have conducted an enquiry in terms of Section 202(1) Cr.P.C. before issuing process and therefore, the proceedings in STC.No.204 of 2018 should be quashed.These Judgments have been circulated to all the Magistrates in the State.At this juncture, Mr.Dhanasekaran, the learned counsel requested this Court that the presence of the petitioner before the trial Court may be dispensed with.Accepting his submission, the petitioner is directed to appear before the trial Court on the next hearing date and on his appearance, he shall be released on bail under Section 436 Cr.P.C on he executing a bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties on the same day.If the accused absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered against him under Section 229-A IPC.11.The Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed in the above terms.Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.04.04.2018Internet : Yes/NoIndex : Yes/NoSpeaking / Non-speaking ordermk/lokNote: Issue order copy on 10.04.2018ToThe learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Salem.The Government Advocate (Crl.Side) High Court, Madras.P.N. PRAKASH, J.lok / mkCrl.O.P.No.10508 of 2018and Crl.MP.Nos.5387 & 5388 of 201804.04.2018
|
['Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
24,251,883 |
Re: An application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. affirmed on 18.1.2016 in connection with Park Street P.S. Case No.510/2014 dated 26.12.2014 under Sections 419/420/467/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 354A/384/363/342/376D/120B of the Indian Penal Code.Mr. Sekhar Kumar Basu, Mr. Ranadeb Sengupta .... For the petitioner.Mr. Manjit Singh, P.P., Mrs. Suman Sehanabish....For the State.Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the petitioner and the State.The case out of which the present proceeding arises involves serious allegations but what we are to examine is the extent of involvement of the petitioner at the primary stage to justify his continued detention.Having gone through the materials in the Case Diary, we do not think further detention of the petitioner, namely, Chandan Das is necessary.We accordingly direct that the petitioner, namely, Chandan Das be released on bail on furnishing bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of Rs.5,000/- each, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, subject to the following conditions:-(i) on being released, the petitioner shall meet the Officer-in-Charge of the concerned Police Station once a week during the pendency of the trial(ii) the petitioner shall also attend each date of hearing before the Trial Court.In the event the petitioner does not attend the Trial Court on any day for any unjustifiable reason, his bail shall be cancelled by the Trial Court without any further reference to this Court.The application for bail stands allowed in the above terms.Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order be given to the parties expeditiously, if applied for.(Aniruddha Bose, J.) (Sankar Acharyya, J.) 3
|
['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 384 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
24,257,775 |
Heard on I.A.No.5198/2020, which is an application U/S.389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of the custodial sentence passed against appellant Savitri Bai through Video Conferencing.This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 29.02.2020 passed by Special Judge, (Prevention of Corruption) Act, Bhopal in Special Case No.3/2008, whereby learned Special Judge found the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 468 r/w 120-B, 471 r/w 120-B and 420 r/w 120-B of IPC and sentenced her to undergo R.I. for 7 years with fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, R.I. for 7 years with fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and R.I. for 7 years with fine of Rs.1,00,000/- respectively with default clause.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned trial Court found appellant guilty only for the offences punishable under Sections 468 r/w 120-B, 471 r/w 120-B and 420 r/w 120-B of IPC and sentenced her to undergo R.I. for 7 years while the jail sentence of co-accused Smt. Maya Bisariya, who was convicted by the trial Court under Section 467 of the IPC and was sentenced to 10 years of R.I. has been suspended by the Hon'ble Apex court, so on the basis of parity, appellant is also entitled to get bail.He further submitted that appellant is a 67 year old lady and suffering from heart disease.The hearing of appeal will take time.So the jail sentence of the appellant be suspended and she be released on bail.Signature Not Verified accused.Smt Maya Bisariya, who was granted bail by the Hon'ble SAN Digitally signed by MONIKA CHOURASIA Date: 2020.10.08 16:25:57 IST THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRA-2574-2020 (SAVITRI BAI V STATE OF M.P.) 3 Apex Court.The Apex Court granted her bail on the ground that she is 82 years old while the appellant is only 67 years old.So, she is not entitled to get bail on the basis of parity.He further submitted that the appellant in connivance with the other co-accused persons prepared a forged lease deed of government land bearing survey no. 1560 area 3.20 acres and she in connivance with Krishna Prasad Biisariya and Sanjeev Bisariya had filed a Civil Suit No. 18A/05 against Krishna Prasad Bisariya and Sanjeev Bisariya, M.P. Government and Municipal Corporation Bhopal averring that she had been in possession of land survey no. 1560 area 3.20 acres for the last 40-45 years and tried to usurp that land on the basis of forged documents.She also filed Writ Petition before this court on the basis of said forged documents.From the prosecution evidence the guilt of the appellant is clearly proven .Learned trial Court did not commit any mistake in finding the appellant guilty for the aforesaid offences.So, her sentence should not be suspended.Hon'ble Apex Court granted bail to the similarly placed co- accused Maya Bisariya vide order dated 24/08/2020 passed in SLP(Crl.) no.3714/2020 looking to her age and in view of the on going pandemic and the fact that disposal of the appeal is likely to take some time.So, looking to the parity and the fact that the appellant is a lady aged about 67 years and she is in custody since 29/02/2020, disposal of this appeal will take time, the I.A. is allowed and it is directed that the execution of the jail sentence alone passed against appellant Savitri Bai shall remain suspended during the pendency of this appeal and she be released on bail upon her depositing fine amount, if not already deposited and furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rs.One Lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Signature Not Verified Court for her appearance before the Registry of this Court on SAN Digitally signed by MONIKA CHOURASIA Date: 2020.10.08 16:25:57 IST THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRA-2574-2020 (SAVITRI BAI V STATE OF M.P.) 4 06/11/2020 and on such further dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry during the pendency of this appeal.C.C. as per rules.List this matter for admission after two weeks.
|
['Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
24,261,049 |
The trial Court convicted the appellants - accused No.1 Shivaji s/o.Kadaji Pawar and accused No.13 Namdeo s/o.Shivaji Pawar for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P. Code, and they are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for Life and to pay a fine of Rs. Five Thousand each, in default, to undergo further R.I. for the period of two years.Brief facts giving rise to the prosecution case are as under:2] One Baburao s/o.Bhagwanrao Pawar was resident of village Jamga, Taluka Nilanga, District Latur.He resided in the house along with his wife, sons, daughters-in-law and their children together.Gram Panchayat election was held in the year 2007, and it was fought amongst two groups; one headed by Baburao and other by accused persons.Results of election were declared on 09.09.2007, in which four members from the panel of Baburao were elected and 3 members from the panel of accused were elected.On account of this election, quarrels used to take place between these two groups.Tense situation continued during the election process of Sarpanch, and ultimately, election was required to be conducted in presence of Tahsildar with Police Bandobast.The persons from the group of accused alleged to have kept grudge in the ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:12 ::: 414.11crapl 11 mind against Baburao and his family members.Said Baburao had arranged dinner in his house on 09.01.2008 and had invited relatives and persons from village for dinner.The dinner was ready and persons from the house of Baburao with invitees were to start to take the meal.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:12 :::Meanwhile, Baburao and persons in the house heard noise from outside the house.Then Baburao and persons in the house came out and noticed that, 30 to 40 persons had come in the courtyard with weapons in the hands like sticks, rods.Persons were uttering words " हानी तर आपली हातातली गराम पंचायत घालवली, िनकालाचया िदवशीच याना खलास करायला पािहजे होते.Kadaji Pawar inflicted sword blow on the chest of Gyandeo, the son of Baburao.Other persons from the mob were giving blows to Gyandeo, Vijaykumar the brother of Baburao; Sanjay, Shahuraj and Sheshrao, the sons of Baburao; Bhagwat, the son of Vijaykumar.Then Baburao and other persons in the house intervened to separate fighting.Meanwhile, persons from the mob rushed against them and restrained them from interfering in the event.In ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:12 ::: 414.11crapl 12 the event, Gyandeo, Vijaykumar, Sanjay, Shahuraj, Sheshrao and Bhagwat were lying on the earth.The assailants then ran away.Baburao and others injured shifted to the Hospital at Nilanga.Finally, Baburao lodged a complaint.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:12 :::Investigation was carried out by various Police Officers attached to concerned Police Station.API Shri Thorat prepared panchnama of the place of incident, recovered sticks and iron rods, then blood mixed earth from the place of incident, and proceeded to Nilanga Hospital where he drew inquest panchnama of the dead body of Gyandeo.He made arrest of 10 accused persons, seized their clothes, recorded memorandum statement of these 10 accused persons, and in pursuance to memorandums, recovered weapons from the places pointed out by those accused under the panchnama.He, subsequently, made arrest of accused Vilas, Ashok, Namdeo on 14.01.2008 under the panchnamas.He also recovered clothes from the persons of those accused under the panchnama.On ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:12 ::: 414.11crapl 13 15.01.2008, he recorded memorandum statement of Balaji and Govind, and recovered weapons under the panchnamas at their instance.On 18.01.2008, he recorded supplementary statements of injured persons.On 20.01.2008, he recorded memorandum statement of accused Namdeo s/o.Shivaji, Vilas s/o.Kadaji and Ashok s/o.Kadaji, and recovered weapons under the panchnama as produced by them.On 21.01.2008, he recovered weapon that was produced by accused Ashok s/o.Vishwanath under the panchnama.On 31.01.2008, he forwarded seized Muddemal to C.A., Aurangabad by a letter.He, then, handed over investigation to API Anant Kulkarni, who made arrest of accused Nagnath s/o.Raosaheb Pawar, Komalbai and Vimalbai.Further investigation was carried out by API Laxman Kendre, who on 04.02.2008 recovered stick under the panchnama that was produced by accused Waman s/o.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:12 :::He forwarded letter to MSEB office and sought information about supply of electricity on the date of incident in village Jamga, more particularly in the house of the complainant.He received letter from the concerned office.On 05.04.2008, he submitted charge sheet against 14 accused, showing accused No. 15 to 37 absconding.On ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:12 ::: 414.11crapl 14 20.05.2008, he recovered sticks and rods under panchnama that were produced by accused Vishwanath Pawar, Udhav Pawar and Vaijinath Pawar, who were on anticipatory bail.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:12 :::He recorded memorandum statement of accused Pandurang s/o.Vishwanath Pawar and recovered sword produced by him under the panchnama.SPOT PANCHNAMA FIRST INFORMATION REPORT NO.2/2008 REGISTERED ON 10-01-2008 Offence U/Sse.302, 307, 452, 324, 323, 504, 143, 147, 148, 149, of I.P.C. Sec. 4, 7, (1) 26(3) 27(3) Indian Arms Act and 135 of Bombay Police Act.Name of the Informant :-1) Baburao Bhagwanrao @ Bhavan ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:14 ::: 414.11crapl 40 Pawar, R/o Jamga, Tal.Nilanga, Dist.He demonstrated the spot of incident.He narrated facts of incident.Accordingly, we, the panchas, accepted the same and agreed to act as panchas.The complainant, who was present at the spot, stated his name to be Baburao Bhagwanrao @ Bhavan Pawar, R/o Jamga, Tal.Nilanga, Dist.He narrated the incident before the panchas.In the year 2007, elections of Gram panchyat were held.In that election, our panel got majority.My daughter-in law was elected as Sarpanch of the village ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:14 ::: 414.11crapl 41 Gram panchayat.Being aggrieved by the said election, rival group, headed by viz Shivaji Kadaji and his associates was having grudge in their mind, from the date of election till election of Sarpanch and Upsarpanch.They deliberately created hurdles in the day to day work of Gram Sabha.As the Sarpanch of village was from our family, they decided to kill the family members.The accused namely Shivajii Kadaji Pawar and other 35 to 36 persons, by holding weapons like sword, knife, sickle, sticks, iron bars and axe in their hands and giving slogans, suddenly, on 09-01-2008 at about 7.15 p.m, came to our house.They pelted stones.They asked all family members to come out of the house.They threatened that they will not leave any body from his family to remain alive.They will finish entire family.On the call, we, the family members, viz, sons, daughter-in-laws, brothers, sister-in-laws, and the relatives, who were gathered on account of a function known as "Kanduri", came out of the house, in the court yard.All accused assaulted my son namely Dnyadeo with the help of sword, knife and sickle in the ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:14 ::: 414.11crapl 42 court yard and committed murder of my son.They also assaulted my son Sanjay Bhau Vijaykumar and nephew Shahuraj with sword and sickle, causing serious injuries.Myself, my family members and relatives were also beaten.The area of said residential house is 95 X 75 feet, towards East-West and North South.Said spot is adjacent to the tar road, at the distance of 22 feet and one room, constructed with brick and cement, consisting of 25 X 18 size, ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:14 ::: 414.11crapl 43 having door of tin-shutter, which is used as front hall, wherein, sags of grains have been kept.The said room is also having a door of small shutter, wherein, an arrangement of electric light has also been made.Adjacent to the said room, a heap of sand has also been noticed.From the said spot, it is said that, open space of informant is situated at a distance of 50 feet, where a stones were lying scattered.The room which was constructed by cement and bricks is also having 20 feet open space towards Eastern side.was fixed, as if a wall to the said house.A wooden frame, having a latch and a lock affixed and two folded wooden doors, has also been affixed.While inspecting and entering in the tin shade house, from the door, three sides of wall made up with tin, were noticed.One wooden almirah was found kept adjacent to the door and near a partition of tin which runs towards North side.Looking at that place, it is at a distance of 10 feet, in front of the door of tin shed house, towards the West and at a distance of 20 feet, behind the room built by brick and cement.At the said place, there are many big stains of blood.The said place looks like as if it has been dug into by feet of a person.Next to it, is the a agricultural field of Ganesh Shankar Pawar.The crop of harvested tur dal was seen lying.In front thereof, there is residential house constructed in bricks and cement belonging to Raosaheb Bhalrao Suryawanshi.The abovesaid place of incident seems to be in the courtyard of the residential house of the informant Baburao Bhagwanrao Pawar which consists of 95 X 75 plot which is situated at village Jamga.414.11crapl 48 The abovesaid panchnama is written, from the beginning to the end, in the presence of the "panchas" and same is read over to them, which is true and correct.[Emphasis supplied] 20] The prosecution has examined Dnyanoba Kadaji Sagare as PW-14, who acted as panch.He stated in his evidence before the Court that, he came to know about murder of Gyandeo and then came to Jamga.Police had called him for panchanama at the house of Baburao Pawar.Baburao, Dilip, Chandrakant, Kamlakar Jadhav etc. were present.Baburao showed them the spot of incident.At the spot of incident, 5 sticks and 2 iron rods were noticed.There were plates, small-plates and the pot having cooked Mutton.One bulb was in the roof of courtyard.There was also bulb in the shop which part of the house.It appears that, Tanaji Nagorao Gade and Satyanarayan Pandurang Dapake were the panchas for the said seizure panchanama.He stated that, on 10.01.2008, he was present in Sub District Hospital, Nilanga when there was post mortem of deceased Gyandeo.He has taken the ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:15 ::: 414.11crapl 56 clothes on the person of deceased in his custody after the post mortem.The clothes were bunian, pant, sweater, nicker, and one white big handkerchief.Those clothes were in Aurad Police Station.He submitted report to that effect to the Police Station.Nothing useful to the defence has been brought on record so as to disbelieve the evidence of this witness before the Court.However, he stated before the Court that, the clothes of Vilas Kadaji Pawar, Ashok Kadaji Pawar, Shivaji Kadaji Pawar were not seized in his presence.However, he has not stated that, clothes on the person of Gyandeo were not seized in his presence.Ramji Pawar, and 10] Balaji s/o.Apparao Pawar.27] He further stated that, he had seen clothes seized by Police.Each panchanama shown to him bears his signature.Content of each panchnamas, which are at Exhibit 77 andDuring his cross examination, the defence has brought on record that, he is in blood relations of the complainant Baburao.He has specifically denied suggestion that, he was not able to identify accused persons.He has denied the suggestion that, Police prepared ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:15 ::: 414.11crapl 59 false panchnama and obtained his signature.He further denied suggestion that, since he being relative of the complainant his signatures are obtained on the panchanama.28] The prosecution did examine PW-5 Subhash Vishwanath Solanke, his evidence is at Exhibit-111, to prove memorandum statement given by the accused Balaji Apparao Pawar and accused Govind Ganpatrao Shahapure.In his evidence, he stated that, accused Balaji Apparao Pawar has given memorandum statement that, he has concealed stick in his house and he would hand over the same.The said memorandum was reduced into writing by Police.It bears his signature and also signature of other ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:15 ::: 414.11crapl 60 panch Shahajirao.Contents of the said memorandum panchanama are true and correct.He stated that, the accused Govind Ganpatrao Shahapure has also given memorandum statement stating that, he has concealed stick in his house, and he would hand over the same.Police reduced into writing said disclosure in his presence.He identified the contents of the said memorandum panchanama and also he bears signature and signature of other panch Shahajirao.According to this witness that, the accused Balaji Pawar removed one stick which was under the wooden flanks and same was handed over to the Police in presence of the panchas.He further stated that, accused Govind Shahapure also removed one stick from beneath the matrix on the wooden bed and same was seized by Police in their presence under the panchanama.He identified his signatures and also the stick.In his cross examination, the defence has brought on record that, this witness was relative of the deceased Gyandeo.He has denied suggestion that, the sticks were seized in the Police Station itself.In his evidence, he stated that, accused Ashok Pawar gave memorandum in his presence and showed willingness to hand over one stick from his house.He identified the memorandum panchnama.He stated that, Yuvraj Solunke was another panch.He stated that, the accused entered in the house and handed over one stick to Police.The said stick was at the corner of the room behind row of earthen pots.Nothing useful has been brought on record by the defence so as to disbelieve his version in the examination in chief.He stated that, on 13.01.2008, he had been to Civil Hospital, Latur.Four injured persons were under medical treatment in the said Hospital.He has taken clothes of injured persons from the said Hospital to the Police Station, Aurad Shahajani and he handed over those clothes to PSO, ASI Shri Chavan.He further stated that, those clothes were seized under the panchnama.Accordingly, he submitted ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:15 ::: 414.11crapl 62 report to the Police Station.In his cross examination he stated that, he denied suggestion that, report prepared by him was not true.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:15 :::He stated in his evidence that, on 20.05.2008, police had called him in the village.He was coming to his house from the field.He reached near the bridge and the Police called him there.Police seized weapons there.In his cross examination, he stated that, he know Pandurang Pawar.Pandurang stated in his presence to police that, he will produce the sword and police reduced into writing his disclosure.It bears his signature.He went near the bridge.From there below the bridge from the earth below the cement pipe Pandurang removed sword and Police seized it.Panchanama shown to him is the same.It bears his signature.Therefore, he denied suggestion given by defence that, Police called him for panchnama for being rival of Pandurang.He denied the suggestion that, their signatures were obtained on the Panchnama in the village.He further stated that, he denied suggestion that, he is deposing due to political rivalry with Pandurang.In his evidence, he stated that, on 04.02.2008, he was at village Jamga.On that day, police had called him.Waman Dadarao Pawar was with the Police.Dayanand Pawar was also with them.Police took him at the house of Waman.Waman produced there a stick from his house.Police seized stick under the panchanama.He signed said panchanama as witness.He identified his thumb impression.The defence has brought on record in cross examination that, this witness is a relative of the complainant Baburao.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:15 :::He stated that, on 20.05.2008, he was taken by Police to the house of Vishwanath Pawar.Police took inspection of his house.Vishwanath Pawar handed over one stick to Police which was kept by the side of grain store.Police affixed chit on the stick with his signature and seized it under the panchanama.He identified the said panchanama and his signature [Exh. 212].He further stated that, Police took him to the house of Vaijinath Pawar and inspected the house.Vaijinath Pawar produced one stick kept under the cot.Police affixed chit on it with his signature and seized stick under the panchnama.He identified his signature and contents of the said panchanama [213].He further stated that, Police took him to the house of Udhav Pawar.Udhav produced iron rod before the Police.Police affixed chit of his signature on the rod and seized it under the panchanama.He identified said article No.5 i.e. iron rod.In his evidence before the Court, he stated that, on 14.01.2008 Police had called him in Police Station, Nilanga.There was one accused.He identified the said accused before the Court.Accused told his name as Mahadu Ganpatrao Shahapure.He further stated that, accused stated before them that, he himself and other 30 to 35 persons went to the house of Baburao Pawar at Jamga and committed murder of son of Baburao by assaulting with sticks and he is ready to produce the stick with which he had assaulted.Police accordingly recorded statement of the accused and obtained his signature on it.He identified statement of the accused Madhav which was shown to him and also signature of PW-15, accused and other panch.He stated that, accused put thumb impression on it.The said memorandum is at Exh.228 likewise he also identified the memorandum at Exh.230 given by accused Manik Pawar.It appears that, in pursuant to the memorandum statement of Manik Pawar, he shown willingness to produce the stick.It further appears that, accused Abhimanyu Pawar also gave memorandum statement and showed willingness to produce the knife used by him.Accordingly, the statement was recorded by Police and signature of this witness was obtained.He identified his signature and memorandum statement.He further stated that, accused Pandhari Pawar gave memorandum statement before him and at his instance iron rod was recovered.He further stated that, accused Tukaram Pawar also gave memorandum statement and showed readiness to produce stick and accordingly said stick was recovered at the instance of the said accused.He further stated that, accused Shivaji Pawar stated before the police in his presence and showed ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:15 ::: 414.11crapl 67 willingness to produce the sword used by him in the assault.Accordingly, Police recorded his memorandum and obtained signature of this witness on it.The memorandum shown to him and obtained his signature.He further stated that, accused Madhav Shahapure gave memorandum and accordingly his memorandum was recorded by the Police.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:15 :::Accused Madhav Shahapure showed his house and from a room beneath black box removed a stick and handed over the same to the Police.Likewise, accused Satyanarayan gave memorandum and iron rod was recovered at his instance.He further stated that, Abhimanyu Pawar was also gave memorandum, same was seized under the panchanama and in pursuant to his statement at his instance he showed willingness to hand over knife and accordingly knife article No.51 was handed over by the accused Abhimanyu Pawar to Police.He further stated that, memorandum of Tukaram Pawar was recorded, he signed the same at his instance, police recovered a stick.Accused Shivaji Pawar produced sword from the tin sheet roof of the house.He also stated that, thereafter they went to the house of Manik Pawar from the house of Madhav Shahapure.Manik Pawar went in the house and brought ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:16 ::: 414.11crapl 68 one stick.He also stated that, police seized the said stick and drawn panchanama and obtained signature of this witness.He identified the panchanama.The defence brought on record through his cross examination that, complainant is his relative.37] Whether the death of deceased Gyandeo was homicidal, accidental or suicidal will have to be ascertained from the medical evidence.The probable cause of death was due to cardio respiratory arrest due to puncture of left ventricle of heart.In his evidence, he stated that, on 10.01.2008, he was on duty in S.D.H. Nilanga.His four sons are married.His house is located in Survey No.48/B at village Jamga.On 07.09.2007, elections of the Grampanchayat was held.Two panels contested the said election.One panel was headed by him and another was led by accused Shivaji.His panel ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:16 ::: 414.11crapl 77 was elected in that election.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:16 :::In that election, 4 candidates out of 7 from his panel were successful.Three candidates of accused Shivaji's panel out of 7 were elected.Since the said elections, relations between him and group of accused No.1 are strained.Thereafter, there was dispute in Gram Sabha.Then Vijaykumar Bhagwanrao was assaulted by Madhav Shivaji Pawar by sword on the face.Namdeo Shivaji Pawar inflicted sword blow to Vijaykumar on shoulder.Udhav Shivaji Pawar assaulted by iron rod to Vijaykumar.Vilas and Haridas Pawar each assaulted Vijaykumar by stick and iron rod.Accused Prakash Kadaji Pawar assaulted Shahuraj Pawar by iron rod.Vilas Kadaji Pawar assaulted Shahuraj Pawar by stick.Accused Shivaji Kadaji Pawar assaulted Shahuraj on back right side by sword.Ashok Kadaji Pawar assaulted on right shin by Katti to Sheshrao Baburao Pawar.Shivaji Kadaji Pawar assaulted on left hand wrist of Sheshrao Pawar by sword.Devidas Pralhad Pawar ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:16 ::: 414.11crapl 80 assaulted by stick to Bhagwat Pawar on the head.Waman Dadarao Pawar assaulted him by stick on the back.Other accused persons assaulted other persons in their family.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:16 :::Then Gyandeo, Shahuraj, Sheshrao, Sanjay, Vijaykumar, Bhagwat were taken to the Hospital.He himself and other persons were accompanying them.Injured were taken to Hospital at Nilanga.Doctor examined injured persons.Sanjay, Baburao Pawar, Shahuraj Baburao Pawar, Vijaykumar Bhagwanrao Pawar were referred by Doctor to Latur for further treatment.He himself and other guests accompanied them to Latur.Sheshrao and Bhagwat were referred to Latur Hospital on next day for further treatment.43] PW-16 further deposed that, they received phone at Latur from the Nilanga Hospital that, during treatment Gyandeo Baburao Pawar died.He instructed guest to file application at Aurad Police Station regarding incident.Accused Waman Dadarao Pawar assaulted by stick on his back and other persons beat other persons from his family.He further stated that, he cannot assign any reason why above facts are not mentioned in his complaint.He further stated that, at the time of incident about 30-40 persons had come to his house for assault.On that day, three persons from his village and two guests had come to his house for dinner.At that time, 5 to 6 persons from his house were present.At the time of incident, three persons from his village and two guests who had come to his house for dinner, had intervened the quarrel.Assailants assaulted aforesaid 5 persons causing them concealed ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:17 ::: 414.11crapl 84 injuries.They were assaulted by sticks.In his examination-in-chief, he stated that the complainant is his real brother.He stated that he became unconscious at the spot due to assault and regained consciousness in the hospital at Latur after four days.Then he came to know that injured Gyandeo died.In his examination in chief, he stated that, complainant Baburao is his father.Varsha is his wife.She is acting as Sarpanch of the village.Election of the Gram Panchayat was held in the Year 2007, between two panels headed by his father and another by Shivaji Pawar.Panel of his father was elected in the election.On the day of result of election, Shivaji Pawar and his persons assaulted persons from rival group.On 24.11.2007, Tahsildar conducted election for the post of Sarpanch in Police Bandobast, and in that election, his wife was elected as Sarpanch.Since then there are strained relations between complainant's group and group of Shivaji Pawar.Persons from the side of Shivaji Pawar used to threat to kill the complainant's persons and they will not allow to conduct the work.He further stated that, deceased Gyandeo was his real brother.It was next day of Vel Amawasya.Dinner of Chicken Mutton was arranged at his house.His evidence is at Exhibit-In his examination in chief, he stated that, deceased Gyandeo was his cousin.Incident took place on 09.01.2008 at about 7.15 p.m. at his house in the courtyard.It was next day of Vel Amawasya.On that day, Chandrakant Solanke, r/o.414.11crapl 106 Sawangira and villagers Waman Pawar, Anant Pawar, Tatyarao Bhingole were invited for dinner at his house.He further stated that, while they were about to sit for dinner, mob of 30 to 40 persons came towards his house while abusing and saying 'Babya, Gyana, Vijya.Heritage from their house will not be saved.Mob came in the courtyard with weapons.He further stated that, first of all Gyandeo came from out of house.They others followed Gyandeo.Namdeo Pawar inflicted sword blow above the navel of Gyandeo.Due to assault, Gyandeo sustained bleeding injuries and Gyandeo fell down.He then went to rescue Gyandeo.Devidas Pawar inflicted stick blow on his head.He sustained bleeding head injury.He moved aside.He further stated that, thereafter, 15 to 16 persons from the mob assaulted by sword, stick, iron rod to Vijaykumar, Shahuraj, Sanjay, Sheshrao and others from ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:18 ::: 414.11crapl 107 his house, guests, Vijaykumar, Shahuraj, Sheshrao, Sanjay also sustained bleeding injuries.He himself and other injured were taken to Nilanga Hospital.He himself, Gyandeo and Sheshrao were admitted in Nilanga Hospital.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:18 :::He further stated that, other injured were referred to Latur Hospital for further treatment.On the next day morning, he learnt at Nilanga that, Gyandeo is dead.Police recorded his statement.He was cross examined by Advocate Shri T.V.In his cross examination nothing useful to the defence has been brought on record by the defence.In his examination in chief, he stated that, deceased Gyandeo was his real brother.Mob was pelting stones on his house.Then mob came in his courtyard.In his examination in chief, he stated that, he is brother of the complainant Baburao.They all are three brothers.Vijaykumar is their third brother.414.11crapl 119 They reside separately in one Wada.Their tin-sheet rooms are adjoining to each other.Incident occurred on 09.01.2008 at about 7.15 p.m. On that day, there was Mutton dinner arrangement on account of next day of Vel Amawasya at the house of complainant Baburao.Ashok Kadaji Pawar assautled Sheshrao by Katti on right leg shin.Remaining persons assaulted female members of the complainant.He identified the assailants Shivaji Kadaji Pawar, Vilas Kadaji Pawar, Namdeo Shivaji Pawar, Ashok Kadaji Pawar, Vimalbai, Udhav, Devidas, Tukaram, Satish.Injured were admitted in Nilanga Hospital for treatment.This witness was accompanying them.He further stated that, in Nilanga Hospital, Gyandeo, Sheshrao and Bhagwat were treated.Vijaykumar, Shahuraj and Sanjay were referred by the ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:18 ::: 414.11crapl 122 doctor to Latur Hospital.Accordingly, they carried them to Latur Hospital and admitted them there.Baburao and other guests were with him while going to Latur.At Latur they came to know that, Gyandeo died at Nilanga during the course of treatment.In his cross-Dhondiram Raosaheb Pawar is a Teacher since 1991 in Zilla Parishad, and since 1999 he is serving at Lambota.He resides at Nilanga.He went there.She know accused.They are from her village.She is Sarpanch of village Jamga.She was elected three years before.In the election, panel of her father-in-law was elected.On the day of election, Shivaji Pawar and his persons had assaulted.Two months after the election, she was elected for the post of Sarpanch.On the day of election for Sarpanch, Shivaji Pawar and his persons obstructed in the Gram ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:19 ::: 414.11crapl 132 Panchayat office and said that, they will not allow to hold election.Therefore, the meeting could not be held and they went in Tahsil office and informed Tahsildar about it.On the next day, Tahsildar, his colleagues and police came in the village and conducted election for Sarpanch.On 24th election was over and she was elected as Sarpanch.Shivaji Pawar and his companions were threatening them not to allow to work in the Gram Panchayat office and they will ruin heritage of their family.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:19 :::It was next day of Vel Amawasya festival.Incident took place at about 7.00 to 7.15 p.m. On that day, there was non-vegetarian dinner at their house.Maroti Jadhav, Chandrakant Solanke and villagers Waman Pawar, Anant Pawar, Bhingole Tatyarao were also invited for dinner at their house.Then Waman Dadarao Pawar inflicted stick blow on her back.Then she did not understand what happened thereafter.Bhagwat is his cousin brother.He stated that, incident took place on 09.01.2008 at about 7.15 p.m. On that day, this witness, Baburao, Vijaykumar, Bhagwat, Sheshrao, Sanjay, Shahuraj, Gyandeo and other females were at the house.On that day, it was next day of Vel Amawasya and so dinner of chicken was arranged at their house.For the dinner, guests Chandrakant ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:19 ::: 414.11crapl 136 Solanke, Maroti Jahdav and villagers Waman Pawar, Anant and Tatyarao Bhingole were invited.While they were sitting for dinner, mob came in the court yard and were saying that, they will ruin their heritage, they will cut them into pieces and the mob then started stone pelting.About 30 to 40 persons were in the mob.As regards assault on himself, P.W.24 Sheshrao Pawar attributed overt-acts to the accused stating that accused Shivaji Pawar inflicted three blows of sword on his left leg, accused Ashok Pawar inflicted Katti blow on the left leg.88] P.W.25 Vijaykumar attributed overt-acts to the accused stating that Satish Pawar, Tukaram, Udhav caught hold Gyandeo and Shivaji Pawar inflicted sword blow on the left chest of Gyandeo, Vimalbai Pawar inflicted knife blow on the ribs of Gyandeo, Dayanand Bhingole inflicted sword blow on the back of Gyandeo, Mahdav Shivaji Pawar inflicted sword blow on the stomach of Gyandeo, Namdeo Shivaji Pawar inflicted sword blow on the navel of Gyandeo.As regards assault by accused on himself, P.W.25 Vijaykumar attributed overt-acts to the accused stating that Satish Pawar, Vaijinath Pawar and Venkat Pawar caught hold him, Madhav Shivaji Pawar inflicted ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:20 ::: 414.11crapl 153 sword blow on his face, Madhav also inflicted sword blow on his navel, Namdeo Pawar inflicted sword blow on the right thigh, Vilas Pawar inflicted stick blow on head, Udhav Pawar inflicted iron blow on left shoulder, Hari Pawar inflicted iron blow on the back.Due to the assault, his intestines came out.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:20 :::89] P.W.26 Sanjay Pawar attributed overt-acts to the accused stating Satish, Tukaram, Udhav caught hold Gyandeo and Shivaji Pawar inflicted sword blow on the chest of Gyandeo, Vimalbai Pawar inflicted knife blow on the ribs of Gyandeo, Dayanand Bhingole inflicted sword blow on the back of Gyandeo, Mahdav Shivaji Pawar inflicted Jambiya like sword blow on the stomach of Gyandeo, Namdeo Shivaji Pawar inflicted Jambiya blow on the navel of Gyandeo.As regards assault on himself, P.W.26 Sanjay Pawar attributed overt-acts to the accused stating that the accused Madhav Shivaji Pawar assaulted him by Jambiya like sword on the right side waist due to which his intestines came out.414.11crapl 154 since 19.05.2007 till 2008 at Police Station Aurad Shahajani Police Station.He stated that, he received complaint of Baburao Bhagwanrao Pawar at 4.00 p.m. Then, he registered crime and retained investigation with him.On that day, he visited the spot of incident and prepared its panchanama.He further stated that, spot of incident was courtyard premises of house of complainant at village Jamga.Panchnama was prepared in presence of two panchas.Panchnama shown to him is the same.He seized simple earth and blood stained earth in separate papers, five sticks and two iron rods under the spot panchnama.Labels bearing signatures of PW-29 and panchas were affixed on those sticks and iron rods.Sticks and iron rods shown to him are the same.On that day, he went to Sub District Hospital, Nilanga and prepared inquest panchnama of dead body of Gyandeo.Inquest panchnama Exh.62 shown to him is the same.Then dead body was sent for post mortem along with police Constable Songir.He further stated that, on that day, he arrested 10 accused under arrest panchnamas.He seized clothes from the person of arrested ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:20 ::: 414.11crapl 155 accused in presence of panchas under panchnama.Arrested accused were Balaji Apparao Pawar, Madhav Ganpat Shahapure, Manik Ramji Pawar, Abhimanyu Raosaheb Pawar, Satyanarayan Madhav Shahapure, Shivaji Kadaji Pawar, Ashok Vishwanath Pawar, Govind Ganpat Shahapure, Pandhari Manik Pawar, Tukaram Shivaji Pawar.Panchnama of seizure clothes of these accused shown to him are the same.It bears his signature and panchas.He recorded statements of three witnesses.He further stated that, on 12.01.2008, he issued letter to Special Executive Officer for recording statement of injured persons.He also recorded statements of injured by going in Latur Hospital.On 13.01.2008, he recorded statements of 2 injured persons.On 14.01.2008, accused Shivaji Kadaji Pawar, Madhav Ganpati Shahapure, Manik Ramji Pawar, Abhimanyu Raosaheb Pawar, Pandhari Manik Pawar, Tukaram Shivaji Pawar, Satyanarayan Madhav Shahapure gave memorandum of statement.He recorded it in present of witnesses.In pursuance of their statements, weapons produced by them from respective places were seized under panchnama.Memorandum bears signatures of PW-29 and panchas.On 14.01.2008, he arrested three accused namely Vikas Kadaji Pawar, Ashok Kadaji Pawar and Dnyandeo Shivaji Pawar under arrest panchnamas.It bears signatures of PW-29 and panchas.He seized clothes panchnama.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:20 :::Panchnama shown to him are the same and bears signatures of PW-29 and panchas.He again said that, panchnamas bear signatures of Ganganbone.He knows his signature.He further stated that, on 15.01.2008, he recorded memorandum of Balaji Apparao Pawar, Govind Ganpat Shahapure, in presence of panchas.It bears signature of PW-29 and panchas.In pursuance to these memorandums, accused produced weapons from the places pointed out by them and he seized those weapons under the panchnama in presence of panchas witnesses.Panchanamas bear signatures of PW-29 and panch witnesses.He affixed labels bearing signature of PW-29 and panchas on the seized weapons.He further stated that, on 18.01.2008, he recorded supplementary statement of injured persons.Memorandums shown to him are the same.It bear signatures of PW-29 and panch witnesses.Then, he seized weapons produced by those accused from the places pointed by them under panchnamas in presence of panchas.Panchnama shown to him are the same.It bears signatures of PW-29 and panchas.On 21.01.2008, he recorded memorandum of accused Ashok Vishwanath Pawar.He seized weapon produced by accused from the place pointed out by him, under the panchnama in presence of panchas.Panchnama Exh.125 shown to him is the same.It bears signature of PW-29 and panchas.Lables bearing signatures of PW-29 and panchas were affixed on the weapons seized.On 31.01.2008, he sent seized muddemal to C.A. Along with letter.Office copy of that letter shown to him is the same.It bears his signature.He was cross examined by Mr. T.V.Jamdar advocate for the accused.In his cross examination, he stated that, on the very day i.e. on 10 th January, 2008, he ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:20 ::: 414.11crapl 158 recorded supplementary statement of the complainant.He has denied suggestion that, panch witnesses on all panchnamas were from relations of the complainant only and that those panchas were provided by the complainant.He also denied suggestion that, he shown false spot of incident and that none of the accused gave memorandum and none of the accused produced weapons in pursuance to such memorandums and that he prepared false memorandums and panchanamas.He further stated that, he has recorded statement of persons referred in the complaint.He specifically denied suggestion that, he posed false witnesses at the instance of complainant and that conducted improper investigation and examined only the persons who are relatives of the complainant.He denied suggestion that, he manipulated panchnama regarding seizure of clothes of accused persons.In his evidence, he stated that, API Thorat handed over investigation to him.On 02.02.2008, he collected injury certificate of injured and P.M. Report.Panchnama shown to him is the same.It bears his signature.Lable bearing signatures of PW-30 and panch was affixed on the stick.He further stated that, he took Waman Pawar to Police Station, arrested him and seized clothes on his person under the panchnama.Panchnama shown to PW-30 is the same.It bears his signature.He further stated that, on 29.02.2008, he sent letter to MSEB office, Nilanga whether on the day of incident and at the time of incident there was electricity supply at village Jamga.The office copy of said letter shown to him is the same.It bears his signature.It bears signature of PW-30 and panch witnesses.Accused Pandurang Vishwanath Pawar gave memorandum in presence of panchas, and he seized sword produced by him in pursuance of memorandum, under the panchnama in presence of panch.Memorandum and panchnama shown to him are the same.It bears signatures of PW-30 and panch witnesses.He stated that, on 16.06.2008 he arrested 13 accused.Accused Vishnu Pawar, Vinayak Pawar, Maroti Pawar, Chandraharsha Pawar, Satish Vaijinath Pawar and Pandurang Maroti Bhingole gave memorandum before him in presence of panchas, and each accused produced weapon from different places in pursuance to memorandum, and he seized those weapons under panchnamas in presence of panch witnesses.Arrest panchnamas shown to him bears his signature and panch.He stated that, accused Komalbai had produced knife / batai before him which recovered under panchnama in the presence of panch.Likewise, accused Prakash Kadaji Pawar assaulted P.W.22 by iron rod.The said fact is deposed by P.W.16 Baburao and also P.W.22 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:22 ::: 414.11crapl 191 and also other eye witnesses.The appellants - original accused No.1 Shivaji Kadaji Pawar, original accused No.11 Vilas Kadaji Pawar, and original accused No.13 Namdeo Shivaji Pawar are also ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:12 ::: 414.11crapl 9 convicted for the offence punishable under Section 452 of I.P. Code and they are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. Two Thousand each, in default, to undergo further R.I. for the period of six months, and the accused No.1 Shivaji, accused No.11 Vilas and accused No.13 Namdeo are also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 of I.P. Code and they are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. Five Hundred each, in default, to undergo further R.I. for the period of one month.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:12 :::According to appellant - Shahuraj, the original complainant Baburao Pawar died due to heart attack.The appellant - Shahuraj is son of the deceased Baburao and also injured person in the incident, has filed Criminal Appeal No.601/2012 against 32 acquitted accused, and also against accused No.1 Shivaji Kadaji Pawar, accused No.13 Namdeo Shivaji Pawar and accused No.11 Vilas Kadaji Pawar for enhancement of their sentence.The State of Maharashtra has filed Criminal Appeal No.602/2012 against 35 accused.Since all the three Appeals are arising out of common Judgment and Order dated 30 th June, 2011 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:12 ::: 414.11crapl 10 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nilanga in Sessions Case No. 14/2008, same are heard together and being decided by the common Judgment and Order.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:12 :::" Uttering these words, the persons from the mob started assaulting the family members of Baburao.A person from the mob namely Shivaji s/o.On 16.06.2008, he made arrest of 13 accused persons and recorded memorandum of those accused and recovered weapons under panchnama that was produced by them.Finally, he submitted supplementary charge sheet against subsequently arrested accused, showing two accused absconding.5] The trial Court framed charge against the accused at Exh.5 for the offences levelled against them.The contents of the charge came to be read over and explained to the accused, to which they did not plead guilty and ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:12 ::: 414.11crapl 15 claimed to be tried.The defence of the accused is of total denial and about their false implication in the case.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:12 :::6] The trial Court framed points for its consideration, and after recording evidence and hearing the parties convicted the accused No.1 Shivaji s/o.Kadaji Pawar and accused No.13 Namdeo s/o.Shivaji Pawar for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P. Code and they are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for Life and to pay a fine of Rs. Five Thousand only each, in default, to undergo further R.I. for the period of two years.The accused No.1 Shivaji Kadaji Pawar, accused No.11 Vilas Kadaji Pawar and accused No.13 Namdeo Shivaji Pawar are also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 452 of I.P. Code and they are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. Two Thousand only each, in default, to undergo further R.I. for the period of six months, and the accused No.1 Shivaji, accused No.11 Vilas and accused No.13 Namdeo are also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 of I.P. Code and they are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. Five ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:12 ::: 414.11crapl 16 Hundred only each, in default, to undergo further R.I. for the period of one month.