id
int64 17
1.89B
| cases
stringlengths 8
539k
| labels
stringlengths 38
1.25k
| instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|
87,573,330 |
This petition under Section 482 of CrPC has been filed for quashing the FIR in Crime No.249/2013 registered by Police Station Joura, District Morena for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 506, 323, 427 of IPC as well as under Section 3, 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and all the consequent proceedings pending before the Court of JMFC, Morena.The necessary facts for the disposal of the present application are that a complaint was made by the complainant/respondent No.2 on 16.05.2013 that the engagement of the complainant had taken place with the applicant No.1 on 12 th June, 2011 and the father of the complainant had spent Rs.2.5 lacs and Rs.1 lac in cash was given.Thereafter, the applicants and other relatives started demanding money and they were demanding Rs.8 lacs in cash and as the father of the complainant was not in a position to fulfill their demand, therefore, they refused for marriage which was scheduled on 12 th February, 2012, because of that, the complainant had lodged a FIR against the applicants and their 2 M.Cr.C.No.10756/2016 (Vikas Arya & Ano.v. State of M.P. & Ano.) relatives and accordingly the FIR in Crime No.21/2012 for offences punishable under Sections 406, 506 Part II of IPC and under Section 3, 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act was registered.Thereafter, the applicant No.1 tendered his apology and assured that the complainant will not be harassed in future and therefore relying on the assurance given by the applicant No.1, the complainant got married to the applicant No.1 on 16 th July, 2013 in the Arya Samaj Temple and on the assurance given by the applicants and their relatives, the matter was compromised.However, thereafter, the applicants and their relatives started demanding salary from the complainant and when the complainant refused to give her salary to the applicants and their relatives, then they started harassing her physically as well as mentally.On 13.05.2013, the applicants again demanded her salary and when she refused to give the same then she was beaten as a result of which she suffered several injuries.When the complainant tried to go to the police station to lodge a FIR then the doors of the room were locked and the spectacles of the complainant were broken and the contact lens was thrown.On hearing hue and cry raised by the complainant her neighbor Neeraj Sharma and his wife alongwith their servant intervened in the matter.The applicant No.1 took away the mobile of the complainant.On 16.05.2013, while she was taking rest in 3 M.Cr.C.No.10756/2016 (Vikas Arya & Ano.v. State of M.P. & Ano.) the house, the applicant No.1 entered in the official residence of the complainant and started beating her.Her mother was also assaulted, when she tried to intervene in the matter.Accordingly, the FIR was lodged.It is submitted by the counsel for the applicants that initially the complainant compromised the matter which was registered on the report of the complainant for offences punishable under Sections 406, 506 Part II of IPC and under Section 3, 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Thereafter, she again filed an application under Section 320 (2) of CrPC seeking permission of the Court to compound the present case.The said application was partially allowed and as the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 506 Part II of IPC and under Section 3, 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act were not compoundable, therefore, the prayer in respect of these offences was rejected.However, the offences under Section 323 r/w 34 and 427 of IPC were compounded and the applicants were acquitted for the said offences.As the Trial Court did not have any jurisdiction to compound the non- compoundable offences, therefore, the applicants filed a petition under Section 482 of CrPC before this Court which was registered as M.Cr.C.No.201/2016 for quashing the proceedings on the basis of compromise.However, the respondent No.2 did not appear in 4 M.Cr.C.No.10756/2016 (Vikas Arya & Ano.It is further submitted that ultimately by order dated 03.03.2016, M.Cr.C.No.201/2016 was dismissed for want of prosecution.It is submitted by the counsel for the applicants that in order to make out an offence under Section 498A of IPC, there must be some allegation that the complainant was harassed because of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry.It is evident from the FIR that there are allegations to the effect that she was beaten because of her refusal to handover her salary to the applicants.It is further submitted that as the applicants were being tried under Section 323 of IPC for their act of assault and since the complainant has compromised for offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC, now it cannot be said that the complainant was ever harassed for demand of dowry.It is further submitted by the counsel for the applicants that the only allegation is that the applicants were demanding the salary of the complainant and, therefore, it would not fall within the definition of cruelty as made punishable under Section 498-A of IPC.It is further submitted by the counsel for the applicants that even otherwise from the plain reading of the FIR, it would be clear that no cognizable offence is made out.Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the respondents that there are specific allegations 5 M.Cr.C.No.10756/2016 (Vikas Arya & Ano.v. State of M.P. & Ano.) against the applicants.Thus, instead of demanding dowry in lump sum, the applicants were insisting to recover dowry in installments by taking the monthly salary of the complainant.It is further submitted that merely because the complainant had compromised for offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC then it would not mean that the applicants are entitled for quashment of proceedings under Section 498-A of IPC.Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents filed along with the petition.From the FIR, it is clear that after the engagement took place, the applicants had started demanding money and, therefore, the complainant had lodged a FIR which was registered as Crime No.21/2012 for offences punishable under Sections 6 M.Cr.C.No.10756/2016 (Vikas Arya & Ano.Relying on the assurance given by the applicants, the marriage of the complainant with the applicant No.1 was performed.It appears that the applicants could not insist for demand of dowry, therefore, they started demanding the monthly salary from the complainant.On her refusal to handover her salary, she was beaten and tortured physically and mentally.The applicants for the reasons best known to them have not filed the copy of the charges which were framed against them.Furthermore, the respondent No.2 has submitted that as the child of the complainant had fallen down from the stairs and was injured, 11 M.Cr.C.No.10756/2016 (Vikas Arya & Ano.In the marriage my father had given gold and silver ornaments, cash amount and household goods according to his capacity.After the marriage when I went to my matrimonial home, I was treated nicely by the members of the family.When on the second occasion I went to my matrimonial, my husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law started harassing me for not bringing the dowry and started saying that I should bring from my father 25-30 tolas of gold and Rs.2,00,000/- in cash and only then they would keep me in the house otherwise not.