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:12 :::The trial Court ordered that, all the substantive sentences shall run concurrently.Accused No.1 Shivaji, accused No.11 Vilas Kadaji and accused No.13 Namdeo were in jail during trial, and therefore, the set-off is given to them under Section 428 of Criminal Procedure Code.It appears that, accused No.1 Shivaji s/o.Kadaji Pawar, accused No.2 Madhav s/o.Ganpat Shahapure, accused No.3 Pandhari s/o.Manik Pawar, accused No.4 Tukaram s/o.Shivaji Pawar, accused No.5 Abhimanyu s/o.Raosaheb Pawar, accused No.6 Manik s/o.Ramji Pawar, accused No.7 Satyanarayan s/o.Madhav Shahapure, accused No.8 Balaji s/o.Apparao Pawar, accused No.9 Govind s/o.Ganpat Shahapure, accused No.10 Ashok s/o.Vishwanath Pawar, accused No.11 Vilas s/o.Kadaji Pawar, accused No.12 Ashok s/o.Kadaji Pawar, accused No.13 Namdeo s/o.Shivaji Pawar, accused No.14 Waman s/o.Dadarao Pawar, accused No.15 Dhondiram s/o.Raosaheb Pawar, accused No.16 Vishwanath s/o.Vithal Pawar, accused No.17 Vaijinath s/o.Vithal Pawar, accused No.18 Udhav s/o.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:13 :::414.11crapl 17 Shivaji Pawar, accused No. 19 Pandurang s/o.Vishwanath Pawar, accused No.20 Satish s/o.Vaijinath Pawar, accused No.21 Maroti s/o.Madhav Pawar, accused No.22 Vishnu s/o.Madhav Pawar, accused No.23 Chandrahar s/o.Vishwanath Pawar, accused No.24 Vinayak s/o.Raosaheb Pawar, accused No.25 Venkat s/o.Vaijinath Pawar, accused No.26 Narayan s/o.Maroti Bhingole, accused No.27 Suresh s/o.Maroti Bhingole, accused No.28 Pandurang s/o.Maroti Bhingole, accused No.29 Haridas s/o.Manik Pawar, accused No.30 Prakash s/o.Kadaji Pawar, accused No.31 Devidas s/o.Pralhad Pawar, accused No.32 Satish s/o.Baburao Pawar, accused No.33 Nagnath s/o.Raosaheb Pawar, accused No.34 Vimal w/o.Shivaji Pawar and accused No.35 Komal w/o.The accused Nos. 2 to 12, 14 to 35 named above were acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 302 of I.P. Code.Accused Nos. 2 to 10, 12, 14 to 35 named above were acquitted of the offence punishable under Sections 452 and 324 of I.P. Code.Bail bonds of accused No. 2 to 4, 6 to 10, ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:13 ::: 414.11crapl 18 14 to 21, 23 to 27 and 29 to 35 named above stood cancelled due to order passed by the trial Court.Accused No.5 Abhimanyu s/o.Raosaheb Pawar, accused No.12 Ashok s/o.Kadaji Pawar, accused No.22 Vishnu s/o.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:13 :::Madhav Pawar and accused No.28 Pandurang s/o.Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 30 th June, 2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nilanga in Sessions Case No. 14/2008, three separate Appeal are filed by the convicted accused, by the State and the original complainant.7] The learned counsel appearing for the appellants in Criminal Appeal No.414/2011, submitted that, the Court below has not at all properly appreciated the evidence on record causing miscarriage of justice.It is submitted that, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt.It is submitted that, it is doubtful if the so called eye witnesses could discern the overt acts in the darkness.There are manifold contradictions and omissions which ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:13 ::: 414.11crapl 19 completely demolished the evidence of the so-called eye witnesses.It is further submitted that, the injuries on the deceased were not possible by the weapons allegedly used.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:13 :::This is demonstrated from the evidence of the Doctor.It is also submitted that, blood group on the clothes of accused and weapons do not tally with the blood group of the injured.The blood group on the sword seized from accused- Shivaji and on the clothes is "O".Shivaji did not assault PW-25 Vijaykumar, whose blood group is "A".It is further submitted that, the weapons allegedly used have not been seized.Blood group of deceased is "O' but blood of group "O" is not detected on the soil seized from the spot.8] The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that, in fact, it was not possible for the alleged eye witnesses to watch accused and his overt acts since according to the prosecution case, mob of 40 accused gathered at the alleged spot of the incident.According to the prosecution case, 39 accused formed unlawful assembly and villagers from the village also gathered near the spot of incident.It is submitted that, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Masalti vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 1 held that, when the prosecution alleges unlawful assembly of more than 5 persons, in such a case it would be unsafe to place reliance on the evidence of one witness, but there should be more than two witnesses for incident.It is submitted that, the prosecution case suffers from inherent contradictions, omissions and improvements, and therefore, the benefit of doubt deserves to be given to the appellants.The learned counsel invited our attention to the evidence of prosecution witnesses, and also the medical evidence and submits that, the evidence of prosecution witnesses if examined in the light of the admissions given in their cross examinations, and the portion marked in police statement, it unequivocally indicates that, the presence of the appellants was doubtful, and also there are no corresponding injuries traced out in the medical evidence so as to sustain conviction of the 1 AIR 1965 SC 202;::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:13 :::::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:13 :::Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants relying upon the grounds taken in the appeal memo, relevant provisions of Indian Penal Code and the Evidence Act and also notes of evidence would submit that, the appellants deserve to be acquitted.9] The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that, it has come in the evidence of prosecution witnesses [PW-22-Shahuraj] injured eye witness that, Vilas Kadaji had assaulted Shahuraj Pawar by stick on his left shoulder and stomach.However, the injury certificate at Exh. 301 of said injured Shahuraj Pawar does not at all show any injury on the left shoulder and stomach of injured Shahuraj Pawar.Moreover, the injuries shown is 'incised wound penetrating' by hard and sharp weapon.Manifestly, the stick is not hard and sharp weapon.It is also submitted that, it has come in the evidence of prosecution witnesses ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:13 ::: 414.11crapl 22 [PW-25 Vijaykumar] injured eye witness that, Vilas Kadaji had assaulted Vijaykumar by stick on his head.However, the injury certificate [Exh.303] of said injured Vijaykumar, does not at all show any injury by stick on the head of the said Vijaykumar.The injuries caused to him are all 'Incised penetrating wounds' caused by hard and sharp weapon, and none are on the head.Considering above mentioned medical certificates, the prosecution evidence of injured eye witnesses PW-22 and 25 in respect of accused No.11 - Vilas is clearly falsified by the medical evidence i.e. Injury certificates.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:13 :::10] The learned counsel appearing for the respondent - accused in Criminal Appeal No.602/2012 submits that, it has come in the evidence of prosecution witnesses / injured eye witnesses that, Ashok Kadaji had assaulted Sheshrao Pawar by 'Katti' on the right leg shin of Sheshrao Pawar.However, the injury certificate of said injured Sheshrao Pawar, does not at all show any injury on the leg of injured Sheshrao Pawar.It is further submitted that, it has come in the evidence of prosecution witnesses / injured eye witnesses that, Prakash Kadaji had assaulted ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:13 ::: 414.11crapl 23 Shahuraj Pawar by iron rod on his back.However, the injury certificate of said injured Shahuraj Pawar does not at all show any injury by iron rod on the back of the said Shahuraj Pawar.The injury caused to him is incised wound caused by hard and sharp weapon.Considering above mentioned medical certificates, the prosecution evidence of injured eye witnesses in respect of accused Nos. 12 and 30 is clearly falsified by the medical evidence i.e. injury certificates.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:13 :::11] The learned counsel Mr. R.S. Shinde appearing for the respondent - original accused Nos.4, 12, 30 & 34 further submitted that, if the entire evidence on record is considered, the presence of the accused Nos.4, 12, 30 & 34 is doubtful, and therefore, they deserves to be given benefit of doubt.12] The learned counsel Mr. T.M.Venjane appearing for the respondent - accused Nos. 2, 5 to 10, 15, 16, 19, 21 to 24, 26 to 28, 33 and 35 submits that, none of the witnesses have named these accused in their deposition before the Court.It is further submitted that, when the presence itself is not established, further question of any overt act on behalf of the said accused would not arise.Therefore, he submits that, the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court, giving benefit of doubt deserves no interference.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:13 :::It is submitted that, the ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:13 ::: 414.11crapl 25 supplementary statement of the complainant was not considered by the trial Court, and same was not read in the evidence, and therefore, this Court may not rely upon the said supplementary statement.Therefore, the learned counsel submits that, the Appeal filed by the State and also the complainant may be dismissed.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:13 :::It further appears that, trial Court instead of giving importance and due weightage to the substantive evidence in the nature of eye witnesses coupled with the medical evidence chose to acquit accused Vimalbai holding that the recovery of the weapon from her is not believable.In the present case, there is evidence of 11 eye witnesses and out of said witnesses, as many as 6 witnesses i.e. P.W. 22 to 26 sustained injuries.The injured witnesses Vijaykumar, Sanjay and Sheshrao, sustained grievous injuries, and in particular Vijaykumar sustained as many as 7 injuries, which could have caused his death in case he would not have got timely treatment.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:13 :::414.11crapl 26 Upon perusal of the Judgment of the trial Court, it appears that, trial Court totally ignored the prosecution case that, the accused more than 5 in numbers went to the house of the complainant Baburao with the deadly weapons.They were aggressors.They were giving slogans.Sum and substance of their slogans was that, they will see that, not even a single member of the family of the complainant is left alive.In furtherance of their common object to cause grievous hurt to the members of complainant's family, accused went to his house entered in the courtyard with deadly weapons committed criminal trespass with afore mentioned object and actually committed various offences.Therefore, it was the duty of the trial Court to address all the issues - points arose before it, and render the findings thereupon.However, as already observed, the trial Court even did not make an attempt to find out that, whether the accused persons gathered together with deadly weapons, they were more than 5 in numbers, they were aggressors inasmuch as they all went to the house of the complainant in the evening, they were giving slogans that, they will ensure that, not a single member from the family of the complainant is left alive.The accused had knowledge that, ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:13 ::: 414.11crapl 27 such deadly weapons carried by some of the accused, would be used for commission of offence, which would result into grievous injuries, and also death and as a matter of fact, Gyandeo died during attack, and 6 persons were injured.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:13 :::::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:13 :::414.11crapl 28 414 (b) in an appeal from a conviction-(i) reverse the finding and sentence and acquit or discharge the accused, or order him to be re-tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction subordinate to such Appellate Court or committed for trial, or16] Since we are deciding three Appeals, one filed by the convicted accused No.1 Shivaji, accused No.11 Vilas and ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:13 ::: 414.11crapl 30 accused No.13 Namdeo; another Appeal is filed by the State against the acquittal of the remaining accused and for enhancement of the sentence of the three convicted accused, and the original complainant has filed statutory Appeal under Section 372 of Criminal Procedure Code, and therefore, in view of the provisions of Section 386 of Criminal Procedure Code it is permissible for this Court to appreciate the entire evidence on record and pass the appropriate order as permissible within the ambit and scope of Section 386 of Criminal Procedure Code.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:13 :::17] We have given careful consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the convicted accused, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State in Criminal Appeal No.602/2012, and the learned counsel appearing for the complainant in Criminal Appeal No.601/2012, with the assistance of the learned counsel, we have carefully perused the entire evidence, relevant provisions and also Judgments of the High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited across the bar by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.Since three Appeals are arising out of ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:13 ::: 414.11crapl 31 the conviction of three accused and acquitted of remaining accused by the trial Court, we propose to re-appreciate the entire evidence available on record.At the outset it would be relevant to reproduce herein below charge framed against the accused by the trial Court:::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:13 :::i] That, you accused No.1 to 35 along with absconding accused Dayanand S/o Maroti Bhingole and Madhav S/o Shivaji Pawar, on 09.01.2008 at about 7=20 p.m. at the house of the complainant Baburao S/o Bhagwanrao Pawar situated at village Jamaga, Tq.Nilanga, Dist.Latur, were members of an unlawful assembly, the common object of which was to assault the complainant and his family members, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 143 of Indian Penal Code and within the cognizance of Court of Sessions.ii] That, you accused No. 1 to 35 along with absconding accused Dayananad S/o Maroti Bhingole and Madhav S/o Shivaji Pawar, on the aforesaid date, time and place, were members of an unlawful assembly, and in prosecution of the common object of said assembly, viz., to assault the complainant and his family members, ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:13 ::: 414.11crapl 32 committed the offence of rioting, punishable under Section 147 of Indian Penal Code and within the cognizance of Court of Sessions.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:13 :::iii] That, you accused No. 1 to 35 along with absconding accused Dayananad S/o Maroti Bhingole and Madhav S/o Shivaji Pawar, on the aforesaid date, time and place, were members of an unlawful assembly, and in prosecution of the common object of said assembly, viz., to assault the complainant and his family members, committed the offence of rioting, and at that time, were armed with sword, knives, dagger, large sickle (Katti), rods and stick, which are sharp cutting instruments and used as weapon of offence, was likely to cause death, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 148 of Indian Penal Code and within the cognizance of Court of Sessions.iv] That, you accused No. 1 to 35 along with absconding accused Dayananad S/o Maroti Bhingole and Madhav S/o Shivaji Pawar, on the aforesaid date, time and place, were members of an unlawful assembly, and in prosecution of the common object of said assembly, viz., to assault the complainant and his family members, committed house trespass by entering into the house of the complainant Baburao Pawar, ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:13 ::: 414.11crapl 33 which is used as a human dwelling and as a place for custody of property, having made prepared for causing hurt to them by means of sword, knives, Katti, dagger, rods and sticks or to put them under fear of hurt or assault or wrongful restrain and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 452 read with 149 of Indian Penal Code and within the cognizance of Court of Sessions.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:13 :::v] That, you accused No. 1 to 35 along with absconding accused Dayananad S/o Maroti Bhingole and Madhav S/o Shivaji Pawar, on the aforesaid date, time and place, were members of an unlawful assembly, and in prosecution of the common object of said assembly, assaulted complainant's son Gyandeo alias Dnyanoba, by means of sword and knives and committed his murder intentionally or knowingly caused his death, and you all thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 read with 149 of Indian Penal Code and within the cognizance of the Court of Sessions.vi] That, you accused No. 1 to 35 along with absconding accused Dayananad S/o Maroti Bhingole and Madhav S/o Shivaji Pawar, on the aforesaid date, time and place, were members of an unlawful assembly, and in prosecution of the ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:13 ::: 414.11crapl 34 common object of said assembly, assaulted the complainant's sons Sanjay, Shahuraj and Sheshrao, his brother Vijaykumar and nephew Bhagwat by means of sword, knives, dagger, Katti, rods and sticks and caused them grievous injuries, with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that if by that act you had caused the death of above persons or either of them, you would have been guilty of murder, and you all thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 307 read with 149 of Indian Penal Code and within the cognizance of Court of Sessions.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:13 :::vii] That, you accused No. 1 to 35 along with absconding accused Dayananad S/o Maroti Bhingole and Madhav S/o Shivaji Pawar, on the aforesaid date, time and place, were members of an unlawful assembly, and in prosecution of the common object of said assembly, voluntarily caused hurt to the complainant Baburao, his sons Sanjay, Shahuraj and Sheshrao, his brother Vijaykumar and nephew Bhagwat by means of sword, knives, dagger, Katti, rods and sticks, sharp cutting instruments and which used as weapon of offence was likely to cause death, and you all thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 324 read with 149 of Indian Penal Code and within the cognizance of ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:13 ::: 414.11crapl 35 Court of Sessions.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:13 :::viii] That, you accused No. 1 to 35 along with absconding accused Dayananad S/o Maroti Bhingole and Madhav S/o Shivaji Pawar, on the aforesaid date, time and place, were members of an unlawful assembly, and in prosecution of the common object of said assembly, voluntarily caused hurt to the complainant Baburao, his sons Sanjay, Shahuraj and Sheshrao, his brother Vijaykumar, nephew Bhagwat and other family members, and you all thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 323 read with 149 of Indian Penal Code and within the cognizance of Court of Sessions.ix] That, you accused No. 1 to 35 along with absconding accused Dayananad S/o Maroti Bhingole and Madhav S/o Shivaji Pawar, on the aforesaid date, time and place, were members of an unlawful assembly, and in prosecution of the common object of said assembly, intentionally abused and insulted the complainant Baburao Pawar and his family members and thereby gave provocation with intent to or knowingly that such provocation would cause them to break the public peace and you all thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 504 read with 149 of Indian Penal Code and within the ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:13 ::: 414.11crapl 36 cognizance of Court of Sessions.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:13 :::x] That, you accused No. 1 to 35 along with absconding accused Dayananad S/o Maroti Bhingole and Madhav S/o Shivaji Pawar, on the aforesaid date, time and place, were members of an unlawful assembly, and in prosecution of the common object of said assembly, you all have contravened the proclamation issued by the District Magistrate, Latur under Sections 37 of the Bombay Police Act, prohibiting formation of an assembly and to be armed with deadly weapons etc., and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 and within the cognizance of Court of Sessions.xi] That, you accused No. 1 to 35 along with absconding accused Dayananad S/o Maroti Bhingole and Madhav S/o Shivaji Pawar, on the aforesaid date, time and place, were members of an unlawful assembly, and in prosecution of the common object of said assembly, possessed weapons like sword, knives, dagger, katti without requisite licence, despite issuance of such proclamation by competent authority in this area, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 4 read with 25 of The Arms Act, 1959 and within the cognizance of ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:13 ::: 414.11crapl 37 Court of sessions.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:13 :::These Appeals raise various points for consideration and determination firstly, what are the facts -circumstances prior to occurrence of incident, which laid to actual incident.Whether each member of the assembly had knowledge that, by the acts of members of assembly, carrying deadly weapons, would result in grievous hurt to the persons from the complainant's family and other persons present at the spot of the incident.Thirdly, whether the accused persons went to the house of the complainant i.e. place of incident, with deadly weapons so as to cause grievous hurt to family members of the complainant's family.Fourthly, whether the accused formed unlawful assembly and in furtherance of the common object to assault / cause grievous hurt to the family members of the complainant so as to finish the complainant's family, assaulted the deceased Gyandeo and other persons by weapons like sword, knife, katti, sticks, stones, iron rod and fist blows.Fifthly, as a result of the assault - attack by the accused persons, there was death of ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:14 ::: 414.11crapl 38 Gnyandeo and other 6 witnesses sustained injuries dangerous to their life.Sixthly, whether each accused member of the unlawful assembly present at the place of occurrence, in furtherance of their common object to assault / cause grievous hurt so as to finish each member of the complainant's family, can be held responsible for the commission of murder of Gyandeo and other injuries on persons.Seventhly, whether the ingredients of the provisions of Section 302, 307, 323, 324, 452, 504, 141, 142, 143, 148 and 149 of Indian Penal Code are attracted in the light of the evidence brought on record through eye witnesses, medical evidence and other evidence.Eightly, whether each accused whose presence in the unlawful assembly is established by the prosecution, can be held responsible for the commission of offence of murder of Gyandeo and said accused can be punished for life under Section 302 with the aid of Section 149 of I.P. Code.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:14 :::Ninethly, whether the prosecution has proved the spot of occurrence and also there was sufficient light so as to watch the incident by the prosecution witnesses.18] These are the afore mentioned broad points -::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:14 :::414.11crapl 39 aspects arise for the consideration - determination of this Court for which entire re-appreciation of the evidence is necessary.19] The prosecution has proved spot of incident and spot panchanama through PW-14 Dnyanoba Kadaji Sagare.His evidence is at Exhibit-224 and also Investigating Officer.It would be apposite to reproduce herein below relevant portion of the contents of spot panchanama duly translated by the official Translator of the High Court Registry in English, which reads thus:::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:14 :::Mr.M.D.Thorat, A.P.I., Police Station, Aurad (Sha.) called us, the panchas, to act as panchas, in front of the house of Baburao Bhagwanrao @ Bhavan Pawar, R/o Jamga, Tal.Nilanga, Dist.Latur for preparation of a panchnama in connection with Crime No.2/2008 for the offence u/s. 302, 307, 452, 324, 323, 504, 143, 147, 148, 149, of IPC u/s 4, 7, (1) 26(3) 27(3) Indian Arms Act and 135 of Bombay Police Act. On the spot, the complainant was present.The complainant also shown the spot of incident where deceased Gyndeo, injured Vijaykumar, Shesharao and Shahurao Bhagwat were lying.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:14 :::::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:14 :::in the newly occupied area having its face on West side, adjacent to the road towards South-North corner.The house of Baburao Pawar is situated in his own land bearing Gut No. 48(b).::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:14 :::It was noticed that, ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:14 ::: 414.11crapl 44 in the kitchen room an earthen kiln was kept.Besides this, in the said tin shed compartment, towards Southern side, two big pots of grains (Kangis) were also noticed.In the same compartment, a cradle was affixed for the use of minor children.Towards the same line of compartments, two rooms have also been constructed towards Southern side.On the South West side, there is a bath room and water tank.Out of two rooms towards Southern side, one has six tins on roof.It is having a cot and T.V. In the same line of compartment, West sides two rooms have been constructed.Out of these two rooms, one room consists of 8 tins on roof, wherein, an iron cot along with household articles are kept.In the room towards Southern side, there is an iron cot, a row of pots, a house of deities and other goods & chattels are kept.In the said three tin compartments, few plates & dishes containing non-veges items were kept ready for being served at the dinner with informant and other male members and invitees.This is the position of the house as was seen.The informant present here has told where the deceased ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:14 ::: 414.11crapl 45 Gyandev was lying injured.Next to the tin-shed house's door towards the North, there is a big wooden log, used for heating water, which faces the West.Towards the West, in the open court-yard, at the distance of 20 feet, there is the spot where injured Vijay Kumar was lying.At the said spot, at many places, it appears that blood was spilled and stains thereof appear in the shape of blood being clogged there.The door of the brick cement house faces the North and 5 feet from here, is the place where the sand is put and spread where injured Shahuraj Pawar was lying and was found in injured condition.The injured was found lying where the sand was spread.The dried blood can be found on the sand.At the place of incident five sticks, two iron rods are seen lying, as also, small stones are seen lying in the ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:14 ::: 414.11crapl 46 courtyard and in the tin shed house.An electric wire taken from the house adjacent to the tin shed house and a big bulb hanging from it can also be seen.Towards the West side of the plot of Baburao Pawar and near the Eastern road, there is a horizontal water tank and a vertical water tank.Next to the vertical water tank, an electric cement pole, with a Gram Panchayat bulb, can also be seen.At the place of incident, in the court-yard and on terrace, five sticks - both long and short -::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:14 :::::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:14 :::::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:14 :::of the place of incident have been taken by a photographer from Aurad (Sh) city.The four directional boundaries, as seen; from the place where the dead / injured was found, are :-Towards the East : Residential house of the informant viz. Baburao Pawar and in front of it, there is a plot owned by ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:14 ::: 414.11crapl 47 Baburao Bhagwanrao Pawar.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:14 :::Towards the West : Open space in front of the informant's house as well as a living room built by brick and cement and in front of it, a tar road running towards North South, from Nilanga to Sonkhed.Towards the South : Residential house of Dilip Bhagwanrao Pawar and there is an open Court yard in front of the house.In front of it, residential house of Vijaykumar Bhagwanrao Pawar.Towards the North : Open plot belonging to the informant Baburao Pawar upt 30 feet.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:14 :::Near the shop by the side of road, there was bulb on electric pole.At two places on the earth, blood was noticed.Police collected blood mixed earth in two bags.Lables bearing signature of PW-14 and another panch were affixed on the sticks and iron rod.Police had brought with them cameraman and he ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:15 ::: 414.11crapl 49 snapped photographs of the place of incident.Police prepared panchnama at the spot and obtained his signature.Panchnama now shown to him is the same.It bears his signature.Sticks, iron rods shown to him are the same, which bears their signatures lables.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:15 :::Through his cross examination defence tried to bring it on record that, this witness is relative of the complainant Baburao.It is true that, this witness has admitted that, the complainant is his brother in law.Place of incident is a plot admeasuring 95 x 75 sq. ft.The plot is located in the land of Baburao.The construction is at two places in that plot.Incident took place in the portion on backside of shop and front side of the house.The said vacant portion where incident took place admeasuring 25 x 18 sq. ft.Pot containing cooked Mutton was inside the house.There was only one pot.There were ten dinner plates and 10 small plates.He has specifically denied the ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:15 ::: 414.11crapl 50 suggestion that, blood lying on the earth was of crock.He further stated that, Police collected blood mixed earth only.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:15 :::He also stated that, he noticed sticks, also iron rods, however, he does not know length of such sticks and iron rod.In his cross-examination, he reiterated his version in examination in chief that, the spot panchanama is prepared in his presence and he has signed the same.According to the prosecution case, the incident had taken place after 7.00 p.m. and there was sufficient light to witness the incident, and according to defence, there was dark.Prosecution did examine PW-8 Shailesh Narayanrao Patil, who was working as Junior Engineer with MSEDCL, Nilanga, Unit Rural 2 at the relevant time.Police had addressed one letter dated 29.02.2008 to his office.It is the same, shown to him.It is his signature on that letter.He had given reply to that letter.It is the same shown to him.It bears his signature.He did bring the Daily Load Record Register.He has given reply to the letter ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:15 ::: 414.11crapl 51 of Police after referring the entry in DLR Register.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:15 :::In his cross examination, nothing has been brought on record by the defence so as to disbelieve his evidence.Therefore, prosecution has proved that, there was electric supply available on the date of incident at the relevant time.As per the prosecution case, panel supported by accused persons did loose in the Gram Panchayat elections inasmuch as they could not get the requisite strength of elected members to have their control.There was an attempt on the part of the accused even on earlier occasions to create dispute, and as a matter ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:15 ::: 414.11crapl 52 of fact threats were extended by them that, they will not allow to hold Gram Sabha.It has come on record through the prosecution witnesses that, though the election of the post of Sarpanch was scheduled to be held on 23.11.2007, however, it was postponed on next day i.e. on 24.11.2007 due to tense situation created by the accused persons not allowing to hold the election on scheduled date.It is also relevant to mention that, accused persons are resident of the same village, and therefore, the witnesses knew them.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:15 :::Therefore, the question of holding identification parade for identifying them was not necessary, when the witnesses had sufficient opportunity to see the accused persons on the spot.21] The prosecution examined Dattatraya Narayan Gosavi as PW-9, who was working as Gramsevak at village Jamga at the relevant time.The complaint was read over to him.The complaint was relating to the incident occurred in the village Jamga.Police demanded Form No. VIII regarding house of Baburao Bhagwan Pawar.Accordingly, he issued extract to ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:15 ::: 414.11crapl 53 the Police.He specifically denied the suggestion in the cross examination that, he did not issue VIII-A extract, as per the original to the Police.He further stated that, at the relevant time daughter in law of the complainant was Sarpanch of the village Jamga.Therefore, the prosecution has proved that, the house where incident had taken place is belonging to the complainant Baburao.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:15 :::In his evidence, he stated before the Court that, on 10.01.2008, he had been to Nilanga.On 09.01.2008 at 11.00 p.m. he received telephonic call that, there was an attack on the house of his relative, and the relatives had come to Nilanga, and so, he came to Nilanga.He came to Nilanga on 10.01.2008 at Sub District Hospital at Nilanga.He was called by Police at 7.30 a.m. for panchanama, as he was relative of the complainant.The other panch Shahuraj Patil was also called by police.They both panch witnesses ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:15 ::: 414.11crapl 54 went near the dead body of the deceased Gyandeo @ Dnyanoba.They saw the dead body and injuries on the dead body.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:15 :::23] He further stated that, he saw the injuries on the head below left ear.It was cut injury admeasuring 2 inch.He saw the hair at the backside of the head were smeared with blood.He saw that, the eyes and the mouth of the deceased were half-opened, and there was saliva coming from the mouth.He saw injury on the left side of the chest, and it was 2 ½ inch in the length and 0.75 inch deep.It was bleeding injury.He saw 2 injuries on the stomach.Each injury was of 1 inch.He saw the back of the deceased, and there were 2 injuries on the back, and those injuries were 1 inch length and depth.The private part of the deceased was intact and there was no bleeding or semen.There was abrasion on the shoulder.There was abrasion on right knee.24] He further stated that, the panchnama was written in their presence.It was read over to them.The photographs of the dead body were taken by the photographer.Then he himself, Shahuraj Patil signed said ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:15 ::: 414.11crapl 55 panchnama.The panchnama shown to him is the same.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:15 :::Upon perusal of his cross examination, it appears that, defence tried to bring on record that, he is close relative of the complainant except said admission, nothing useful to the defence has been brought on record by the prosecution so as to disbelieve evidence of said witness.The inquest panchnama is also proved by the prosecution through Investigating Officer and Shahurao Baburao Patil.The panchanama to that effect has been prepared.He identified the contents of the said report before the Court and also his signature.He stated that, the contents of the said report are true and correct.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:15 :::It appears that, clothes of the deceased Gyandeo, which were seized were sent to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, State of Maharashtra, Old Nizam Bungalow Cantonment, Aurangabad.The description of the ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:15 ::: 414.11crapl 57 clothes - articles contained in parcels was Sando Banian [cut] wrapped in cloth labelled - A1, full pant [cut] wrapped in cloth labelled - A2, Sweater wrapped in cloth labelled -::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:15 :::A3 belongs to the deceased Gyandeo was sent to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, State of Maharashtra.The result of the analysis of the said article A1 to A3 is those were soaked with blood.It further appears that, in presence of PW-2 Govind Keshavrao Birajdar the Police seized clothes on the person of the accused.This witness in his evidence stated that, on 10 th January, 2008, he had been to attend funeral of the deceased son of the complainant.The Police called him at Aurad Shahajani Police Station so as to seize clothes on the person of accused.He himself and Hanmant Sagre had been to the said Police Station.They reached at the Police Station at about 4.45 p.m. The Police seized clothes on the person of accused in their presence.He stated the names of accused whose clothes were seized in their presence, which are as follows: 1] Mahadeo Ganpati Shahapure, 2] Shivaji s/o.Kadaji Pawar, 3] Tukaram s/o.Shivaji Pawar, 4] Abhimanyu s/o.Ramsaheb Pawar, 5] Ashok s/o.Vishwanath Pawar, 6] Govind s/o.Ganpati Shahapure, 7] ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:15 ::: 414.11crapl 58 Satyanarayan s/o.Madhav Shahapure, 8] Pandhari s/o.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:15 :::He saw blood stains on the clothes seized.The Police seized clothes of those accused by preparing separate 10 panchnamas.The panchnamas were commenced at 5.00 to 5.15 p.m. and were completed till 10.20 p.m. He can identify the clothes seized in his presence, if shown to him.He further stated that, the police prepared 10 separate panchnamas of seizure of clothes.However, he stated that, accused namely Govind Shahapure, Satyanarayan Shahapure, Pandhari Pawar, Manik Pawar and Balaji Pawar, their clothes were seized.It was not mentioned in panchanama at Exh.81 to 86 that, their clothes were blood stained.However, according to this witness, panchanama at Exh.81 to 86 are false, therefore, the evidence of this witness so far at Exh.77 to 80 and blood stains found on the clothes which were seized appears to be correct.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:15 :::::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:15 :::::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:15 :::Weapon was by the side of stream, and the said stream was by the side of land of Narsing.Weapon was the sword.Police seized the sword.He signed on the panchnama.This witness was declared hostile by the learned APP.He signed on the said ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:15 ::: 414.11crapl 63 panchanama.He further stated that, the sword shown to him at Article No.2 is the same.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:15 :::::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:15 :::He further stated that, this witness has also deposed about the memorandum statement of the accused Satyanarayan Shahapure and Manik Pawar and stated that, Satyanarayan disclosed that, he along with other went to ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:15 ::: 414.11crapl 66 the house of the complainant Baburao and committed murder of his son.He identified his signature on the said memorandum and also thumb impression of the accused.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:15 :::He denied suggestion that, none of the accused gave memorandum nor produced any weapons in his presence.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:16 :::35] The prosecution did send 27 sealed clothes parcels to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Old Nizam Bungalow, Cantonment, Aurangabad, forwarding letter to the Assistant Police Inspector, Police Station, Aurad Shahajani, District Latur.Upon perusal of result of analysis, it appears that, on almost all articles blood was found.Therefore, result of the analysis shows that, blood stains were found on the articles, which were sent to the C.A.36] It further appears that, result of the analysis is that, exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26 and 27; same blood is human.Exhibits 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 19, 20, 21 and 24 are ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:16 ::: 414.11crapl 69 stained with blood of Group 'O'.Exhibits 5, 6, 11 and 14 are stained with blood of group 'A'.Exhibits 15, 16, 17, 22, 23 and 27 are stained with blood of group 'B'.Selection of blood stains on exhibit 26 and grouping thereof reveals that some of the stains are of blood group 'A' and some of blood group 'O'.Group of blood detected on exhibits 3, 4, 12, 13 and 18 cannot be determined as the results are inconclusive.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:16 :::On that day, at 11.50 a.m. the dead body of Gyandeo @ Dnyanoba s/o.Baburao Pawar was brought by Police Station, Nilanga by Head Constable Hundekar for post mortem along with inquest-panchnama.He carried post mortem on the dead body of Gyandeo @ Dnyanoba and ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:16 ::: 414.11crapl 70 found following injuries on his person:::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:16 :::i] C L W at left Temporal Region Size 3 x 2 x 1 cm ii] Deep incised wound at left anterior axillary region, at 5th and 6th Inter costal space with 3 x 2 x Deep dimension iii] Deep incised wound at epigastric region 3 x 2 x Deep.igiv] Deep incised wound at left hypochamdric region size 3 x 2 x Deep.v] Deep incised wound at left infrascapular region.Size 3 x 2 x Deep.vi] Parallel wound deep of samedimension, 5 Cm on left of 5th wound.He also found following internal injuries on the dead body:i] Fracture of 5th and 6th left rib.ii] Tear at Ventricular region.iii] Left Ventricle get punctured with 1.5 Cm dimensions iv] Deep incised wound at left lung paranchyme on back.v] Stomach get punctured of dimensions 2 Cm.He expressed his opinion that, cause of death ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:16 ::: 414.11crapl 71 was due to cardio respiratory arrest due to puncture of left ventricle of heart, and accordingly, he issued P.M. Notes.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:16 :::38] During his cross examination, he stated that, C L W injury No.1 can be caused by hard and blunt object, and it is not caused by sharp weapon.He further stated that, if blow is given by weapon like sword on ribs, then there is possibility of cutting of ribs.If sword blow is given horizontal on chest, then ribs of both sides would be cut.There are four chambers in heart.He further stated that, puncture injury to heart was due to piercing of weapon.Upon reading the injuries mentioned in column No.17 of the post mortem, and also evidence of PW-27, it is abundantly clear that, Gyandeo died homicidal death.39] It is also necessary to find out from the Medical evidence about injuries sustained by as many as six eye witnesses to the incident.In his examination in chief, he sated that, on 09.01.2008, he was attached to Sub-District Hospital, Nilanga as Medical officer.On that day, he examined injured Sheshrao S/o Baburao Pawar, who approached suo-::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:16 :::motu and found following injuries on his person:-i] Clean Incised wound over left dorsum of forearm, horizontal, near wrist.Size 3 x 1 x 1 Cm.ii] Clean Incised wound over left forearm near wrist lower one-third, oblique, dorsoventrally on radial side.Size 8 x 1.5 x 1.5 depth Cms.It was bleeding.iii] Clean Incised wound on medical aspect of injury No.2, left forearm.iv] Contusion over wrist joint left.Size 3 x 4 x 1 Cm Movements were painful and restricted.All these injuries No.1 to 3 were caused by hard and sharp object.Injury No.4 was caused by hard and blunt object.All these injuries were simple in ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:16 ::: 414.11crapl 73 nature and caused within 6 hours.Patient was referred to Civil Hospital, Latur for orthopedic opinion.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:16 :::Accordingly he has issued injury certificate at Exhibit-This witness identified the said certificate, which bears his signature.40] This witness then examined injured Shahuraj S/o Baburao Pawar and found Incised wound penetrating over right renal angle over back, oblique.Size 4 x 1 Cm penetrating depth not recorded as deep.It was grievous in nature, caused by hard and sharp weapon, within 6 hours.Patient was referred to Civil Hospital, Latur for further treatment.He identified the said certificate and stated that, same bears his signature.He further stated that, then he examined Sanjay S/o Baburao Pawar and found Incised penetrating injury over right iliac fossa.Size 5 x 2.5 Cm. penetrating.It was grievous in nature, caused by hard and sharp weapon, within 6 hours.He identified ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:16 ::: 414.11crapl 74 the said certificate and stated that, it bears his signature.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:16 :::Then he examined Vijaykumar S/o Bhagwanrao Pawar and found following injuries on his person :(i) Incised penetrating wound over right back, oblique, Size 10 x 5 Cm muscle deep.(ii) Incised penetrating wound over infra-scapular region, right back.(iii) Incised penetrating wound, over left scapular region.Size 3 x 2.5 Cm x muscle deep.(iv) Incised penetrating wound, infra-scapular region, right side.Size 3 x 1.5 Cm.X muscles cut.(v) Incised penetrating would, left lower back, para-spinal region.Size 2 x 1.5 Cm.x deep muscles cut.(vi) Incised would, left zygomatic arch.Size 4 x 1 x ½ Cm.(vii) Penetrating incised wound with intestinal ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:16 ::: 414.11crapl 75 coils protruding out of injury, over supra umbilical region, extending to epigastric region.Size 6 x 4 Cm.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:16 :::(viii) Abrasion with C.L.W. over upper lip over nose and upper lip.Size 1 x ½ x ½ Cm.(ix) Abrasion over left elbow.Size 1 x 1 x ½ Cm.Injuries No. 1 to 5 and 7 are grievous in nature.Injury Nos. 6, 8 and 9 are simple in nature.Injury no. 9 caused by hard and blunt object.He identified the said certificate and stated that, it bears his signature.He further stated that, then he examined patient Bhagwat S/o Vijaykumar Pawar and found clean lacerated wound over left frontal region, Size 10 x 2.5 Cm.It was caused by hard and blunt object, within 6 hours.It was simple in nature.He identified the said ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:16 ::: 414.11crapl 76 certificate and stated that, it bears his signature.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:16 :::41] He was cross-examined by Advocate Mr. T.V.Jamdar for some of the accused.In his cross examination he stated that, he recognized injury of Shahuraj as grievous injury, as it is penetrating injury and on vital part.It was grievous injury because it endangers human life.He has also further stated details about the injuries sustained by Sanjay, Vijaykumar and Bhagwat.If his evidence is perused in its entirety including examination in cross, his evidence is not shattered in any manner.42] The prosecution examined P.Ws.16 to 26 as eye witnesses of the incident.PW-16 in his evidence stated that, he resides in the house along with his four sons, four daughters-in-law, mother, grand-children.On 23.11.2007, Sarpanch was to be elected.On that day, accused No.1 and his group raised dispute saying that election of Sarpanch will not be allowed to be held.For conducting election of Sarpanch, Naib Tahsildar had come.For the post of Sarpanch, Varsh w/o.Shahuraj Pawar was the candidate from his panel.Finally, on the next day of election of Sarpanch was conducted in Police Bandobast on 24.11.2007, and in that election his daughter-in-law Varsha Shahuraj Pawar was elected as Sarpanch.He further deposed that, in the Gram Panchayat, accused picked up quarrels with him and his panel saying that, they will not allow to hold Gram Sambha and they will not allow them to work as Sarpanch.They made complaint about it to Tahsildar.He further deposed that, incident took place on 09.01.2008 at about 7.00 to ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:16 ::: 414.11crapl 78 7.15 p.m. On that day, there was next day of Yal Amawasya Festival, and he had arranged chicken-dinner.He had invited Chandrakant Solanke, Maroti Jadhav, Waman Pawar, Anant Pawar and Tatyarao Bhingole for dinner at his house.These persons had arrived at his house.He had discussion with these persons about the terror and threats by accused on account of elections.His son Gyandeo and female members of family prepared food for dinner.After cooking food, he himself and above persons sat for dinner under tin-shed roof.At the time of dinner, they heard loud noise from outside.Abusing and stone pelting started.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:16 :::Then he himself, Gyandeo, Vijaykumar, Dilip, Shahuraj, Sheshrao, Bhagwat, Sanjay, aforesaid guests, Anuradha Pawar, Varsha Shahuraj, Santoshibai Sanjay Pawar, Babita Sheshrao Pawar came in the courtyard.About 30 to 35 persons from outside came in his courtyard.Amongst those persons, Shivaji Kadaji Pawar was holding sword, Namdeo Shivaji Pawar was holding sword, Madhav Shivaji Pawar was holding sword like Jamibya, Ashok Kadaji Pawar was holding Katti, Vimalbai Shivaji Pawar was holding knife, Dayanand Bhingole was holding sword.Other persons were holding sticks and iron rods.All these persons rushed on ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:16 ::: 414.11crapl 79 the person of Gyandeo.Satish Vaijinath Pawar, Tukaram Shivaji Pawar, Udhav Shivaji Pawar caught hold to Gyandeo.Shivaji Kadaji Pawar inflicted sword blow on the chest of Gyandeo.Then, Madhav Shivaji Pawar inflicted sword blow on the right side abdomen of Gyandeo.Namdeo Shivaji Pawar inflicted sword blow near bemby of Gyandeo.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:16 :::Dayanand Bhingole inflicted sword blow on the back side and ribs on right of Gyandeo.Vimalbai Shivaji Pawar inflicted knife blow on the back of Gyandeo.Other accused assaulted Gyandeo by sticks and iron rods.They prepared the application.PW-16 put his signature on it, and then, they went to Police Station, Aurad along with said application and submitted it in the Police Station.He ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:16 ::: 414.11crapl 81 further deposed that, he went to Nilanga Hospital.He saw there the dead body of Gyandeo.Then, post mortem was conducted on the dead body of Gyandeo.Then, he went to village Jamga for effecting spot panchnama at the call of Police.Police prepared the spot panchnama of the place shown by him.Again he came to Nilanga Hospital.After conducting post mortem, Doctor handed over dead body of Gyandeo to him.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:16 :::It appears that, some questions were asked to him about who contested the Grampanchayat elections.However, nothing useful to defence was brought on record from the said information about elections.It further appears that, the defence did ask certain questions about preparation of the application which was submitted to the Police Station.It appears that, this witness has stated that, names of the accused mentioned in the said application were as per his say.It appears that, the defence did ask the question about the contents of the said application, and whether the aspects like accused did not allow to conduct ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:16 ::: 414.11crapl 82 Gram Sabha were incorporated in the said application or not.However, nothing useful to the defence has been brought on record by asking such questions by the defence.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:16 :::igPW-16 in his cross examination further stated that, at the time of complaint, he had stated before the Police that, accused Shivaji Namdeo Pawar was holding sword.He had not stated before the Police that, Vimalbai was having Katti in her hand.He further stated that, while writing the complaint that, accused Mahadeo Shivaji Pawar had given sword blow on right side abdomen of Gyandeo.However, he cannot assign any reason why it is not mentioned in the complaint.He further stated that, accused Namdeo Shivaji Pawar inflicted sword blow near navel of Gyandeo.The accused Dayanand Bhingole inflicted sword blow on the backside near ribs on right of Gyandeo.He further stated in the complaint that, accused Madhav Shivaji Pawar had given sword blow on mouth of Vijaykumar, and accused Namdeo Pawar inflicted sword ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:16 ::: 414.11crapl 83 blow on the shoulder of Vijaykumar.Accused Udhav Pawar assaulted Vijaykumar by iron rod.Accused Vilas and Haridas each assaulted Vijaykumar by stick.Accused Prakash Kadaji Pawar assaulted Shahuraj Pawar by iron rod.Accused Vilas Kadaji Pawar assaulted Shahuraj by stick.Accused Shivaji Pawar had given blow with sword on back to right side of Shahuraj.Ashok Kadaji Pawar assaulted Shesherao Pawar on right shin by Katti.Accused Shivaji Pawar had inflicted sword blow on left hand wrist of Sheshrao Pawar.Accused Devidas Pawar gave stick blow on the head of Bhagwat.There were no visible injuries on their person.Their family members and the persons who come for dinner were raising hue and cry.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:16 :::::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:17 :::Other persons from the village did not come at the place of incident on hearing hue and cry.Witness volunteers that villagers did not come at the spot of incident on seeing the mob of assailants.He further stated that, when accused persons went away from the spot of incident, 5 to 50 persons from the village had come there.His daughter in law Varsha Pawar had sustained invisible injuries.They did not resist the assailants.He further stated that, all accused in collusion with each other assaulted them.He can tell names of all accused.He specifically denied suggestion that, at the time of incident, there was dark at his house due to load-shading.He stated that, four persons amongst assailants were holding sword, one was holding knife, one was having katti, two were holding iron rods and 8 to 9 persons were holding sticks.However, he clearly stated that, he does not know what other 22 persons were holding, as the mob of assailants was large.He has specifically denied suggestion that, no incident took place as narrated by him and only with view to extract money from accused, he has ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:17 ::: 414.11crapl 85 filed false case.He specifically denied suggestion that, incident had not taken place at his house and that blood was not lying in his house.He specifically denied suggestion that, on the day of incident, no dinner programme was arranged at his house and that nobody guest or friends in the village had come to his house for dinner.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:17 :::In his cross examination, he stated that, Pandurang Vishwanath Pawar is in service in Pharmacy College at Nilanga as Store Keeper since many years and he resides at Nilanga along with his family.Dhondiram Pawar is serving as Teacher since many years in Zilla Parishad, and he resides at Nilanga along with his family.Ashok Vishwanath Pawar is serving in Police Department and he resides at Latur since many years.Govind Ganpat Shahapure is also a Teacher.Vishwanath Vithal Pawar, Maroti Madhav Pawar, Vishnu Madhav Pawar, Chandrahans Vishwanath Pawar, Vinayak Raosaheb Pawar, Narayan Maroti Bhingole, Suresh Maroti Bhingole, ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:17 ::: 414.11crapl 86 Pandurang Maroti Bhingole, Nagnath Raosaheb Pawar, Madhav Ganpat Shahapure, Abhimanyu Raosaheb Pawar, Manik Ramji Pawar, Balaji Apparao Pawar all are agriculturists.Komal Maroti Pawar is household woman.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:17 :::Satyanarayan Shahapure resides at other village.He know all these persons as they hail from his village.Komal Maroti Pawar has no concern with the incident in question.All aforesaid persons are also having no concerned with the incident.In his cross examination, he stated that, accused Pandhari and Haridas are real brothers inter se.Both these are nephews of Waman Limbaji Pawar, who had come to his house for dinner.Accused Pandhari has no concern with the incident.He further deposed that, it is not true to say that, he falsely implicated accused Haridas at the instance of witness Waman Pawar.He specifically denied suggestion that, accused Waman Pawar did not assault him by stick, and that accused Haridas Pawar did not assault Vijaykumar by iron rod.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:17 :::414.11crapl 87 47] PW-16 was re-examined by the Special Public Prosecutor for State.In his re-examination, he stated that, on the next day of incident, Police had come to him and recorded his statement.He was also cross examined by the Advocate for accused Nos. 1, 4, 11 to 13, 17, 18, 20, 25, 30 to 32 and 34, he stated that, complaint was given on 10.01.2008 at 4.00 a.m. Funeral was performed on 10.01.2008 at 2.00 p.m. Spot panchnama was conducted on 10th January, 2008 at 10.00 a.m. Police recorded his statement on 10.01.2008 at 10.00 a.m. At that time, condition of his mind was not good.While recording his supplementary statement, he stated that, accused Satish, Tukaram and Udhav had caught hold Gyandeo when Shivaji assaulted him by sword.He stated that, he cannot assign any reason why Police did not record to that effect in his supplementary statement.He specifically denied suggestion that, police did not record his supplementary statement.It appears that, this witness was re-examined.In his re-cross examination, he denied suggestion that, he did not state before the Police about assault by Haridas by iron road, and accused Waman Pawar assaulted by stick.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:17 :::414.11crapl 88 48] Upon careful perusal of the evidence of PW-16, it clearly appears that, the accused persons who were aggressors came to the house of complainant holding deadly weapons in their hands and giving slogans that, they will see that, no family members of the complainant is left alive, entered the house of the complainant and by use of deadly weapons like sword, knife, katti, sticks and iron rod assaulted son of the complainant Gyandeo and other persons including his family members, who were present in his house at the relevant time.It has also come in his evidence that, some of the accused pelted stones at his house.It has also come on record that, because of hearing of noise of the accused persons, villagers did not dare to come to the house of the complainant for their rescue.It further appears that, the accused persons were armed and gathered at the spot of occurrence and formed unlawful assembly, and assaulted Gyandeo and other persons who were present at the spot of incident so as to achieve common object of assaulting / causing grievous hurt to the family members of the complainant.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:17 :::414.11crapl 89 It is abundantly clear from the reading of the evidence of the complainant that, in his examination in chief, he named accused Shivaji Kadaji Pawar was holding sword, Namdeo Shivaji Pawar was holding sword, Madhav Shivaji Pawar was holding sword like Jamibya, Ashok Kadaji Pawar was holding Katti, Vimalbai Shivaji Pawar was holding knife, Dayanand Bhingole was holding sword and other persons were holding sticks and iron rods.It is specifically stated by him that, all these persons rushed on the person of Gyandeo.He further attributed overt act to the Satish Vaijinath Pawar, Tukaram Shivaji Pawar, Udhav Shivaji Pawar, who caught hold to Gyandeo.Shivaji Kadaji Pawar inflicted sword blow on the chest of Gyandeo.Then Madhav Shivaji Pawar inflicted sword blow on the right side abdomen of Gyandeo.Namdeo Shivaji Pawar inflicted sword blow near bemby of Gyandeo.Dayanand Bhingole inflicted sword blow on the back side and ribs on right of Gyandeo.Vimalbai Shivaji Pawar inflicted knife blow on the back of Gyandeo and other accused assaulted Gyandeo by sticks and iron rods.Then Vijaykumar Bhagwanrao was assaulted by Madhav Shivaji Pawar by sword on the face.Namdeo Shivaji Pawar inflicted sword blow to Vijaykumar on ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:17 ::: 414.11crapl 90 shoulder.Udhav Shivaji Pawar assaulted Vijaykumar by iron rod.Vilas and Haridas Pawar each assaulted Vijaykumar by stick and iron rod.Accused Prakash Kadaji Pawar assaulted Shahuraj Pawar by iron rod.Vilas Kadaji Pawar assaulted Shahuraj Pawar by stick.Accused Shivaji Kadaji Pawar assaulted Shahuraj by stick on back right side by sword.Ashok Kadaji Pawar assaulted on right shin by Katti to Sheshrao Baburao Pawar.Shivaji Kadaji Pawar assaulted on left hand wrist of Sheshrao Pawar by sword.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:17 :::Devidas Pralhad Pawar assaulted by stick to Bhagwat Pawar on the head.Waman Dadarao Pawar assaulted him by stick on the back.Other persons assaulted other persons in their family.Therefore, upon careful perusal of the evidence of this witness, it is abundantly clear that, he named and attributed specific role to the accused Shivaji Kadaji Pawar, Namdeo Shivaji Pawar, Madhav Shivaji Pawar, Ashok Kadaji Pawar, Vimalbai Shivaji Pawar, Dayanand Bhingole, Satish Vaijinath Pawar, Tukaram Shivaji Pawar, Udhav Shivaji Pawar, Vilas and Haridas Pawar, Prakash Kadaji Pawar, Waman Dadarao Pawar and other accused.He has specifically stated the manner in which each of the accused assaulted Gyandeo and other persons including six injured ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:17 ::: 414.11crapl 91 eye witnesses.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:17 :::49] Upon careful perusal of his examination in cross, his evidence in the examination in chief has not been shattered in slightest manner, on the contrary, he has reiterated his assertions in the examination in chief during his cross examination.In his cross examination in para No.10, he has stated that, Komal Maruti Pawar has no concerned with the incident in question.He has specifically stated that, the names of the accused mentioned in para No.10 of his cross examination have no concerned with the incident.Therefore, upon considering the evidence of PW-16 complainant, we find that, his evidence is fully trustworthy, reliable, truthful and not shaken in the cross examination.His evidence on all points - aspects is truthful and deserves acceptance.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:17 :::414.11crapl 92 50] The learned counsel Mr. Joydeep Chatterji appearing for the accused Nos.1 Shivaji, accused No.11 Vilas and accused No.13 Namdeo, submitted that, so far Namdeo is concerned, his name is not mentioned in the First Information Report, and he deserves to be given benefit of doubt, cannot be accepted.The First Information Report is not an encyclopedia.In his evidence before the Court, PW-16 has named Namdeo and also specific overt act is attributed to him.It appears that, he was one of the main assailant, who inflicted blows by sword on the deceased Gyandeo and also other injured persons.51] The prosecution witness Nos.22 to 26 are injured witnesses.Their evidence assumes significance inasmuch as some of them have sustained grievous injuries, which would have caused their death, if timely treatment would not have been given to them.52] There are in all eleven eye witnesses to the incident who are examined by the prosecution.We have already discussed in detail about the evidence.Of P.W.16 -::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:17 :::414.11crapl 93 complainant.As per the prosecution case, all the eye witnesses sustained injuries.So far as P.W.22 to 26 are concerned, they are injured eye witnesses.This is the witness in whose evidence, there are no omissions, contradictions or improvements; therefore, we propose to discuss his evidence at this juncture.Deceased Gyandeo was son of the complainant Baburao.The incident took place on 9 th January, 2008 in the house of Baburao.On that day, in the house of Baburao, he himself, Shahuraj Pawar, Sheshrao Pawar, Sanjay Pawar, Gyandeo Pawar, Bhagwat Pawar, Maroti Jadhav, r/o Sawangira, Chandrakant Solanke r/o Chandori, Waman Limbaji Pawar, Anant Pawar, Tatyarao Bhingole, Dilip Pawar, Varsha Pawar, Babita Pawar, Popatbai Pawar, Pinkubai Pawar, Urmilabai Pawar, Jijabai Pawar, Trivenibai Pawar, Santoshbai Pawar, Mahadeo ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:17 ::: 414.11crapl 94 Pawar were present.On that day, there was dinner at the house of the complainant on the eve of 'Vel Amwasaya' and the above persons were present for dinner.The witness stated that at about 7 to 7.15 p.m., they had sat for dinner in room of tins.At that time about 30 to 40 persons all of a sudden came in the door of the house, saying that, "Marto, Hanto, Todto".Persons from the mob were pelting stones.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:17 :::Then the mob came in their court yard.Mob was comprising of 30 to 40 persons.On hearing shouts, Gyandeo came outside frist of all, and the witness followed him.Other persons in their house also came in the court-Satish Vaijinath Pawar, Tukaram Shivaji Pawar, Udhav Shivaji Pawar caught hold Gyandeo; and at that time, Shivaji Pawar inflicted sword blow on the left chest of Gyandeo.Vimalbai Pawar amongst mob inflicted knife blow on the ribs of Gyandeo.Dayanand Bhingole inflicted sword blow on the back of Gyandeo.Madhav Shivaji Pawar inflicted sword blow on the stomach of Gyandeo.Namdeo Shivaji Pawar inflicted sword blow above the navel of Gyandeo.Then Gyandeo fell down due to sustaining of bleeding injuries.Madhav ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:17 ::: 414.11crapl 95 Shivaji Pawar inflicted sword blow on his face, due to which he sustained bleeding injury on his nose.Madhav then inflicted sword blow above his navel.Namdeo Pawar inflicted sword blow on right thigh, Vilas Pawar inflicted stick blow on his head.Udhav Pawar inflicted iron blow on his left shoulder.Hari Pawar inflicted iron blow on back of this witness.He sustained bleeding injuries, his intestines were pierced out of his stomach.P.W.25 Vijaykumar pointed out persons from accused who assaulted him and Gyandeo, those persons disclosed their names as Shivaji Kadaji Pawar, Vilas Kadaji Pawar, Namdeo Shivaji Pawar, Ashok Kadaji Pawar, Satish Baburao Pawar, Satish Vaijinath Pawar, Udhav Shivaji Pawar and Vimalbai w/o Shivaji Pawar.This witness volunteered that assailants Dayanand Maroti Bhingole and Madhav Shivaji Pawar were not present on that day in the court hall.He stated that police recorded his statement thrice.His statement was also recorded by Special Executive Officer.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:17 :::::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:17 :::414.11crapl 96 In the cross-examination, P.W.25 Vijaykumar stated that accused Madhav Ganpat Shahapure was not present on the spot of the incident on that day.So also, accused Nos.2, 5 to 10, 15, 16, 19, 21 to 24, 26 to 28, 33 and 35 were not present at the place of incident at the time of incident.He further stated in his cross-examination that he knows accused Pandhari Pawar and he had no concern with the incident.P.W.25 Vijaykumar was further cross-examined by Advocate Mr.T.V. Jamdar appearing for some of the accused.PW-25 specifically admitted that 18 persons who are named as accused persons were not present at the time of incident.He identified accused persons who participated in commission of offence and present before the Court.He has stated further details in his cross-examination that before the police, he stated that Madhav Shivaji Pawar inflicted sword blow on the stomach of Gyandeo and Namdeo Shivaji Pawar inflicted sword blow on navel of Gyandeo.He further stated that he stated before the police that Satish Pawar, Vaijinath Pawar, Venkat Pawar caught hold him, Madhav Pawar inflicted sword blow on his face ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:17 ::: 414.11crapl 97 and above his navel and Namdeo Pawar inflicted sword blow on his right thigh and Vilas Pawar inflicted stick blow on his head and Hari Pawar inflicted iron rod blow on his back.He further stated that after Gyandeo, accused assaulted him.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:17 :::While Gyandeo was being assaulted, he was caught hold by the accused.Then he became unconscious and fell down.He stated that in all 16 persons including females were present in the house when the accused came at the spot of the incident.They could not resist at the time of incident, they did not raise shouts.54] Upon perusal of the evidence of this witness, it appears that he has specifically stated the manner in which the accused entered in the house [court-yard], they were pelting stones, they were giving slogans, they were armed with deadly weapons and also sticks and they came prepared so as to assault the persons who were in the house of P.W.16 at the relevant time.He has stated the actual incident in a specific manner that Satish Vaijinath Pawar, Tukaram Shivaji Pawar, Udhav Shivaji Pawar caught hold Gyandeo; and at that time, Shivaji Pawar inflicted sword blow on the left chest of Gyandeo.Vimalbai Pawar amongst ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:17 ::: 414.11crapl 98 mob inflicted knife blow on the ribs of Gyandeo.Dayanand Bhingole inflicted sword blow on the back of Gyandeo.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:17 :::Madhav Shivaji Pawar inflicted sword blow on the stomach of Gyandeo.Namdeo Shivaji Pawar inflicted sword blow above the navel of Gyandeo.Then Gyandeo fell down due to sustaining of bleeding injuries.Madhav Shivaji Pawar inflicted sword blow on his face, due to which he sustained bleeding injury on his nose.Madhav then inflicted sword blow above his navel.Namdeo Pawar inflicted sword blow on right thigh, Vilas Pawar inflicted stick blow on his head.Udhav Pawar inflicted iron blow on his left shoulder.Hari Pawar inflicted iron blow on back of this witness.55] It appears from his evidence that he sustained bleeding injuries, intestines were pierced out of his stomach.He has specifically pointed out accused persons, who were present in the court, and identified them, who assaulted him and Gyandeo.It appears from the medical evidence brought on record by the prosecution and the evidence of the Medical Officers P.W.27 Dr.Pralhad Solanke ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:17 ::: 414.11crapl 99 and P.W.28 Dr. Shivanand Biradar supports the version of this witness.The version of this witness corresponds with the injuries stated in the injury certificate of Gyandeo and also other six injured persons.Therefore, the evidence of P.W.25 corresponds with the medical evidence.His evidence is fully trustworthy, reliable, truthful and not shaken in any manner in his cross-examination and the same can safely be accepted on all the points including forming an unlawful assembly by the accused persons, who are named in his evidence, in furtherance of their common object to assault / cause grievous hurt to the family members of the complainant in order to finish every member of family of P.W.16 Baburao.The evidence of this witness corroborates with the evidence of the complainant in all material particulars.The evidence of the complainant and also P.W.25 Vijaykumar corroborates each other and also gets corroboration from medical evidence led by P.W.27 Dr.Pralhad Solanke and P.W.28 Dr. Shivanand Biradar.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:17 :::56] The learned Counsel for the accused Shivaji Kadaji Pawar, Namdeo Shivaji Pawar and Vilas Kadaji Pawar was at pains to argue that, in view of the judgment of the ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:17 ::: 414.11crapl 100 Supreme Court in the case of Masalti (supra), where factions prevail in villagers and murders are committed as a result of enmity between such factions, criminal Courts have to deal with evidence of a partisan type.In a sense, the test may be described as mechanical; but it cannot be treated as irrational or unreasonable.Therefore, in his submission, in the present case, though evidence of P.W.25 Vijaykumar does not suffer from omissions, contradictions and improvements, the evidence of other prosecution witnesses, including the complainant, suffers from contradictions, omissions and improvements and, therefore, the evidence of P.W.25 Vijaykumar alone is not sufficient so as to sustain the conviction of the accused.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:17 :::::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:17 :::414.11crapl 101 57] As already observed, evidence of the complainant P.W.16 Baburao and P.W.25 Vijaykumar corroborates with each other and lends support from medical evidence and therefore,the evidence of the P.W.16 Baburao - complainant and also the P.W.25 Vijaykumar is fully trustworthy, reliable, truthful and has not been shaken, in any manner, in the cross-examination.There is also evidence of other nine eye witnesses.They filed application in that respect with the Police Station.One and half month thereafter on 23.11.2007 election for Sarpanch was scheduled.On that day, in the election of ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:17 ::: 414.11crapl 102 Sarpanch, Shivaji Pawar and his persons obstructed.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:17 :::Therefore, complainant's group filed application with Tahsildar.On that day, Chandrakant Bhagwantrao Solanke, r/o.Chandori, Maroti s/o.Dhanaji Jadhav, r/o.Sawangira and villagers Anant Pawar, Waman Limbaji Pawar, Tatyarao Balaji Bhingole were invited for the dinner.Uncles and other family members were also present.At about 7.00 p.m., they were about to sit for dinner.At that time, all of sudden, noise was heard from outside.Mob came there saying 'Babya, Vijya, Gyana come outside.They were saved on the day of election.Now they are to be seen.Their heritage will not be saved'.About 30 to 40 persons in the ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:17 ::: 414.11crapl 103 mob came at their house.Persons in the mob were holding swords, sticks and iron rods.They all came from inside in the courtyard.Gyandeo, Vijaykumar, PW-22, Sheshrao, Bhagwat, Dilip, Baburao, Waman Pawar, Anant Pawar, Tatyarao Bhingole, Chandrakant Solanke, Maroti Jadhav, Varsha Pawar, Babita, Santosi, Popatbai, Mahdeo Pawar came in the courtyard.Gyandeo was caught hold by Satish Vaijinath Pawar, Udhav Shivaji Pawar, Tukaram Shivaji Pawar, Shivaji Kadaji Pawar inflicted sword blow in the left chest of Gyandeo.He further stated that, Madhav Shivaji inflicted on the right side stomach of Gyandeo by Jambiya.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:17 :::Namdeo Shivaji Pawar inflicted sword blow on above the navel of Gyandeo.Vimalbai Pawar inflicted knife blow on the left ribs of Gyandeo by katti.Dayanand Maroti Bhingole inflicted sword blow on the back of Gyandeo.Gyandeo sustained bleeding injuries and fell down.Vilas Pawar beat him by stick on left shoulder and stomach.PW-22 also sustained bleeding injury.Thereafter, Vijaykumar, Sheshrao, Bhagwat, Sanjya, Baburao and female members were also ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:18 ::: 414.11crapl 104 assaulted by persons from the mob with weapons in their hands.Vijaykumar, Sheshrao, Sanjay, Bhagwat also sustained bleeding injuries.Then the injured were admitted in Nilanga Hospital.Vijaykumar, Sanjay and he himself were referred to Latur Hospital for further treatment.They learnt at Latur that, Gyandeo is dead.Police recorded his statement twice.[Emphasis supplied].::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:18 :::59] He was cross examined by Advocate Shri T.V.Jamdar.He stated that, post of Sarpanch was reserved for woman.In Gram Panchayat elections, in all 3 women were elected.Sushilabai Gaikwad, Usha Dinkar Katekar and his wife were elected.This witness stated in his examination in cross that, he was taken to the Hospital at Nilanga for treatment.He received first blow by stick on left shoulder and last blow by sword on the back.Upon perusal of his evidence in cross examination, nothing useful to the defence have been elicited.The learned counsel Mr. Joydeep Chatterji ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:18 ::: 414.11crapl 105 appearing for the accused Shivaji, Namdeo and Vilas invited our attention to the portion marked 'A', 'B' and 'C' from the statement of this witness under Section 161 of I.P. Code and submitted that, this witness in the police station has not named Namdeo or no overt act is attributed to him, and therefore, Namdeo is entitled for benefit of doubt.In our opinion, he has specifically stated in his examination in chief that, Namdeo Shivaji Pawar inflicted sword blow on above the navel of Gyandeo.Aforesaid version about Namdeo gets corroboration from the evidence of other prosecution witnesses and also from the medical evidence, and therefore, contention of the learned Counsel Mr. Chatterji cannot be accepted that accused Namdeo deserves to be acquitted.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:18 :::Chandori, Maroti Dhanaji Jadhav, r/o.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:18 :::Gyandeo Pawar was caught hold by Satish Vaijinath Pawar, Tukaram Shivaji Pawar and Udhav Shivaji Pawar, and Shivaji Pawar pierced sword on the left chest of Gyandeo.Vimal Pawar assaulted Gyandeo by knife on ribs left side.Dayanand Bhingole inflicted sword blow on the left side back of Gyandeo.Mahadeo Pawar inflicted Jamibya blow on right side stomach of Gyandeo.Incident took place prior to 3 years.It was next day of Vel Amawasya.On that day, Chandrakant Solanke, Dhanaji Jadhav, Waman Pawar, Anant Pawar, Tatyarao Bhingole had come to his house for dinner.Incident occurred at 7.00 to 7.15 p.m. They were ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:18 ::: 414.11crapl 108 about to sit for dinner.At that time, they heard noise of abusing of the mob.Mob came in his courtyard and persons from the mob pelted stone.Some persons from the mob were holding sticks, iron rods, swords, Jambiya, Gyandeo and Vijaykumar came out of house in the courtyard.He further stated that, others followed them in the courtyard.Satish Vaijinath Pawar, Tukaram Pawar and Udhav Pawar caught hold Gyandeo, and Shivaji Pawar pierced sword in the chest of Gyandeo.Namdeo Pawar inflicted Jambiya blow near the navel on left side of Gyandeo.Vimalbai inflicted knife blow on the ribs of Gyandeo.Madhav Shivaji inflicted Jamibya like sword on the ribs of Gyandeo.Dayanand Bhingole inflicted sword blow on the back of Gyandeo.Gyandeo sustained bleeding injuries due to assault and Gyandeo fell down.He further stated that, Shivaji Pawar inflicted 3 blows by sword on his left hand wrist.Ashok Pawar inflicted katti blow on left leg.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:18 :::About 16 to 17 persons in the mob assaulted Vijaykumar, Bhagwat, Shahuraj, Baburao, Dilip, Sanjay.Sanjay, Shahuraj, Vijaykumar, Bhagwat also sustained bleeding injuries.Then the injured were taken to Nilanga Hospital for treatment.He himself, Bhagwat and Gyandeo were ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:18 ::: 414.11crapl 109 retained in Nilanga Hospital.He further stated that, other injured were referred to Latur Hospital for further treatment.On the next day morning, Doctor informed them that, Gyandeo is dead.Police recorded his statement.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:18 :::He was cross examined by Advocate Shri T.V.Jamdar.Relying upon his statement that, the portion marked 'A' read over to him, during his cross examination was not stated before the Police.The learned counsel Mr. Chatterji submitted that, when he did not state before the Police that, Shivaji actually assaulted by sword on chest and when this witness further stated that, he has not named Namdeo, both of them are entitled for benefit of doubt.As already observed, there is overwhelming evidence led by the prosecution in the nature of 11 eye witnesses before the Court naming accused Shivaji, Namdeo and also Vilas and attributing specific role to them and also there are corresponding injuries.The evidence of PW-25 remained unshaken and gets corroboration from the evidence of other eye witnesses, and also from the medical evidence, and therefore, the contention of Advocate Shri Chatterji stands rejected.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:18 :::In his examination in chief, he stated that, complainant Baburao is his father.Deceased Gyandeo was his real brother.Incident took place on 09.01.2008 in the courtyard.At that time, guests Chandrakant Solanke, r/o.Chandori, Maroti Jadhav r/o.Sawangira, villagers Anant Pawar, Tatyarao Bhingole, Waman Pawar and he himself, Baburao, Shahuraj, Sheshrao, Bhagwat, Dilip, Vijaykumar, Varsha, Babita, Santoshi, Anuradha, Urmila, Popatbai were present in his house.On that day, there was dinner arranged at his house on account of next day of Vel Amawasya.He further stated that, at about 7.00 to 7.15 p.m., they were about to sit for dinner.At that time, electric light was on.From the road in front of house, they heard shouts relating to abuses, 'Babya, Vijya, Gyana, Shahuraj, Gotya, Sheshrao, Sanjya, come out side.He further stated that, then they came outside from the house.Gyandeo came out of house first of all.Satish Vaijinath Pawar, Tukaram Shivaji Pawar and Udhav Shivaji Pawar caught hold Gyandeo.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:18 :::414.11crapl 111 Shivaji Pawar inflicted sword blow on the left chest of Gyandeo.Vimalbai inflicted knife blow on left ribs of Gyandeo.Dayanand Maroti Bhingole inflicted sword blow on the back of Gyandeo.Madhav Shivaji Pawar inflicted blow on right side stomach of Gyandeo by sword.He again say that, it was Jambiya like sword.Namdeo Shivaji Pawar inflicted sword blow near navel of Gyandeo.He further stated that, Gyandeo sustained bleeding injuries and Gyandeo fell down.He went near Gyandeo.Madhav Shivaji Pawar assaulted him Jambiya like sword on the right side waist.His intestines were came out.He fell down on the earth.Other accused persons were assaulting other persons in the house.He regained consciousness after four days in Latur Hospital.Police recorded his ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:18 ::: 414.11crapl 112 statement.Special Executive Officer also recorded his statement.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:18 :::He was cross examined by Advocate Mr. T.V.Jamdar on behalf of some of the accused.In his cross examination, he stated that, he had stated before the Police that, Satish Vaijinath Pawar, Tukaram Shivaji Pawar, Udhav Shivaji Pawar had caught hold Gyandeo and then Shivaji Pawar inflicted sword blow on the stomach of Gyandeo, he cannot assign any reason why the police has not recorded in his statement.In his statement under Section 161 before the Police he narrated that, Madhav Shivaji Pawar inflicted sword blow on the right side stomach of Gyandeo, Namdeo Shivaji Pawar had inflicted sword blow near navel of Gyandeo and Madhav Shivaji Pawar assaulted him by Jambiya like sword on the right side waist.Relying upon the portion marked 'A' and 'B' from his evidence, it was tried to be canvassed that, his evidence suffers from omissions and contradictions.However, in our opinion, the said argument deserves no consideration.This witness is injured witness ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:18 ::: 414.11crapl 113 and sustained grievous injuries.Evidence of other eye witness and medical evidence corroborates his version.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:18 :::64] P.W.17 Chandrakant Bhagwantrao Solanke was examined by the prosecution, who was an eye witness of the incident.In his examination-in-chief, he stated that the complainant Baburao Pawar is his maternal uncle.On the date of incident, he had been to the house of his maternal uncle Baburao for dinner.He has named the persons who had gathered in the house of Baburao for dinner.He has further narrated details about the elections of Gram Panchayat, which took place in the said village.He has stated further details about whose panel got elected and at the time of election of Sarpanch, there was dispute between the groups of complainant and accused Shivaji.He further deposed that on 9th January, 2008 in the night in all ten persons had sat at the house of the complainant for dinner.It was about 7 p.m. They heard shouts from the outside to the effect that "Babya, Gayna, Vijya, Sanjya, Yanchya Gharanyache purna Beej ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:18 ::: 414.11crapl 114 Budwayache Ahe." (i.e. Everybody from the families of Babya, Gayna, Vijya, Sanjya, has to be finished).At that time, stone pelting started at the house of the complainant.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:18 :::Then, in the court-yard of Baburao, accused Shivaji Pawar and other came.Then the witness himself, Gyandeo, Vijaykumar,Sanjay, Shahuraj, Shesherao, Bhagwat, Baburao, Maroti, Waman, Anant, Dilip, Varsha, Anuradha, Santoshi, Babita, Urmila, Popat came outside in the court-Gyandeo went ahead.At that time, Satish Vaijinath Pawar, Tukaram Shivaji Pawar and Udhav Shivaji Pawar caught hold Gyandeo.Accused Shivaji Pawar inflicted sword blow on the chest of Gyandeo.Namdeo Shivaji Pawar inflicted sword blow on the stomach of Gyandeo.Mahadeo Shivaji Pawar inflicted blow by Jambiya like sword on the right side stomach of Gyandeo.Dayanand Maroti Bhingole inflicted sword blow on the back of Gyandeo.Accused Vimalbai Shivaji Pawar inflicted knife blow on the back of Gyandeo.Gyandeo fell down due to oozing of blood from his injuries.P.W.17 Chandrakant Solanke further deposed that, then Namdeo Shivaji Pawar assaulted Vijaykumar by sword on right side stomach.Mahadeo Shivaji Pawar assaulted Vijaykumar on the stomach by Jambiya like ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:18 ::: 414.11crapl 115 sword.Vilas Kadaji Pawar assaulted Vijaykumar by stick on the back.Udhav Shivaji Pawar assaulted Vijaykumar by iron rod on right shoulder.Haridas Manik Pawar assaulted Vijaykumar by iron rod on the backside at lower portion.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:18 :::Due to assault, Vijaykumar fell down and his intestine had come out.Mahadeo Shivaji Pawar assaulted Sanjay by Jambiya like sword on right side of abdomen.Shivaji Kadaji Pawar assaulted Shesherao on left hand by 3 blows with sword.Ashok Kadaji Pawar assaulted Sheshrao by Katti on left leg shin.Shivaji Kadaji Pawar assaulted Shahuraj by sword on the waist at right side back.Prakash Kadaji Pawar assaulted Shahuraj by iron rod on the back.Devidas Pralhad Pawar assaulted Bhagwat by stick on the head.Prakash Pawar assaulted him by iron rod on the back.Waman Dadarao Pawar assaulted complainant Baburao by stick on the back.Remaining persons assaulted the female members from the side of complainant.65] He further stated that the injured were taken by him and Baburao Pawar and other relatives to the Nilanga Hospital.Doctor advised to shift Vijaykumar, Sanjay and Shahuraj to Latur for further treatment.Accordingly, they ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:18 ::: 414.11crapl 116 were taken tot he Hospital at Latur.They came to know in the hospital at Latur that injured Gyandeo died during treatment at Nilanga Hospital.Accordingly, his statement was recorded on the next day of the incident.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:18 :::During his cross-examination by the Advocate of aforesaid accused, he stated that accused Komalbai Maroti Pawar has no concern with the incident.He was further cross-examined on behalf of the accused Nos.3, 14 and 29 wherein he stated that Haridas Manik Pawar is known to him.There were 30 to 40 persons in the mob.He specifically denied the suggestion that he was not present at the time of the incident.He was further cross-The defence tried to elucidate from his cross-examination that he did not identify all the accused.It is true that in his cross-examination, this witness stated that out of 37 accused persons, he identified 10 to 12 persons on the day of the incident and remaining persons were unknown to him and he could not identify those ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:18 ::: 414.11crapl 117 accused who were pelting stones.He has reiterated his assertion in his examination-in-chief about the manner in which the accused came to the house of Baburao, giving slogans with deadly weapons, fully prepared and formed an unlawful assembly with an object to cause grievous hurt in order to finish the entire family of the complainant Baburao.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:18 :::His evidence in the examination-in-chief is not shattered in his cross-examination, in any manner.66] The learned Counsel Mr.Upon appreciating the evidence of P.W.17 Chandrakant in its entirety, as already observed, his ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:18 ::: 414.11crapl 118 evidence remained unshaken.It appears from his statement that, police have narrated his version in the police statement u/s 161 of Cr.P.C. not in the manner in which he stated about the incident and, therefore, portion marked in his police statement cannot be considered as an omission.His substantive evidence before the court gets corroboration from the evidence of complainant and also from the evidence of P.W.25 Vijaykumar and all other eye witnesses to the incident, coupled with medical evidence and therefore, in our opinion, there is no substance in the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the accused Namdeo that, Namdeo could have been given benefit of doubt since this witness has not named Namdeo Shivaji Pawar and not attributed any overt-acts in his police statement.Therefore, evidence of P.W.17 Chandrakant Solanke on all aspects is reliable, trustworthy and truthful.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:18 :::67] Prosecution has examined Dilip Bhagwanrao Pawar as PW-18 who is an eye witness.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:18 :::For dinner, guests Chandrakant Solanke, Maroti Dhanaji Jadhav and guest from village Tatyarao Bhingole, Waman Pawar and Anant Pawar were invited.He himself and Vijaykumar, Bhagwat were also invited for dinner.Varsha Pawar is daughter-in-law of the complainant Baburao.She was elected as Sarpanch of the village.There was dispute between the panels headed by complainant and accused Shivaji on account of elections.In the election, 4 members from the panel of complainant Baburao were elected.He further stated that, on 09.01.2008, they (aforementioned persons) were taking dinner at the house of complainant Baburao.At that time, all of sudden they heard noise of abuses.Then stone pelting took place from outside on ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:18 ::: 414.11crapl 120 the house of Baburao.Then in the court yard of Baburao mob of 30 to 40 persons came.Then this witness, Gyandeo, Shahuraj, Sheshrao, Sanjay, Vijaykumar, Bhagwat, Baburao, Chandrakant, Maroti, Tatyarao, Anant came outside in the court-yard.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:18 :::Gyandeo went ahead.Satish Pawar, Tukaram Shivaji Pawar and Udhav Shivaji Pawar caught hold Gyandeo.Accused Shivaji Kadaji Pawar inflicted sword blow on the chest of Gyandeo.Vimalbai Shivaji inflicted left side ribs on Gyandeo by knife.Namdeo Shivaji Pawar inflicted sword blow on the stomach of Gyandeo.Dayanand Bhingole inflicted sword blow on the back left side of Gyandeo.Mahadeo Shivaji Pawar inflicted blow by Jambiya like sword on the right side abdomen of Gyandeo.Gyandeo sustained bleeding injuries and he collapsed.Madhav Shivaji Pawar assaulted Vijaykumar by Jambiya like sword two blows on the stomach and single blow on the face.Namdeo Pawar inflicted sword blow on right leg.Udhav Shivaji Pawar assaulted Vijaykumar by iron rod on right shoulder.He ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:18 ::: 414.11crapl 121 further stated that, Vilas Kadaji Pawar assaulted Vijaykumar by stick on the back.Haridas Manik Pawar assaulted Vijaykumar by iron rod on the back.Madhav Shivaji Pawar assaulted Sanjay by Jambiya like sword on right side abdomen.Vilas Kadaji Pawar assaulted Shahuraj by stick on left shoulder.Prakash Kadaji Pawar assaulted Shahurao by sword on the right side back.Shivaji Kadaji Pawar inflicted 3 blows by sword on left hand of Sheshrao.Devidas Pralhad Pawar assaulted Bhagwat by stick on the head.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:18 :::He identified the weapons used by the accused before the Court.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:18 :::He was the Chairman of Jamga Society for 25 years and elected unopposed and thereafter he retired from politics.Accused Pandurang Pawar is in service since 1987 in Maharashtra Pharmacy College, Nilanga as Store-Keeper.He resides at Nilanga along with his family.He had a son Umesh who is mentally retarded.Accused Satyanarayan Madhav Shahapure is student for M.Sc.Softwear Engineering since 5 to 7 years.Manik Ramji Pawar runs grocery shop and also does agriculture at village Jamga.His house is at a distance of 700 to 800 ft. from his house.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:18 :::On the day of incident, Komalbai Maroti Pawar along with her husband and brother-in-law Vishnu Madhav Pawar had gone to village Bhutmugali due to death of her uncle.He stated that, accused nos.2, 5 to 10, 15, 16, 19, 21 to 24, 26 to 28, 33 and 35 have no concern with the incident in question.Bhagyashri D/o Vinayak Pawar is married with Manoj Mule.On the day of incident, Vinayak Raosaheb Pawar had gone to the hospital to see his daughter in Jyoti Hospital at Latur, whose abortion was carried there.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:18 :::414.11crapl 124 68] He was further cross-examined by Mr. V.S.In his cross examination, he stated that, complainant Baburao is his real brother.Accused Pandhari Manik Pawar has no concern with the incident.He did not see him at the time of incident.Haridas Pawar assaulted Vijaykumar by iron rod.He did not assault this witness.He has specifically denied the suggestion that, Haridas Pawar was not present at the time of incident and he did not assault Vijaykumar by iron rod.He has specifically denied suggestion that, Haridas Pawar and Waman Pawar were not present and they did not assault anybody.He stated in his cross examination that, he did not state before police the portion marked A read over to him from his ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:19 ::: 414.11crapl 125 statement.He further stated that, he cannot assign any reason why police recorded so in his statement.He further stated that, he did not state the portion mark B read over to him before the Police.However, in para 6 of the cross-examination, he has again reiterated his version about the accused, who actually participated in the commission of offence and also the manner in which they inflicted injuries on deceased Gyandeo and other witnesses.He has specifically stated that, Gyandeo had sustained three blows, one blow by Jambiya like sword and one blow by knife.Chest blow of Gyandeo and other blows by sword were also piercing.On the back of Gyandeo on left side, there was sword blow.Third blow was on the stomach i.e. four fingers above the navel.Knife blow was on left side ribs of Gyandeo.Blow by Jambiya like sword was on the right side stomach of Gyandeo.Bhagwat had sustained stick blow on the head.Shahuraj was beaten by sticks and iron rod after he fell down.He was given 4 to 5 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:19 ::: 414.11crapl 126 blows by stick and 4 to 5 blows by iron rod.Sheshrao had sustained 4 blows by Katti and sword.Sword blow was given on the left hand wrist by sharp edge.Blow by Katti was given on the left leg shin of Sheshrao.He had not sustained any other injury.Sanjay was assaulted by Jambiya like sword on the right side abdomen.He was given 4 blows by stick and 4 blows by iron rod.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:19 :::::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:19 :::Vijaykumar was given 2 sword blows on the stomach and one blow by sword on the nose.Nose blow was by vertical sword.Nose and lips were cut.He had received other concealed injuries.He has specifically stated that, afterwards though villagers had gathered at the time of incident, none of them came for their rescue.They did not resist assailants.They did not attempt to flee away from the place of incident.At the time of incident, one female accused was there and 17 males were present.He has also stated details about the manner in which the incident had taken place.He has specifically denied ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:19 ::: 414.11crapl 127 suggestion that, he is deposing falsely that, accused assaulted deceased and other injured by weapons.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:19 :::70] Mr. Joydeep Chatterji, the learned counsel invited our attention to Portion Mark at `A', `B', `C' from his (PW-18) statement under Section 161 before the Police and tried to submit that, his evidence before the Court is contradictory to his statement before the Police.We have carefully perused the evidence of PW-18, in his examination-in-chief and also his cross-His evidence is consistent and finds corroboration from other eye witnesses and also medical evidence.The statement before the police officer and the statement in the evidence before the Court are not so inconsistent or irreconcilable with each other that both of them cannot co-exist, and therefore, submission of learned counsel deserves no consideration.In our opinion, his evidence is not shaken in any manner.It appears from his evidence ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:19 ::: 414.11crapl 128 that, he wanted to convey that, the manner in which he stated before the Police about each accused and overt act attributed to them has not been recorded properly.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:19 :::However, the said portion marked cannot be taken to mean that, same are omissions.Therefore, his evidence is reliable, trustworthy, appears to be truthful and deserves acceptance.In his evidence he stated that, he was invited for dinner by complainant Baburao on the date of incident.At about 7 to 7.15 p.m. they were about to sit for dinner, at that time, from the outside of house of Baburao, they heard noise of abuses and there was stone pelting on the house of the complainant.Then they came out of room in the court yard.Gyandeo went ahead.Gyandeo, Vijaykumar, Sanjay, Sheshrao, Bhagwat, Baburao, Chandrakant and this witness and family members in the house came in the court yard.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:19 :::414.11crapl 129 All of sudden, 30 to 40 persons from outside came in the court yard of Baburao.2 to 3 persons caught hold hands of Gyandeo.Shivaji Pawar then inflicted sword blow on the chest of Gyandeo.Two other persons came there.One person from them inflicted sword blow on the right side of navel of Gyandeo.Another person inflicted sword blow on the left side of navel of Gyandeo.Then wife of Shivaji Pawar inflicted knife-blow on the above side of waist (ribs) of Gyandeo.Gyandeo sustained bleeding injuries and he fell down.Then Vijaykumar was assaulted by the mob.Three persons had caught hold Vijaykumar.Sword blow was given on the stomach of Vijaykumar.One more person gave sword blow on the stomach of Vijaykumar.Other persons were also beating Vijaykumar.Sanjkumar was inflicted sword blow on the stomach and ribs.This witness again said that, one blow was given to him by Jambiya and another blow was given by sword.Then some persons rushed on the person of Shahuraj.He was given sword blow by the side of waist.Then ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:19 ::: 414.11crapl 130 Sheshrao was assaulted.Three blows were given on the hand of Sheshrao.A stick blow was given to Bhagwat.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:19 :::Injured sustained bleeding injuries and they collapsed in the court-yard.Injured were thereafter shifted to Nilanga hospital.72] This witness was cross-examined by Advocate Mr. T.V. Jamdar on behalf of some of the accused.It appears that, defence cross-examined him on the aspect that, he is close relative of the complainant - Baburao.He stated in his cross-examination that, Varsha is the daughter of his cousin brother, who is daughter-in-law of complainant Baburao.He stated in his cross-examination that, it is true to say that, he was deposing for the first time today before the Court that, Shivaji Pawar assaulted Gyandeo by sword, however, in our opinion, it is quite possible that, this witness, who is relative of the complainant from some other village, did not know about the name of all the accused, and therefore, ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:19 ::: 414.11crapl 131 merely because first time he stated before the Court that, Shivaji Pawar assaulted Gyandeo by sword would not affect credibility of his evidence.Therefore, his evidence also appears to be trustworthy.His evidence is clear, cogent and does not suffer from any omissions, contradictions or improvements and defence has not brought anything on record so as to disbelieve his evidence before the Court.