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 228 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
87,574,719 |
Documents sought to be filed, by way of I.A.No.6193/13, cannot be taken on record as they are intended to fill up the lacunae in the case at this stage.The I.A. is, accordingly, dismissed.Heard on admission.This appeal has been preferred under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") being aggrieved with the judgment dated 20.2.2013 passed by Sessions Judge, Satna, in Sessions Trial No.53/11, whereby respondent nos.1 to 4 namely Mangal Chaudhary, Salikram Chaudhary, Pappu Chaudhary, Sudama Chaudhary have been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 363/34, 366-A/34 and 506 Part II of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short), whereas respondent no.5 Chhotu alias Karan Chaudhary has been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 363/34, 366-A/34 and 376 of the IPC.On 18/3/2010, he brought her back to Satna Railway Station, from where other respondents took the prosecutrix to Semariya Chauraha and threatened her of her life in case she disclosed the incident to anyone.On 20/3/10, she went home and narrated the incident to her parents.Thereafter, on 21/3/10 report of the incident, leading to registration of Crime No.244/10, was lodged and after investigation, charge-sheet was filed.Learned counsel for the appellant, as well as learned Government Advocate submitted that the trial Court had erred in appreciating the evidence on record and the judgment of acquittal deserved to be interfered with.Having regard to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, impugned judgment was perused.Trial Court found that there was major improvement in her examination-in- chief with regard to the FIR lodged by her and there were material contradictions and omissions in the evidence of other prosecution witnesses.After appreciating the entire evidence on record, trial Court found that prosecutrix had accompanied Karan to Jalgaon and Poona at her own accord without raising any objection despite having sufficient opportunity for the same.Moreover, existence of inimical relationship between respondents and the family of prosecutrix was also established from the evidence on record.Further, Dr. Sushma Nikhare (PW8), who examined the prosecutrix and prepared the report (Ex.P/5), did not find any injury over her private parts.Her hymen was found old torn and no opinion could be given about recent sexual act.In the aforesaid premises, the trial Court found that the prosecutrix was a consenting party and that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.We agree with the findings recorded by the trial Court.It is well settled that the judgment of acquittal should not be disturbed unless the conclusions drawn on the basis of evidence brought on record are found to be grossly unreasonable or manifestly perverse or palpably unsustainable.Taking into consideration the reasons assigned on the face of evidence on record establishing the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the view taken by the learned trial Court was apparently a possible view.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
184,987,020 |
Heard the counsel for the petitioner.C. No. 1141/2016 passed on 07.02.2017 wherein such application has been allowed.In the FIR, there is an allegation against the petitioners Bholaram, Vishram Singh and Gajram Singh that when Amar Singh ploughing his land at that time, the accused persons had opposed him with filthy abuses and when 2 M.Cr.C.14457/2016 Amar Singh requested them not to give such abuses then, he was beaten him and as a result of which, several injuries were caused on his nose, left wrist and calf of the left leg.As per the medical report, complainant Amar Singh has sustained one linear fracture at root of nasal bone.State of Punjab reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh and others Vs.Stae of Punjab and another reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, this application is allowed.The investigation in Crime No. 108/2007 registered at Police Station Piprai District Ashoknagar is hereby quashed.With the aforesaid, petition is disposed of.