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:19 :::In her examination in chief, she stated that, complainant Baburao is her father-in-law.Persons from the house and guests were about to sit for dinner, at that time, stone pelting started and abuses ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:19 ::: 414.11crapl 133 started from outside of their house.Then mob and shout raising persons about 30 to 40 came in their court yard.Gyandeo went ahead of all.Thereafter, Vijaykumar, Sanjay, Shahuraj, Sheshrao, Bhagwat, Baburao, this witness and other females came in the court yard.Guests who had came for dinner also came in the court yard.Gyandeo was caught hold by 3 persons amongst mob.Those were Satish Pawar, Tukaram Pawar and Udhav Pawar.Shivaji Kadaji Pawar inflicted sword blow on the chest of Gyandeo.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:19 :::Namdeo Pawar inflicted sword blow near navel of Gyandeo.Mahadeo Shivaji Pawar inflicted Jambiya blow on the right side stomach of Gyandeo.Accused Vimalbai gave knife blow on the back side ribs left side of Gyandeo.Dayanand Bhingole inflicted sword blow on the left side back portion of Gyandeo.Gyandeo had sustained bleeding injuries and felled down.Persons from the mob then assaulted ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:19 ::: 414.11crapl 134 Vijaykumar, Sanjay, Bhagwat, Sheshrao and females.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:19 :::Injured were taken to Nilanga Hospital for treatment.Doctor advised to shift three injured to Latur for further treatment.Gyandeo, Bhagwat and Sheshrao were retained at Nilanga for treatment.Gyandeo died during the course of treatment.igThis witness was cross-examined by Advocate T.V. Jamdar for some of the accused.In her cross-examination, she reiterated her version in her examination-in-chief about the manner in which incident had taken place and also prelude about the incident.74] Mr. Joydeep Chatterji, the learned counsel invited our attention to portion mark `A', `B' from the evidence of this witness and tried to submit that, this witness has not named Namdeo in the said portion mark, and therefore, Namdeo is entitled for benefit of doubt.Upon perusal of the evidence of this witness, in examination-in-chief and also in cross-examination, ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:19 ::: 414.11crapl 135 she has named Namdeo Pawar and also overt act is attributed to him that, he inflicted sword blow near navel of Gyandeo, and therefore, when her evidence finds corroboration from evidence of other prosecution witnesses and medical evidence, there is no reason to disbelieve her evidence.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:19 :::In his examination-in-chief, he stated that, Baburao is his grand-father.Deceased was his uncle.Then persons in the house came outside in the court-yard.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:19 :::Gyandeo came ahead of all.Thereafter, Vijaykumar and other persons came in the court yard.Satish Vaijinath Pawar, Udhav Shivaji Pawar and Tukaram Pawar caught hold Gyandeo.Shivaji Pawar inflicted sword blow on the chest of Gyandeo.Mahadeo Shivaji Pawar inflicted Jambiya blow on the right side stomach of Gyandeo.Namdeo Shivaji Pawar inflicted sword blow on the left side of navel of Gyandeo.Vimalbai Pawar inflicted knife blow on the back of Gyandeo.Dayanand Bhingole inflicted sword blow on the left side of Gyandeo.Due to assault, Gyandeo sustained bleeding injuries and he fell down.Then mob assaulted Vijaykumar.Satish Baburao Pawar, Vaijinath Pawar, ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:19 ::: 414.11crapl 137 Venkat Vaijinath Pawar caught hold Vijaykumar.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:19 :::Madhav Shivaji Pawar inflicted three blows by sword on the face of Vijaykumar.Other persons also inflicted blows on Vijaykumar.Vijaykumar also sustained bleeding injuries and he also felled down.Shahuraj was also assaulted on the back by Madhav Pawar by Jambiya.Shahuraj, Sheshrao, Bhagwat were also assaulted.Then injured were taken to Nilanga Hospital.Doctor told in the hospital that, Gyandeo was dead.This witness was cross examined by Advocate Mr. T.V. Jamdar on behalf of some of the accused.This witness stated that, he did not state portion mark `A' read over to him from his police statement.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:19 :::77] In the present case, even if the portion marked in the police statement of the witnesses, and cross examination on it of said witnesses is considered, there are no material omissions, contradictions or improvements, which would eclipse evidence of eleven ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:19 ::: 414.11crapl 141 eye witnesses coupled with medical evidence and other evidence led by the prosecution.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:19 :::78] P.W.21 in his police statement, in portion mark `A', `B', has stated that, he could not state about specific names of the assailants of all injured witnesses i.e. Vijaykumar, Sanjay, Shahuraj and Sheshrao, but that is not helpful to the defence.The evidence of this witness corroborates with the evidence of other prosecution witnesses, whose evidence has already ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:19 ::: 414.11crapl 142 been discussed.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:19 :::79] After exhaustively discussing evidence of 11 eye witnesses, in foregoing paragraphs, it would be appropriate in nutshell to state herein below the overt-acts attributed by the eye witnesses to the accused persons.P.W.16 Baburao deposed that accused Satish Vaijinath Pawar, Tukaram Shivaji Pawar and Udhav Shivaji Pawar caught hold deceased Gyandeo and Shivaji Kadaji Pawar inflicted sword blow on the chest of Gyandeo, Madhav Shivaji Pawar inflicted sword blow on the right side abdomen of Gyandeo, Namdeo Shivaji Pawar inflicted sword blow on stomach of Gyandeo, Dayanand Bhingole inflicted sword blow on the back side and ribs on the right side of Gyandeo, Vimalbai Shivaji Pawar inflicted knife blow on back of Gyandeo.P.W.16 stated that other accused assaulted Gyandeo with stick and iron rods.As regards assault on injured witness P.W.25 Vijaykumar, Baburao P.W.16 attributed overt-acts to the accused stating that accused Madhav Shivaji Pawar assaulted with sword on the face of Vijaykumar, accused ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:19 ::: 414.11crapl 143 Namdeo Shivaji Pawar inflicted sword blow on the shoulder of Vijaykumar, accused Udhav Shivaji Pawar assaulted by iron rod to Vijaykumar.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:19 :::As regards assault on injured P.W.22 Shahuraj, Baburao P.W.16 attributed overt-acts to the accused stating that accused Prakash Kadaji Pawar assaulted Shahuraj with iron rod, accused Vilas Kadaji Pawar assaulted Shahuraj with stick, and accused Shivaji Kadaji Pawar assaulted Shahuraj with sword.As regards assault on injured P.W.24 Shesherao, Baburao P.W.16 attributed overt-acts to the accused stating that accused Ashok Kadaji Pawar assaulted by Katti on right shin of Shesherao Pawar, accused Shivaji Kadaji Pawar assaulted him with sword on left wrist.As regards assault on injured P.W.23 Bhagwat Pawar, Baburao P.W.16 attributed overt-acts to the accused stating that accused Devidas Pralhad Pawar assaulted with stick on the head of Bhatwat.As regards assault on himself, Baburao P.W.16 attributed overt-acts to the accused stating that accused Waman Dadarao Pawar assaulted with stick on his back.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:19 :::414.11crapl 144 80] P.W.17 Chandrakant Pawar attributed overt-acts to the accused as regards assault on Gyandeo stating that accused Satish Vaijinath Pawar, Tukaram, Udhav caught hold Gyandeo and Shivaji Pawar inflicted sword blow on the chest of Gyandeo, Vimalbai Pawar inflicted knife blow on the ribs of Gyandeo, Dayanand Bhingole inflicted sword blow on the back of Gyandeo, Madhav Shivaji Pawar inflicted blow of Jambiya like sword on the stomach of Gyandeo and Namdeo Shivaji Pawar inflicted sword blow on the stomach of Gyandeo.As regards assault on injured P.W.25 Vijaykumar, Chandrakant Pawar P.W.17 attributed overt-acts to the accused stating that accused Namdeo Shivaji Pawar assaulted with sword on the right side stomach of Vijaykumar, accused Madhav Shivaji Pawar inflicted Jambiya blow on the stomach of Vijaykumar, accused Vilas Kadaji Pawar assaulted with stick on his back, accused Udhav Shivaji Pawar assaulted Vijaykumar with iron rod on right shoulder, Haridas Manik Pawar assaulted Vijaykumar with iron rod on back side of lower portion.As regards assault on P.W.26 Sanjay, Chandrakant Pawar P.W.17 attributed overt-acts to the ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:20 ::: 414.11crapl 145 accused stating that accused Madhav Shivaji Pawar assaulted Sanjay by Jambiya like sword on right side of abdomen.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:20 :::As regards assault on P.W.24 Shesherao, Chandrakant Pawar P.W.17 attributed overt-acts to the accused stating that accused Shivaji Kadaji Pawar assaulted Shesherao on left hand with three blows of sword, also on the waist at the right side back of Shesherao, accused Ashok Kadaji Pawar assaulted Shesherao with Katti on leg shin, accused Prakash kadaji Pawar assaulted by iron rod on back.As regards assault on P.W.23 Bhagwat, Chandrakant Pawar P.W.17 attributed overt-acts to the accused stating that accused Devidas Pralhad Pawar assaulted him with stick on his head.As regards assault on P.W.16 Baburao, Chandrakant Pawar P.W.17 attributed overt-acts to the accused stating that accused Waman Dadarao Pawar assaulted Baburao with stick on back.81] P.W.18 Dilip Pawar attributed overt-acts to the accused stating that accused Satish Vaijinath Pawar, ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:20 ::: 414.11crapl 146 Tukaram, Udhav caught hold Gyandeo and Shivaji Kadaji Pawar inflicted sword blow on the chest of Gyandeo, Vimalbai inflicted knife blow on the left ribs of Gyandeo, Namdeo Shivaji Pawar inflicted sword blow on the stomach of Gyandeo, Dayanand Bhingole inflicted sword blow on back side (left side) of Gyandeo, Madhav Shivaji Pawar inflicted blow on the right side of abdomen of Gyandeo with Jambiya like sword.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:20 :::As regards assault on P.W.25 Vijaykumar, Dilip Pawar P.W.18 attributed overt-acts to the accused stating that accused Madhav Shivaji Pawar assaulted Vijaykumar with Jambiya like sword on the stomach and face, Namdeo Pawar inflicted sword blow on right leg of Vijaykumar, Udhav Shivaji Pawar assaulted Vijaykumar with iron rod on right shoulder, Vilas Kadaji Pawar assaulted with iron rod on back of Vijaykumar.As regards assault on P.W.26 Sanjay, Dilip Pawar P.W.18 attributed overt-acts to the accused stating that accused Madhav Shivaji Pawar assaulted with Jambiya like sword on right side abdomen of Sanjay.As regards assault on P.W.22 Shahuraj, Dilip ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:20 ::: 414.11crapl 147 Pawar P.W.18 attributed overt-acts to the accused stating that accused Vilas Kadaji Pawar assaulted with stick on the left shoulder of Shahuraj, Prakash Kadaji Pawar assaulted with iron rod on waist of Shahuraj, Shivaji Kadaji Pawar assaulted with sword on right side back of Shahuraj.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:20 :::As regards assault on P.W.24 Shesherao, Dilip Pawar P.W.18 attributed overt-acts to the accused stating that accused Ashok Kadaji Pawar assaulted by Katti on right leg shin of Sheshrao, Shivaji Kadaji Pawar inflicted three sword blows on left hand of Sheshrao.As regards assault on P.W.23 Bhagwat, Dilip Pawar P.W.18 attributed overt-acts to the accused stating that accused Devidas Pralhad Pawar assaulted with stick on head of Bhagwat.82] P.W.19 Maroti attributed overt-acts to the accused stating that 2 to 3 accused caught hold Gyandeo, Shivaji Pawar inflicted sword blow on the chest of Gyandeo, one person inflicted sword blow on the back of Gyandeo, two other persons came and one of them inflicted sword blow on the right side of navel of Gyandeo and another person ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:20 ::: 414.11crapl 148 inflicted sword blow on the left side of navel of Gyandeo, and wife of Shivaji Pawar inflicted knife blow on the back of Gyandeo.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:20 :::As regards assault on P.W.25 Vijaykumar, Maroti P.W.19 attributed overt-acts to the accused stating that accused Vijaykumar was assaulted by the mob, three persons caught hold Vijaykumar, sword blow was given on the stomach of Vijaykumar, one more accused person gave sword blow on his stomach and sword blows were inflicted on his stomach and ribs.As regards assault on P.W.22 Shahuraj, Maroti P.W.19 attributed overt-acts to the accused stating that some accused persons rushed on Shahuraj and gave three sword blows on hand of Shahuraj.As regards assault on P.W.23 Bhagwat, Maroti P.W.19 attributed overt-acts to the accused stating that accused gave stick blow to Bhagwat.83] P.W.20 Varshabai Pawar attributed overt-acts to the accused stating that accused Satish, Tukaram, Uddhav caught hold Gayndeo and Shivaji Pawar inflicted ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:20 ::: 414.11crapl 149 sword blow on the chest of Gyandeo, Vimalbai Pawar inflicted knife blow on the ribs of Gyandeo, Dayanand Bhingole inflicted sword blow on back of Gyandeo, Madhav Shivaji Pawar inflicted Jambiya like sword blow on the stomach of Gyandeo and Namdeo Shivaji Pawar inflicted Jambiya (sword) blow on the navel of Gyandeo.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:20 :::As regards assault on herself, this witness attributed overt-acts to the accused stating that Waman Dadarao Pawar inflicted stick blow on her back.P.W.21 Mahadev Pawar attributed overt-acts to 84] the accused stating that accused Satish Vaijinath, Tukaram, Uddhav caught hold Gayndeo and Shivaji Pawar inflicted sword blow on the chest of Gyandeo, Vimalbai Pawar inflicted knife blow on the ribs of Gyandeo, Dayanand Bhingole inflicted sword blow on back of Gyandeo, Madhav Shivaji Pawar inflicted Jambiya like sword blow on the stomach of Gyandeo and Namdeo Shivaji Pawar inflicted Jambiya (sword) blow on the navel of Gyandeo.As regards assault on Vijaykumar P.W25, ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:20 ::: 414.11crapl 150 P.W.21 Mahadev Pawar attributed overt-acts to the accused stating that accused Satish Baburao Pawar, Vaijinath Pawar and Venkat Pawar caught hold Vijaykumar, Madhav Shivaji Pawar inflicted three blows of sword on the face of Vijaykumar.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:20 :::He also attributes overt-act to accused Madhav Pawar in assaulting Shahuraj with Jambiya.85] P.W.22 Shahuraj Pawar attributed overt-acts to the accused stating that accused Satish Vaijinath Pawar, Tukaram, Udhav caught hold Gyandeo and Shivaji Pawar inflicted sword blow on the chest of Gyandeo, Vimalbai Pawar inflicted knife blow on the ribs of Gyandeo, Dayanand Bhingole inflicted sword blow on the back of Gyandeo, Mahdav Shivaji Pawar inflicted Jambiya like sword blow on the stomach of Gyandeo, Namdeo Shivaji Pawar inflicted Jambiya blow on the navel of Gyandeo.As regards assault on himself, P.W.22 Shahuraj Pawar attributed overt-acts to the accused stating that Vilas Kadaji Pawar assaulted with stick on left shoulder and stomach of Shahuraj, Prakash Kadaji Pawar assaulted with ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:20 ::: 414.11crapl 151 iron rod on right side waist of Shahuraj, Shivaji kadaji Pawar assaulted with sword on the right side waist of Shahuraj.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:20 :::86] P.W.23 Bhagwat Pawar attributed overt-acts to the accused stating that Satish, Tukaram, Udhav caught hold Gyandeo and Shivaji Pawar inflicted sword blow on the chest of Gyandeo, Vimalbai Pawar inflicted knife blow on the ribs of Gyandeo, Dayanand Bhingole inflicted sword blow on the back of Gyandeo, Mahdav Shivaji Pawar inflicted Jambiya like sword blow on the stomach of Gyandeo, Namdeo Shivaji Pawar inflicted Jambiya blow on the navel of Gyandeo.As regards assault on himself, P.W.23 Bhagwat Pawar attributed overt-acts to the accused Devidas Pralhad Pawar stating that accused Devidas assaulted him with stick on the head.87] P.W.24 Sheshrao Pawar attributed overt-acts to the accused stating that Satish Vaijinath Pawar, Tukaram, Udhav caught hold Gyandeo and Shivaji Pawar inflicted sword blow on the chest of Gyandeo, Vimalbai Pawar inflicted knife blow on the ribs of Gyandeo, Dayanand ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:20 ::: 414.11crapl 152 Bhingole inflicted sword blow on the back of Gyandeo, Mahdav Shivaji Pawar inflicted Jambiya like sword blow on the stomach of Gyandeo, Namdeo Shivaji Pawar inflicted Jambiya blow on the navel of Gyandeo.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:20 :::90] Maroti Dnyanoji Thorat was working as A.P.I.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:20 :::::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:20 :::On 20.01.2008, he recorded ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:20 ::: 414.11crapl 157 memorandums of accused Namdeo Shivaji, Vilas Kadaji Pawar and Ashok Kadaji Pawar in presence of panchas.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:20 :::Further accused have not given memorandum statement before him nor produced any weapon in pursuance to such memorandum.He denied suggestion that, he prepared false panchnama about seizure of weapons and clothes from the accused.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:20 :::investigated the crime from 31.01.2008 to 18 th June, 2008 as API.He further stated that, he recorded statement of Gram Sevak Goswami and collected the Gram Panchayat extract of the place of incident.On 05.04.2008, he submitted charge sheet against accused Nos. 1 to 14 as there was sufficient evidence against them, ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:20 ::: 414.11crapl 160 showing accused No.15 to 37 absconding.He stated that, on 20.05.2008, accused Vishwanath Pawar, Udhav Pawar and Vaijinath Pawar were released on anticipatory bail, and they produced sticks and iron rod before him and he seized the same under separate panchanamas.Panchanama shown to him is the same.Lables bearing signatures of PW-30 and panch were affixed on seized weapons.Then due to his transfer, he handed over investigation to PSI Naginwad.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:20 :::::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:20 :::Nothing useful to the defence has been brought on record from his cross examination.He stated in his evidence that, he attached to Aurad Shahajani Police Station from 20.06.2008 to January 2009 as API.He received investigation in Crime No.02/2008 on 20.06.2008 from API Kendre.He had arrested accused Nagnath Pawar, Vimalbai Pawar and Komalbai Pawar.Accused Vimalbasi had produced knife before him which he seized under panchnama in the presence of panch.Panchnama shown to him, bears signature of PW-31 and panch.Thereafter, he submitted the charge sheet against above referred accused.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:20 :::93] We have discussed the entire evidence on record.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:20 :::Out of six injured witnesses, three injured witnesses i.e. Vijaykumar, Shahuraj and Sanjay, were examined by the Medical Officer, and the evidence of the Medical Officer suggests that nature of injuries sustained was grievous and dangerous to life.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:20 :::The Supreme Court in the case of Ranjit Singh and Ors v. State of M.P.3 in para 9 held that in case the informant fails to name a particular accused in the FIR, and the said accused is named at the earliest opportunity, when the statements of witnesses are recorded, it cannot tilt the balance in favour of the accused.Further argument advanced by the defence is 3 AIR 2011 SC 255;::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:20 :::::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:21 :::::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:21 :::And caused grievous injury to Shahuraj, Vijaykumar and Sanjay whereas, simple injuries to other three witnesses.There cannot be a room for doubt that the members of the said assembly had knowledge that use of such weapons would certainly result into casualties.The behaviour of the assembly while proceeding towards the house of complainant, as stated by the witnesses, was certainly ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:21 ::: 414.11crapl 176 violent, some of them were giving slogans that they would ensure that no member of the complainant's family is left alive.Apart from that, they were instigating and encouraging each other for commission of offence.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:21 :::Therefore, if the evidence of the complainant and other witnesses is considered in its entirety, an inevitable conclusion is that each member of the unlawful assembly had knowledge that there would be commission of offence / casualties.The members knew that weapons which were carried by some of the members of the assembly, if used, certainly would result into death or grievous injuries and therefore, behaviour of the assembly prior to the incident and at the time of incident and the fact that deadly weapons were used, leads to only conclusion that they formed an unlawful assembly in furtherance of their common object to assault / cause grievous hurt, in order to kill every member of the family of complainant Baburao, and in furtherance of that common object, as a matter of fact, Gyandeo was assaulted with swords and other weapons and as a result, he died.Out of eleven eye witnesses, six are injured witnesses; three of them suffered grievous injuries, dangerous to their lives.The overwhelming medical ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:21 ::: 414.11crapl 177 evidence clearly corroborates the version / evidence of the eye witnesses.P.W.27 Dr.Therefore, it is not necessary to repeat the same once again.In order to hold that the assembly was unlawful, it is necessary to meet the ingredients of sections 141 and 142 of IPC.In the present case, the prosecution has established beyond doubt that there was assembly of more than five persons and the case in hand would be covered by the provisions of section 141 of IPC.Section 141 of IPC reads, thus:::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:21 :::Unlawful assembly.--An assembly of five or more persons is designated an "unlawful assembly", if the common object of the persons composing that assembly is-First.-To overawe by criminal force, or show of criminal force, or the Central or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State, or any public servant in the exercise of the lawful power of such public servant; or Second.-To resist the execution of any law, or of any legal process; or Third.-To commit any mischief or criminal trespass, or other offence; or Fourth.-By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to any person to take or obtain possession of any property, or to deprive any person ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:21 ::: 414.11crapl 178 of the enjoyment of a right of way, or of the use of water or other incorporeal right of which he is in possession or enjoyment, or to enforce any right or supposed right; or Fifth.-By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to compel any person to do what he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do what he is legally entitled to do.Explanation.-An assembly which was not unlawful when it assembled, may subsequently become an unlawful assembly."::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:21 :::98] Upon careful perusal of the provisions of section 141 of IPC, the present case is covered under "Clause Third".The assembly entered in the house of the complainant and thereby committed criminal trespass.They have also committed offence and therefore, ingredients of section 141 are met in the present case.The accused persons more than five in number, in furtherance of common object to assault / cause grievous hurt to members of complainant's family, so as to kill every member of the family of complainant Baburao, proceeded to the house of the complainant with deadly weapons, their behaviour prior to commission of offence and at the time of commission of offence was certainly in furtherance of common object.Their involvement was not passive.They knew the result of forming such an unlawful assembly.As a matter of fact, the ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:21 ::: 414.11crapl 179 members of the unlawful assembly who are named and overt act attributed to them, actually participated in commission of murder of Gyandeo and injured other eye witnesses.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:21 :::99] Section 142 of IPC reads, thus:Being member of unlawful assembly.--Whoever, being aware of facts which render any assembly an unlawful assembly, intentionally joins that assembly, or continues in it, is said to be a member of an unlawful assembly."As already observed, members of the unlawful assembly were aware as to for what purpose they have assembled and were proceeding to the house of Baburao, they were aggressors, they formed an unlawful assembly knowing the object, joined the assembly and they continued their association till the actual offence was committed.Therefore, in the present case, the prosecution has proved that in furtherance of the common object, the accused persons formed an unlawful assembly and they proceeded to the house of the complainant Baburao so as to assault / cause grievous hurt, to finish every member of his family and succeeded in killing his son Gyandeo and injuring other six eye witnesses from his blood relation.The other ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:21 ::: 414.11crapl 180 witnesses have also received injuries but, those were not visible and the medical officer has not examined them.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:21 :::100] At this juncture, it would be relevant to refer the provisions of section 149 of IPC which read.Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object.--If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution igof the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence."101] By applying the test / criteria laid down in the case of Masalti (supra) that in case of mob attack, in order to ascertain whether there was actual participation of each accused, the Court should ensure that two or more than two witnesses have actually deposed about the involvement of accused in commission of offence.If said test is applied in respect of accused Shivaji Kadaji Pawar, P.W.25 Vijaykumar, P.W.21 Mahadev, P.W.22 Shahuraj and P.W.16 Baburao i.e. complainant have in clear words stated his involvement and overt-acts.He assaulted deceased Gyandeo with sword on chest and to that effect, there is corroboration through medical evidence.All other eye ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:21 ::: 414.11crapl 181 witnesses have also deposed that accused Shivaji assaulted Gyandeo with sword.After assaulting Gyandeo, he even assaulted other eye witnesses i.e. P.W.22 Shahuraj and other witnesses.Therefore, so far as Shivaji Kadaji Pawar is concerned, the evidence of prosecution witnesses is consistent and gets corroboration from the medical evidence.As already observed, P.W.27 Dr.Pralhad Solanke and P.W.28 Dr. Shivanand Biradar were examined as medical officers and they have deposed in their evidence about the injuries sustained by the deceased Gyandeo and other eye witnesses.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:21 :::As far as accused Shivaji Kadaji Pawar is concerned, the eye witnesses namely, P.W.16, P.W.17, P.W.18, P.W.19, P.W.20, P.W.21, P.W.22, P.W.23, P.W.24, P.W.25, P.W.26, attributed overt-acts to Shivaji stating that he inflicted sword blows on the person of deceased Gyandeo, injured Sheshrao and Shahuraj.102] So far as accused Namdeo Shivaji Pawar is concerned, again the evidence of P.W.25 Vijaykumar, P.W.21 Mahadev, P.W.22 Shahuraj and P.W.16 Baburao i.e. ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:21 ::: 414.11crapl 182 complainant is consistent that Namdeo assaulted with a sword not only to the deceased Gyandeo but, even to other witnesses.Since the evidence of all the witnesses have been already discussed in detail, it is not necessary to repeat the same.Suffice it to say that, as regards accused Namdeo Shivaji Pawar is concerned, eye witnesses namely, P.W.16, P.W.17, P.W.18, attributed overt-acts to accused Namdeo that he inflicted Jambiya blows to Gyandeo deceased and Vijaykumar - injured, P.W.20 attributed that he inflicted Jambiya blow to Gyandeo P.W.21 stated that he gave Jambiya blow to Shahuraj, P.W.22, P.W.23, P.W.24, P.W.25, P.W.26 attributed overt-acts to accused Namdeo that he gave Jambiya blow to deceased Gyandeo.P.W.25 also attributed overt-acts to Namdeo that he gave Jambiya blow him i.e. P.W.25 Vijaykumar.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:21 :::Suffice it to say that by applying the test in the case of Masalti (supra), there is overwhelming evidence regarding involvement of Namdeo Shivaji Pawar in the commission of offence.The eye witness account gets corroboration from the medical evidence.The other eye ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:21 ::: 414.11crapl 183 witnesses have also stated about his involvement.Though it was argued by the learned Counsel for the accused that Namdeo is not named in the FIR or complaint, FIR is not an encyclopedia and evidence of eleven eye witnesses is before us and involvement of Namdeo is proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.The eye witness account gets corroboration from medical evidence and other evidence on record.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:21 :::103] P.W.25 Vijaykumar, P.W.21 Mahadev, P.W.22 Shahuraj and P.W.16 Baburao i.e. complainant and almost all eye witnesses have stated about presence of Vimalbai Pawar in the unlawful assembly.Not only that, a specific overt-act has been attributed to her that she assaulted on the ribs of Gyandeo with a knife.If medical evidence is perused carefully and in particular, Injury No.5 sustained by deceased Gyandeo, the evidence of prosecution witnesses about the overt-act played by Vimalbai Pawar gets corroboration from medical evidence.As far as accused Vimalbai Pawar is concerned, P.W.16, P.W.18, P.W.20, P.W.21, P.W.22, P.W.23, P.W.24, ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:21 ::: 414.11crapl 184 P.W.25, P.W.26 attributed overt-acts to accused Vimalbai that she inflicted knife blow on the back of deceased Gyandeo.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:21 :::The trial Court acquitted her on the ground that there is no proper recovery of knife from her.In our opinion, it appears that the trial Court failed in its duty to take into consideration the substantive piece of evidence in the nature of eye witnesses and also the medical evidence.Merely because, there is no proper recovery of knife, that by itself cannot be a ground to ignore the evidence of eleven eye witnesses, which gets corroboration from the medical evidence and, therefore, her involvement as a member of the unlawful assembly and actual commission of offence has been proved by the prosecution mainly through the evidence of P.W.25 Vijaykumar, P.W.21 Mahadev, P.W.22 Shahuraj and P.W.16 Baburao i.e. complainant and other eye-104] Therefore, if the test in the case of Masalti (supra) is applied, the prosecution case against the accused Shivaji Kadaji Pawar, Namdeo Shivaji Pawar and Vimalbai ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:22 ::: 414.11crapl 185 Shivaji Pawar is fully established.It is relevant to mention at this juncture that P.W.25 Vijaykumar was seriously injured and he sustained injuries dangerous to his life.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:22 :::Therefore, his evidence assumes importance and his evidence does not suffer from any contradictions, omissions or improvements.Like in the same manner, evidence of P.W.21 Mahadeo, so far the above three accused are concerned, does not suffer from any contradictions, omissions or improvements.105] P.W.25 Vijaykumar, P.W.21 Mahadev, P.W.22 Shahuraj and P.W.16 Baburao i.e. complainant, all of them have stated that the persons from the mob were pelting stones, then mob came in the court-yard, mob was comprising of 30 - 40 persons, on hearing shouts Gyandeo came outside first and P.W.25 Vijaykumar followed him.Other persons in the house also came in the court-yard.Accused Satish Vaijinath Pawar, Udhav Shivaji Pawar and Tukaram Pawar caught hold Gyandeo and at that time, Shivaji Kadaji Pawar inflicted sword blow on left chest of Gyandeo.Almost all eye witnesses including P.W.25 Vijaykumar, P.W.21 Mahadev, P.W.22 Shahuraj and P.W.16 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:22 ::: 414.11crapl 186 Baburao i.e. complainant are consistent in their deposition that the above mentioned three accused caught hold Gyandeo and then Shivaji Pawar inflicted sword blow on left chest of Gyandeo.Therefore, involvement of these three accused in caught holding Gyandeo facilitated accused persons and in particular, Shivaji Pawar to give blow with sword on the chest of Gyandeo and also to other accused to assault Gyandeo and Vijaykumar.The other witnesses have also stated that after Gyandeo fell down, Satish Baburao Pawar, Vaijinath Pawar, Venkat Vaijinath Pawar caught hold P.W.25 Vijaykumar.Therefore, involvement of Satish Baburao Pawar, Vaijinath Pawar, Venkat Vaijinath Pawar in caught holding P.W.25 Vijaykumar is also stated by the prosecution witnesses.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:22 :::As regards accused Uddhav Shivaji Pawar, Satish Vaijinath Pawar and Tukaram Shivaji Pawar, P.WS.16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26 attributed overt-acts to these accused that they caught hold Gyandeo thereby facilitating other accused to assault him.P.Ws.16, 17, 18 and 25 also attributed overt-acts to accused Uddhav that he assaulted Vijaykumar by iron rod. P.Ws.21 and 25 attributed overt-acts to Satish ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:22 ::: 414.11crapl 187 that he caught hold Vijaykumar.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:22 :::As regards accused Vilas Shivaji Pawar, P.Ws.16 & 18 attributed overt-acts to Vilas stating that assaulted Vijaykumar and Shahuraj by stick, P.WS.17 & 25 stated that he assaulted with stick to Vijaykumar, P.W.22 stated that Vilas assaulted with stick to Shahuraj.As regards accused Ashok Kadaji Pawar, P.Ws.16, 17, 18 and 24 attributed overt-acts to Ashok that he assaulted injured Sheshrao with Katti.As regards accused Waman Dadarao Pawar, P.Ws.16, and 17 attributed overt-acts to Waman that he assaulted Baburao with stick on back and P.W.18 attributed overt-acts to Waman that he assaulted Varsha with stick.As regards accused Dayanand Maroti Bhingole (absconding), P.Ws.16, 17, 18, 20 to 26 attributed overt-acts to Dayanand that he assaulted deceased Gyandeo with sword.As regards accused Madhav Shivaji Pawar (absconding), P.Ws.16. 21 & 25 stated that Madahv inflicted sword/Jambiya blow to Gyandeo and Vijaykumar, P.Ws.17 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:22 ::: 414.11crapl 188 & 18 attributed overt-acts to accused Madhav that he assaulted injured Gyandeo, Vijaykumar and Sanjay with sword like Jambiya.P.W.26 stated that accused Madhav assaulted Gyandeo and Sanjay with sword - Jambiya.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:22 :::P.Ws.20, 22, 23, 24 attributed overt-acts to accused Madhav that he assaulted Gyandeo with sword.As regards accused Haridas Manik Pawar, P.Ws.17 & 25 attributed overt-acts to accused Haridas that he assaulted injured Vijaykumar with iron rod.As regards accused Devidas Pralhad Pawar, P.Ws.16, 17, 18 and 23 attributed overt-acts to accused Devidas that he assaulted injured Bhagwat with stick.As regards accused Venkat Vaijinath Pawar, P.Ws.21 & 25 attributed overt-acts to accused Venkat that he caught hold injured Vijaykumar.As regards accused Vaijinath Vithal Pawar, P.Ws.21 & 25 attributed overt-acts to accused Vaijinath that he caught hold injured Vijaykumar.As regards accused Satish Baburao Pawar, P.W.21 Mahadeo Pawar attributed overt-act to accused Satish Baburao Pawar stating that along with other accused ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:22 ::: 414.11crapl 189 he caught hold Vijaykumar.Even, P.W.25 Vijaykumar stated that Satish Pawar caught hold him.Vijaykumar identified the accused Satish Baburao Pawar along with other accused present in the court.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:22 :::As regards accused Prakash Kadaji Pawar, P.Ws.16,17, 18, 22 attributed overt-acts to accused Prakash that he assaulted injured Shahuraj with iron rod.Therefore, their presence in the unlawful assembly and their overt-acts has been stated by the prosecution witnesses, which facilitated other accused to assault Gyandeo and also P.W.25 Vijaykumar.We have also observed that the mob formed an unlawful assembly in furtherance of their common object to finish the members of complainant's family and, therefore, the provisions of section 149 of IPC are very much attracted and, therefore, each member of the unlawful assembly is equally responsible being part of the unlawful assembly.Therefore, the proselcution has proved beyond reasonable doubt involvement of Satish Vaijinath Pawar, Udhav Shivaji Pawar and Tukaram Pawar who caught hold Gyandeo and Satish Baburao Pawar, Venkat Vaijinath Pawar and Vaijinath Pawar caught hold Vijaykumar, which facilitated other ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:22 ::: 414.11crapl 190 accused to inflict blows with their weapons.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:22 :::106] So far as accused Ashok Kadaji Pawar is concerned, there is evidence of P.W.21 that he was holding Katti and assaulted injured witness Shesherao.P.W.16 has also assigned specific role to him.Some of other witnesses have also deposed to that effect.107] In case of accused Venkat Pawar, the P.W.25 Vijaykumar attributed overt-act to accused Venkat that he along other accused caught hold this witness while Madhav Shivaji Pawar and Namdeo Pawar inflicted sword blows to him.So also P.W.21 Mahadeo also attributed overt-act to accused Venkat that he caught hold Vijaykumar and facilitated inflicting of sword blows by by Madhav Shivaji Pawar.108] So far as accused Haridas Manik Pawar is concerned, P.W.25 Vijaykumar in his evidence stated that he assaulted by iron rod on his back.So far as accused Devidas Pralhad Pawar is concerned, P.W.16 Baburao has deposed that Devidas assaulted Bhagwat Pawar with stick.So far as accused Satish Baburao Pawar is concerned, P.W.21 stated that he caught hold P.W.25 Vijaykumar and also P.W.25 deposed to that effect.Other witnesses have also stated that Satish Pawar caught hold Vijaykumar.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:22 :::The injuries suffered by the deceased Gyandeo and the injured witnesses are as, under:(1) Deceased Gyandeo:i] C L W at left Temporal Region Size 3 x 2 x 1 cm.ii] Deep incised wound at left anterior axillary region, at 5th and 6th Inter costal space with 3 x 2 x Deep dimension.iii] Deep incised wound at epigastric region 3 x 2 x Deep.iv] Deep incised wound at left hypochamdric region size 3 x 2 x Deep.v] Deep incised wound at left infra-scapular region.Size 3 x 2 x Deep.vi] Parallel wound deep of same dimension, 5 Cm on left of 5th wound.Internal injuries found on the dead body:i] Fracture of 5th and 6th left rib.ii] Tear at Ventricular region.iii] Left Ventricle get punctured with 1.5 Cm dimensions.iv] Deep incised wound at left lung ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:22 ::: 414.11crapl 192 paranchyme on back.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:22 :::v] Stomach get punctured of dimensions 2 Cm.(2) Injuries suffered by Sheshrao S/o Baburao Pawar:i] Clean Incised wound over left dorsum of forearm, horizontal, near wrist.Size 3 x 1 x 1 Cm.ii] Clean Incised wound over left forearm near wrist lower one-third, oblique, dorsoventrally on radial side.Size 8 x 1.5 x 1.5 depth Cms.It was bleeding.iii] Clean Incised wound on medical aspect of injury No.2, left forearm.iv] Contusion over wrist joint left.Size 3 x 4 x 1 Cm Movements were painful and restricted.(3) Injuries suffered by Shahuraj S/o Baburao Pawar:Incised wound penetrating over right renal angle over back, oblique.Size 4 x 1 Cm penetrating depth not recorded as deep.It was grievous in nature, caused by hard and sharp weapon, within 6 hours.Incised penetrating injury over right iliac fossa.Size 5 x 2.5 Cm. penetrating.It was grievous in nature, caused by hard and sharp weapon, within 6 hours.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:22 :::(i) Incised penetrating wound over right back, oblique, Size 10 x 5 Cm muscle deep.(ii) Incised penetrating wound over infra- scapular region, right back.(iii) Incised penetrating wound, over left scapular region.Size 3 x 2.5 Cm x muscle deep.(iv) Incised penetrating wound, infra-scapular region, right side.Size 3 x 1.5 Cm.X muscles cut.(v) Incised penetrating would, left lower back, para-spinal region.Size 2 x 1.5 Cm.x deep muscles cut.(vi) Incised would, left zygomatic arch.Size 4 x 1 x ½ Cm.(vii) Penetrating incised wound with intestinal coils protruding out of injury, over supra umbilical region, extending to epigastric region.Size 6 x 4 Cm.(viii) Abrasion with C.L.W. over upper lip over nose and upper lip.Size 1 x ½ x ½ Cm.(ix) Abrasion over left elbow.Size 1 x 1 x ½ Cm.Injuries No. 1 to 5 and 7 are grievous in nature.Injury Nos. 6, 8 and 9 are simple in nature.Except injury no. 9 caused by hard and blunt object.(6) Injuries suffered by Bhagwat S/o Vijaykumar Pawar:::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:22 :::414.11crapl 194 Clean lacerated wound over left frontal region, Size 10 x 2.5 Cm.It was caused by hard and blunt object, within 6 hours.It was simple in nature.109] So far as original accused No.2 Madhav Ganpat Shahapure, No.5 Abhimanyu Raosaheb Pawar, No.6 Manik s/o Ramji Pawar, No.7 Satyanarayan Madhav Shahapure, No.8 Balaji s/o Apparao Pawar, No.9 Govind s/o Ganpat Shahapure, No.10 Ashok s/o Vishwanath Pawar, No.15 Dhondiram Raosaheb Pawar, No.16 Vishwanath s/o Vithal Pawar, No.19 Pandurang s/o Vishwanath Pawar, No.21 Maroti Madhav Pawar, No.22 Vishnu Madhav Pawar, No.23 Chandrahar Vishwanath Pawar, No.24 Vinayak Raosaheb Pawar, No.26 Narayan Maroti Bhingole, No.27 Suresh s/o Maroti Bhingole, No.28 Pandurang Maroti Bhingole, No.33 Nagnath Raosaheb Pawar and No.35 Komal Maroti Pawar are concerned, P.W.25 Vijaykumar, who was seriously injured, has stated in his cross-examination that they were not present at the spot.Even, the complainant P.W.16 Baburao in his cross-examination has stated that these persons have no concern with the incident.Even during the course of argument, the learned A.P.P. and also the learned Counsel for the complainant have brought to the notice of ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:22 ::: 414.11crapl 195 this Court the evidence available against only 17 accused.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:22 :::Those 17 accused persons against whom evidence is available, which is discussed in foregoing paragraphs, are as follows:Shivaji Kadaji Pawar.Tukaram Shivaji Pawar,Vilas Shivaji Pawar.Ashok Kadaji Pawar.Namdeo Shivaji Pawar.Waman Dadarao Pawar.Dayanand Maroti Bhingole.(Absconding).Vimal Shivaji Pawar.Madhav Shivaji Pawar.(Absconding).Haridas Manik Pawar.Udhav Shivaji Pawar.Devidas Pralhad Pawar.Venkat Vaijinath Pawar.Satish Vaijinath Pawar.Vaijinath Vithal Pawar.Satish Baburao Pawar.Prakash Kadaji Pawar.Out of these 17 accused, Dayanand s/o maroti Bhingole and Madhav s/o Shivaji Pawar are absconding and their trial has been separated.110] We have discussed the evidence of the ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:22 ::: 414.11crapl 196 prosecution witnesses in detail and the overt-acts attributed to them qua each accused and also the medical evidence.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:22 :::Upon re-appreciating the entire evidence, inevitable conclusion is that above mentioned accused persons named by witnesses formed an unlawful assembly, they were aggressors, they had knowledge, they went to the house of the complainant, some of them gave slogans that they will see that no member of the family of the complainant is left alive and in furtherance of their common object to assault / cause grievous hurt to members of complainant's family so as to finish entire family, accused entered in the house of the complainant and in court-yard, they killed Gyandeo and injured Vijaykumar, Sanjay and Shahuraj grievously and three others with simple injuries.So far other family members of the family complainant are concerned, it is deposed by the complainant that other members were also assaulted, their injuries were not visible and therefore, they were not examined by the Medical Officer.In our opinion, when prosecution has alleged formation of unlawful assembly, and more than five accused assaulting by deadly weapons on Gyandeo, and also other witnesses were assaulted with common object to cause grievous hurt to the members of the family of the complainant Baburao, each member of the unlawful assembly irrespective of any overt act attributed to him/her, if prosecution has established his/her presence at the spot, and their participation is with the knowledge that, such deadly weapons carried either by the co-accused or by himself/herself in furtherance of common object, is sufficient to hold responsible such accused for ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:22 ::: 414.11crapl 198 commission of all the offences in view of the provisions of Sections 141, 142 and 149 of I.P. Code.The evidence of PW-16, PW-25 and other eye witnesses corroborates with each other in material particulars about formation of unlawful assembly by the accused persons and in furtherance of common object to assault / cause grievous hurt to the family members of the complainant, each member of said unlawful assembly is equally responsible for death of Gyandeo and injuries inflicted on the prosecution witnesses, and therefore, it becomes wholly irrelevant which member of unlawful assembly had assaulted by which weapon, and whether there is corresponding injuries found on the body of the victims because of blow given by the accused.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:22 :::::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:22 :::It is a requirement of the society and the law must respond to its need.The greatest virtue of law is its flexibility and its adaptability, it must change from time to time so that it answers the cry of the people, the need of the hour and the order of the day.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:22 :::In the light of observations of the Supreme Court in case of Jai Kumar (supra), it is our duty to award appropriate sentence to the accused persons who were members of unlawful assembly and in furtherance of their common object, indeed they participated in the commission of offence and their overt-acts are spelled out by as many as eleven eye witnesses examined by the prosecution.Judgment and order of acquittal reversed and all the accused were convicted by allowing government 10 2014(2) ACR 1756;::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:23 :::Evidence adduced on behalf of prosecution and defence taken by appellants were sufficient to establish fact that appellants had formed unlawful assembly having its common object to commit murder of deceased and in furtherance of common object of assembly, they were armed with deadly weapons.Therefore, Chhattisgarh High Court maintained order of conviction of the accused therein.In case of Manilal vs. State of Kerala,12 the Kerala High Court while explaining scope of section 149 of IPC, held that even if the identity of some of the accused forming part of the unlawful assembly is not established or even if 11 2014 CRI.L.J.4704;12 ILR2014(2)Kerala871; 2014(2)KLT800;::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:23 :::414.11crapl 204 one or more of the accused are acquitted granting benefit of doubt, that does not absolve the other accused from being proceeded against under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.All accused persons came together armed with lathis and gun.All requisite tests to attract section 149 established by prosecution and the contentions raised by appellants therein were rejected and the Supreme Court upheld the order of conviction passed by the High Court.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:23 :::Out of eleven eye witnesses, six are injured witnesses, out of which, three suffered grievous injuries, dangerous to their lives.These witnesses have attributed overt-acts to afore mentioned 15 accused persons.However, it would be relevant to mention at this juncture that, it appears that the judgment in case of Masalti (supra), which is by the larger Bench consisting four Honourable Judges, was not brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Kuldeep Yadav (supra).114] In the light of detail discussion in the foregoing paragraphs, we are of the considered view that the judgment and order dated 20.6.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nilanga in Sessions Case No.14 of 2008 is not sustainable in law.We modify the order of the trial Court so far original accused No.1 Shivaji Kadaji Pawar, accused No.13 Namdeo Shivaji Pawar and original accused 14 (2011) 5 SCC 324;::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:23 :::414.11crapl 206 No.11 Vilas Kadaji Pawar are concerned and also partly allow Criminal Appeal No.601/2012 filed by complainant Shahuraj Baburao Pawar and Criminal Appeal No.602/2012 filed by the State against order of acquittal, on the following terms:(i) The original accused No.1 Shivaji Kadaji Pawar, accused No.13 Namdeo Shivaji Pawar, accused No.34 Vimal w/o Shivaji Pawar, accused No.20 Satish Vaijinath Pawar, accused No.18 Uddhav Shivaji Pawar, and accused No.4 Tukaram Shivaji Pawar, who are responsible for death of Gyandeo, are hereby convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 r.w. 149 of IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-each, in default, R.I. for a period of two years;ii) The original accused No.1 Shivaji Kadaji Pawar, accused No.13 Namdeo Shivaji Pawar, accused No.34 Vimal w/o Shivaji Pawar, accused No.20 Satish Vaijinath Pawar, accused No.18 Uddhav Shivaji Pawar, and accused No.4 Tukaram Shivaji Pawar, accused No.11 Vilas Kadaji Pawar, accused No.12 Ashok Kadaji Pawar, accused No.14 Waman Dadarao ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:23 ::: 414.11crapl 207 Pawar, accused No.29 Haridas Manik Pawar, accused No.31 Devidas Pralhad Pawar, accused No.25 Venkat Vaijinath Pawar, accused No.17 Vaijinath Vithal Pawar, accused No.32 Satish Baburao Pawar, and accused No.30 Prakash Kadaji Pawar are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 452 r.w. 149 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for four years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- each, in default, R.I. for six months;::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:23 :::iii) The original accused No.1 Shivaji Kadaji Pawar, accused No.13 Namdeo Shivaji Pawar, accused No.20 Satish Vaijinath Pawar, accused No.18 Uddhav Shivaji Pawar, accused No.4 Tukaram Shivaji Pawar, accused No.11 Vilas Kadaji Pawar, accused No.12 Ashok Kadaji Pawar, accused No.29 Haridas Manik Pawar, accused No.31 Devidas Pralhad Pawar, accused No.25 Venkat Vaijinath Pawar, accused No.17 Vaijinath Vithal Pawar, accused No.32 Satish Baburao Pawar, and accused No.30 Prakash Kadaji Pawar are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 r.w. 149 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- each, in ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:23 ::: 414.11crapl 208 default, R.I. for one year;::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:23 :::iv) Original Accused No.14 Waman Dadarao Pawar is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, R.I. for one month;v) The original accused No.1 Shivaji Kadaji Pawar, accused No.13 Namdeo Shivaji Pawar, accused No.20 Satish Vaijinath Pawar, accused No.18 Uddhav Shivaji Pawar, accused No.4 Tukaram Shivaji Pawar, accused No.11 Vilas Kadaji Pawar, accused No.12 Ashok Kadaji Pawar, accused No.14 Waman Dadarao Pawar, accused No.29 Haridas Manik Pawar, accused No.31 Devidas Pralhad Pawar, accused No.25 Venkat Vaijinath Pawar, accused No.17 Vaijinath Vithal Pawar, accused No.32 Satish Baburao Pawar, and accused No.30 Prakash Kadaji Pawar are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 r.w. 149 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default, R.I. for one month;::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:23 :::vi) All the substantive sentences shall run concurrently.vii) The original accused No.1 Shivaji Kadaji Pawar and accused No.13 Namdeo Shivaji Pawar, who are in jail, and remaining accused shall be given set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. for the period, if already spent in jail.viii) All the afore mentioned accused, who are convicted and sentenced as above and who are not in jail, shall surrender forthwith.ix) Original accused No.2 Madhav s/o.Ganpat Shahapure, accused No.3 Pandhari s/o.Manik Pawar, accused No.5 Abhimanyu s/o.Raosaheb Pawar, accused No.6Manik s/o.Ramji Pawar, accused No.7 Satyanarayan s/o.Madhav Shahapure, accused No.8 Balaji s/o.Apparao Pawar, accused No.9 Govind s/o.Ganpat Shahapure, accused No.10 Ashok s/o.Vishwanath Pawar, accused No.15 Dhondiram s/o.Raosaheb Pawar, accused No.16 Vishwanath s/o.Vithal Pawar, accused No.19 Pandurang s/o.Vishwanath Pawar, accused No.21 Maroti s/o.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:23 :::414.11crapl 210 Madhav Pawar, accused No.22 Vishnu s/o.Madhav Pawar, accused No.23 Chandrahar s/o.Vishwanath Pawar, accused No.24 Vinayak s/o.Raosaheb Pawar, accused No.26 Narayan s/o.Maroti Bhingole, accused No.27 Suresh s/o.Maroti Bhingole, accused No.28 Pandurang s/o.Maroti Bhingole, accused No.33 Nagnath s/o Raosaheb Pawar, and accused No.35 Komal s/o.Maroti Pawar, are acquitted of the offences with which they were charged;x) Accordingly, Criminal Appeal No.414/2011 filed by original accused No.1 Shivaji Kadaji Pawar, accused No.11 Vilas Kadaji Pawar and accused No.13 Namdeo Shivaji Pawar, against order of conviction and sentence, is dismissed.Criminal Appeal No.601/2012 and Criminal Appeal No.602/2012 filed by the complainant and the State respectively, against order of acquittal, are allowed partly and stand disposed of.::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2015 23:59:23 :::
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
24,267,516 |
Brief facts of the Appeal can be stated as follows :-They had two other brothers by name Dattatraya and PW-4 Kundalik.Deceased Lalasaheb was given in adoption to one Yeshoda Kadam and his name was entered into the property of Yeshoda's husband Ramchandra Kadam.Appellant No.1 wanted to sell the ancestral property - the agricultural land.His brothers Dattatraya and Lalasaheb told him not to sell the land.Dattatraya even offered to purchase the said land from Appellant No.1 and requested him not to sell it to any other person.Appellant No.1 was not ready for the same.The incident that took place on 18 th April, 2007 was the outcome of these strained relations.On that day, while deceased Lalasaheb was sitting on the terrace of the house, at about 7:30 pm, Appellant No.1 came in front of his house and started giving abuses in indecent language as to how Lalasaheb can oppose him in respect of selling of the agricultural land.Lalasaheb, therefore, came down from the terrace.The fighting ensued between Appellant No.1 and Lalasaheb.Meanwhile, Appellant No.2 Somnath also came there with wooden stump.Both the Appellants then gave fist blows and kicks to Lalasaheb.Appellant No.2 also gave the blows of wooden stump.By that time, PW-3 Kantabai, Dattraya's wife, came there and snatched wooden stump from the hands of Appellant No.2 Somnath.PW-2 Laxmi, wife of Lalasaheb, also tried to intervene in the fight, but she could not succeed.Appellant No.1-Vitthal then took out knife and inflicted several blows of knife on the stomach, chest and head of Lalasaheb.As a result, Lalasaheb fell down.PW-4 Kundalik, who had also reached there, then took Lalasaheb to Krishna Charitable Hospital.There Doctor declared Lalasaheb to be dead before admission.On her complaint, C.R. No.72 of 2007 came to be registered at 3/21 APEAL-864-09.doc ::: Uploaded on - 17/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 18/02/2016 00:00:08 ::: Karad Taluka Police Station.PW-10 API Sambhaji Patil took over investigation of the case and sent dead body of Lalasaheb for postmortem examination, after conducting Inquest Panchanama (Exhibit-5).He took the search of the Appellants and arrested them on the same day.Both the Appellants were also referred for medical examination in view of the presence of some injuries on their person.Their blood stained clothes were also seized.The Spot Panchanama was made on the same night and from the spot, the blood stained knife was seized under Panchanama (Exhibit-13).Thereafter he guided Police and Panchas to his house and produced the blood stained shirts and wooden stump.They were seized under Panchanama (Exhibit-34).At that time, Appellant No.1 Vitthal came there and started giving him abuses and confronting him as to why Lalasaheb was opposing Appellant No.1 from selling the agricultural land.Lalasaheb, therefore, came down from the terrace and went outside the house.As per evidence of PW-2 Laxmi, the fighting ensued between Appellant No.1-Vitthal and her husband Lalasaheb.During that time, Appellant No.2-Somnath also came 9/21 APEAL-864-09.doc ::: Uploaded on - 17/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 18/02/2016 00:00:08 ::: there with wooden stump.Both the Appellants gave fist blows and kick blows to Lalasaheb.Appellant No.2 also assaulted Lalasaheb with wooden stump.By that time, PW-3 Kantabai, Dattatraya's wife, came there.ORAL JUDGMENT : [Per Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi, J.]The Appellants, who stand convicted by the Judgment and Order dated 31st December 2008 in Sessions Case No.7 of 2008 of Additional 1/21 APEAL-864-09.doc ::: Uploaded on - 17/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 18/02/2016 00:00:08 ::: Sessions Judge, Karad, for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w.::: Uploaded on - 17/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 18/02/2016 00:00:08 :::34 of IPC and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/-On that count, the relations between Appellant Nos.1 and 2 on one hand and his brothers Dattatraya and deceased Lalasaheb, on the other hand, were strained.APEAL-864-09.doc ::: Uploaded on - 17/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 18/02/2016 00:00:08 :::::: Uploaded on - 17/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 18/02/2016 00:00:08 :::During the course of investigation, Appellant No.2-Somnath gave a disclosure statement vide Memorandum Panchanama (Exhibit-33).::: Uploaded on - 17/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 18/02/2016 00:00:08 :::Further to completion of investigation, Charge-Sheet came to be filed in the Court against the Appellants.The Appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed trial, raising the defence of denial and false implication on account of the enmity and strained relations.APEAL-864-09.doc ::: Uploaded on - 17/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 18/02/2016 00:00:08 :::::: Uploaded on - 17/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 18/02/2016 00:00:08 :::In support of its case, prosecution examined in all 11 witnesses and on appreciation of their evidence, the Trial Court was pleased to hold the guilt of both the Appellants to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and convicted and sentenced them as aforesaid.This Judgment of the Trial Court is challenged in this Appeal by learned counsel for the Appellants, whereas, supported by learned A.P.P.for Respondent-State.In our considered opinion, before adverting to the rival submissions advanced by them, it would be useful to refer to the evidence on record.To prove homicidal death of deceased Lalasaheb, prosecution has examined PW-6 Dr. Dhondiram Jadhav, who was attached to Rural Hospital, Karad and has conducted postmortem examination after the dead body of Lalasaheb was brought from Krishna Hospital, Karad.On examination, he found following external injuries :-(1) Incised wound, vertically placed with dried blood at margins, of size of 10 cm x 2 cm x bone deep, situated on left temporal region, just lateral to the outer canthus of left eye.Its mid portion situated.It was caused by sharp cutting weapon and it was antemortem injury.APEAL-864-09.doc ::: Uploaded on - 17/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 18/02/2016 00:00:08 ::: (2) Punctured incised wound, elliptical in shape with both angles acutely cut vertically placed.No abrasion or bruise at wound margins.It is directed from right to left, above downwards.The track perforates the chest wall through fourth inter coastal space making vertical cut in fourth rib - lower portion, placed 1 cm.medial to costo condole junction, perforating middle lobe of right lung from 3 cm above its lower border, through and through and of size of 2 cm x 1 cm x through and through.The entire track is filled with blood and 22 ml of fluid blood found in right chest cavity.No exit wound was seen.Size of the wound was 3 cm x 3.2 cm when edges opposed by 1 cm x 7 cm deep situated in right primary region, 1 cm above and 3 cm medial to right nipple.The injury was caused by double edged sharp pointed weapon and it was antemortem injury.::: Uploaded on - 17/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 18/02/2016 00:00:08 :::(3) There was punctured incised wound, el-pit elliptical in shape vertically placed, both angles acutely cut.There was no abrasion or bruising at the wound margins - the track - 7 cm deep, directed above downwards, medially and backwards.The track perforating the chest wall through 5th inter coastal space with vertical cut in 5th rib lower margins.2 cm medial to costo condole junction, the perforating pericardium and perforating the heart, perforating right ventricular wall of size of 2 cm x 0.5 cm x cavity deep.The entire track is infiltrated with blood 6/21 APEAL-864-09.doc ::: Uploaded on - 17/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 18/02/2016 00:00:08 ::: and 2 ml of fluid blood in pericardial sack and 91 ml.In left chest cavity.No exit wound seen.Size of wound was 2/2 cm x ½ cm x 7 cm x cavity deep.It was situated left memory region, 3 cm below and 6 cm medial to left nipple.It was caused by double edged sharp weapon.::: Uploaded on - 17/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 18/02/2016 00:00:08 :::(4) Loops of intestine are seen coming out at right of umbilicus, some digested material seen at intestinal loop, when loops were pushed in side, abdomen, punctured incised wound elliptical in shape, transversely placed with both angles acutely cut.The trachea is 5 cm deep, directed from front to back.The track perforates the abdominal ward and punctures jejuna, 28 cm from deodede jejuna junction at two places on anterior side surface of jejuna and measuring puncture measuring 2 cm x ½ cm and 2 cm x 1 cm and separated from one another by 5 cm distance above, there is mesentrice cut of size 2 cm x 0.5 cm just above in between the punctures and jejuna.Clear its attachment to bowel.No exit wound seen.Size of wound was 9 cm (9.2 cm when edges opposed) by 3 cm wide at skin surface x cavity deep.Situated in umbilical region on just right of umbilicus.It was caused by double edged sharp object and it was antemortem injury.(5) Crescent shaped stab wound placed horizontally of size 1 ½ cm x ½ cm x 3 cm subcutaneous big surface only 7/21 APEAL-864-09.doc ::: Uploaded on - 17/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 18/02/2016 00:00:08 ::: (sliding).Situated 3 cm below wound No.4 and 4 cm to right of mid-line.It was caused by sharp weapon and it was antemortem injury.::: Uploaded on - 17/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 18/02/2016 00:00:08 :::There were corresponding internal injuries noted by PW-6 Dr. Dhondiram Jadhav in Column No.18 of the Postmortem Notes (Exhibit-36) as follows :-(3) 6th left rib cut corresponding to 3rd injury.APEAL-864-09.doc ::: Uploaded on - 17/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 18/02/2016 00:00:08 :::::: Uploaded on - 17/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 18/02/2016 00:00:08 :::10. PW-6 Dr. Dhondiram Jadhav has specifically opined that external injury Nos.2, 3 and 4 were fatal in nature and were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death.In his opinion, the cause of death was "stab injuries leading to injury to vital organs".Thus, his evidence sufficiently proves the homicidal nature of the death of Lalasaheb.Prosecution case against the Appellants stands on the ocular account of the incident, as given by the three eye-witnesses, whose presence at the spot was natural one.PW-2 Laxmi is the wife of the Deceased.As the incident had taken place at about 7:30 pm, in front of her house, her presence at the time of the incident cannot be disputed at all.Her evidence goes to prove that, on the date of the incident, at about 7:30 pm, her husband Lalasaheb was sitting on the terrace of the house.She snatched wooden stump from the hands of Appellant No.2-::: Uploaded on - 17/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 18/02/2016 00:00:08 :::PW-2 Laxmi also tried to intervene in the scuffle to rescue her husband.Appellant No.1, therefore, took out chaku (knife) and gave several blows of knife on the stomach, chest and head of Lalasaheb.4 Kundalik also rushed there and then Lalasaheb was taken to Krishna Hospital, where he was declared dead.In her cross-examination, it is further brought on record that PW-3 Kantabai was present at the spot till the end of the incident and after Lalasaheb fell down with injuries on her person, the Appellants fled away from the spot.In her cross-examination it is further brought on record that even when PW-4 Kundalik came there, the incident was going on.This evidence of PW-2 Laxmi is completely supported and corroborated from the evidence of PW-3 Kantabai, wife of Dattatraya.According to her evidence also, while she was cooking food in the house at about 7 pm., she heard the noise of giving abuses from outside.Hence, she came out of the house and saw that Appellant Nos.1 and 2 were 10/21 APEAL-864-09.doc ::: Uploaded on - 17/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 18/02/2016 00:00:08 ::: giving abuses to Lalasaheb.She further noticed that Appellant Nos.1 and 2 were also beating Lalasaheb with fist blows and kicks.She herself and PW-2 Laxmi tried to intervene in the fight.However, Appellant No.1 stabbed Lalasaheb with chaku (knife) in his stomach and chest.As a result, Lalasaheb fell down in injured condition.Meanwhile, PW-4 Kundalik has also arrived there.He took Lalasaheb to Krishna Hospital.::: Uploaded on - 17/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 18/02/2016 00:00:08 :::She herself and PW-2 Laxmi also went to the Krishna Hospital, where complaint of PW-2 Laxmi was also recorded by the Police.According to his evidence, on the date of incident, at about 7:15 pm, when he returned to his home from duty, he saw that many persons had gathered in front of the house; Lalasaheb had fallen down; PW-2 Laxmi and PW-3 Kantabi were pushing Appellants aside, he also helped them to push away the Appellants.As Lalasaheb was injured, he took him in rickshaw to Krishna 11/21 APEAL-864-09.doc ::: Uploaded on - 17/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 18/02/2016 00:00:08 ::: Hospital.PW-2 Laxmi and PW-3 Kantabai also came to the hospital.In the hospital itself, the complaint of PW-2 Laxmi was recorded.::: Uploaded on - 17/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 18/02/2016 00:00:08 :::If at all any further corroboration is required to this ocular account of the incident, as given by these three eye-witnesses, who are close relatives of not only the deceased but also the Appellants, it is coming from the contents of F.I.R., which is lodged immediately after the incident and gives all the details of the occurrence.It is pertinent to note that the offence is registered on the same night on the complaint (Exhibit-16).Further corroboration to this evidence is also coming from the evidence of PW-1 Narayan Patil, Panch to the Spot Panchanama (Exhibit-13).The Spot Panchanama was conducted on the next day in the early morning and from the spot, the blade and handle of the knife came to be seized along with the blood stained soil.The prosecution has then led the evidence of PW-8 Dipak More, Panch to the Arrest Panchanama of the Appellants, to prove that, at the time of their arrest on that night, some injuries were found on the person of both the Appellants.The evidence of PW-9 Dr. Mohan Patil, attached to the Cottage Hospital, Karad, reveals that on the requisition of Police, he has examined 12/21 APEAL-864-09.doc ::: Uploaded on - 17/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 18/02/2016 00:00:08 ::: both the Appellants on that night at about 1 am and found contused lacerated wound over the left eye of Appellant No.1-Vitthal with bleeding and oblique in nature of the size of 4 cm x 2 cm x 1 cm deep.The age of the injury was within twelve hours.He also noticed slight abrasion over left forearm near wrist joint of Appellant No.2-Somnath.Injury Certificates of both the Appellants are produced on record at Exhibits 45 and 46, which sufficiently prove the occurrence of the fight that has ensued between the Appellants and the deceased and further the presence and involvement of the Appellants in the said incident.::: Uploaded on - 17/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 18/02/2016 00:00:08 :::The evidence of PW-2 Laxmi, PW-3 Kantabai and PW-4 Kundalik also proves the motive on the part of the Appellants in picking up the quarrel and fight with deceased Lalasaheb.According to their evidence, Appellant No.1 wanted to sell the ancestral agricultural land.His brothers Dattatraya and deceased Lalasaheb were opposing the same.However, Appellant No.1 was not ready for the same.Appellant No.1 had a particular grudge against Lalasaheb as he was already given in adoption to Yeshoda and had got property of his adopted parents.Therefore, as per Appellant No.1-Vitthal, Lalasaheb had no right to say anything in the property of his real brothers Vitthal, Dattatraya and Kundalik.Hence, on 13/21 APEAL-864-09.doc ::: Uploaded on - 17/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 18/02/2016 00:00:08 ::: that count, on the day of incident, he had gone to the house of Lalasaheb, gave abuses to him and initiated the quarrel, which resulted into the death of Lalasaheb.::: Uploaded on - 17/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 18/02/2016 00:00:08 :::The learned counsel for Appellants has challenged the prosecution case on two counts.In the first place, it is submitted that the prosecution has examined only interested witnesses, though the incident had taken place outside the house and several other persons had also gathered there.As per learned counsel for the Appellants, non-examination of independent witnesses creates doubt about the credibility of prosecution case.However, we are not inclined to accept this submission for the simple reason that, law nowhere states that the evidence of interested witnesses should be discarded or disbelieved altogether.The law merely strikes a note of caution to appreciate the evidence of interested witnesses with care and caution.If after careful scrutiny, their evidence is found to be trustworthy and inspiring confidence in the judicial mind, then there is no reason at all to disbelieve the prosecution case for mere non-examination of independent witnesses.Here in the case, the presence of PW-2 Laxmi, PW-3 Kantabai and PW-4 Kundalik at the time of incident, as stated above, is natural one.APEAL-864-09.doc ::: Uploaded on - 17/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 18/02/2016 00:00:09 ::: They are the in-mates of the house and the first persons to witness the incident.Moreover, they are not only related to Deceased, but they are equally related to the Appellants also.PW-3 Kantabai is the wife of Dattatraya, the real brother of Appellant No.1 and deceased Lalasaheb.::: Uploaded on - 17/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 18/02/2016 00:00:09 :::Hence, it cannot be accepted that they will implicate the Appellants falsely.Needless to say that, enmity or strained relationship is a double edged weapon; just as it can be a cause for false implication, similarly, it can also be a cause for the assault by the Appellants.Here in the case, the evidence on record clearly proves that it was Appellant No.1 who had come to the house of the deceased and started giving him abuses.Though the witnesses have stated that they saw the incident in the light but they have not disclosed the source of light.Moreover, though the Spot Panchanama proves the presence of pole 15/21 APEAL-864-09.doc ::: Uploaded on - 17/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 18/02/2016 00:00:09 ::: light, evidence of the Investigating Officer PW-10 API Patil reveals that, as per the report submitted by the Junior Engineer of M.S.E.B. vide Exhibit-::: Uploaded on - 17/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 18/02/2016 00:00:09 :::52, on the day of the incident, during the period from 9:30 am till 12 o'clock in the mid-night, due to load-shading, supply of electric energy was not available.Hence, according to learned counsel for Appellants, the evidence of the eye-witnesses implicating the Appellants in the assault on the deceased is required to be disbelieved, as they could not have been in a position to identify the assailants.However, we are not inclined to accept this submission also, as, admittedly, the Appellants were close relatives of the eye-witnesses and the deceased.The eye-witnesses were hence very well conversant with their voice and body language.The incident had also taken place for about 8 to 10 minutes.Therefore, there was no difficulty at all for the eye-witnesses to identify the Appellants.Especially, when Appellant No.1 was giving abuses, hence from his voice, he could be very much identified.Moreover, these witnesses have intervened in the fight to rescue the deceased; therefore, they had opportunity to see the Appellants from close quarters.As held by the Apex Court in the case of Dalbir Singh Vs.State of 16/21 APEAL-864-09.doc ::: Uploaded on - 17/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 18/02/2016 00:00:09 ::: Haryana, 2008 ALL M.R. (Cri.) 3278, if the incident has taken place during dark night, ocular identification may be difficult in some cases.But, if a person is acquainted and closely related, then from the manner of speech, gait and voice, the identification is quite possible.In the instant case, it was not a dark or mid-night at all.The incident had taken place, more or less, in the late hours of evening.There must be light illuminating from the house also.Witnesses were also closely related.Therefore, there was no difficulty at all for the witnesses to identify the assailants and there was no reason for them to implicate the Appellants falsely in the assault.::: Uploaded on - 17/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 18/02/2016 00:00:09 :::The presence of the Appellants, as aforesaid, is also proved through the injuries on their persons also.The last submission advanced by learned counsel for the Appellants is that, as per the evidence of PW-6 Dr. Dhondiram Jadhav, who has conducted the postmortem examination, injury Nos.2 to 4 have been caused by double edged sharp object.According to learned counsel for the Appellants, the knife seized in the case is not a double edged sharp object and, therefore, the evidence of these witnesses that deceased was assaulted with the knife needs to be disbelieved.In our considered opinion, as the injuries found on the dead body of Lalasaheb were incised stab wounds, hence they are very much possible by sharp edged weapon.APEAL-864-09.doc ::: Uploaded on - 17/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 18/02/2016 00:00:09 ::: Whether it was knife or chaku, which, as deposed by PW-6 Dr. Jadhav, is different from knife or it was a botcher's knife, as suggested to the witnesses, the fact remains that the injuries were such that they can be caused only by sharp edged weapon.The evidence of the eye-witnesses is categorical and consistent to the effect that the assault was made with the sharp edged weapon like chaku or knife.The ocular account of the eye-witnesses will always prevail over the medical evidence, especially, when the medical evidence is not totally demolishing the same.Therefore, this line of argument advanced by learned counsel for the Appellants also fails.::: Uploaded on - 17/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 18/02/2016 00:00:09 :::Now coming to the nature of the offence, according to learned counsel for the Appellants, as, admittedly, the assault took place in the fight that ensued between the deceased and the Appellants and as in the same incident, the Appellants had also sustained some injuries, the case of the Appellants can, at the most, fall under Part I or II of Section 304 of IPC, as it is covered by Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC.However, in order to get benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC, following four essential ingredients are required to be satisfied that assault is made,1) In a sudden fight;2) In the heat of passion;APEAL-864-09.doc ::: Uploaded on - 17/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 18/02/2016 00:00:09 :::::: Uploaded on - 17/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 18/02/2016 00:00:09 :::3) Upon a sudden quarrel without premeditation; andHere in the case, it was not a sudden fight.Appellant No.1 had come to the house of the deceased with premeditation, carrying knife with him.Moreover, it was not a sudden quarrel.The evidence on record further proves that it was not a case of one or two blows of knife, but, as can be seen from the medical evidence, there were five incised wounds and that too on the vital parts of the body, resulting into the cutting of ribs and intestine coming out of the abdomen, thereby sufficiently ruling out the case of Appellant No.1 that he has not taken undue advantage or not acted in a cruel or unusual manner.As regards the injuries sustained by the Appellants in the incident, they are of too minor and insignificant nature so as to extend any benefit of those injuries to the Appellants.Thus, the evidence on record in this case more than sufficiently proves the involvement and incriminating role of Appellant No.1 in causing fatal injuries to the deceased,which resulted into his death.Therefore, as 19/21 APEAL-864-09.doc ::: Uploaded on - 17/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 18/02/2016 00:00:09 ::: regards Appellant No.1, we have no hesitation in confirming his conviction for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.::: Uploaded on - 17/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 18/02/2016 00:00:09 :::However, as regards Appellant No.2, we find that the only role attributed to him is that of giving blows of wooden stump to deceased Lalasaheb.The medical evidence of PW-8 Dr. Dipak More does not show that any contusions were found on the dead body.Further, the evidence on record also proves that it was Appellant No.1 who took out a knife and had started giving blows to the deceased.Hence, we accept the submission of learned counsel for the Appellants that the evidence on record does not prove beyond reasonable doubt that Appellant No.2-Somnath also shared any common intention with Appellant No.1 to cause death of Lalasaheb.Hence, Appellant No.2-Somnath deserves to be acquitted of both the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 323 of IPC, extending him the benefit of doubt.To sum up, therefore, the Appeal is allowed partly.The conviction and sentence of Appellant No.1-Vitthal, as recorded 20/21 APEAL-864-09.doc ::: Uploaded on - 17/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 18/02/2016 00:00:09 ::: by the Trial Court, for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 323 r/w.34 of IPC is confirmed.::: Uploaded on - 17/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 18/02/2016 00:00:09 :::The conviction and sentence of Appellant No.2-Somnath for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 323 r/w.34 of IPC is quashed and set aside.He is acquitted for the said offences.His Bail Bonds stand cancelled.[DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.] [ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE] 21/21 APEAL-864-09.doc ::: Uploaded on - 17/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 18/02/2016 00:00:09 :::::: Uploaded on - 17/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 18/02/2016 00:00:09 :::
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
24,270,418 |
The case of the prosecution is that a tender was floated by the second respondent for installation of CCTVs at 40 locations across the entire Chennai City.The petitioner's company M/s. Lookman Electroplast Industries Limited was declared as L1 and by a purchase order dated 12.01.2010, the work was awarded to the petitioner's company and an agreement was entered between them.As per the terms and conditions of the agreement,http://www.judis.nic.in 3 the work has to be completed within a period of 12 weeks.It also has various clauses for rectification of defects and payment to various authorities.Thereafter by a communication dated 05.03.2010, the police department requested the petitioner not to proceed with the work and later by communication dated 25.01.2011, directed to execute the work.Further alleged that even after the passage of 9 years, not even a few CCTVs are working.The petitioner obtained 90% of the tender value viz., Rs.2,69,80,740/-.When the Deputy Commissioner asked to commence the work, the petitioner raised various frivolous questions and not proceeded further.Further alleged that the petitioner's company is attributing the floods and cyclone Vardha as the reason for non-execution of the work.In this regard, the third respondent convened a meeting and decided to issue show cause notice to the petitioner.Therefore, the petitioner caused loss to the public exchequer to the tune of Rs.2,69,80,740/-.Hence the complaint.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner involved in manufacture, sale and installation of security devices that includes cameras and CCTVs.The petitioner is the pioneer in the field having experience of over 30 years.Once again the second respondent asked the petitioner to stop the work as the project of installation of cameras at 40 locations were to be merged with the Integrated Traffic Management System.The second respondent also suggested to install CCTVs in three new locations.After several communications between them, the petitioner's company intimated the second respondent about the completion of entire work by communication dated 26.07.2014 and requested for release of payment.The Inspector of Police iii.Hon'ble Supreme Court of India - Appeal (Crl.) 1443 of 2007 dated 12.10.2007 - All Cargo Movers(I) Pvt. Ltd., & others iv.(2018)13 SCC 374 - Medmeme, LLC and others Vs.Ihorse BPOhttp://www.judis.nic.in Solutions Pvt. Ltd.Per contra the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the case has been registered as against the petitioner for the offence under Section 406 and 420 of IPC.The petitioner is having entered into agreement for a work contract to install CCTV at 40 locations across Chennai City and thereafter he failed to even commence the work to install CCTV cameras.Even after receipt of Rs.2,69,80,740/-, the petitioner did even commence the work and did not even install any CCTV as agreed by them, thereby they committed offence and as such the second respondent rightly registered the case for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC.He further submitted that as per the agreement dated 29.01.2010, the petitioner undertakes to perform the installation of CCTV within a period of 12 weeks from the date of delivery of materials from the purchasers.Further the supplier shall extend a warranty for the goods supplied, for a period of not more than three years from the date of commissioning, against all manufacturing defects.Even after completion of warranty period of three years, the supplier agreed to extend the maintenance for installed systems for the further period of two years based upon an Annual Maintenance Contract.The learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that by the communication dated 30.08.2012, the second respondent stated that the installation process and commissioning of 40 CCTVs is pending as this project has to be incorporated with Integrated Traffic Management System and further pointed out that some discrepancies have been noticed in the equipments supplied on hand and there is shortfall in some monitor and some excess in other items.Therefore, the installation has not been done and the most of the expenditure would not have taken place and requested the petitioner to handover the equipments, which are shortfall.Again by communication dated 04.01.2013, the second respondent requested the petitioner to install the above 40 CCTVs system for other three places instead of 40 junctions as already proposed in the tender as well as the agreement.He further submitted that by communication dated 26.06.2013, the second respondent again requested the petitioner to submit completion report with regard to 40 CCTVs systems functioning at 40 junctions.Further informed that the time has to be expired and requested to submit the completion report.At last, on 27.07.2013, the second respondent sent communication that the petitioner did not abide to the terms and conditions of the tender agreement and issued final notice, thereby complete the work within a period of one month from the date of the receipt of that notice,http://www.judis.nic.in 8 failing which appropriate legal and criminal action will be initiated as against the petitioner.Finally the second respondent issued show cause notice dated 30.01.2019 call upon the petitioner as to why legal action should not be initiated as against the petitioner, for the reason that the petitioner acted with a malicious and criminal intent to cheat the public exchequer and never really intend to honour the agreement that they willfully entered into.Therefore, the petitioner committed the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC.Further he submitted that it is only a FIR and it cannot be quashed on its threshold.The petitioner is the sole accused and the case has been registered in Crime No.70 of 2019, for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC.The crux of the allegation is that the petitioner was awarded with work contract to install CCTVs on 40 locations in and around Chennai City.The work has to be completed within a period of 12 weeks from the date ofhttp://www.judis.nic.in 9 receiving delivered materials from the purchaser.Even after receipt of 90% of tender value of Rs.2,69,80,740/-, the petitioner failed to install the CCTVs as agreed by them, thereby the petitioner caused loss to the public exchequer to the said tune.Admittedly, there is an agreement between the petitioner and the second respondent dated 29.01.2010 for installation of CCTVs at 40 locations across Chennai City.As per the agreement, the petitioner undertakes to perform the installation of all the delivered items within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receiving the delivered materials from the second respondent.The award given by such Arbitration shall be final andhttp://www.judis.nic.in binding on all parties to this agreement.It is a 10 term of this agreement that in the event of such an arbitration to whom the matter has been referred to originally dies or being unable or unwilling to act for any reason, Addl.Commissioner of Police at the time of such death of the arbitrator of his inability or unwillingness to act as arbitrator, shall appoint another person to act as arbitrator.Such person shall be entitled to proceed with the reference from the stage at which it was left by his predecessor.The venue of arbitration proceedings shall be Chennai, office of the Addl.The communication dated 05.03.2010, from the second respondent, shows that the petitioner was requested to stop further proceedings of the tender for the supply, installation, commissioning and maintenance of 40 CCTVs systems in Chennai City until further orders.It is also seen from the photographs produced byhttp://www.judis.nic.in 13 the petitioner in all over Chennai City, the CCTV cameras installed by the petitioner and all are in good condition.M.P.No.3774 of 2019 03.04.2019http://www.judis.nic.inThis petition has been filed to quash the FIR registered in Crime No.17 of 2019 registered for the offences under Section 406 and 420 of IPC, on the file of the first respondent.In the mean while due to floods in the month of December 2015, some of the equipments were damaged.Therefore, the petitioner's company technicians were called to assess the damage.Again due to Vartha cyclone more equipments were damaged and at the request of the Joint Commissioner of Police inspection made and assessed the damage.The petitioner categorically stated that the entire work has been completed and that if at all any damages caused, it was not due to the petitioner's fault.In fact the petitioner completed the entire work as entrusted by the second respondent and it is completely civil in nature and if any dispute between them, it is completely civil in nature.He further submitted that in the agreement there is an Arbitration clause.Accordingly, any dispute arises between them, it has to go before Arbitration.At any cost the offence would not attract as against the petitioner, as such the learned Senior Counsel sought for quashment of FIR.He also relied upon the following judgments.i. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India - Appeal (Crl.) 1072 of 2001 dated 18.10.2001 - S.W.Palanitkar and ors Vs.State of Bihar and Anr ii.Madras High Court - Crl.20184 of 2015 dated 04.03.2016 - Suresh babu Vs.The investigation may go on to unearth and grab the offence committed by the petitioner.Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the quash petition.Heard Mr.ARL.Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.Commissioner of Police."By communication dated 25.01.2011, the second respondent requested the petitioner to supply the equipments and commence the installation process of the 40 CCTV system.It is also seen from the letter of the petitioner dated 10.09.2012, the request of the second respondent to hand over certain items to Traffic Inspector for ITMS project, is not as per the scope of work either as per the tender or PO or their agreement.It is also seen from the communication of the second respondent dated 30.08.2012, that "Some discrepancies have been noticed in the equipments supplied on hand is given in the enclosed list, there is shortfall in certain items like monitor and there is some excess in other items." It shows that the petitioner supplied equipments pertaining to 40 CCTVs systems to install CCTVs at 40 junctions.By communication dated 04.01.2013, the second respondent requested the petitioner to install CCTV at three other places instead of 40 junctions as already proposed in the tender as well as the agreement.By another communication dated 26.06.2013, the second respondent requested the petitioner to submit completion report with regard to installation of CCTVs at 40 junctions.It shows that the petitioner have started installation of 40 CCTVs at 40 junctions.There are so many communication between the second respondent and the petitioner with regard to the installation of CCTVs in and around Chennai.It is seen from the communication dated 13.08.2013, the petitioner supplied equipments pertaining to the installation of 40 CCTVs and received a sum of Rs.2,69,80,740/- equivalent to 90% of the value against the total contract value.It shows that the petitioner completed their installation of CCTV cameras at the traffic junctions and thereafter due to cyclone, some of the instruments were damaged.Therefore, the offences under Sections 406 of 420 of IPC would not attract as against the petitioner.There is no ingredients to attract the offence as against the petitioner.It is seen that there are some dispute in respect of installation of CCTV Camera at 40 junctions in and around the Chennai City, between the petitioner and the second respondent.It is also seen that the petitioner installed 40 CCTVs at various places and thereafter, due to cyclone, it got damaged for which, the second respondent also called for cost of the damages.An attempt has been made by the second respondent to cloak a civil dispute with a criminal naturehttp://www.judis.nic.in 22 despite the absence of the ingredients necessary to constitute a criminal offence.The complaint filed by the second respondent against the petitioner constitutes an abuse of process of Court and is liable to be quashed.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and the FIR in Crime No.17 of 2019, on the file of the first respondent is hereby quashed.Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.03.04.2019 Internet:Yes/No Index :Yes/No Speaking/Non speaking order rtshttp://www.judis.nic.in 23The Joint Commissioner of Police, Traffic South, Chennai.The Superintendent of Police, CBCID, Egmore,Chennai.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai.http://www.judis.nic.in 24 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.rts CRL.O.P.No.6860 of 2019 and Crl.
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
24,273,906 |
(SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE June 16, 2017 r Crl.A.432/2015 Page 5 of 5A.432/2015 Page 5 of 5Vide impugned judgment of 3rd May, 2014, appellant-accused has been held to be guilty of offences under Sections 392/397/34 IPC and under Section 27 of Arms Act. Vide order of even date, appellant-accused has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of seven years with fine of `5,000/- with default clause for offence under Section 397 IPC and for offence under Section 27 of Arms Act, he has been directed to undergo simple imprisonment for three years with fine of `2,000/- with Crl.A.432/2015 Page 1 of 5 default clause.A.432/2015 Page 1 of 5The factual matrix emerging from the impugned judgment is as under:-"On 29.9.2012 on receipt of DD no.21-A, ASI Shiv Kumar reached at the spot at Rani Jhansi Road where Ct.Pradeep along with complainant Sugreev Chaubey met him and produced two boys including the accused herein alongwith knife and belongings of complainant.IO took the articles into possession vide seizure memo and recorded statement of complainant wherein he stated with respect to robbery of his bag at the point of knife by accused and his associate namely Shanu Rehman who is facing trial in juvenile justice board.After registration of the case, IO arrested the accused, prepared site plan, recorded disclosure statement of accused and after completion of investigation, filed the charge sheet u/S 392/397/34 IPC & Sec. 27/54/59 Arms Act against the accused in court.Accused Shanu Rehman was found to be juvenile and therefore separate charge sheet against him was filed in Juvenile Justice Board."Trial court has relied upon the evidence of complainant (PW-1) and other police officials to convict and sentence appellant-accused as noted hereinabove, while discarding appellant's plea of false implication.To assail the impugned conviction, learned counsel for appellant had contended on instructions from appellant who was produced in custody that appellant was driver by profession and he used to station his TSR near the Mama Bhanja Park and on the fateful day, appellant was sleeping in the park at a distance of 200 meters from the spot and it is highly unlikely that his co-accused could be apprehended whereas appellant could not have been apprehended.It was further submitted that Crl.A.432/2015 Page 2 of 5 Mr. Desai, Accounts Manager of complainant's company, from whose mobile phone complainant had made a call to the local police, has not been made a witness.It was next submitted that version of complainant stands contradicted by the version of police official (PW-2), as according to complainant he had made a call to local police after about 10 minutes whereas, as per version of PW-2, the apprehension of appellant-accused was within a short time of this incident.It was also pointed out that appellant was apprehended after about 15 minutes of this incident and was found to be in drowsy condition and is so evident from his MLC.Lastly, it was submitted that this case has been planted upon appellant and so, without any independent corroboration, prosecution version ought not to be relied upon.A.432/2015 Page 2 of 5To the contrary was the submission advanced by learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State, who had submitted that the conviction and sentence of appellant is just and proper.Submissions advanced by both the sides on the last date of hearing, have been duly considered and on perusal of impugned judgment, order on sentence, nominal roll of appellant and the evidence on record, I find that nothing has come in the cross-examination of complainant (PW-1) to substantiate appellant's plea of his not being apprehended at the spot.Since there is no cross-examination of complainant (PW-1) regarding appellant not being apprehended at the spot (though appellant claims that he was very much near the spot), therefore no benefit accrues to appellant on this count.Regarding contradiction inter se evidence of complainant (PW-1) and police official (PW-2), I find after going through their Crl.A.432/2015 Page 3 of 5 evidence that there is no apparent contradiction inter se their evidence.No doubt, it has come in the evidence of complainant (PW-1) that there were many passersby but there is no cross-examination of complainant as to why no such person was joined in the investigation.In any case, denial by police official (PW-2) regarding presence of public persons at the spot, is of no avail as Investigating Officer (PW-6) has not been cross- examined on this aspect.It is for the Investigating Officer to explain as to why public persons were not joined in the investigation.Nothing turns on this aspect for the reason that evidence of complainant (PW-1) is clinching and after scrutinizing of evidence of complainant (PW-1), I find no reason to disbelieve the version putforth by him.MLC of appellant- accused does show that he was in a drowsy state, as he was a drug addict.However, it is also noted in appellant's MLC that appellant was conscious.So, it cannot be said that appellant was not in a position to commit the offence in question due to his drowsiness.No reason is forthcoming as to why complainant (PW-1) would falsely implicate appellant, from whom weapon of offence i.e. knife used in commission of offence in question, was recovered and also complainant's bag containing looted articles was recovered.The ocular version putforth by complainant (PW-1) receives ample corroboration from the recoveries made from appellant-accused.A.432/2015 Page 3 of 5In the considered opinion of this Court, the conviction of appellant is well merited.Since appellant-accused had used a big knife in commission of this crime and the said knife has been recovered at the instance of appellant, therefore, I find that the minimum sentence of Crl.A.432/2015 Page 4 of 5 seven years awarded to appellant for offence under Section 397 of IPC does not call for any interference.The sentence awarded to appellant is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of his case.A.432/2015 Page 4 of 5In light of the aforesaid, finding no substance in this appeal, it is dismissed.Appellant be apprised of the fate of his appeal through the concerned Jail Superintendent.
|
['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,333,938 |
It was stated in the OP that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent took place on 17.04.1987 at Chennai according to Hindu Rites and Customs.Two children were born out of the wedlock in USA.The first minor boy Suraj was born on 16.04.1994 and he is presently 15 years old.The second minor girl Sonal was born on 13.01.1997 and she is presently 12 years old.It was stated in the OP that at the time when the petitioner got married with the respondent, the respondent was living in USA.The respondent is an Engineering Graduate from Chennai and got his Post Graduate Engineering degree in USA.He was initially employed in a company at Sunnyvale, California.Infact, she was working during day time and by attending evening college and paying for her education herself got her degree.Both the petitioner and the respondent as well as their children were citizens of USA.The petitioner further stated that while in USA, she felt harassment at the hands of the respondent.For the sake of the children, she lived with the respondent hoping that the situation will improve.It was claimed by the petitioner that the respondent stopped working and was having hallucination on many issues and became obsessive that he was a master through self realisation.The petitioner claimed that she was taking care of the house as well the children.Since she could not bear the physical and mental abuse heaped by the respondent including the infliction of torture on the children, the petitioner was forced to seek intervention of police at times.The petitioner also stated that the respondent started a cult called AUMware and behaved in extreme and bizarre manner and started calling himself to be the "lord of universe" and that he is the "divine light from which all forms emerge".Since California became an earthquake prone area and due to constant torture given by the respondent, she signed the papers for selling their home at USA.The sale proceeds were split into four quarters and were shared equally.The share of the children was invested in a recurring compound interest, both of them being their guardians.The respondent without authority sold her car and kept the sale proceeds himself.The petitioner further stated that both of them came to India during 2005 on the pretext of starting a new life.They started living at Chennai in Nungambakkam along with the respondent's mother.But after coming to India, the respondent's cult practices started increasing.He started luring his children also to join in the cult and many times experimented with the children about his faith.Since the respondent's cult practice was increasing, many disciples visited their house.In order to save the privacy for herself and her children, the petitioner shifted her house along with the children and started living with her parents at Chetpet (Chennai).Though the matter was referred to mediation, it did not fructify into a final result.Even while the said petition was pending, it was claimed that on 06.02.2006 the respondent charged into the house of the petitioner and assaulted her and children in front of others.Unable to bear the agony any more, the petitioner lodged a complaint before the police and an FIR was registered against the respondent under Sections 406 r/w 498A IPC.The petitioner stated that the children were at present studying in a reputed school at Kilpauk and she was taking care of their needs.The respondent had not paid any money towards the education of the children or maintenance.The conduct of the respondent is not conducive for the welfare of the children since he suffers from mental instability due to his new cult practice.In the interest of the welfare of the minor children, she must have the custody of the children without any hindrance or harassment by the respondent.After notice to the respondent, several applications were filed.The first application was filed by the petitioner seeking for a direction to the respondent to hand over the passports of the minor children under the apprehension that he may remove the children to USA without her consent, thereby making her effort for custody infructuous.This Court by an order dated 07.09.2007 directed the respondent to deposit the passports of the minor children with the Registry and gave liberty to either side in case they want to take the minors out of the country, they will take appropriate orders from the Court.The SELF-Awareness concept created by him in the name of AUMware has also been trade marked in USA, where he had conducted workshops for individuals, groups and corporate bodies.Thereafter, the petitioner declined his financial support.The petitioner was leading an immoral and non- disciplined life.She had affairs with several men and her immoral conduct will destroy the future of the children.At many times, the children were taken care of by appointment of baby sitters.The petitioner was whimsical in her behaviour.She had filed a false case against the respondent and his mother on the allegation of dowry harassment.The custody of the minor children with the petitioner was not conducive.The respondent has filed a petition for divorce in O.P.No.3637 of 2007 which was pending on the file of the II Additional Family Court.In the elaborate counter affidavit, several instances were listed about the behaviour of the petitioner including her drinking habits.The respondent claimed that he had heard the father of the petitioner describing her as a mad woman.The respondent in his counter affidavit also dealt with the invention of AUMware created by him and various workshops conducted by him.While he came back to India and stayed along with her, the petitioner had taken away the children without informing him.The respondent also claimed that he helped the children in their studies including doing their home work.The respondent denied the allegation that he was suffering from any mental instability.It is the petitioner who had suffered from mental depression and stress.He also reserved his right to file appropriate application for calling relevant documents from appropriate hospitals regarding her mental condition and documents to show her driving violations.When the matter came up on 16.07.2009, this Court directed the matter to be posted before the Court for recording oral evidence of the parties.Both the parties filed proof affidavits.The evidence of the petitioner was recorded as P.W.1 and cross examined by the respondent's counsel.P1 to P17 were marked through her.The respondent marked Exs.Subsequently, the respondent was cross examined by the petitioner's counsel.R7 to R34 were marked through him.Through his cross examination, Exs.P18 to P21 were also marked.In the proof affidavit filed by the petitioner, the petitioner claimed that the children were studying in 10th and 8th standards respectively at Chinmaya Vidyalaya.She has also filed the school receipts of the children in proof of the same and they were marked as Exs.The school records about the children's achievements were marked as Exs.Though she was made to state that she was not a teetotaller that she used to go to pubs and bars with other men was denied by her.She also stated in cross examination that it was customary in USA to keep a mini bar in the house in which liquor was stored.In the counter affidavit, though sweeping allegations were made against the conduct and character of the petitioner in cross examination, except for making some suggestions, the respondent was not able to prove many of the allegations made in the counter affidavit.She stated that their common friend Ravi brought the children from the house of the respondent to her house and he did not stay in the house during the night.Even about Ex.R4 (containing three photographs), the petitioner had explained about them.The incident that had taken place on 06.02.2006 as elicited in cross examination was as follows:-"... It is not correct to state that the minors stayed overnight with the respondent on 05.02.2006 at house.R4 Series contains three photographs and they depict the minors, myself and Ravi.In the morning of 06.02.2006 the respondent visited my house and pressed the calling bell.Since Ravi was sitting close to the door he opened the door on that day.Yes, I was trying to hide myself behind the door to protect myself.At that time the minors were in the school uniform and they came from terrace.P21 is the photograph showing some of the aspirants of AUMWARE.Pooja an Latha are also found in Ex.P21 photograph.The aspirants aspired to learn self-awareness at AUMWARE.Journey to light is about 6 hours and journey to health is about 4 to 6 hours.No documentary proof was shown to stigmatise her character.It is also admitted by the respondent that he was not supporting the petitioner since August 2005 and that he was involved in some spiritual exercise over which he is fully convinced and attempting to propogate the same to many others.His belief about himself is found expressed in his own writings found in Ex.ii)The petitioner/mother is directed to entrust the minor children at 10.00 a.m on such Saturdays or Sundays as the case may be and the respondent shall return the custody of the children to the mother by 6.00 p.m in the Sunday evening.The Original Petition was filed under Sections 3, 7 to 10 of the Guardian and Wards Act for directing the entrustment of the custody of the minor children Suraj and Sonal to the petitioner.The brief facts leading to the filing of the petition were as follows:Thereafter, the respondent filed applications for visitation rights and for interim custody of the minor children for one week during Christmas holidays.This Court after examining the children by an order dated 14.12.2007 observed that while the children were willing to go with the father during day time, they were apprehensive and felt uncomfortable to stay overnight with their father.The respondent was also given visitation rights once a fortnight and also during Pongal holidays.The Court also observed that if the children have any special class or any other programme in the school, the respondent shall take the children to those classes as required.Subsequently, applications in A.Nos.7933 and 7934 of 2007 were closed by an order dated 03.04.2008 as they have become infructuous by efflux of time.A detailed counter affidavit dated 27.06.2008 was filed by the respondent.The birth certificates of both the children were also filed.P17 is the photocopy of the First Information Report filed in Crime No.721 of 2005 dated 28.09.2005 given by the petitioner.The attempt by the respondent to discredit the evidence of the petitioner that the respondent helped her with the education of the petitioner and the conduct of the petitioner was not proved.It was around 7.45 a.m. to 8.00 a.m."The allegation that he had influenced the police to file a police complaint was denied by her.The assertion made in the counter affidavit that appropriate applications will be made for issuance of subpoena calling for relevant documents from appropriate hospital to prove her mental condition and DMV for her driving license were not carried out by the respondent subsequently.In the proof affidavit filed by the respondent, the respondent once again repeated the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by him.In the cross examination of the respondent, R.W.1., it was established that the house in USA had a mini bar and their friends were served alcohol at home.With reference to Ex.P5, which was a notebook kept by the respondent, noted about his spiritual personal experience.The extract from the note books were put to the respondents.With reference to his spiritual experience and his attempt to treat the children with his own spiritual power, the respondent stated in cross examination in pages 13 and 14 are as follows:"In para 8 of page 24 of Ex.P5, the recording is based on my spiritual personal experience.In Page 31 of Ex.P5 I have written "Sometime a week ago we went to Hindi Movie.Swami gave me dharshan as Lord Shiva.The experience was phenomenal".The Greta referred to in Page 35 of Ex.P5 was the Nanny working in our house at that time.The experiences described in Page 38 of Ex.P5, on 31.07.2007 was one such experience and was not repetitive one.In Page 43 of Ex.Both the petitioner and myself experienced earthquakes in various degrees in California.The notes in Page 43 mentioned is one such hunch.Once or twice I had told the petitioner that there would be earthquakes in California.I deny the suggestions that whenever I had medical problem, I have not taken medications and that I have healed myself.I deny the suggestion that whenever the minors had fever or pain, I have not given them medication and instead of taking them to Doctor I have put my hands on their head saying that I am healing them.I tried healing the minors without putting my hands on them.P20 are the two e-mails one dated 07.04.2005, which is from Aumware and another dated 06.04.2005, which is from Vaaak Sounds, Siva Baba.In the e-mail dated 07.04.2005, the recipients are Sunitha and Sakthi.I address my aspirants as Athmaswaroops.The term aspirant used by me in my proof affidavit is one who looks for some kind of guidance from me or anybody...I do not know how may aspirants I have in India and US for Aumware, but at a time I have around 25 aspirants for AUMWARE.I am currently writer, publisher and soft-skills trainer for schools, colleges and corporates.I have provided training in schools, colleges and corporates in Chennai."With reference to the petitioner living along with their parents at Chetpet, the respondent agreed in his cross-examination that the petitioner was living in the ground floor having two bed rooms and her parents were living on the first floor.He also admitted that the children were in the custody of the petitioner since August 2005 and he has not filed any application before the Family Court seeking for the custody of the children before.In their pleadings as well as in their oral evidence, both sides tried to throw many accusations against each other.To such extent the allegations which will have bearing on the child custody issue, this Court had referred to them and discarded the unwarranted issues.It is in the backdrop of these allegations and counter allegations, the case projected by both sides will have to be analysed.iii) The respondent/father will have the custody of the children, if there are holidays during Dussehra and Christmas for a period of three days each and during summer vacation for a period of 10 days.The father is entitled to have the custody of the children from the mother during those periods.On the expiry of the stipulated period, the father shall hand over the custody of the children back to the mother.iv) The respondent/father is also permitted to visit the minor children on every birthday of the minor children.v) The respondent is also permitted to visit the children on the New Year's Day.With the grant of the visitation rights to the respondent, the petitioner can have the permanent custody of the two minor children.The Original Petition is disposed of on the above terms.Parties are allowed to bear their own costs.svkiPre-Delivery Order inO.P.No.571 of 200711.11.2009
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
133,400,476 |
Ravi Bhushan introduced the account holder and Sh.D.K. Chabra accepted the account opening form.Ravi Bhushan who introduced the account opening form of Harjeet Singh has been cited as a witness for the reason that investigation revealed that he signed as introducer on the request of accused M.S.Alag that Harjeet Singh is his brother who had left the bank for some work after signing the account opening form.CRL.A. 663/2005 Page 1 of 6As per allegation in the FIR, in pursuance of the conspiracy accused M.S. Alag had falsely shown a receipt of Rs.3.5 lacs in the said account and withdrew an amount of Rs.3 lacs from the said account by issuing cheques in the name of various fictitious parties thereby causing loss to the bank.Investigation revealed that there was only one post of AMO in the said branch whose services were utilised for preparation of current account ledger in respect of statement of account to be sent to the party for maintaining ledge sheet of FD account and for the purpose of maintaining master ledger in the bank and the procedure was that three sheets, each of master ledger, account ledger and party statement of account are stitched together and put in the machine and after entry are made through machines, the sheets are separated.All the transactions in each current account was done by the accused through this machine daily and not manually.M.S. Enterprises and 4069 of M/s.Sunny Enterprises.The stamp of Sunny Enterprises was recovered during house search of the accused on which expert has also given positive opinion.In account of M/s.The accused M.S. Alag started abusing his position as AMO and inserted false credit entry for a sum of Rs.3,92,850/- through CRL.A. 663/2005 Page 3 of 6 clearing from 16.5.91 itself, the details of such entries made in account No.4630 are as under:CRL.A. 663/2005 Page 3 of 6Some payment from account No.4630 withdrawn by accused M.S. Alag CRL.A. 663/2005 Page 4 of 6 under the forged signature of Harjeet Singh were credited in the account of M/s.Sunny Enterprises as well as in the real account of accused M.S. Alag in the said branch.CRL.A. 663/2005 Page 4 of 6As per report of handwriting expert, it was accused M.S. Alag who had opened the account in the name of Harjeet Singh in his capacity as proprietor of M/s.M.S. Enterprises.R.K. Saini and Sh.CRL.A. 663/2005 Page 6 of 6Accused was recording the entries on the aforesaid sheets on the basis of vouchers duly passed by bank officers and after the entries were recorded in the sheets, Sh.R.K. Saini as Officer Incharge, Current Account used to initial the CRL.A. 663/2005 Page 2 of 6 account sheets of FD account along with a voucher relating to the transaction of the bank of the day and would also total up the transaction in master ledger at the end of the day.CRL.A. 663/2005 Page 2 of 6Accused M.S. Alag filled in a form in the name of Harjeet Singh, proprietor of M/s.M.S. Enterprises, got the same introduced from one Sh.Ravi Bhushan who was having current account No.4107 and requested Sh.D.K. Chabra who was officiating officer in the absence of Sh.R.K. Saini who happened to be on leave, that his brother wanted to open a current account and he has left as he was in hurry.A sum of Rs.59,486/- was also withdrawn from this account from time to time.No criminal motive could be attributed to Sh.D.K. Chhabra, officers of the Punjab & Sind Bank as well as Sh.Ravi Bhushan who introduced the account of Harjeet Singh, hence, they were not charge sheeted as they were not involved in any conspiracy with the accused.Accused M.S. Alag allegedly abused his position as public servant by defrauding Punjab & Sind Bank to the extent of Rs.3,92,850/- and Rs.59,486/- respectively hence he was sent to face trial for committing the offence punishable under Section 409, 419, 467, 468, 471, 477A IPC and under Section 13(2) r/w.(c) and (d) of PC Act.After copies were supplied to the accused, a charge for the offence punishable under Sec.409, 419, 467, 468, 471 and 477-A IPC and Sec. 13(2) r/w.13(1) (c) & (d) of PC Act was framed against the accused to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial."After some hearing in the matter, Mr.K.B. Andley, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr.M.L. Yadav, advocate submits that he does not wish to argue the appeal on merit, however, prays that a lenient view be taken in the matter and the sentence awarded be reduced as the appellant is now a senior citizen; he has faced trial for about 22 years; he is suffering from various ailments, including diabetes, hypertension; the appellant has also CRL.A. 663/2005 Page 5 of 6 deposited a sum of Rs.5.18 lacs with the bank as also the amount of fine; and also the services of the appellant have been terminated by the bank.CRL.A. 663/2005 Page 5 of 6I have heard counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions.Having regard to the fact that the appellant has faced trial for about 22 years; appellant is now a senior citizen; he is suffering from various ailments, including diabetes, hypertension; appellant has also deposited a sum of Rs.5.18 lacs with the bank as also the amount of fine; and also the services of the appellant have been terminated by the bank, the appeal is partly allowed and the sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced from two years to one year.Appeal stands disposed of, in above terms.G.S.SISTANI, J OCTOBER 03, 2013 ssn CRL.A. 663/2005 Page 6 of 6
|
['Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,334,041 |
Deceased Ramkumar is the son of PW1-Kannan.On 13.4.2002 accused came to the house of PW1 asking fora loan of Rs.1500/- which PW1 declined.Stating that he would try to borrow theamount from others, accused asked PW1 to give his TVS-50 [TN-57 T 6130] vehicleso that he could meet other persons and borrow the money.At that time alongwith him appellant-accused taken the deceased Ramkumar.Case of prosecution isthat on the way when they went to Chinnalapatti, appellant-accused expressedhis intention to sell TVS-50 vehicle for which deceased Ramkumar raisedobjection.Angered over the same, appellant-accused is alleged to havecommitted murder of Ramkumar by throttling his neck and after Ramkumar hadfallen down, threw stone on head and face of Ramkumar and committed the murder.Thereafter, appellant-accused thrown the body of Ramkumar in a Well ofAlagarsamy.PW2-Palaniammal, wife of PW1 informed PW1 that Ramkumar did not returnback to the house.PW1 had taken Pw3-Ravichandran and one Senthilkumar and wentin search of Ramkumar.PW4-Saravanan is alleged to have told PW1 thatappellant-accused had taken Ramkumar [PW4-Saravanan turned hostile].PW1 went to Dindigul Town West Police Station and lodged Ex.P1-Complaint, on the basis of Ex.P1-Complaint, PW14-S.I. of Police registered thecase in Cr.No.350/2002 under Sec.302 IPC.PW16-Inspector of Police had taken up investigation.He went toChinnalapatti Azhagarsami thottam at 11.00 A.M. and prepared Ex.P2-ObservationMahazar and Ex.P15-Rough Plan.Regarding PW1's house , PW16-Inspector of Policeprepared Ex.P10-Observation Mahazar and E.P17-Rough Plan in the presence ofPW12-Eswaramoorthy and witness Veluchamy.Assistance of fire service was takento take the body from the Well.After the body was taken out from the Well, in the presence ofpanchayatdars, PW16-Inspector of Police had conducted inquest on the body ofdeceased Ramkumar.P16 is the inquest report.After inquest, body was sentto autopsy.From the scene of PW16 seized bloodstained stone [MO1],bloodstained mud[MO2], sample mud[MO3] and cheppals [MO4-series] under Ex.Lacerated wounds over the left eyebrow; left lower eyelid; occipital region ofscalp; back of the right ear; right hand in the web space between the thumb andIndex finger.Contusion over the occipital region of scalp.Prabhakaran, who conducted the autopsy on the body of deceased Ramkumar hasbeen examined.When P.W.1 came to know that the body of his son was floated inthe well of one Azhagarsamy, he gave a complaint Ex.At that time the accused gave aconfession statement voluntarily.The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant/accused shall berefunded.R.MALA,J This appeal arises out of verdict of conviction in S.C.No.69/2006 wherebyappellant/accused was convicted U/s.302 and 201 IPC and sentencing him toundergo life imprisonment and RI for 3 years and imposing fine by the learnedPrincipal Sessions Judge, Dindigul.Briefly stated case of prosecution is as follows:-7. PW10-Dr.Prabhakaran conducted autopsy on the body of deceased Ramkumarand noted the following external and internal injuries:-Abrasions over the left side of anterior aspect of chest; centre of the chest onanterior aspect; left cheek; left lower chest on the lateral aspect.Fracture of ribs on the left side from 1st to 3rd ribs.Subgaleal haemorrhage present over the occipital region of scalp on right side.Fracture of skull bone of frontal, temporal and occipital on the right side..Brain substance congested with subarachnoid haemorrhage present.Opining that death was due to shock and haemorrhage due to the injuriessustained by him, PW10 issued Ex.P6 postmortem certificate.On 14.4.2002 at 8.00 P.M. on Dindigul-Karur road, near railway gate,accused was arrested in the presence of PW11-Sethupathi raja and witnessBalasubramani.On being interrogated, accused had voluntarily gave confessionstatement.Admissible portion of that confession statement [Ex.P8] let torecovery of MO5-TVS-50 vehicle under Ex.P9-Mahazar.Accused had small abrasionon his middle finger measuring 0.5 x 0.5 cm.PW9-Dr.Suresh Babu examined theaccused.Accused had stated that he sustained injuries while he beat Ramkumarwith stone.Opining that the injuries sustained by the accused as simpleinjury, PW9 issued Ex.P4-Wound certificate.On receipt of chemical analysisreport and after completion of due investigation, PW16 filed final reportagainst the accused U/s.302 and 201 IPC.To substantiate the Charges against the accused in the trial court,prosecution examined PWs.1 to 16 and Exs.P1 to 24 and MOs.1 to 8 were marked.Accused was questioned U/s.313 Cr.P.C. about the incriminating evidence andcircumstance.Accused denied all of them and stated that a false case isfoisted against him.Upon analysis of evidence, learned Sessions Judge held thatprosecution has proved the guilt of the accused.Pointing out that appellant-accused having enmity towards the deceased Ramkumar that deceased informed theaccused that he would tell his father regarding selling of TVS-50 and dischargehis loan, learned Sessions Judge rightly held that appellant-accused had motiveand intention to commit murder of deceased Ramkumar and convicted the appellantunder Sec.302 and 201 IPC.Learned counsel for the appellant would further submit thatevidence regarding motive has not been proved by the prosecution and theevidence adduced to prove last seen theory is not a reliable one.It wasfurther argued that evidence regarding confession statement and recovery ofMaterial Objects are not reliable and the evidence of prosecution witnesses arecontradictory with one another and reasonable doubts arise as to prosecutionversion and he prayed allowing of appeal and acquittal of the accused.Taking us through the evidence of witnesses, Mr.LearnedAdditional Public Prosecutor further submitted that the accused had taken theaccused on 13.04.2002 at 6.00 P.M, but they have not returned back and P.W.1came to know that body of his son was floated in the well and subsequently acomplaint was given and during investigation accused/appellant was arrested.The motive put forth by the prosecution is that the appellant/accusedexpressed his intention to sell TVS 50 vehicle belonging to P.W.1, for which,the deceased Ramkumar raised objection.Angered over the same,appellant/accused is alleged to have committed murder of Ramkumar by throttlinghis neck and after Ramkumar had fallen down, threw stone on head and face ofRamkumar and committed murder.P1 complaint.It is only hearsay evidence and the same cannotbe relied upon.If P.W.4 Saravanan has corroborated the evidence of P.W.1, itwill be reliable.But, here, P.Ws.4 was turned hostile.P1 before P.W.14-Natarajan,Sub-Inspector of Police, Dindigul Town West Police Station and a case has beenregistered in crime No.350 of 2002 under Section 302 I.P.C. Ex.P11 is theprinted F.I.R. On receipt of Ex.P11, P.W.16-IO took up the case forinvestigation and conducted inquest before panchayatars and witnesses on thebody of the deceased and sent the body for autopsy.Prabhakaranconducted postmortem on the body of the deceased and noted following injuries.Lacerated wounds over the left eyebrow; left lower eyelid; occipital region ofscalp; back of the right ear; right hand in the web space between the thumb andIndex finger.Contusion over the occipital region of scalp.Abrasions over the left side of anterior aspect of chest; centre of the chest onanterior aspect; left cheek; left lower chest on the lateral aspect.Fracture of ribs on the left side from 1st to 3rd ribs.Subgaleal haemorrhage present over the occipital region of scalp on right side.Fracture of skull bone of frontal, temporal and occipital on the right side..Brain substance congested with subarachnoid haemorrhage present.P.W.10 opined that the death was due to shock and haemorrhage due to theinjuries sustained by him and gave Ex.P6-postmortem certificate.Thus, theprosecution has proved that the death of the deceased is homicidal.Last seen alive theory:Since the case is based on the circumstantial evidence that the lastseen theory is played a vital role.To establish last seen theory, prosecutionhas examined P.W4 Saravanan and P.W.5 Chandrasekar.But they turned hostile.They are not supporting the case of prosecution.In the complaint, he has not mentioned thename of P.W.4-Saravanan.If really, P.W.1 met P.W.4 on 14.04.2002 at 6.00 A.Mand P.W.4 given the information to him, P.W.1 very well disclose the same in thecomplaint.But, it is true the complaint is not an encyclopedia.The case onhand is based on circumstantial evidence.All minute details are found place inEx.P1, but the vital clue which was given by P.W.4 Saravanan and his name wasnot been found place in complaint Ex.The learned Public Prosecutor would urge that in the transaction ofthe murdering the deceased, the accused has also sustained injuries and he wastreated by P.W.9-Dr.Suresh Babu, who gave Ex.P4, Accident Register copy to theaccused and hence the guilt of the accused well founded.But, considering theabove said argument, it is true that after arrest of the accused, he sent tohospital on 15.04.2002 at 12.35 P.M. for taking treatment.He stated beforeP.W.9-Dr.Suresh Babu that when he beat Ramkumar with stone on 14.04.2002 at 8.15P.M. he sustained injuries.Suresh Babu has deposed as follows:"mth; jdf;F 14.4.2002k; njjp md;W ,ut[ 8.15 kzpastpy; fy;yhy; uhk;Fkhiuvd;gtiu mof;Fk; nghJ jdf;F ifapy; fhak; gl;ljhfr; brhd;dhh;."At this juncture, the learned appellant counsel would cull out that the day ofoccurrence has been mentioned as on 14.04.2002 at 8.15 P.M.; but the body hasbeen found on 14.04.2002 at 8.00 A.M. and hence the evidence of P.W.9 cannot belooked into.The accused was arrested on 14.04.2002 in the presence of P.W.11Sethupathiraja and one Balasubramani.But, there is no explanation by theaccused and hence the infers to be drawn against the accused.It is pertinentto note that the deceased was taken by the accused at 6.00 P.M on 13.04.2002.But, next day, i.e. on 14.04.2002 at 8.00 A.M., P.Ws.1 and 2 found the body ofthe deceased and P.W.1 gave a complaint Ex.But, in between the long gapi.e. from 6.00 P.M. on 13.04.2002 to 8.00 A.M on 14.04.2002, there is noconvicing evidence has been given by the prosecution to prove that during thetime the deceased was along with accused.Even thoughthe death of the deceased has been proved as homicidal and accepted by the trialCourt, the trial Court has committed an error in conclusion that the motive forthe commission of offence and last seen theory have been proved.In the abovesaid circumstances, the guilty of the genesis has not been formed a chain.Hence, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the appellant/accusedis guilty under Section 302 of I.P.C beyond reasonable doubt and the benefit ofdoubt has to be given in favour of the accused/appellant and he is entitled foracquittal.THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE,DINDIGULTHE JUDICIAL MAGISATRATE NO.I, DINDIGULTHE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TOWN WEST POLICE STATION, DINDIGULTHE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAITHE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, MADURAITHE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, MYLAPORE, CHENNAI 4
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
133,407,790 |
This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to file the chargesheet in Crime No. 367/2017 registered at Police Station Porsa, District Morena under Sections 365, 323, 34 of IPC and Sections 11 and 13 of MPDVPK Act It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that a complaint was made by the applicant.On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, the police registered the FIR under Sections 365, 323, 34 of IPC and Sections 11 and 13 of MPDVPK Act but the police has neither recorded the statements properly nor has concluded the investigation so far.So far as the prayer made by the applicant for issuing a direction to the police to file the chargesheet is concerned, the same cannot be granted.The Supreme Court in the case of D. Venkatasubramaniam v. M.K. Mohan Krishnamachari reported in (2009) 10 SCC 488 has held as under :-The High Court, within a period of one month from the date of filing of the petition, finally disposed of the same observing that, "it is obligatory on the part of the respondent police to conduct investigation in accordance with law, including recording of statements from witnesses, arrest, seizure of property, perusal of various documents and filing of chargesheet.2 MCRC No.11499/2018The Court accordingly directed the police to expedite and complete the investigation within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.The said order of the High Court is impugned in these appeals.******* **********36.The power under Section 482 of the 5 MCRC No.11499/2018 Code can be exercised by the High Court either suo motu or on an application (i) to secure the ends of justice; (ii) the High Court may make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code; (iii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court.
|
['Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 365 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.
|
133,409,095 |
1 Form No. J (1) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present:The subject matter of challenge in the instant criminal revision is an order of framing charge under Sections 279/427/304/304A of the Indian Penal Code.The background facts of this case are as follows;"On 13.11.2008 at about 11.35, one Ajit Patra while was moving in a Motor Cycle towards Kona Crossing from Maity Para through NH - 6, near Chamrile Oasis Hotel one Ambassador Car in high speed dashed the Motor Cycle 2 from its back, as a result the said Ajit Patra suffered serious injuries and died at the spot.Following the aforesaid incident a case under Sections 279/427/304 of the Indian Penal Code was registered at Liluah Police Station and after completion of investigation police also submitted charge-sheet for the self-same offences.Thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of the Learned District and Sessions Judge, Howrah, where the petitioner was placed on trial and a charge was framed against him under Sections 279/427/304/304A of the Indian Penal Code as aforesaid."As it appears from the First Information Report lodged by a person who was allegedly present at the spot at the time of the occurrence, while the deceased Ajit Patra was moving in a Motor Cycle through the NH - 6 and going towards Kona Crossing from the side of Maity Para was hit by a Ambassdor Car from its back which was driven in high speed in a rash and negligent way and thereby caused the death of the said Ajit Patra.It further appears that during investigation police examined two other persons, viz., one Narendra Roy and one Siddhartha Ghosh both of them were present at the spot at the time of the alleged occurrence.In the first referred case the accused who had no license, drove the truck, parked in an open field near a pathway, with headlights on in full speed.He was unable to control the vehicle while taking a turn, to get into the Kutcha Road and in that process, hit a cot, at the turning point, where the deceased was resting outside a hotel adjourning the open field.The impact threw the deceased 4 out of the cot, resulting in injuries which ultimately led to his death.In the second case a bus in a high speed hit a train at unmanned railway crossing and thereby caused death of two passengers in the bus.The Supreme Court altered the charge to Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code from Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code.
|
['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
133,411,978 |
Heard both sides.The petitioner was denied appointment to the post of Fireman in the Tamil Nadu Fire Service for the year 1999-2000 on the sole ground that he suppressed the fact about the registration of a criminal case against him on 15.06.1998 in Crime No.250 of 1998 under Sections 147, 148, 341, 324, 323 and 506 (ii) IPC on the file of Oomachikumal Police Station..... In the Police Verification, it was found that he was involved in a criminal case in Oomachikulam Police Station Cr.No.250/98, under sections 147, 148, 341, 324, 3232 and 506(ii) IPC.After investigation, the case was referred as mistake of fact on 18.07.1998.But, he was declined appointment on the sole ground that he suppressed about the criminal case, referred to above.No costs.
|
['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
133,482,801 |
The Chief Medical & Health Officer, District Gwalior is directed to admit the child (prosecutrix) latest by tomorrow, i.e.11/02/2020, and termination of pregnancy be carried out as early as possible subject to the medical complications.9- It is needless to mention that the Head of the Department of Gynecologist, Head of the Department of Anesthesia and all other Specialists will remain present at the time when termination of pregnancy will be carried out, as the girl is of tender age and as there may be a threat to the life of the girl also.This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-**;kfpdkdrkZ izkFkZuk djrh gS fd ;kfpdkdrkZ }kjk izLrqr ;kfpdk Lohdkj dh tkdj izfr ;kfpdkdrkZx.k dzekad 1 yxk;r 3 dks funsZf'kr fd;k tkos fd os ;kfpdkdrkZ dh iq=h dk l{ke MkWDVjksa }kjk ckfydk dk xHkZikr djk;k tkos vkSj tks vU; lgk;rk tks U;k;ky; mfpr le>s ;kfpdkdrkZ dks fnyk;h tkosA*It was alleged that the petitioner had gone to get her son Mohit admitted in a school and her daughter (X) was in the house.When she came back at about 1:30 PM, her daughter (X) was not found in the house and, therefore, it was alleged that either she has went away without informing anybody or she has been kidnapped.It was further mentioned that she has enquired from her relatives, but she could not search out the whereabouts of her daughter.It was further mentioned that somebody is making a call on her mobile phone and is alleging that her daughter is with him.Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Date: 10/02/2020 18:10:47 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.3455/2020 Mridula alias Roshni Dubey Vs.State of M.P. and others Accordingly, Crime No.491/2019 for offence under Section 363 of IPC was registered by Police Station Thatipur, District Gwalior.Thereafter, the petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition before this Court which was registered as Writ Petition No.1620/2020 and the daughter of the petitioner (X) was recovered by the police from the custody of the accused Rinku alias Rajesh and she was produced before this Court on 29/1/2020 and the habeas corpus petition was disposed of with a direction to hand over the custody of the daughter of the petitioner (X) to the petitioner.It is further submitted that the girl was recovered from Kaithal, Haryana.It is submitted that at the time of handing over the custody, the girl was got medically examined and it was found that she is pregnant and thus, this petition has been filed for the relief mentioned above.This Court by order dated 6/2/2020 had directed the State counsel to make necessary arrangement for medical examination of the daughter of the petitioner within two days and accordingly, today the State counsel has produced a letter dated 9/2/2020 sent by the Chief Medical & Health Officer, District Gwalior to the Additional Advocate General alongwith the medical certificate issued by Dr. Jakiya Rehman, Assistant Professor, Department of Obs & Gynae, G.R. Medical College, Gwalior.As per the Usg report dated 3/2/2020, a single live intrauterine fetus of mean gestation age 17 Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Date: 10/02/2020 18:10:47 3 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.3455/2020 Mridula alias Roshni Dubey Vs.State of M.P. and others weeks 5 days was found and the uterus has been found to be approximately 18 weeks size.The following opinion has been given by the doctor:-"As per MTP Act, the victim can undergo abortion till 20 weeks of pregnancy."The letter written by the CMHO, District Gwalior to the Additional Advocate General and the medical certificate of the girl (X) were produced in a sealed cover, which were opened in presence of the counsel for the parties.State of M.P. and others Board that has been constituted by the order of this Court expressed the opinion Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by GULSHANKUMAR that the termination of pregnancy should be carried out.That ARORA Date: 2017.09.06 18:28:22 IST Reason: apart, it has also been opined that termination of pregnancy at this stage or delivery at term will have equal risks to the mother.The Board has also expressed the view that the baby born will be preterm and will have its own complications and would require Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (N.I.C.U.) admission.We have heard Ms. Sneha Mukherjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned Solicitor General appearing for the Union of India and Mr. Nishant R. Katneshwarkar, le%arned standing counsel for the State of Maharashtra.Considering the age of the petitioner, the trauma she has suffered because of the sexual abuse and the agony she is going through at present and above all the report of the Medical Board constituted by this Court, we think it appropriate that termination of pregnancy should be allowed.Mr. Nishant R. Katneshwarkar shall apprise the Dean of Sir J.J. Group of Hospitals, Mumbai so that he/she can make necessary arrangements for termination of the pregnancy.A copy of the order passed today be handed over to learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Nishant R. Katneshwarkar, learned standing counsel for the State of Maharashtra.The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.There shall be no order as to costs."The petitioner has restricted the claim in the petition in respect of prayer clause (b)(ii) of paragraph-56 of the Petition.The other prayers recorded by the petitioner in the instant petition are not pressed.For the reasons recorded above, the Writ Petition is allowed.The petitioner is permitted to undergo medical termination of pregnancy at a medical facility of her choice.It is further made clear that the Doctors who have put their opinions on record shall have the immunity in the event of occurrence of any litigation arising out of the instant Petition."
|
['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,334,898 |
ORDER M.C. Jain, J.They were convicted in Criminal Case No. 997 of 1981 by the Judicial Magistrate III, Allahabad under Sections 323 and 325, I.P.C. Each of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 323, I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 325, I.P.C. Both the sentences were to run concurrently.Aggrieved, they preferred the aforesaid appeal.3. Learned counsel for the applicants and the learned A.G.A. for the respondent have been heard.Another Division Bench had taken the same view in the case of Ram Nath v. State 1981 All Cr R 431, that material available on record was not sufficient to dispose of appeal on merits and it was not possible to reconstruct the record, no order for retrial should be passed, if the incident had taken place long back.In that case the incident had taken place 11 years back.
|
['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,334,968 |
JUDGMENT Sunil Ambwani, J.1. Heard Shri Daya Shankar Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned standing counsel.With the consent of both the parties, this writ petition is being decided at the admission stage.In November, 1996, while he was still posted at G.R.P., Shahjahanpur, he was suspended from service on the charge of registration of a Criminal Case No. 659 of 1996 under Section 302, I.P.C., police station Majhaula, district Moradabad.In Sessions Trial No. 207 of 1997, State v. Sanjay and Ors., under Section 302/34, I.P.C. the Additional District Judge-7, Moradabad convicted petitioner Ram Rakshapal Singh having found him guilty for offences punishable under Section 302/34, I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life.The Superintendent of Police, Railways, Lucknow, by his order dated 22.6.2001 dismissed petitioner under Rule 8 (2) (A) of U. P. Subordinate Police Officers (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991, with immediate effect on the ground of his conviction and sentence of life imprisonment.In the same order, it was stated that in view of the heinous crime of murder committed by the petitioner for which he had been sentenced for life imprisonment, it was not proper for him to continue on the post of Constable in the civil police, which is a disciplined force.The petitioner along with others convicted and sentenced in the aforesaid sessions trial filed a Criminal Appeal No. 1199 of 2001, Sanjai and three Ors.This Court by its order dated 9.11.2001 suspended the order of conviction and sentence of appellant No. 2, Mahendra Pal Singh, and appellant No. 3, Ram Rakshapal Singh.The order passed by this Court is quoted below ;"Heard appellants' counsel Sri D.S. Misra and learned A.G.A. It is submitted by the appellants' counsel that appellant No. 2, Mahendra Pal Singh is a teacher and appellant No. 3 Ram Rakshapal Singh is a police constable in G.R.P. and therefore, a prayer has been made to suspend the order of sentence during pendency of their appeal in this Court.Perused the order dated 31.8.2001 and it is directed that the following words be added to that order:Pending appeal the order of conviction and sentence of appellant No. 2, Mahendra Pal Singh and appellant No. 3, Ram Rakshapal Singh shall remain suspended,"After the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed a representation before the Superintendent of Police, Railways, Lucknow, to reinstate him in service on the ground that his conviction and sentence has been stayed by the High Court.It appears that the respondent refused to consider his reinstatement on which the petitioner has filed this writ petition for a writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned order of dismissal dated 22.6.2001 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Railways, Lucknow and to reinstate the petitioner and treat his services with effect from 22.6.2001 on which the order of termination has been passed.After the stay of his conviction and sentence, the entire basis of the order of dismissal has been taken away and; as such, the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement.It is only postponed and kept in abeyance.Coming to the facts of the present case, the judgment in Sessions Trial No. 207 of 1997 convicting the petitioner and sentencing him to life imprisonment shows that a pre-meditated coldblooded murder of Neeraj Tyagi was committed by Sanjai, Mahendra Pal Singh, Tej Singh and Ram Rakshpal Singh.Petitioner Ram Rakshpal Singh, Constable, G.R.P., Shahjahanpur, is the real brother of accused Mahendra Pal Singh.The families of the deceased were on visiting terms and that it had come in evidence that Km.Babita, daughter of accused Mahendra Pal Singh had written some letters to the deceased.On 13.11.1996, when Smt. Ranjana Tyagi along with his mother and brother deceased Neeraj Tyagi were going to railway station at about 3.30 p.m., all the four accused met them in front of the shop of Chunnu.The deceased Neeraj Tyagi demanded Rs. 5,000 from Sanjai which he had taken on loan on which Sanjai said that he is insulting them and today he will pay off the money and that all the four accused started wielding knives on his brother who fell down sustaining the injuries.Neeraj was stabbed several times by the accused and died of stab injuries.Two knives involved in the crime were recovered embedded in the earth and the accused were charge-sheeted under Section 302, I.P.C.The order in Criminal Appeal dated 9.11.2001, shows that upon hearing the counsel for the petitioner and his submission that Mahendra Pal Singh is a teacher and Ram Rakshpal Singh is a police constable, a prayer was made to suspend the order of sentence.This prayer appears to have been made after the order dated 31.8.2001 was passed, by way of an application on which the conviction and sentence of Mahendra Pal Singh and petitioner Ram Rakshapal Singh was suspended.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,335,088 |
JUDGMENT M.C. Jain, J.Nine persons were put to trial in Sessions Trial No. 422 of 1979 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Bareilly.They were Ved Ram, Kishan Lal, Tundi, Siya Ram, Niranjan, Chhatrapal, Dal Chand, Rampal and Dharampal.The last two Rampal and Dharampal are real brothers being the sons of Punni.All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently by the judgment dated 27th Feb. 1981 which is impugned in this appeal.The occurrence had taken place on 19-7-1979 between 8 a.m. and 9.30 a.m. in village Shivpuri, Police Station Sirauli, District Bareilly and the F.I.R. was lodged the same day at 3.15 pm.by Jhamman Lal (brother of deceased) PW 1, an eyewitness.The distance of the Police Station from the place of occurrence was about 6 Kms.The occurrence occurred in two parts.In the first part, Chetram was murdered and the murder of Raghunath took place in the second part of the incident.The two murders were committed in the chain of the same transaction.On the fateful day at about 8 a.m. the deceased Chet Ram was returning to his house after purchasing Gur from the shop of Akhtar Maulana D.W. 1 Jhamman Lal P.W. 1 and his relatives Nanki and Ram Bharose were going to the Chakki of Kishore Nandan.Reaching near the Baithak, of Sukkhi they saw that the accused persons, variously, armed as stated above, started assaulting Chet Ram when he reached in front of the house of Punni.On the shrieks of Chet Ram and others, Naval Kishore P.W. 3, Makkhan, Prem Shankar P.W. 4 and Sunder also reached there and raised shouts.However, the accused persons ran away after killing Chet Ram.Jhamman Lal P.W. 1 planning to arrange a bullockcart when at about 9 a.m. Bhikam P.W. 2 arrived there and informed him that his brother Raghunath had also been killed b the accused persons in his field Jhamman Lal P.W. 1 left some villagers by the side of the dead body of the Chet Ram.He Ram Bharosey, Nanki and others reached the place where Raghunath had been assaulted.They found him badly injured but alive.He put Raghunath in a bullockcart belonging to Bihari to take him, for medical treatment.When the bullockcart reached the field of Sukkhi, Raghunath also died of the injuries caused to him.The accused Kishan Lal was also allegedly exhorting others that Chet Ram should not be left alive.When he reached near Chet Ram, he found him dead.He was making preparation to arrange for a bullockcart when Bhikam P.W. 2 arrived at about 9 a.m. and informed him that his brother Raghunath had also been killed by the accused persons.The witness also stated that his deceased brother Raghunath had gone to work at the field at about 7 a.m. He Ram Bharose, Nanki and others went to the field where Raghunath was lying.He was found injured but alive.The appellants were tried for the double murder of Chet Ram and his brother Raghu Nath.The trial Court found them guilty of the offence under Section 302 read with Section 149, I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to life imprisonment.Chhatrapal, Dalchand, Rampal and Dharampal were also convicted under Section 147, I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year.The remaining five, namely, Ved Ram, Kishan Lal, Tundi Siva Ram and Niranjan were convicted for the offence of rioting under Section 148, I.P.C. and each sentenced to 11/2 years rigorous imprisonment.The broad essentials of the prosecution case as per the F.I.R. and the evidence adduced in the Court may be noted.Ved Ram, Kishan Lal and Tundi were allegedly armed with Gandasa, Siya Ram and Niranjan each was armed with spear and the rest had lathis, Sukhdei mother of the appellant Ved Ram was living with the deceased Chetram for the last 15-16 years as his wife.Jhamman Lal PW 1 filed a case against the accused Dal Chand, Siya Ram Nathoo and others for their having encroached upon his agricultural land.Mihi Lal father of the accused Dal Chand had filed a case against Jhamman Lal P.W. 1 and his deceased brothers Chet Ram and Raghunath as also one Mangali in connection with the fracture of wrist.21-7-1979 was the date fixed for the hearing of that case.The accused Kishan Lal had filed a complaint against Jhamman Lal P.W. 1 and Raghunath for committing mischief by arson but the same resulted in acquittal.For the said reasons, the accused harboured enmity against Jhamman Lal P.W. 1 and his brothers.Chhiddan Chaukidar also reached there.He reached the place of occurrence with the Chauildar Chhiddan and prepared the inquest reports of the two deads.He also took in possession the plain and blood stained earth from the spots where Chet Ram and Raghunath had been assaulted and did other activities related to the investigation.The two dead bodies were sealed and sent for post mortem examination.Autopsy on the dead bodies of Raghunath and Chet Ram was conducted by Dr. P.K. Bass P.W. 5 on 20-7-1979 at 4.45 p.m. and 5.15 p.m. respectively.Raghunath was aged about 30 years and about 11/2 days had passed since he died.The following ante-mortem injuries were found on his person :Lacerated wound 4 cm x 1 cm x scalp on left side head, 6 cm above left ear.Lacerated wound 6 cm x 3 cm x muscle deep on the outer aspect of left arm.Contusions 10 cm x 8 cm on left shoulder top and back aspect.Punctured wound 1.5 cm x 1 cm on back of left forearm, 6 cm below elbow.Punctured wound 2 cm x 1 cm x bone deep on back and outer aspect of left forearm, with fracture of radius lower end.Abraded contusions 10 cm x 6 cm on outer aspect of right forearm 6 cm above wrist with fracture of both bones underneath.Abraded contusion 4 cm x 3 cm on outer aspect of right arm in middle.Punctured wound 2 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep on outer aspect of right upper arm, 3 cm above elbow joint.Abraded contusions 10 cm.x 6 cm on back and top of right shoulder.Contusion 8 cm x 6 cm on the left side back 6 cm below scapular region.As per the Doctor, the death of Raghunath could have occurred on 19-7-1979 between 8.30 a.m. and 9.30 a.m. and the ante-mortem injuries sustained by him were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.The punctured wound sustained by him could be caused by spear and other injuries by lathis or by Gandasa used from blunt side.Chet Ram was aged about 40 years and 11/2 days had passed since his death.The following ante-mortem injuries were found on his person :Lacerated wound 2 cm x 1 cm x scalp on right side head 10 cm above right ear.Contusions 6 cm x 4 cm on outer aspect of right forearm, 2 cm above wrist joint.3. Contused abrasion in an area of 8 cm x 4 cm on right side back, 10 cm above sacrum.Abraded contusion 4 cm x 2 cm on left buttock upper part.Contusions 15 cm x 8 cm on left up-per arm middle part with fracture of underlying bone.Multiple abraided contusions in an area of 10 cm x 6 cm on the back of left elbow joint.Incised wound 2 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep in front of right knee.Incised wound irregular 14 cm x 4 cm bone deep all around right legs, lower part.Incised wound 6 cm.Incised wound 7 cm x 2 cm x bone deep on left knee inner side patella cut.Incised wound 2.5 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep on front and left leg 8 cm below knee joint.Three parallel incised wounds in an area of 9 cm x 6 cm on lateral aspect of left leg 7 cm below injury No. 12, average size 4 cm x 2 cm and 2 cm x muscle deep.Contusion 10 cm x 6 cm over joint of chest and middle.For him also, the opinion of the Doctor was that ante-mortem injuries sustained by him were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death.His death could also have occurred between 8.30 a.m. and 9.30 am.The incised wounds sustained by him could be caused by Gandasa and the remaining injuries by lathi or spear used from the blunt side.The defence was of denial and of false implication.The prosecution relied upon the testimony of eyewitnesses Jhamman Lal P.W. 1, Bhikam P.W. 2, Naval Kishore P.W. 3 and Prem Shankar P.W. 4 son of Chet Ram deceased together with medical evidence and of other formal nature the including that which related to investigation.Three witnesses, namely, Akhtar Maula D.W. 1, Sunder Lal D.W. 2 and Ram Charan Lal D.W. 3 were examined in defence also.The first one came to say that he did not deal in Gur.Obviously , he was produced to refute the prosecution case that Chet Ram at the relevant time had gone to purchase Gur from the shop of this witness.Sunder Lal D.W. 2 came to say that he had seen the two bodies at 6 a.m. The purpose of his production was an attempt to make dent in the prosecution case that the two murders occurred between the 8 a.m. and 9.30 a.m. Ram Charan Lal DW 3 stated that he saw the two dead bodies at about 9 a.m. He gave negative evidence that the murder of Chet Ram did not take place at the site alleged by the prosecution.Since the evidence of the prosecution found favour with the trial Judge, he recorded the impugned judgment.We have heard Sri A.B.L. Gaur learned counsel for the appellants and Sri A.K. Dwivedi, learned A.G.A. from the side of the State in opposition.The record of the case has been summoned before us which we have carefully perused.This appellant Court is, therefore, presently concerned with the remaining seven appellants.As stated earlier, the incident occurred in two parts and in the first part, Chet Ram was murdered and in the second one, his brother Raghunath was murdered at some distance at his plot where he was engaged in agricultural operations in the form of digging the field.For proper appreciation , the gist of the testimony of eye witnesses of the two murders may bet set forth.For the murder of Chet Ram taking place in the first part of the incident, the prosecution relied on the testimony of Chet Ram's brother Jhamman Lal P.W. 1 informant, Naval Kishore P.W. 3 and Chet Ram's son Prem Shanker P.W. 4 aged about 9-10 years.Apart from speaking about the background of earlier enmity with some of the accused appellants related earlier, Jhamman Lal P.W. 1 stated that on the fateful day at about 8 a.m. the deceased Chet Ram had gone to purchase Gur from the shop of Akhtar Maulana.He himself along with Nanki and Ram Bharosey was going to the Chakki of Kishore Nandan and when he reached in front of the Baithak of Sukkhi, he saw his brother Chet Ram returning from the shop of Akhtar Maulana.Naming all the nine accused with their weapons (as mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment), he deposed that they started assaulting Chet Ram with their weapons.On his shouts and those of Naval Kishore, Makkhan, Prem Shankar, Sunder and others rushing to the spot, the accused persons ran away after killing Chet Ram.When he was taking Raghunath in the bullockcart of Bihari, he also expired in the field of Sukkhi.Then his dead body was put on a cot.Chhiddan Chaukidar also happened to come there.He got the report scribed by Baisakhi and made it over to Chaukidar to take it to the Police Station.Naval Kishore P.W. 3 and Prem Shankar P.W. 4 are also named in the F.I.R. as eye witnesses of the murder of Chet Ram.The house of Naval Kishore was situated, at a distance of 200-250 paces from the place of the murder of Chet Ram, 7-8 houses intervening in between.He stated that at about 8 a.m. that day he was going to the market of Hardaspur for selling millet.Hardaspur was at a distance of 5-6 Kms.from his village.He heard shrieks emanating from the side of the Chaupal of Sukkhi.He rushed to that side and found Jhamman Lal, Nanki and one more present there raising hue and cry.He also saw that Ram Pal, Niranjan, Dharam Pal, Chhatrapal, Tundi, Kishan Lal, Siya Ram, Ved Ram and one more person (whose name he did not remember) were assaulting Chet Ram in front of the door of Punni (father of accused Rani, Pal and Dharam Pal).It would be noted that he did not name Dal Chand accused.It is further to be noted that he named Ram Pal as being armed with Gandasa, who according to Jhamman Lal P.W. 1 was armed with lathi.Then he stated that three of the assailants were armed with Gandasa, four had lathis and two had spears.After assaulting Chet Ram, the assailants ran away.The trial Judge recorded his age as 9-10 years.According to him, at about 8 a.m. on the fateful day, he was grazing his buffaloes in the field of Sukkhi when he heard the shrieks of this uncle Jhamman Lal P.W. 1, Ram Bharose and Nanki from in front of the Baithak of Sukkhi.He rushed to that side and found his father Chet Ram being assaulted by Ved Ram, Kishan Lal and Tundi by Gandasa, by Siya Ram and Niranjan by spears and by Ram Pal, Dharam Pal, Chand and Chhatrapal by lathis.According to him, Kishan Lal was also saying that Chet Ram should not be left alive.Bhikam P.W. 2 -- witness of the murder of Raghunath taking place in the second part of the incident, stated that at about 9 a.m. on the fateful day, he was ploughing the land belonging to Jhamman Lal whereof he was the Bataidar (a person cultivating the field of other on oral contract of taking half of the agricultural produce).He saw that Ved Ram, Kishan Lal, Tundi and Ram Pal armed with Gandasa, Niranjan and Siya Ram armed with spears.He also deposed that Ram Pal, Dal Chand, Chhatrapal and Dharam Pal armed with lathis reached there and assaulted Raghunath who was working on his field.When he raised shouts, the accused persons also rushed up to assault him and then ran away towards northern side.Raghunath was alive by then.He went to call Jhamman Lal and learnt that Chet Ram had also been murdered.He informed Jhamman Lal about the assault by the accused persons on Raghunath in the field in his presence.Jhamman Lal P.W. 1, Ram Bharose, Nanki and other villagers accompanied him to the field where Raghunath was assaulted.Raghunath was put in the bullock cart of Bihari, but while being so earned he died near the field of Sukkhi.On appraisal of oral testimony of the eye-witnesses, we find that the ocular version is not consistent with regard to the accused appellants Ved Ram, Dal Chand and Ram Pal.As to Ved Ram, Naval Kishore P.W. 3 did not say that he was armed with Gandasa, Dal Chand was not named by him at all.About Ram Pal his statement was that he was armed with Gandasa.Bhikam P.W. 2 (witness of the murder of Raghunath) stated that Ved Ram, Kishan Lal, Tundi and Ram Pal were armed with Gandasa.Then he contradicted himself by saying that Ram Pal was also armed with lathi.It does not stand to reason that one person would have been armed with both such weapons.The point of the matter is that an element of doubt is created as to the participation of these three accused appellants, namely, Ved Ram, Dal Chand and Ram Pal because of the inconsistency as regards them, surfacing from the judicial scrutiny of the testimony of the eye witnesses.It is common knowledge that at times there is tendency on the part of the prosecution to exaggerate the guilt of other side and also to implicate persons thought to be sympathizers belonging to the party of real assailants.As to the participation of these three accused appellants, actual and substantial doubt arises from the testimony of eye witnesses.It is a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense growing out of the evidence itself adduced by the prosecution.Therefore, the benefit of doubt shall accrue to them.So far as Prem Shankar P.W. 4 son of Chet Ram deceased is concerned, he must have been aged only about 8 years at the time of the incident.It cannot be accepted with certainty that such an infant would have been grazing buffaloes at the time of the incident at about 8 a.m. He contradicted himself in his cross-examination by saying that he reached the place of occurrence and then to this house and found Jhamman Lal to be present there.According to him, he started weeping.When the defence counsel asked him whether Jhamman Lal inquired from him as to why he was weeping the witness kept quiet.He did not answer the questions properly put to him in his cross-examination.His statement was confusing and incapable of inspiring judicial confidence.In our opinion, the trial Judge rightly rejected and ignored his testimony and judged the case independently sans his testimony.Anything stated by him which is simply a confused statement cannot be interpreted either for or against the prosecution.It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that the scribe of the F.I.R. was Baisakhi Lal -- Bahnoi of Jhamman Lal P.W. 1 , who was resident of another village Parota situated at a distance of about 5 Kms., and it has not been explained as to how he happened to be in the village of incident.Firstly, Jhamman Lal P.W. 1 was not questioned in his cross examination as to how Baisakhi was there in his village at that time.There is nothing surprising if he happened to be present in his Sasural on the fateful day.Secondly Baisakhi is not an eye-witness and there is no requirement of law that the F.I.R. has to be scribed by a particular person.We, therefore, reject this argument.It has next been argued that Akhtar Maulana DW 1 denied that he used to vend Gur and he also stated that on that day, Chet Ram did not come to him to make any purchases.According to him, at about 9 a. m. He saw the dead bodies being taken away.It has also been urged that no piece of Gur was found nearby the dead body of Chet Ram.The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that it belied the prosecution story that he was returning after purchasing Gur from the shop of Akhtar Maulana.We have not the slightest doubt that Akhtar Maulana made a false statement at the behest of the accused appellants to help them and it is clear by his own showing.The report itself having been lodged at 3.15 p. m. there could hardly be any question of dead bodies of two murdered persons being carried away at about 9 a. m. that day.Moreover, he sated that he used to vend only Biri, cigarette, turmeric etc. We cannot appreciate that though selling turmeric, he did hot vend Gur a commodity of common use in villages.He had a Parchun (Provisional Store) shop and cannot be believed to be not dealing in Gur and other articles of daily use.Chet Ram is not alive to say as to how much Gur he had purchased.After the incident, Gur could have fallen about, losing its identity for recovery by the Investigating Officer when he visited the spot.Naturally, a number of villagers must have thronged the place where the murder had taken place and the dead body was lying.Another possibility, is that he could have consumed the same just after purchasing it.The next argument is that the F.I.R. is delayed one.The distance of Police Station from the scene of village was about 6 Kms.After placing the dead body of Raghunath on a cot in the field of Sukkhi, he got the report scribed by Baisakhi and made it over to Chaukidar to fetch it to the Police Station.It has been reasoned that he must have done so as little after 9.30 a. m. and as such, the lodging of the F.I.R. at 3.15 p. m. is delayed one.The argument does not carry conviction.In our opinion, the F.I.R. is not at all delayed.Being grief stricken, neither he nor any other members of his family had accompanied the Chaukidar to the Police Station.The clear statement of Jhamman Lal P.W. 1 is, that the report had been taken by the Chaukidar to the Police Station on foot.He could not be expected to run to the Police Station to lodged the F.I.R. at storm speed.It has next been criticized that Jhamman Lal P.W. 1 was an interested witness whereas Naval Kishore P.W. 3 was no better than a chance witness.True, Jhamman Lal P.W. 1 is the own brother of the two deceased, but that does not justify throwing away of his testimony over board.Naval Kishore P.W. 3 can also not be termed to be a chance witness.He well explained his presence at the spot that he had heard shrieks emanating from the side of Chaupal of Sukkhi and he rushed towards that side, reaching the scene of occurrence and witnessing the incident.The resident of the same village residing nearby the scene of incident cannot be termed to be a chance witness.He had no animus either to depose falsely against the accused appellants.Jhamman Lal P.W. 1 and Naval Kishore P.W. 3 withstood the test of cross examination firmly and their testimony against the accused appellants is firm having the ring of truth excepting to the extent that the deposition of Naval Kishore P.W. 3 is not consistent with that of Jhamman Lal P.W. 1 with regard to Ved Ram, Dal Chand and Ram Pal.We have already recorded above that the concerned accused appellants would be afforded the benefit of doubt.Another argument of the learned counsel for the appellants is that Bhikam.P.W. 2 -- the witness of murder of Raghunath was also an interested witness being Bataidar of Jhamman Lal.In our view, this factum alone does not justify jumping to the conclusion that he deposed falsely in favour of the prosecution.It has to be placed on record that he has no animus with the accused appellants.Yet another submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that he did not show to the Investigating Officer the place wherefrom he saw the incident of murderous assault on Raghunath.True, the Investigating Officer did not show in the site plan the place from where this witness witnessed the incident but because of this lapse or mischief on the part of the Investigating-Officer, his presence there cannot be doubted.His emphatic statement is that at the relevant time he was ploughing the field of Jhamman which he had taken on Batai.It was adjacent to the field which was being dug by Raghunath.Jhamman Lal P.W. 1 also spoke about his field being adjacent to that of Raghunath.It has also been argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that no blood was found on the Larhia (bullock-cart) on which Raghunath was allegedly being taken from the field of incident before being placed on a cot in the field of Sukkhi, having expired.The body of Raghunath having been wrapped in a bedspread (Kathari) and placed on the bullock-cart, it was not surprising if the blood was absorbed by Kathari and did not percolate on the Larhia.Yet another argument is that it has been admitted by Jhamman Lal P.W. 1 that Chet Ram was an accused in the murder of Durjan Pradhan and he might have been killed by his other enemies.It has to be kept in mind that Chet Ram had received in all 14 injuries and Raghunath had received 11 injuries.As per the prosecution, there were nine assailants but giving margin for three to whom we are inclined to afford benefit of doubt because of inconsistency in evidence, there were six assailants.Out of them two were armed with Gandasas, two had Bhalas and remaining three had lathis.Out of them, Tundi who had Gandasa and Siya Ram who had Bhala died.Taken cumulatively, the two deceased received injuries of all such weapons i.e., Gandasa, spear and lathi.When a number of persons variously armed attack a victim, it is not possible or necessary for all of them to give individual blow to the target.Some of them assume the role of preventing the escape of the victim while others render blows.It has to be kept in mind that several persons (accused) had targeted a single victim at a time.Moreover, in such an attack when assailants are several persons and the victim, is one, it is not possible to use the weapons in a defined fashion so as to make their natural use only.It is there in the evidence of Dr. P.K. Bass P.W. 5 that Raghunath could have sustained injuries as a result of strike of blunt side of Gandasa and Chet Ram could also have received injuries as a result of strike from blunt side of spear on his body.Partially digested food was found in the stomach of Chet Ram and Raghunath at the time of their post mortem examination and the statement of Doctor4s that they must have taken food 2-3 hours before their death.It has been contended that they would not have taken food at about 4 or 5 a.m. and their stomach contents indicated that the incident took place sometime in the night.Suffice it to say in this regard that stomach contents are not sure sign to probabilise the time of death.Further, both the deceased were villagers and it is not uncommon amongst them to take chapatis cooked the previous night in the early hours before going to work.Raghunath was murdered at about 9 or 9.30 a.m. while Chet Ram was murdered at about 8 or 8.30 a.m. It was the month of July, Villagers or labourers doing hard physical work usually take stale food in the early hours of the day before going out to work.Their routine is unlike the elite segment of the urban society.Negative evidence of Sunder Lal D.W. 2 was of no avail that he did not see the appellants assaulting Chet Ram.His falsehoodness was apparent from this version that at about 9 or 9.30 a.m. Daroga was carrying both the dead bodies on cart on the day when he had allegedly seen the two dead bodies in the field of Durjan at about 6 a.m. The F.I.R. itself having been lodged at 3.15 p.m. there could be no question of the dead bodies being carried by Daroga between 9 and 9.30 a.m. The negative evidence of Ram Charan Lal DW-3 was equally meaningless.Both the victims died as a result of application of violence to them through various weapons wielded by the accused appellants, as discussed hereinabove.It is perfectly borne out from the postmortem reports.The Investigating Officer had found sufficient blood at the point where the dead body of Chet Ram was lying outside the door of Punni.He had also found blood at point 'A' in the field where Raghunath was assaulted.Thus, there was physical evidence also as to the site of two murders, corroborating the ocular testimony.Though the places of the two incidents were divided by half a mile, but the two murders were part of the same transaction.In conclusion, on threadbare analysis and judicial appraisal of the evidence adduced at the trial, we are in judgment that the benefit of doubt is to be afforded to the accused-appellants Ved Ram, Dal Chand and Ram Pal as the evidence against them is not firm and consistent.In respect of the remaining six (out of whom Tundi and Siya Ram have died), the evidence is firm, clinching and conclusive that they formed an unlawful assembly, variously armed, to murder the two brothers and committed such murders in prosecution of the common object of unlawful assembly.Their conviction with sentence of life imprisonment under Section 302 read with Section 149, IPC is to be upheld.Further, the conviction of Kishan Lal and Niranjan under Section 148, I.P.C. with sentence of 11/2 years rigorous imprisonment, and that of the remaining two namely, Chhatrapal and Dharam Pal under Section 147, I.P.C. with imprisonment of one year rigorous imprisonment is also to be sustained.Accordingly, we partly allow this appeal.We set aside the conviction and sentence passed against the accused-appellants Ved Ram, Dal Chand and Ram Pal.The appeal stands abated in respect of appellants Tundi and Siya Ram.We uphold the conviction and sentences passed against the accused-appellants Kishan Lal, Niranjan, Chhatrapal and Dharampal.The appeal in respect of them is dismissed.They are on bail.
|
['Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
133,510,906 |
The facts leading to the litigation can be stated as under:-There were in all four accused before the learned Sessions Court.RESERVED ON : 10 JULY, 2012 th PRONOUNCED ON : 16th JULY, 2012 JUDGMENT : [PER A.V.NIRGUDE, J.]This appeal challenges the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-2, Jalna, in Sessions Case No. 72 of 2009, dated 30th October, 2010, convicting the appellants for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.They were ordered to suffer imprisonment for ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:49:35 ::: 2 CriApl 482/2010 life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- with a default clause for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.They were also separately sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and were directed to undergo R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each with a default clause.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:49:35 :::They were charged for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302, 324, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and for the offence punishable under Section 137 of the Bombay Police Act.The incident of riot and assault took place on 11th March, 2009, at about 08.00 to 08.30 p.m. in the vicinity of village Borgaon Khadak, Taluka Bhokardan, District Jalna.It is alleged that the appellants and their companions assaulted first Subhash, the deceased, with arms such as sticks, iron rods, axes and stones.Besides the four accused including the appellants who faced ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:49:35 ::: 3 CriApl 482/2010 the trial, there were three more named assailants, viz.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:49:35 :::Sunil Shejul, Sandip and Sunil Vishwanath.While this was going on, PW 4 Raju (brother of Subhash) rushed to his brother's help, but he too was assaulted.Soon Subhash's other family members, such as PW 6 Bhaurao (father), PW 7 Devidas (his brother) and PW 11 Latabai (his wife) rushed to the spot and they too tried to rescue Subhash.But, they were also assaulted by the appellants and their companions.In the melee, Subhash sustained injuries on his head and collapsed on the ground.Devidas-PW 7 as well as Raju-PW 4 also sustained minor injuries.On one hand, Subhash was taken to hospital by some of his relatives, and on the other hand, PW 4 rushed to the police station and lodged his report, which was registered as Crime No. 10 of 2009, initially for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, at 22.45 hours.Subhash, the deceased, was in injured condition and was taken to hospital at Aurangabad, but he died on the next day.The police therefore recorded supplementary statement of PW 4 and added offences, such as punishable under Sections 302, 143, 144, 147, 148 read with Section ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:49:35 ::: 4 CriApl 482/2010 149 of the Indian Penal Code, to the previous crime.The investigation then proceeded.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:49:35 :::As said above, after the trial, the appellants were convicted not for offences of rioting, but for the offence of murder having committed with common intention with other accused.The learned Judge held that this was not a case of riot and that the prosecution could not prove that the appellants and others were members of unlawful assembly which had a common object of committing murder and causing hurt to the victims.The learned counsel for the appellants therefore argued that if the other two accused were acquitted for not sharing the intention with the other accused, the present appellants would also fall in similar category and should have been acquitted.We, therefore, have to examine as to whether the evidence against the appellants is sufficient to hold that they shared common intention of committing murder and causing injuries.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:49:35 :::PW 4 very clearly deposed that he saw all the accused including the assailants who were not accused in the trial court assaulting his brothers Subhash and Devidas.He said, they -assailants- were armed with sticks and iron rod.He then said, his brother Subhash fell down after suffering a bleeding injury on his head and mouth.He added that the appellants assaulted him too.He described this assault saying that appellant No.1 Sahebrao caught his hands and appellant No.2 Ramesh dealt blows of axe handle and stick on his waist and head.He said, he and other accused Kishor threatened and abused him.However, in cross-examination, it was brought on record that this witness while describing the incident to the police earlier had stated that juvenile offender Sunil had given stone blows on Subhash's head and back.He further stated to the police that other juvenile offenders Sandip and Sunil Vishwanath dealt blows of iron rod on Subhash's head and back.It is thus clear from his deposition that this witness did not attribute any specific ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:49:35 ::: 6 CriApl 482/2010 role to the appellants as regards causing injuries to Subhash.On the contrary, the fatal injury on Subhash's person, as per his indication, was caused by other accused.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:49:35 :::He also added during his cross-examination that appellant Sahebrao had stone in his hand.But the cross-examiner for the appellants could not wipe out one vital allegation made by this witness in respect of the appellants, when he said that the appellants attacked him and gave axe handle blows on his person.The question is, whether this witness suffered corresponding injuries? In order to find out that, we went through the deposition of PW 2 Dr. Samina Kausar.She said that on 11th March, 2009, witness PW 4-Raju had come to her for medical treatment.She said that she found one C.L.W.on Raju's head and one contusion on back of his shoulder.The witness clearly gave authorship of these two injuries of appellant No. 2 Ramesh, and as said above, this allegation made by him in examination-in-chief is not disturbed even after extensive cross-examination.PW 7-Devidas is the second most important ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:49:35 ::: 7 CriApl 482/2010 witness, who stated that when he heard alarm near Vishnu's shop where Subhash had gone, he and his family members rushed to there.He said, that spot was about 50 to 60 feet away from his house.He then said, he saw the appellants Sahebrao and Ramesh giving axe blows on the head of his brother Subhash.He also said that he saw Sahebrao assaulting Raju-PW 4 with axe.He said, his mother was also assaulted in the melee.He then said specifically that he himself was assaulted by appellant No.1 with axe and stone.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:49:35 :::In the cross-examination, it was proved that this witness had not stated before the police earlier that appellant No.1 Sahebrao had given axe blow on the head of the deceased or that appellant No.1 had assaulted PW4-Raju with axe.He even had not stated to the police that he himself was assaulted by appellant No.1 Sahebrao with a stone.On the other hand, he admitted that he had informed to police that juvenile offenders Sunil and Sandip had assaulted Subhash on his head with stick and iron rod.With these admissions, his allegation that the appellants dealt axe blows on the had of Subhash, is eliminated and same cannot be believed.Even his allegation that ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:49:35 ::: 8 CriApl 482/2010 appellant No.1 assaulted him with axe and stone would fade into insignificance and cannot be believed.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:49:35 :::This witness too had suffered injuries and PW 2 proved them by saying that she found one CLW on Devidas's head and one contusion on his back.She said, both these injuries are possible with wooden stick etc. However, this witness did not really give authorship of his own injuries to any accused much less the appellants.This witness also confirmed the earlier version of Raju-PW 4 that the juvenile offenders Sunil and Sandip were the assailants and authors of fatal injuries sustained by Subhash.PW 1 the medical officer stated that at about 09.45 p.m. on that day Subhash was brought to him at P.H.C.He said, Subhash had suffered head injury and was unconscious.He said, as per his notes in his M.L.C.register, he could show that Subhash had suffered two contused lacerated wounds on his head.In addition to this, PW 3 Dr. Mahesh Jambhure another medical officer stated that on 12th March, 2009, Subhash's dead-body was brought before him for postmortem ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:49:35 ::: 9 CriApl 482/2010 examination.He confirmed that Subhash had sustained two injuries on his head.He also stated that there were five more injuries on his person, but they were not fatal ones.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:49:35 :::He clearly mentioned that on internal examination he found that the injuries on his head caused fracture of skull and further damage to the brain.He then stated that the cause of death was head injuries.It is thus clear from this evidence that Subhash died due to two head injuries which he suffered at the time of incident.The depositions of two witnesses which we discussed earlier clearly gave authorship of these injuries to the other accused.Let us now examine the evidence of other eye witnesses.The third eye witness is Bhaurao Shejul (PW6).He is the father of the deceased.He stated that when he heard alarm, he rushed to Vishnu's shop.He said that appellants exchanged blows with Subhash.He said very clearly that the appellants gave axe blows to Subhash.He also said that appellant Sahebrao threw stone on Subhash's chest.He said, he too was assaulted by ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:49:35 ::: 10 CriApl 482/2010 other accused and sustained injuries.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:49:35 :::But, in the cross-examination, he admitted that when his statement was recorded by police, he disclosed to them that Subhash was assaulted by other accused Sunil, Sandip and Sunil Vishwanath.He also admitted that his accusation that the appellant Sahebrao assaulted Subhash with axe and pelted stone on his chest and that he further assaulted PW 4 with axe was not recorded in his police statement.He tried to suggest that he had stated those facts to the police and pleaded ignorance as to why the police did not record them.This witness's cross-examination thus nullified his allegation that it was the appellants who assaulted Subhash with axes.He admitted that he informed the police that other three accused assaulted Subhash.He thus impliedly gave authorship of fatal injuries of Subhash to other accused.PW 11 is Latabai wife of late Subhash.She said, on hearing alarm she went running towards Vishnu's shop.She said that she saw appellant No.1 Sahebrao giving axe blow on Subhash's head.She also added that appellant No.2 Ramesh dealt axe blow on Subhash's head.She also added ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:49:35 ::: 11 CriApl 482/2010 that accused Sunil assaulted her husband by means of stick.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:49:35 :::Accused Sandip also assaulted her husband.She said, her husband fell down.She said, appellant No.1 then threw a big stone on her husband's chest.During cross-examination, it was found that this witness did not state to the police that appellant No.1 Sahebrao dealt axe blow on Subhash's head and that he threw stone on his chest.She further admitted that in her statement recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., she had not stated that appellant No.2 Ramesh dealt axe blow on Subhash's head.This cross-examination thus clearly eliminated the accusations made against the appellants that they authored head injuries of Subhash.PW 14 is Gajanan Parve, said, at the time of incident he was present at Vishnu's shop.He said, he saw crowd in front of the shop and quarrel was going between Subhash and appellants & others.He said, appellants Sahebrao and Ramesh and others were assaulting Subhash, Devidas, Bhaurao with sticks and axe.He said, he saw Subhash lying unconscious on the spot.He said, he tried to ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:49:35 ::: 12 CriApl 482/2010 pacify the assailants, but, he said, it was in vain.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:49:35 :::Despite cross-examination, nothing come on record to indicate that this witness was not present at the time of incident and did not witness it.However, this witness did not disclose the details of the incident.He did not state that the appellants were authors of Subhash's head injury.Taking over all view of the depositions, it is seen that the other accused Sunil, Sandip and Sunil Vishwanath authored the injuries on Subhash's head.The appellants did not author these fatal injuries.Beside, there is no specific allegation that the appellants caused any particular injury suffered by the deceased.It can therefore be said safely that the appellants were not party to causing fatal injury to Subhash.It can therefore be said that they did not share the intention of the other assailants of Subhash for causing fatal injury on his head.In our view, the learned Judge of the trial Court on this aspect committed grave error that he believed deposition of PW 4-Raju that it was the appellants who assaulted his brothers Subhash and Devidas.This witness clearly admitted in cross-examination that Sunil, Sandip ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:49:35 ::: 13 CriApl 482/2010 and Sunil Vishwanath had assaulted Subhash.This admission brought in his deposition is erroneously ignored by the learned Judge.Despite of this admission, the learned Judged picked up PW 4's omnibus statement that he saw the appellants assaulting his brothers Subhash and Devidas.We discussed earlier that Subhash died due to two injuries caused on his head.These injuries were not authored by the appellants, and therefore, they deserved benefit of doubt as far as assault on Subhash is concerned.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:49:35 :::The learned Judge also erroneously held that PW 6-Bhaurao Shejul stated that appellants assaulted Subhash.However, as discussed above, this allegation against the appellants was a material omission.The learned Judge ought to have ignored this damning aspect of the deposition of this witness.The learned Judge even made an error in appreciating the deposition of PW 7-Devidas Shejul.He said that he would believe this witness when he categorically deposed that appellant No.2 dealt a blow of axe on Subhash's head.This allegation was a material omission and the same was conveniently ignored/forgotten by ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:49:35 ::: 14 CriApl 482/2010 the learned Judge.Even this witness admitted that other accused Sandip and Sunil assaulted Subhash with iron rod and stick on his head.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:49:35 :::We are of firm view that the learned Judge did not appreciate the evidence properly as far as it relates to the appellants.We also hold that if the learned Judge did not believe the prosecution evidence against the other two accused Kishor and Nana while holding that they did not share any intention of committing murder of Subhash, the same finding ought to have been recorded in respect of the appellants.Thus, the appellants deserve acquittal of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.The question is, whether the appellants deserve acquittal for offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code? The answer is in negative.There is practically no cross-examination on this aspect of the case.PW 4 thus proved that appellant No.1 caught his ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:49:35 ::: 15 CriApl 482/2010 hands and appellant No.2 dealt blows with handle of axe on his head and back.We are, therefore, inclined to believe this part of the evidence.We have no hesitation to hold that the appellants should be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:49:35 :::However, as the appellants are in custody, we would hold that they deserved imprisonment to the extent of period which they have already undergone for this offence.O R D E RThe appeal is partly allowed.The appellants are acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.The appellants are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for the period which they have already undergone and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each.In default of payment of fine amount they shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment of three more months.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:49:35 :::16 CriApl 482/2010If fine amount is already deposited by the appellants, same shall be paid to PW 4 Raju s/o Bhaurao Shejul.Muddemal property, being worthless, be destroyed after appeal period is over.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:49:35 :::
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
133,512,007 |
Heard on this first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the applicants.Victim identified six persons involved in the loot.Later on, he identified six persons including the present applicants.Only cash amount was recovered from the possession of the applicants.The applicants are in judicial custody since 24.06.2020 and conclusion of the trial will take considerable time, therefore, it has been prayed that the applicants may be released on bail.Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the application.Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.Consequently, this application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of applicants-Pawan Singh and Sachin, stands allowed.It is directed that the applicants shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety each in the like amount 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.Jail authorities and State Government are directed to follow the guidelines issued by the Health Ministry in the wake of Novel Corona Virus, before and after releasing the applicants.Certified copy as per rules.
|
['Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
133,512,125 |
18.11.13 Item No. 42 Court No.17 A.B.Item No. 42The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Mr. Kallol Mondal Ms. Amrita Chel For the Petitioners Mr. Rudrdiptya Nandy Mr. Saswata Gopal Mukhopadhyay For the State The Petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Kaliganj Police Station Case No. 539 of 2013 dated 18.08.2013 under Sections 498A/304B/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, have applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioner and the learned Advocate for the State.We have seen the case diary and the other relevant material on record.The Petitioner No. 1 is the sister-in-law of the victim and the Petitioner No. 2 is the victim's brother-in-law.ALLOWED In these circumstances, in the event of arrest, the Petitioners shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of `10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand) each with two sureties each, one of whom must be a local surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned subject to the conditions laid down under section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and with the further condition that the Petitioner No. 2 shall report to the concerned Police Station once a week until further orders.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Kanchan Chakraborty, J)
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
847,451 |
J U D G M E N TARIJIT PASAYAT, J.Pandurang Varambale (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') would not have in his wildest dreams on 8.5.1982 dreamt when he left home to attend the invitation extended by the appellant Shankar Narayan Bhadolkar (hereinafter referred to as accused A-1), that he would never return alive.The appellant allegedly shot him dead by a gun when the deceased was in his house in response to his invitation to attend a marriage celebration.Prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows:Complainant Dilip Shripati Dalavi (PW-2) had a laundry in the Shivaji Chowk, Kohlapur.There was also a hair cutting shop adjoining his laundry, which was run by Shantaram Mane (PW-4) and Ramchandra Mane.They are friends.The deceased was coming to the said hair cutting saloon and hence he had become their friend.Accused no.1-appellant was also visiting the said saloon and he had also become their friend.On 2.5.1982, accused no.1 had come to the shop of Dilip Dalavi (PW-2) and gave him invitation for dinner arranged in his house at Vadanage, near the limits of Nigave Dumala Village.Besides the complainant, accused no.1 also invited Rajendra the brother of the complainant, Shantaram Mane (PW-4) and his brother Rama and another friend Dattu Kurane.Accused no.1 told him that in case they did not attend the dinner, then they will have to pay a penalty of Rs.100/-.At that time, deceased had come to the saloon where this talk was going on.The deceased was also invited by accused no.1 for the said dinner.After reaching the Mace, they moved around and thereafter took meals.A bus was to leave at about 8.00 p.m. for their return journey to Kolhapur.They finished their meals at about 7.30 p.m. Thereafter all the invitees came out of the house and they wanted to catch the bus.Deceased also followed them and went inside.As there was some time for catching the bus, the complainant also entered the house of accused no.1 for chewing betal leaves.The complainant sat on the cot.The deceased was standing on the threshold of the house.The unknown person was standing close to them.Accused no.2 was sitting on the chair in front of him.Accused no.1 lifted the gun, loaded it with cartridge and pointed it towards the deceased and then fired it.The said shot hit on the left side chest of the deceased, who collapsed and blood started oozing.As soon as deceased fell down, he died instantaneously.As the complainant was afraid, he came out of the house.Rajendra, Shantaram, Ramchandra and Dattu Kurane were outside the house.As soon as he came out of the house, those persons enquired from him about the sound.He disclosed to them that accused no.1 had fired a gun hitting Pandurang.Thereafter they all started towards Vadanage.They went to the house of Sadashiv Khadaka to whom they narrated the incident, because he was their friend.The distance between his house and the house of accused no.1 is about 2 to 3 kms.The brother-in-law of the deceased resides in the same village.Khadake had taken them in his house.Then they went to village Kerli in the bus belonging to the society of Vadanage, because the deceased was from Kerli.Then they went to Mahadeo Varsmble who is the cousin brother of the deceased.They woke him up and told him about the incident.Thereafter they all went to Shripati Chougule and disclosed to him the incident.Then he himself alongwith five others who were present for the dinner came to Karvir Police Station in jeep.Shripati Chougule came to the police station by motorcycle.Complaint was lodged in the Karvir Police Station.It was reduced into writing.The said well is situate at village Kerli.Accordingly a memorandum was prepared vide Ex.23 in presence of the panchas.Accused no.1 then led them to the well and the dead body of deceased was taken out from the well.It was wrapped in a gunny bag.After opening the gunny bag, the dead body was taken out.It was identified by Sadashiv and others.Accordingly panchanama (Ex.24) was prepared.Under the panchanama muddemal articles nos. 2 and 3 were also attached.Then inquest on the dead body was drawn (Ex.30).The dead body was sent to the doctor for autopsy.He also attached a white Dhoti and Nehru shirt (Art. 4 & 5) of deceased no.2 under panchanama (Ex.14).Then he visited the scene of offence in the morning and drew panchanama (Ex.15).He found some blood stains on the threshold and also on the bench.The floor was cleaned with cow dung.It was also attached.The appellant along with his wife Laxmibai (A-4), son Dinkar (A-3) and one Sambhaji Mahadeo Patil (A-2) faced trial.They were charged for commission of offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC').Appellant was alternatively charged for commission of offence punishable under Section 302, 201 and Section 25(1A) of the Arms Act, 1959 (in short the 'Arms Act').The trial Court found the appellant guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 IPC and 25 of the Arms Act. The other three co-accused persons were acquitted.Appellant was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment, two years and six months respectively, with fines and default stipulations.On the basis of the said first information report, the Police Inspector Shirawekar registered the offence u/s 302 IPC and also under Section 25 of the Arms Act. Thereafter Police Inspector visited the spot along with the complainant and his staff in the jeep.Police Inspector called out accused no.1 by standing near door.Accused no.1 who came out by opening the latch of the door was arrested.A green lungi which was on the person of accused no.1 was attached under panchanama (Ex.12).Statements of witnesses were recorded.On 30.5.1982 he sent the muddemal articles nos. 1 to 30 and also the viscera and plastic like material forwarded by the Medical Officer, along with his forwarding letter to the Chemical Analyser Pune so also, muddemal article, no.10 the gun was sent to the Ballistic Expert for examination and his opinion.On enquiry it was revealed that the gun (Art.10) was in the name of accused no.3 having a valid licence.The same was attached by him.He obtained a permission from the District Magistrate, Kolhapur (Ex.21) against accused no.1 for having used the gun without valid licence.for his prosecution under the Arms Act. After conclusion of the investigation, charge sheet was submitted in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kolhapur.The charge was framed against accused nos. 1 to 4 and they pleaded not guilty.Accused appellant took the plea that on the date of occurrence he had invited 30/40 persons to attend the dinner and the deceased was one of them.He was heavily drunk and was not in a position to walk and also unable to control himself.Apprehending that the deceased might create problems and fall on the road, the appellant dissuaded him from returning to his place and advised him to go on the next day.But the deceased paid little heed.To scarce him, the appellant picked up a gun lying there, loaded the same with blank cartridges which only create noise.But the deceased tried to snatch it from him.In the scuffle when the deceased pulled the barrel of the gun accidentally it got fired and deceased sustained injuries on his chest.After seeing the injury, the appellant was totally shocked and fled away.The other accused persons denied their involvement in the occurrence.In appeal by the impugned judgment, the High Court upheld the conviction and sentence.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
84,751,366 |
In this regard, the fourth respondent issued a notice dated 13.07.2020 under Sectionhttp://www.judis.nic.in 2/6 W.P.No.9587 of 2020 and WMP.No.11708 of 2020 41(A) Cr.P.C. for enquiry, thereby, directing the petitioner to appear for investigation in Crime No.347 of 2020 on 24.07.2020 in the office of the fourth respondent herein.Due to Covid-19 pandemic, there is an order of lock down and as such, the petitioner could not able to move from Chennai to Ramanathapuram to appear before the fourth respondent.He further submitted that even according to the case of the prosecution, the petitioner is not an accused in Crime No.347 of 2020 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Ramanathapuram Bazar Police Station.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that though the petitioner name is not found in the FIR, the petitioner and other named accused conspired together and cheated the de-facto complainant to the tune of very huge amount, in this regard, the petitioner's personal appearance is very much required for interrogation.As such, the fourth respondent issued notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. for enquiry.pvs W.P.No.9587 of 2020 and WMP.No.11708 of 2020 23.07.2020http://www.judis.nic.in 6/6The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a Film Producer and he is running a production Company named "Studio Green".While that being so, on a complaint lodged by one Thulasi Manigandan before the Inspector of Police, Ramanathapuram District, an FIR was registered in Crime No.347 of 2020 for offences under Section 406, 420, 294 (b), 506 (ii) IPC r/w.109 IPC as against three accused persons.Though there is lock down, the petitioner can very well seek for e-pass and appear before the fourth respondent for investigation.Therefore, he sought for dismissal of this petition.http://www.judis.nic.in 3/6 W.P.No.9587 of 2020 and WMP.No.11708 of 20204. Heard the learned counsels appearing on either side.On perusal of records, it shows that by the notice dated 13.07.2020, the petitioner was called for to appear before the fourth respondent for enquiry, which is to be held on 24.07.2020, in pursuant to the Crime No.347 of 2020 registered for the offence under Sections 406, 420, 294 (b), 506(ii) IPC r/w. 109 IPC as against the three accused persons.Due to Covid-19, there is a lock down and as such the petitioner could not able to get e-pass immediately to attend the enquiry at Ramanathapuram.Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought to extend further time to attend the enquiry.Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner need not appear before the fourth respondent on 24.07.2020, instead of that, the petitioner is directed to appear before the fourth respondent on 07.08.2020, without any further notice under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. from the fourth respondent and without fail.If the petitioner fails to appear before the fourth respondent on 07.08.2020, the fourth respondent is directed to proceed in accordance with law.http://www.judis.nic.in 4/6 W.P.No.9587 of 2020 and WMP.No.11708 of 2020With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of.No costs.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.23.07.2020 Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non Speaking order pvs ToThe Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kadampa Nagar, Ramanathapuram, Tamil Nadu 623 503The Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram, Tamil Nadu 623 504The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram, Tamil Nadu 623 504The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.http://www.judis.nic.in 5/6 W.P.No.9587 of 2020 and WMP.No.11708 of 2020 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
|
['Section 294 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.
|
84,757,025 |
This is the First application for anticipatory bail filed by the applicant under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.The applicant apprehend his arrest in connection with crime No. 20/2015 registered at police station Mahila Thana Padav, District Gwalior for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 506-B of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.During the course of argument, learned counsel for the applicant submits that he wants to withdraw this bail application and seeks direction that the applicant is prepared to surrender before the trial Court and the trial Court be directed to decide his application for regular bail on the same day.Considering the same, the present application is dismissed as withdrawn with direction that if the applicant surrenders before the trial Court within 10 days from today, he be taken into custody and on his filing an application for regular bail, same be considered as expeditiously as possible.(S. K. Palo) Judge neetu
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
84,758,394 |
A.No.805/2006 under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine in the sum of Rs.1000/-. 2(a) The prosecution case before the trial Court in a nutshell was that appellant/accused Ramsujan and deceased Bhoori Bai lived in the same village.A few dates before the date of the incident, appellant/accused Ramsujan had purchased eggs from the deceased Bhoori Bai without paying for the same.When Bhoori Bai used to demand the price of the eggs from accused Ramsujan, he used to tell her that eggs were rotten; therefore, he would not pay for them.On aforesaid account, abuses were heard and blows were exchanged between the accused and the deceased.(b) At about 9:00 a.m. on 8.7.2005, deceased Bhoori Bai had gone to jungle with Suman (PW-4), Ramwati (PW-5), Savitri (PW-6), Ranno (PW-7) and Sita (PW9) to collect firewood.When they were returning to the village with firewood, accused Ramsujan met them under the hillock.He was carrying a small axe (tangi).Suddenly, accused Ramsujan started assaulting Bhoori Bai with the axe.Bhoori Bai fell down and bled profusely.Her companions Suman, Ramwati, Savitri, Sita and Ranno threw down the clusters of 3 Cr.A.No.805/2006 firewood they were carrying and ran towards the village in a panic-stricken condition shouting "murder ho gaya murder ho gaya".(c) At the time of the incident, Vishram (PW-1), husband of deceased Bhoori Bai, was on the hillock, grazing his goats.When he heard the screams and shouts of aforesaid women, he rushed to the spot and found that Bhoori Bai was lying in a pool of blood.She had sustained injuries to her throat, back, hand and head etc. She was unconscious.He saw accused Ramsujan running towards the hills.Vishram accompanied by the village people went after him in hot pursuit; however, the accused ran for about 6-7 kms.and reached Chowki Ghat.Assuming that the village people had given up the pursuit, he started to wash his blood-stained shirt and pant; however, Vishram persisted with the chase.He tried to catch the accused.When the accused saw Vishram, he jumped into Ban Sagar Water Reservoir on river Sone and swam for about 3-4 kms.and reached Brodha Village in district Shahdol.Thereafter, Vishram returned.(d) Meanwhile, Bhoori Bai was brought by villagers to the village but she succumbed to her injuries.At about 1:10 p.m. 4 Cr.(Delivered on this day of June, 2017) Per C.V. Sirpurkar, J:This criminal appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the appellant/accused Ramsujan @ Munda Kol is directed against the judgment dated 22.2.2006 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Amarpatan, District Satna in Sessions Trial No. 191/2005, whereby the accused/appellant Ramsujan was convicted 2 Cr.A.No.805/2006 the same day, Ramdas lodged first information report of the incident in P.S. Ram Nagar, District Satna.During investigation, blood-stained clothes of accused were seized from Chowki Ghat upon Ban Sagar Water Reservoir.After due investigation, charge sheet in the matter was filed.The trial Court framed a charge under Section 302 of the I.P.C. against the accused.He abjured the guilt and claimed to be tried.In his examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., neither he did take any specific defence, nor did he examine any witness in defence.After the trial, learned Additional Sessions Judge held on the basis of the statement of Vishram (PW-1) that the prosecution had succeeded in proving beyond reasonable doubt that there was previous enmity between the accused and the deceased on account of failure of the accused to repay the price of the eggs purchased by him from the deceased.It was also held to be proved on the basis of the statement of Dr. R.P. Garg (PW-14), who had conducted post-mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased that she had sustained 8 incised wounds on upper part of her body caused 5 Cr.A.No.805/2006 by hard and sharp object and she had died due to syncope as a result of excessive bleeding from the wounds.As such her death was homicidal in nature.On the basis of the deposition of eye witnesses Suman (PW-4), Ramwati (PW-5), Savitri (PW-6), Ranno (PW-7) and Sita (PW-9) it was held that the accused had assaulted the deceased with an axe and had inflicted numerous injuries on her back, neck and head etc. As a result, she died shortly after the incident.Keeping in view the conduct of the deceased before and after the incident, as brought forth by the statements of the prosecution witnesses particularly Vishram (PW-1), the trial court was also of the opinion that there was no reason to believe that due to unsoundness of mind, the accused cound not appreciate the nature of his act and that what he was doing was either wrong or contrary to law.Consequently, the accused was convicted and sentence as herein above stated.The conviction and the sentence of the appellant has been challenged before us by learned counsel for the appellant, mainly on the grounds that the trial Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence and erred grievously in holding that the offence punishable under Section 302 of the 6 Cr.A.No.805/2006 I.P.C. was proved beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant.Learned trial Court failed to give due importance to infirmities in the prosecution case.The trial Court attached no significance to the fact that there was no motive for the appellant for killing the deceased.A trivial altercation between the appellant and the deceased on account of alleged failure of the appellant to repay the price of eggs to the deceased, was not strong enough a motive to prompt a man of common prudence to commit murder of someone.Absence of motive throws doubt upon the prosecution case.A.No.805/2006 Savitri (PW-6), Ranno (PW-7) and Sita (PW-9) have been examined.Out of these five witnesses only Suman was major.Remaining eye witnesses Ramwati (PW-5), Savitri (PW-6), Ranno (PW-7) and Sita (PW-9) were minor.The gist of their deposition is that on the date of the incident they had gone along with deceased Bhoori Bai to collect firewood in the jungle.When they were returning to the village, the appellant arrived and assaulted the deceased with an axe upon her temple, neck and head etc. As a result, the deceased fell down and the appellant ran away.Upon hearing the commotion, Vishram (PW-1), husband of the deceased, reached the spot.He chased the accused but the accused crossed the hill.The accused started to wash his clothes near Chowki Ghat.When the appellant realized that he has been followed, he again started to run.He threw his clothes and axe on the way.When Vishram crossed the hill, accused jumped in river Sone and swam a distance of about two and half kms.towards village Barodha.Meanwhile, the deceased was taken by villagers to the village, where she succumbed to her injuries.It is true that one of the child eye witnesses namely Savitri (PW-6) has admitted in her cross-examination that she 9 Cr.A.No.805/2006 was accompanied to the Court by Vishram, Mangal Deen and Ram Sakha and they had told her as to what kind of statement is to be given by her.She has also admitted that on the date of the incident, she was at her home and had reached the spot on hearing the commotion; however, the prosecution has examined as many as five eye witnesses.Even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments that this particular child witness had been tutored by others, it does not dent the testimony of other 4 witnesses.Nothing could be brought out in the examination of other four eye witnesses, to discredit the prosecution story or supported the theory that it was not accused Ramsujan but someone else who had assaulted the deceased.The eye witnesses included child witnesses who could not be said to hold any grudge against the appellant.They had no reason to falsely implicate the appellant.Their statements cannot be disbelieved simply because they were 10 Cr.A.No.805/2006 related to the deceased because it was only natural for the family members to go together to collect the firewood.It rests on the solid foundation of eye witness accounts.The next point that has been raised by learned counsel for the appellant was absence or insufficiency of motive.It is true that the only motive that has been given by Vishram (PW-1), husband of the deceased for the offence is that there was a dispute between the appellant and the deceased on account of the fact that the appellant had purchased eggs from the deceased and had not paid for the same.When the deceased demanded her money, the appellant claimed that the eggs were rotten and they had germinated; therefore, the appellant would not pay their price.In our opinion, ordinarily, such a motive would not be considered to be strong enough for an offence like murder.However, it is settled principle of law that where a case is based upon direct evidence, correctness of conviction cannot be tasted on the touchstone of motive.The guilt of the accused cannot be challenged merely on the ground of absence or inadequacy of motive, where the offence has been established beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of 12 Cr.A.No.805/2006 unimpeachable eye witness accounts.A.No.805/2006 the appellant to pilgrimage to get him treated for his mental condition.She has also denied that the appellant did not have capacity to think due to any mental illness.Likewise Ramwati (PW-5) has denied any knowledge of the fact that the appellant had turned insane four days before the date of the incident.Thus, on the basis of statements of prosecution witnesses, it cannot be said that on the date of the incident, the appellant was of unsound mind.The appellant has not examined any witness in defence either to establish the fact that on the date of the incident he was of unsound mind.He has not even made a mention about any such illness in his examination under section 313 of the Cr.Witness Vishram (PW-1) has stated that the appellant had swam a distance of about two and half kms.and had reached village Barohi on the other side of the reservoir.This fact 14 Cr.A.No.805/2006 indicates that he was a good swimmer and in order to escape from being caught, he had jumped into the reservoir.Thus, it was a conscious decision on the part of the appellant based upon the assessment of his capability as a swimmer.It is also true that this Court, by its order dated 13.8.2016 had released the appellant on temporary bail on the 15 Cr.A.No.805/2006 ground of mental illness.Aforesaid order was passed on the ground of medical report received from Psychiatrist of Gwalior Mental Hospital.It was stated in the report that the appellant suffers from Psychosis and required Psychiatric treatment.In the instant case, after assaulting the deceased the appellant ran away from the spot.He not only crossed the hill but also jumped in the reservoir to evade arrest and consequent detention.He also tried to wash his blood-stained clothes.In these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the trial court was perfectly justified in convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and imposing life imprisonment and a fine in the sum of Rs.1000/- upon the appellant and there is no ground for interfering with the impugned judgment.Consequently this criminal appeal is dismissed.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
847,651 |
(a)P.W.1 is the mother of P.W.2, Pechiammal.P.W.2 was given in marriageto the accused/appellant two years prior to the occurrence.After the child birth, P.W.2 was staying in hermother's (P.W.1) house.Due to child birth, her health condition was not welland she was advised to take rest and thus, she stayed in her mother's house.The accused went over there and called P.W.2 to come to his house.P.W.2informed that due to child birth, she may be permitted to stay in her mother'shouse for some time and that she would be coming back to the accused house a fewmonths later.Even four days prior to the occurrence, the accused went to thehouse of P.W.1, made a demand and got the very same answer.On 24.11.2002, whenP.W.8, one of the villagers of Tharuvai, who was sitting nearby a temple, metthe accused, he questioned him that whether the accused has come to take backhis wife and his child.(b)On the day of occurrence, i.e., on 28.11.2002, at about 10.15 a.m.P.Ws.1,2 and 3 were all inside the house along with one Latha, Selvi andAnuradha.P.W.3 was actually giving sugar syrup to the child.At that time,the accused came there and asked for a cup of water.After taking the same, hecalled P.W.2, to come with him to his house.P.W.2 gave the usual answer.P.W.3 intervened and informed the accused that P.W.2 would be coming to hishouse after some time and that why should he insist her for coming.Immediately, the accused, uttering the words, "who are you to intervene in ourfamily affairs?", attacked P.W.3 with an aruval on her head and there wasprofused bleeding.On seeing this, P.W.2 took her child and ran out of thehouse.The accused chased her telling that "I should finish off yourself andthe child".So telling, the accused attacked both P.W.2 and the child.Theoccurrence was witnessed by P.Ws.1 and 3 when it had taken place inside thehouse and P.W.4 and others who were at the bus stop, witnessed the same when theoccurrence has taken place at the street.P.W.13, the doctor attached to the Tirunelveli Medical College hospital, took X-Rays of P.W.2 and the same was marked as Ex.P.3, the X-Ray Report.M.O.12series is the X-Rays.(c)At about 12.05 p.m. P.W.15, the doctor attached to Annai VelankanniHospital, Tirunelveli, medically examined P.W.3 and has given the WoundCertificate, Ex.P.16, wherein the injuries sustained by P.W.3 were also noted.He also took X-Rays of P.W.3 under Ex.P.17-the X-Ray Report and M.O.13 series isthe X-Rays.P.W.12, theJudicial Magistrate, went over to the hospital and recorded the dyingdeclaration of P.W.2, which is marked as Ex.P.13, after getting a certificatefrom the duty doctor that P.W.2 was conscious enough and mentally fit to givesuch a statement.P.13 is also certified by the doctor.(d)P.W.19, the Inspector of Police, took up investigation, proceeded tothe place of occurrence, made an inspection in the presence of witnesses andprepared Ex.P.8-the Observation Mahazar and Ex.P.27-the rough sketch.Heconducted inquest on the dead body of the child in the Mortuary in the presenceof witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared Ex.P.28-the Inquest Report.Photographs of the place of occurrence were taken through the photographer andM.O.14 series is the photographs and negatives.M.O.8-blood stained earth andM.O.9-sample earth, were also recovered.Pursuant to the requisition made,P.W.14, the doctor, attached to Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital conductedautopsy on the dead body of the child and has given Ex.P.15-the PostmortemCertificate, wherein he has opined that the child would appear to have died outof shock and haemorrhage due to multiple cut injuries in the vital organs.He cameforward to give a confessional statement in the presence of witnesses, theadmissible part of which is marked as Ex.P.10, pursuant to which, M.O.6-aruval,M.O.7-blood stained pant and M.O.8-blood stained shirt were all recovered undera cover of a Mahazar.Even, as per the admitted case of the prosecution, theaccused and P.W.2 were in cordial terms and that a child was born to them andP.W.2 was actually in her mother's house after the child birth.The accused, onnumber of occasions, called P.W.2 to his house.But, she was refusing.On theday of occurrence, the accused went to the house of P.W.1, had a cup of waterand was having the child in his hands for some time.The accused was callingher to his house, to which course she was not amenable and that she wasrefusing.Even as per the evidence of P.W.1, there was a quarrel between themfor 5 minutes following which the occurrence has taken place.There wasexchange of heated words between them which resulted in the act of the accusedand thus, the act of the accused would not attract the penal provision ofmurder, which has got to be considered by this Court.(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.CHOCKALINGAM,J.) The sole accused in a case of murder in S.C.No.409/2003 on the file of thePrincipal Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, stood charged under Sections 449,307 (2counts), 341 and 302 IPC.On trial, he was found guilty as per the chargesstated above and was awarded five years rigorous imprisonment for the offenceunder Section 449 IPC, one month simple imprisonment for the offence underSection 341 IPC, five years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section307 IPC for each count and life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302IPC.2.The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be statedthus:The accused left the place ofoccurrence.P.Ws.1,4 and 7 took P.W.2, the child and also P.W.3 in an autowhich belonged to P.W.10 to Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital, where P.W.14,the doctor, attached to the said hospital examined the child and declared thatthe child was dead.At about 11.50 a.m., P.W.6, the doctor attached toTirunelveli Medical College hospital medically examined P.W.2 and noted theinjuries found on P.W.2 in Ex.P.2, the Wound Certificate.P.26 is theAccident Register given by P.W.6, the doctor attached to the said Hospital.An intimation was sent to the respondent Police Station through theOut Post Police Station.P.W.19, the Inspector of Police, proceeded to thehospital, and recorded P.W.1's statement at 1.05 p.m. P.W.19, the Inspector ofPolice, came back to the station, and registered a case in Crime No.635/2002under Sections 341, 307 and 302 IPC and the Express F.I.R., Ex.P.18, was sent tothe Court through a constable.An intimation along with a requisition, Ex.P.12,was also sent to P.W.12, the Judicial Magistrate No.V, Tirunelveli.The accused was sent for judicial remand.All thematerial objects recovered from the place of occurrence and from the dead bodyand also the materials recovered from the accused pursuant to the confessionalstatement, were subjected tochemical analysis by the Forensic Sciences Department which resulted in tworeports, viz., Ex.P.23-the Chemical Analyst Report and Ex.P.24-the SerologistReport.After postmortem, the sample blood of the deceased child was sent forchemical analysis which resulted in Ex.P.25-the Serologist Report.Oncompletion of investigation, the investigating officer filed the final reportbefore the concerned Court.3.The case was committed to Court of Sessions.Necessary charges wereframed.In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution marched 19 witnessesand also relied upon 28 exhibits and 14 material objects.4.On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution case, theaccused was questioned under section 313 Cr.P.C., as to the incriminatingcircumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and he deniedthem as false.No defence witness was examined and the Trial Court heard thearguments advanced on either side, took the view that the prosecution has provedits case beyond reasonable doubt, found the accused guilty as per the chargesunder Sections 449, 341, 307(2 counts) and 302 IPC and awarded the sentences asstated supra, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court in thisappeal.5.Advancing his arguments on behalf of the appellant/accused,Mr.C.Christopher, learned Counsel inter-alia made the following submissions:The accused and P.W.2 were having cordialterms.Under such circumstance, no one would come forward to commit such acrime and the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is inconsistent and also discrepant.Thus, taking into consideration, the relationship of the parties and also inview of the discrepancy available in the material particulars, the lower Courtshould have rejected their testimony.But, it had not done so.The evidencethrough P.Ws.3 and 15, the doctors attached to Tirunelveli Medical CollegeHospital and Annai Velankanni Hospital, Tirunelveli, respectively, who examinedP.Ws.2 and 3 and also Ex.P.15, the postmortem certificate, would indicate thatthey did not support the prosecution case.Also, the medical evidence has notcorroborated the ocular testimony and the alleged confession in the presence ofwitnesses and recovery of material objects, viz., aruval and the blood stainedpant and blood stained shirt were all nothing but subsequent introduction tosuit the prosecution case, and to make it appear that they were all recovered toshow nexus between thecrime and the accused.6.The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the abovecontentions, paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made and made athorough scrutiny of the materials available.7.It is not a fact in controversy that the child of the accused and P.W.2,was done to death in an incident that took place on 28.11.2002 at about 10.15a.m.Immediately after the occurrence, the child wastaken to Tirunelveli Medical College hospital, where the child was declared deadby P.W.6, the doctor, attached to the said hospital.Following the registrationof the case, P.W.19, the Inspector of Police, on receipt of the copy of F.I.R.,proceeded to the place of occurrence, conducted inquest on the dead body in thepresence of witnesses, prepared Ex.P.8-the Observation Mahazar and gave arequisition for conducting autopsy.On receipt of the same, P.W.14, the doctor,attached to the said hospital conducted the postmortem on the dead body and hasopined in Ex.P.15, the Postmortem Certificate, that the child would appear tohave died out of shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries in the vitalorgans.This fact was never disputed by the accused at any stage.Hence,without any impediment, it can be factually recorded so.8.In order to speak about the occurrence, the prosecution, to itsadvantage, had not only P.W.1 but also P.Ws.2 and 3 as eye witnesses who werealso the injured witnesses.It is well settled proposition of law, in a givencase, where an eye witness happened to be an injured witness also, the evidenceof the eye witness should not be discarded unless and until a strongcircumstance is noticed or reason is brought about.In this case, the Court isunable to notice any reason or circumstance to cast a doubt on their evidence.At the time ofoccurrence, P.Ws.2 and 3 are very well available inside the house.The accused,even as per the admitted case of the prosecution, at the time of crossexamination, stated that he went to the house of P.W.1, and called P.W.2 to cometo his house along with the child.But, she refused.P.W.3 intervened andinformed the accused that P.W.2 would be coming after a few months.Immediately, the accused took M.O.6, aruval from the bag and began to cut P.W.3on her head.Seeing the profused bleeding, P.W.2 took her child and was runningout of the house.Not satisfied with the attack given to P.W.3, the accusedchased P.W.2 and attacked P.W.2 and the child stating that "both of you shouldbe finished off".Thus, these witnesses, i.e., P.Ws.1 to 3, who were not onlypresent at the time of occurrence but also, injured, have spoken about theoccurrence.It is true that they are relatives.When their evidence issubjected to careful scrutiny, it stood the test and the Lower Court hasproperly marshalled their evidence, considered the same and accepted it rightly.Apart from this, the ocular testimony of the eye witnesses P.Ws.1 to 3 was fullycorroborated by the wound Certificates, Ex.Whenthese certificates are scrutinised, it would reveal that both of them havespoken about the place and time of occurrence, the assailant and the weapon usedat the time of occurrence.Thus, the medical evidence stood in fullcorroboration with the ocular testimony.9.The material object which was also recovered from the accused pursuantto his confessional statement would also point to the nexus between the crimeand the accused and the witness examined in this regard has given a clearevidence and they remained unshaken.In the opinion of the Court, the evidencewas actually overwhelming and hence, the contentions, all or any one, put forthby the learned counsel for the appellant, do not merit acceptance by the Courtand they are to be rejected and accordingly, rejected.Thus, the prosecutionhas proved its case that it was the accused who attacked P.Ws.2 and 3 and alsomurdered the child and caused the death of the child.10.The contention put forth by the learned counsel for the appellant thatthere was a quarrel between the accused and P.W.2 which preceded the occurrenceand that the accused has acted so, though attractive at the first instance, doesnot stand the scrutiny of law for the simple reason that at the time ofoccurrence, the accused came to the house of P.W.1 to call his wife.At thattime, he has got a aruval with him.At this juncture, it is pertinent to pointout that on earlier occasions, he was warning his wife, P.W.2 and he has alsoinformed P.W.6, one of the villagers that if they did not come as per hisrequest, he would finish off both his wife, P.W.2 and the child.Apart fromthis, at that time, there was no need for a man to take an aruval when he goesto his father-in-law's house to call his wife back.When called, P.W.2 refusedto go to her husband's house.At that time, it was P.W.3, who intervened andinformed the accused that P.W.2 might be coming after a few months.On seeing the profused bleeding,P.W.2 took the child and in order to escape from the accused, she began to run.But, the accused chased her and attacked P.W.2 and the child uttering "both ofyou should be finished off".But, she survived.Under such circumstance, that particular document as to the dying declarationlose its significance and becomes only a statement given by P.W.2 under section161 Cr.P.C., recorded by the police official.At this juncture, what ispertinent to point out is that, in that occurrence, the accused has not onlyattacked P.W.2, but has given a murderous attack on the child which ismerciless.Under such circumstance, this Court is unable to see anything toprovoke or any quarrel which preceded the occurrence for killing a child by thefather.This Court is able to notice a merciless infanticide and the act of theaccused cannot but be termed only as murder as envisaged under Section 300 IPCwarranting a conviction under Section 302 IPC.Insofar as other provisions areconcerned, i.e, sections 449 and 307(2 counts) and 341, the lower Court wasperfectly correct in finding the accused guilty and this Court is unable tonotice anything to disturb the judgment of the lower Court either factually orlegally.Hence, the appeal must fail and fails.11.Thus, all the contentions put forth by the learned counsel for theappellant do not merit acceptance and thus, the Trial Court has marshalled theevidence properly, considered the same, found the accused guilty as per thecharges and sentenced him to undergo the punishment as stated supra.Accordingly, the criminal appeal is dismissed.The Principal Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli.The Inspector of Police, Alangulam Police Station, Tirunelveli District.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
84,766,316 |
The facts of the case are summarized as follows:On 11th May, 2008 Nimmy and Aatif got married.It was a lovemarriage.Aatif is muslim and Nimmy was hindu.On 8 th August,2008 Nimmy was converted to Islam and was renamed as Bushra.On 2nd March, 2009 Zeenat was born.On 11th March, 2013 Aatifstrangulated Nimmy (Bushra) and committed murder of his wife inDubai.At the relevant time, the child was kept with her paternalmother temporarily, as the deceased mother was to return fromDubai in April to take the child with her.Bushra was cremated atNandvi (Raigad) as per muslim rites.On 20 th March, 2013 thematernal grandmother/respondent took Zeenat to Kerala.On 29 thApril, 2013 the appellant/paternal grandmother took custody ofZeenat to perform the last rites of Bushra and thereafter she wasnever returned to the respondent.The maternal grandmother askedfor custody of the child.After returning from kerala, her dadi, i.e., FirozaPopere noticed wounds around vulva.The child, on query, informedthat her nani tied her and gave injection.The paternal and the maternal grandmother both have conflicting claim to be appointed as guardian of a minor girl Zeenat.1 of 37 ::: Uploaded on - 15/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2017 01:59:54 ::: FA1118_2014.doc::: Uploaded on - 15/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2017 01:59:54 :::This First Appeal is directed against the order dated 5 th May,2014 passed by the District Judge, Mangaon, District Raigad, belowExhibit 1 of Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 7 of 2014 preferredby the maternal grandmother/present respondent under Guardiansand Wards Act, 1890 for her appointment as guardian of minor girlZeenat.However, it was refused by the appellant.Acriminal case was filed with Mangaon police station in June, 2013.The respondent/maternal grandmother filed Habeas Corpus Writ 2 of 37 ::: Uploaded on - 15/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2017 01:59:54 ::: FA1118_2014.docPetition in this Court for production of the child, which wasdismissed, as alternate remedy was available for seeking custody ofthe child.Thereafter the respondent filed Miscellaneous ApplicationNo.7 of 2014 for custody and guardianship of the minor girl atMangaon, District Raigad where Zeenat was residing with theappellant/paternal grandmother.On 19th February, 2014, Aatif wasconvicted and given a death penalty.At present he is in Dubai.TheApplication under the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 was contestedby the appellant by filing reply.Both the grandmothers claim thatthey are financially well to take care of the child.Both claim thatthey can provide better education and environment for thedevelopment of the child.The appellant claims that the child beingmuslim, she should stay in a Muslim family so that she can professher religion in a proper manner.The trial Court, after consideringboth the sides, passed the order and appointed therespondent/maternal grandmother as guardian of the minor child.Hence, this First Appeal.::: Uploaded on - 15/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2017 01:59:54 :::The Appeal is admitted on 15th September, 2014 and directedthat the matter is to be heard expeditiously.The order of the DistrictCourt was stayed.::: Uploaded on - 15/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2017 01:59:54 :::On 16th November, 2014 Zeenat was medically examined atRaigad Hospital.On17th November, 2015 the child was again medically examined at J.J.Hospital.(The report states that the illness of the child is 10 daysold).On 26th November, 2014 a criminal case of sexual assaultbearing C.R. No. 1682 of 2014 under POSCO was filed against thematernal uncles Nigel Dhananjay by the appellant in MangaonPolice Station, Raigad.On 17 th December, 2014, the case of sexualassault was transferred to Thrissur, Kerala on the ground ofterritorial jurisdiction for further investigation and was registeredunder sections 4, 8. 12 of POSCO r/w. section 376(2)(f)(i)(l).After giving injection, she 4 of 37 ::: Uploaded on - 15/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2017 01:59:54 ::: FA1118_2014.doctied her eyes and then nani and one man named Raju abused her,hit her on private parts.This had happened twice 20 days back.On30th December, 2014 Zeenat was medically examined inGovernment Hospital at Thrissur.At that time, consent was given byFiroza.The history was given by the victim that from 19 th October,2014 to 30th October, 2014 at Thanikkudam, by two persons pressedthe genital area at unknown time and date.Despite the order of thisCourt dated 15th September, 2014 in Civil Application No. 3195 of2014, on 4th May, 2015 the appellant/paternal grandmother refusedto handover the custody of Zeenat for three weeks during thesummer vacation.In November2015, custody of the minor child for three days was given to therespondent/maternal grandmother.In May, 2016 this courtdismissed the Civil Application No. 2851 and held that the custodyto be given to maternal grandmother during Diwali vacation;thereafter the custody was given to maternal grandmother duringvacation.::: Uploaded on - 15/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2017 01:59:54 :::5 of 37 ::: Uploaded on - 15/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2017 01:59:54 ::: FA1118_2014.doc::: Uploaded on - 15/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2017 01:59:54 :::On this background of subsequent events pending appeal, thesubmissions and evidence is to be appreciated.The learned seniorcounsel submitted that it is necessary to take into account thebackground of the child where she has stayed and spent 8 years ofher life.The child is staying with appellant/paternal grandmothersince she was 4 years of age.At the time of leaving for Dubai on 9 thSeptember, 2012, Bushra had handed over the custody of her childto the appellant/paternal grandmother and thereafter the childremained in custody with the appellant/paternal grandmother.Thelearned counsel submitted that the learned Judge has lost sight ofvery important fact that the child is born muslim, as the motheraccepted Islam religion before her birth and this fact is very relevantand material while deciding the issue of Guardianship of the child.He argued that the factors which are to be consideredwhile fixing the guardianship of a minor under the Muslim PersonalLaw and the factors which are to be taken into account by the Courtwhile appointing guardian specified under section 17 of theGuardians and Wards Act are same and consistent.In both theprovisions, the age, sex and religion of the minor are materialfactors in appointing the person as a guardian.6 of 37 ::: Uploaded on - 15/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2017 01:59:54 ::: FA1118_2014.doc::: Uploaded on - 15/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2017 01:59:54 :::The learned senior counsel argued that Zeenat goes toMadarsha in the morning to learn Arabic which is required tounderstand Quran.She has to perform the religious rites as per theMuslim Religion.Themuslim customs are required to be taught and inculcated with thechild.He argued that the learned trial Judge did not frame issueswhile deciding the Application but conducted the matter as asummary procedure which is not expected and is illegal.He furtherargued that the learned Judge did not interview the child.Thus, thepreference of the child was not ascertained by the Judge whileappointing the respondent as her guardian.The learned Judge hasunnecessarily given importance to the criminal background of theson of the appellant, i.e., father of the minor child.Instead heshould have considered the status of the appellant, her financialcondition and the attachment and bond between the child and theappellant.He submitted that the learned Judge ought to haverecorded the evidence before passing order.He pointed out thatunder section 13, it was necessary for the learned judge to hear theevidence before passing the order.He argued that the financialcondition of the appellant is excellent.She owns an agricultural field at 7 of 37 ::: Uploaded on - 15/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2017 01:59:54 ::: FA1118_2014.docvillage Mandvi.He submitted that the child is continuously speakingUrdu and Hindi.The child is not conversant with Malayam, so if atall the respondent/ grandmother shifts the child to Kerala fromRaigad, then the child will have psychological trauma and she willnot be comfortable at all.The learned counsel relied on theprogress card and other certificates received by the child.The child isparticipating in drawing, painting competition and has achievedsuccess and has many friends and relatives.Thus, the child isgrowing well in the house of her paternal grandmother.::: Uploaded on - 15/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2017 01:59:54 :::The learned senior counsel for the appellant relied onfollowing judgments:Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submittedthat the learned Judge has passed a well reasoned order.Theevidence was tendered on affidavits.Thus, the continuouscustody of the appellant/paternal grandmother is not a ground toreject the appointment of respondent as guardian.She submitted5 (2009) 17 SCC 7966 (1992) 3 SCC 5737 2013 (6) Mh.L.J. 4698 (2001) 4 SCC 71 9 of 37 ::: Uploaded on - 15/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2017 01:59:54 ::: FA1118_2014.docthat the respondent is equally financially well off to look after thechild.The case of sexual assault is false and bogus.The case is treated as "B Summary", i.e., false.The child isto be handed over to the maternal grandmother.She submitted thatthese are the pressure tactics used by the appellant so that therespondent/grandmother signs the mercy petition of her son, i.e.,father of the child.::: Uploaded on - 15/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2017 01:59:54 :::In reply, the learned senior counsel Mr. Chavan has submittedthat Section 353 of the Mahomedan law is not applicable becauseunder section 353, both the grandmothers should be muslim.Thereis no discussion on Mahomedan Law in the judgment.The learnedJudge was not sensitive in deciding the custody.He further pointedout that the respondent/grandmother got married to one Christianman, so the child will face problem in following her religion.10 of 37 ::: Uploaded on - 15/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2017 01:59:54 ::: FA1118_2014.doc::: Uploaded on - 15/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2017 01:59:54 :::The right continues though she is divorced by the father of the child unless she marries a second husband in which case the custody belongs to the father."Right to female relations in default of mother Failing the mother, the custody of a boy under the age of seven years, and of a girl who has not attained puberty, belongs to the following female relatives in the order given below -::: Uploaded on - 15/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2017 01:59:55 :::On the point whether the proceedings under the Guardians andWards Act are summary or not:Her appointment was made under a will.In thesaid matter, Hapija applied to be appointed as Guardian of minors.However, opponent Sayad Shahu objected on the ground that hehas been appointed guardian of the minors and of their propertyunder a will made by deceased Gouskhan, the father of the minors.The District Judge after recording some evidence, refused to takefurther evidence on the ground that the proceedings were summaryand that it was open for the opponent to establish his position in aregular suit and he accordingly granted certificate of guardianship ofthe minor children in favour of Hapija.Sayad Shahu appealed.TheJudge held that when a guardian is appointed under the will, there isspecial provision under section 5 which relates only to EuropeanBritish subjects, (that is deleted after repeal of the Act of 1951).However, the High Court Judge held that the District Judge hascommitted error in holding that the proceedings are summary.12 of 37 ::: Uploaded on - 15/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2017 01:59:55 ::: FA1118_2014.doc::: Uploaded on - 15/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2017 01:59:55 :::In the case of Gopalrao (supra), the opponent Shrawan wasappointed by the trial Court as guardian of the minor.Gopalrao andAjabrao, cousins of deceased husband of the minor, prayed thatthey are also to be appointed as guardian.The Court held thatbefore appointing one Shravan, the trial Court should have made aproper enquiry.In the case of Sunil Gulabrao Satav (supra), after death ofthe mother, the custody was with the grandfather, i.e., father of thedeceased mother.Thereafter, an application was made by thefather of the minor.So the matter wasremanded.In the case of Fiza Developers and Inter-Trade Pvt. Ltd.(supra) the proceedings were under the Arbitration and ConciliationAct and the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the object of framingof issues is to focus upon questions on which evidence is requiredto be led by the parties and also to give indication to the parties onwhom the burden of proof lies.13 of 37 ::: Uploaded on - 15/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2017 01:59:55 ::: FA1118_2014.docOn preference of the child-::: Uploaded on - 15/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2017 01:59:55 :::In the case of Master Aisha (supra), the child was 7 years old.The High Court held that the trial Court should ascertain the wishesof the minor as to with whom he wanted to live.The process ofgrowth and development is to be made the manner which gives himeducation, physical, psychological and moral welfare and does notallow him to go astray in such a manner so as to lose the values inlife which are essential for the development of a good man.The children started residing with the maternal uncle.Thefather filed a claim.The Judges talked with the children to assesstheir state of mind and found that the custody of the children wasnot to be handed over to the father though father has preferentialright.Considering the age of the children, the Court held thechildren are intelligent to understand their well-being and so theywere handed over to some other person.14 of 37 ::: Uploaded on - 15/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2017 01:59:55 ::: FA1118_2014.doc::: Uploaded on - 15/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2017 01:59:55 :::In the case of Louella Fernandes (supra) the Division Benchof this Court has held that first set of circumstances relate to theminor and the second set of circumstances relate to the character,position and fitness of the proposed guardian.These two sets ofcircumstances are to be read together and not in isolation.In thatcase, there was an unnatural death of Hindu woman leaving behinda girl child.The father of the child was in jail charged for murder.The facts are similar to the present case.The child was in the careand protection of maternal grandparents.So paternal aunt filedGuardianship Petition.The mother was not converted to Christianityduring her life time.In the said case, the maternal grandfather wasappointed as guardian.The child was born in a family where thefather professed Christianity and mother was Hindu.So, the childwas born in Christian family and due to that, though the child wasconsidered as Christian, the mother remained Hindu and hence, theintention of the mother not to opt for conversion was taken intoaccount.The maternal grandfather filed thePetition for custody.That Application was allowed.It was held thatthe custody was not to be disposed of hastily and parties to be given 15 of 37 ::: Uploaded on - 15/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2017 01:59:55 ::: FA1118_2014.docreasonable opportunity to place their material on record.Thecustody, being a sensitive issue, can never be final but a changecan be made in the paramount interest of the child.::: Uploaded on - 15/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2017 01:59:55 :::The Court hasdecided the Application on the basis of the affidavits and documentsfiled by both the parties and submissions made by their respectivecounsel.The entire facts were before the Court.However, no such application was made before this Court.Let me deal with this aspect.The criminal record of the fatheris taken into account as one of the major circumstances by thelearned Judge of the trial Court while deciding the issue ofguardianship.However, it is made clear that only because onemember in the family has committed murder, the entire family need 24 of 37 ::: Uploaded on - 15/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2017 01:59:55 ::: FA1118_2014.docnot carry the stamp of being criminal, but the safety of the childshould be a weighing factor on the mind.::: Uploaded on - 15/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2017 01:59:55 :::Mentally both the grandmothers are capable of taking care ofZeenat.At present, she is comfortable with her paternalgrandmother as she has stayed there for a longer period.Whetherthe maternal grandmother can give her such comfort zone? Thelearned counsel for the respondent/maternal grandmother has madea statement that the respondent has dropped the idea to go toKerala, but she is going to stay in Dombivali, so there will not bechanged of language, medium and other conditions.It iscategorically denied that the respondent /maternal grandmother hadperformed second marriage with Christian person.The maternalgrandmother has initiated the application for guardianship and sheis ready to provide a good quality of education.So, for expert opinion about internal examination of vagina, baby is transferred to Higher Centre.26 of 37 ::: Uploaded on - 15/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2017 01:59:55 ::: FA1118_2014.doc::: Uploaded on - 15/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2017 01:59:55 :::Hence, the baby was examined at J.J. Hospital, Mumbai.Themedical examination report of Zeenat at J.J. Hospital on 17 thNovember, 2014 is as under-Thus 20 days after the alleged incident in Summary of the injuries shows-She was again medically examined third time at GovernmentHospital, Thrissur.The medical examination report of Zeenat ofGovernment Hospital, Thrissur on 30 th December, 2014 is asfollows:(i) pubic region, perineum and thighs - blackish skin augmentation of upper thighs(ii) Vulva- unhygienic with evacuations;::: Uploaded on - 15/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2017 01:59:55 :::The observation made was that the child was not cooperative for local examination.In the case of guardianship and custody, day-to-daydevelopment and the change of circumstances ought to be takeninto account by the Court deciding the Application for guardianship.This is the First Appeal.Hence it is the continuation of the Suit orApplication.In the present case, the father is held guilty for themurder of his wife.He is awaiting the death sentence and has filedmercy petition before the Dubai Court.The appellant is the motherof the culprit.Naturally, she wants to save her son at any cost.Itwas argued by the respondent/maternal grandmother that thecriminal case filed by the appellant is with ulterior motive to bring thematernal grandmother to the terms of negotiation.If the mother ofvictim, Nimmi forgives the murderer, then the Court may take alenient view in mercy petition and death sentence can be avoided asper the law of Dubai.Such situation may be possible, however, noimportance can be given at this stage to such hidden agenda.Yet 28 of 37 ::: Uploaded on - 15/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2017 01:59:55 ::: FA1118_2014.docthe fact of criminal case of rape on a child filed by the paternalgrandmother is itself to be examined from a proper perspective, as itinvolves a very different angle.If the entire sequence of the threephysical examinations of the child, lodging of the FIR is taken intoaccount, then this Court can see the only fact that the child hadundergone a tremendous physical as well as mental trauma.::: Uploaded on - 15/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2017 01:59:55 :::I have interviewed the child personally on this issue.The criminal court will take its own course to arrive at aconclusion of guilt.However, this Court also has to undergo theexercise of analyzing these facts to arrive at the truth in the interest 29 of 37 ::: Uploaded on - 15/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2017 01:59:55 ::: FA1118_2014.docof safety, security and mental health of the child, as thecircumstances, relief claimed and remedy available are allentangled with each other.::: Uploaded on - 15/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2017 01:59:55 :::The child had to undergo internal medical examinations thricewhen she was 6 to 8 years old which shocks the conscience of thisCourt.Her first medical report expresses doubt, her second medicalreport is positive and third medical report is negative.The time gapand manner in which the FIR was given also raise prima facie somequestions.In fact the medical reports show that the hygiene of herprivate parts was not good.On 11th November, 2014 the appellantfiled Civil Application (St.) No. 29386 of 2014 in the Bombay HighCourt for modification of the order of access, however, that was notpressed.There is no reference of alleged sexual abuse of the childduring 15 to 31st October, 2014 in the said Civil Application.Besides these documentary as well as factual record, Iinterviewed the child.I have recorded my observations as follows:"Today the child Zeenat Popere was interviewed by me in presence of my (female) Private Secretary and Sheristedar from 5.35 p.m. to 6.35 p.m. The child was friendly, looking happy, ready to interact.She talked about her school friends (Alisha and Maliya), her favourite food, her 30 of 37 ::: Uploaded on - 15/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2017 01:59:55 ::: FA1118_2014.doc ambition in life, about her relatives.She told that she is staying with her mama (grandmother), Halima didi (college student), Safia kala (who is now married) and choti dadi.::: Uploaded on - 15/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2017 01:59:55 :::When the conversation was diverted towards her grandmother whom she called as Nani, she became tensed and told that she did not like her Nani.When I asked her why she does not like her Nani, she gave two reasons; firstly, her Nani shouts at her; and secondly, few years back Nani took her to a doctor on the pretext that she was taking her to a shop and then, nani blind folded her and the doctor gave injection on her forearm and also on her private part.Then, I asked her how many persons are staying at Nani's house, to which she answered that her two Mamus (uncles), namely, Nijal Mamu and Raiju Mamu are staying with Nani.I asked her whether she like her Mamus.At that time, she immediately said "No".Then I asked the reason for this.She told that both the Mamus had bad intention to touch her.I asked her what is meant by bad touch.She told that her Nijal mamu removed her nicker and did all sorts of things i.e., "Meri sath kuch bhi kartha tha".So, I asked her "kuch bhi" means what.At that time, she answered that Nijal Mamu pinched her on my thighs and her thighs have became black.So, I specifically asked her that besides pinching, whether he has done anything to her private parts.So told "No" but she told that Raiju Mamu used to lick her private part (chattha tha).I asked her how many times it was done to her, she told only once and it was long back.31 of 37::: Uploaded on - 15/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2017 01:59:55 ::: FA1118_2014.doc::: Uploaded on - 15/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2017 01:59:55 :::She told me specifically that she does not want to go to her Nani's house.Both the grandmothers and other persons including lawyer of the respondent were called in the chamber.At that time, she refused to talk with her Nani."Incidentally, earlier on 16th November, 2015 I had an occasionto interview the same child on the point of access between twograndmothers.At that time, I have recorded my finding in this way:"Today, the child of 5 to 6 years old is produced before me in Chamber.The child is continuously crying.She speaks more in Urdu.However, she is referring to sexual assault by her maternal uncle and she says that she was taken to a Doctor and was given injection.She says that her private part gets black whenever she plays because of sexual assault committed by her maternal uncle.It appears from her talk that the child is completely tutored.Sexual assault was committed in October 2014 when access was given to her maternal grandmother by the order of this Court.I am of the view assuming the child is sexually abused, private part never gets blackened after one month or more than one month if the child plays.Thus, she is completely tutored and it appears that she is brought 32 of 37 ::: Uploaded on - 15/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2017 01:59:55 ::: FA1118_2014.doc up in an unhealthy atmosphere.In all fairness, access to maternal grandmother is to be facilitated today itself.Child's belongings are to be handed over to the maternal grandmother.The child will stay with the maternal grandmother at Dombivli and she will not be shifted to any other place.On Friday, the 20th November, 2015 at 2pm, the child will be brought to the Chamber and the paternal grandmother will take the child back.The same arrangement i.e., 50% access, shall continue further in all the vacations, till the appeal is finally decided.I must mention here that the paternal grandmother shall not try to contact the child during this period."::: Uploaded on - 15/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2017 01:59:55 :::It is to be noted that while interviewing her for the second time,I have kept the first finding out of my mind and like a blank slate Itried to understand what had happened to her.The child hadstayed with her maternal grandmother for 15 days and thereafteralso in 2014 she stayed with her for few days and no complaint is 33 of 37 ::: Uploaded on - 15/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2017 01:59:55 ::: FA1118_2014.docmade by the child.The children imagine and sometimes tend topretend.Considering all the circumstances, I am of the view thatZeenat is unable to give intelligent preference and is tutored andtend to imagine the sexual acts.::: Uploaded on - 15/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2017 01:59:55 :::After considering all the necessary parameters of the welfareof the child, I maintain the order passed by the learned DistrictJudge, Mangaon, District Raigad appointing the maternal/grandmother as guardian of minor child Zeenat with furtherdirections as follows:(a) The custody of Zeenat is to be handed over to maternal grandmother immediately.35 of 37 ::: Uploaded on - 15/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2017 01:59:55 ::: FA1118_2014.doc::: Uploaded on - 15/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2017 01:59:55 :::(b) The maternal grandmother shall stay with the child Zeenat at Dombivili and not to shift to Kerala or outside the State of Maharashtra without the permission of the Court.(c) The maternal grandmother shall make immediate arrangement for admission of Zeenat at school for the second term.The child is to be shifted to the new school in the month of December/January or with special permission may be allowed to appear her in school in Mangaon for the annual examination.(d) By way of abundant precaution, the maternal uncles not to stay in the house with Zeenat till the criminal trial gets over.(e) The child is to be sent to her paternal grandmother on Ramzan Id, Bakrid Id, Moharam and other religious occasions.For other special circumstances, with the permission of the Court, access may be granted.(f) The paternal grandmother is to be given 50% access in the summer vacation.In view of the above, First Appeal is disposed of.36 of 37 ::: Uploaded on - 15/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2017 01:59:55 ::: FA1118_2014.doc::: Uploaded on - 15/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2017 01:59:55 :::In view of disposal of the First Appeal, Civil Applications standdisposed of accordingly.(MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) 37 of 37 ::: Uploaded on - 15/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2017 01:59:55 :::::: Uploaded on - 15/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2017 01:59:55 :::
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
8,476,883 |
(J. P. GUPTA) JUDGE tarunThis is first bail application filed by the applicant/accused under Section 438 of Cr.P.C for grant of anticipatory bail, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.625/2016 registered at Police Station- Amarwada, District Chindwada (MP) for offences punishable under Sections 354, 354A, 354C, 506 of IPC.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and he is government servant and complaint has been lodged falsely just to harass or take revenge from the applicant on account of dispute regarding transfer of the complainant.It is further submitted that in this case earlier applicant made a complaint against the complainant to police station Amarwada.If he failed to do so, the effect of this order shall be vacated automatically.He shall further abide by the other conditions enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of Cr.P.C.Certified copy as per rules.
|
['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
84,775,339 |
Feeling aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached this Court with a writ petition.The same was disposed of on November 25, 2013 by "directing the Assistant Commissioner of Police (III), South Suburban Division, Jadavpur to reinvestigate into the matter, uninfluenced by any investigation that may have been conducted earlier and act in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible".It is the grievance of the petitioner that although in compliance with the order dated November 25, 2013 the Assistant Commissioner issued notice to the respondent no. 10 and also recorded his statement under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereafter 2 the 'Code'), yet, once again a police report under section 173(2) of the Code has been filed before the magistrate vide Garfa Police Station Charge Sheet No. 44 of 2014 under sections 324/114 of the Indian Penal Code.He complained that there is no perceived difference between the former charge sheet as well as the charge sheet currently filed, and the investigation that was conducted in purported compliance with this Court's order, is totally perfunctory.Accordingly, a prayer has been made to admit the petition and to pass necessary orders upon considering all the facts mentioned therein.There shall be no order as to costs.Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished to the parties expeditiously.(DIPANKAR DATTA,J.)
|
['Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
87,551,987 |
Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.( Patherya, J.) ( Debi Prosad Dey, J. )
|
['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
87,552,867 |
(Order of the Court was made by V.Dhanapalan,J.,) The petitioner is the son of detenu.The detenu came to adverse notice in the following case:Police Station and Crime No.
|
['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
875,615 |
Shri R. K. Verma, learned counsel for the applicant, has contended that in Khasra Panchashala, the P. O. land is jointly recorded in the name of Radhabai and Jannabai.The applicant is the maternal nephew of Jannabai.He was managing the affairs of Jannabai as she had no other relative to look after her affairs.The applicant had harvested the paddy crop in exercise of bona fide claim of right.ORDER N.P. Singh, J.The applicant was prosecuted for offences under Sections 379 and 447, Indian Penal Code, for trespassing in the field and harvesting the paddy crop of the complainant, Radhabai and he was convicted thereunder and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year under Section 379, Indian Penal Code, and to pay fine of Rs. 200/- in default to undergo S.I. for 20 days under Section 447, Indian Penal Code.On appeal the conviction was maintained but the sentence of imprisonment under Section 379, Indian Penal Code reduced to 4 months' R.I. by 6th Addl.
|
['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
87,564,153 |
In contravention of Section 41 of the Cr.P.C., the applicant has been harassed unnecessarily.Nothing is to be recovered from the applicant.Under these circumstances, he prays for bail of anticipatory nature.Learned P.L. for the State opposes the application.This order shall remain in force for a period of 60 days and in the meanwhile, if the applicant so desires, may move an application for regular bail before the competent Court.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K. GUPTA)
|
['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 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.