|
['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 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', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
184,987,206 |
This is a first application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. Applicant Sohel Khan was arrested on 02.06.2018 in Crime No.170/2018 registered at Police Station Barghat, District-Seoni (M.P) for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 354-A, 354-D of I.P.C. r/w Section 7 & 8 of POSCOAs per the prosecution case, on 01.06.2018 at about 11 a.m. applicant abducted the prosecutrix who was minor at the time to incident and took her to Gondia.On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the prayer and submitted that applicant abducted a minor girl, so he should not be released on bail.After hearing learned counsel for the parties, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and as to the fact that charge sheet has been filed and conclusion of trial will take time and the applicant is in custody since 02.06.2018, so without commenting on the merits of the case, the application is allowed and applicant- Sohel Khan is directed to be released on bail upon his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned C.J.M/trial Court for his appearance before the trial Court on all such dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the trial Court during the pendency of trial.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 2 MCRC-26978-2018 bond executed by her;The applicant will cooperate in the trial;The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; andThe applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court.C.C. on payment of usual charges.(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) JUDGE Us Digitally signed by USHA SHARMA Date: 2018.07.23 12:54:30 +05'30'
|
['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
184,990,448 |
It is submitted that Junior Engineer and Assistant Engineer have submitted their report stating that the incident took place because deceased has not taken preventive measures.According to prosecution case, on 19/02/2015 at about 07.00 AM Ramesh Sharma, Line Helper, posted at Electric Service Station-Sehrai went to recover the fault at Achalgarh D.P. and asked the applicant to switch off the electric line.When the applicant informed him that he has switched off the line, thereafter when Ramesh Sharma repairing the electric fault at that time electric line was on, as a result of which he got electrocuted and fell down, later on he died.It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant 2 that applicant has been falsely implicated.Conclusion of trial likely to take some time.Therefore, the applicant be released on bail.The application is opposed by learned Panel Lawyer and prays for dismissal of this application.I have perused the case-diary.As per postmortem report death has been caused due to cardio respiratory failure as a result of septicemia due to infected wound and its complications.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 co-operate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;The applicant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.Accordingly, M.Cr.C.No.11541/2015 stands disposed of.C.C. as per rules.(D.K. Paliwal) Judge Aiyer*
|
['Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
184,997,580 |
(i) On 04.06.2008, at about 8.45 p.m. one Mr.Vijayan @ Vijayakumar, the foster son-in-law of late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran, the former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu was done to death at Turn Bulls Road Extension near ABM Avenue in Chennai city.(ii) At the time of occurrence, the deceased was proceeding in his car.The assailants came in a white Ambassador car, intentionally dashed the said car against the car driven by the deceased.As a result, the car driven by the deceased came to a halt.Some people suddenly emerged and brutally attacked Vijayan @ Vijayakumar and he succumbed to the injuries instantaneously.(iii) On the information of one Mr.Senthil Kumar, in respect of the said occurrence, a case in Crime No.618 of 2008 was registered in E-4 Abiramapuram Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302 r/w 120(B) of I.P.C. Later on, the case was transferred to the first respondent/CBCID.(iv) During the course of investigation, more than seventy witnesses were examined and several documents were also collected.Finally, the first respondent filed the final report against a total number of seven accused including the petitioner herein who is the fifth accused in the case for alleged offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 120(B) r/w 302, 147, 148, 149, 302, 302 R/w 149 and 506(ii) of I.P.C.(v) The second respondent Mr.The learned Sessions Judge, thereafter took cognizance and proceeded to try the accused.In his evidence, he had stated, inter alia, that the second accused Karuna, a police constable, was known to him.He was a professional driver of a mahindra van.During the year 2007, one day, the second accused contacted him and stated that he was in need of a car to undertake a short distance travel.The second respondent arranged for the same.From then onwards, he became very close to the second accused.After sometime, the second respondent had requested the second accused to lend Rs.10,000/-.The second accused told him that presently he had no money and so he could contact him after one week.After sometime, the second accused called the second respondent over telephone and wanted him to come to Santhi Petrol Bunk at Meenambakkam, to discuss about an important matter.Accordingly, he went to the said place.The second accused was lying in wait for him.He told him that there was an important work to be executed and if he could do it, he would give more money.The second accused further told him that one of his friends had a problem with another person and that person should be done away with.When the second respondent asked him as to who the said person was, the second accused told him that he would come to know about it as and when he would be called.(vii) Thereafter, on one day the second accused wanted him to come to Nandambakkam Police Station and from there the second accused took him in a motor cycle to MGR Garden where a car was found parked.The second accused told the second respondent to take note of the said car.He accordingly did.When the second respondent wanted to know as to how to execute the said task, the second accused told him that Mr.Vijayan used to go for a morning walk everyday and at that time, he could be killed by dashing him by means of a car.The 2nd respondent responded positively.Then the second accused asked the second respondent as to how much amount he was expecting as consideration for the same.The second respondent did not say anything.Then the second accused came forward on his own and told him that he would pay Rs.5,00,000/- for the same.Since it was a great amount, the second respondent was shocked.At once, the second accused gave the second respondent Rs.50,000/- as advance and told him to keep the said amount as advance and after execution of the task, he would pay any amount which might be demanded by the second respondent.Thereafter, the second respondent returned home.(viii) Four or five days thereafter, the second accused again contacted him and wanted to know from him as to what had happened to the task given to him.The second accused also insisted that the job should be finished without any further delay.The second respondent could not find a way out to execute the said task on his own and therefore he contacted the third accused Mr.Suresh, an electrician by profession.The second respondent took A3 to MGR Garden and identified the car stationed there which belonged to Mr.Vijayan.The petitioner is the Fifth Accused in S.C.No.73 of 2009 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai.Altogether, including the petitioner, there are seven accused in the said case.The trial court has framed charges under Sections 147, 148, 302 & 120(B) of IPC.As many as 71 witnesses were cited in the final report.L.Venkatesh, the 2nd respondent in this revision petition.After the chief examination of P.W.64 [the 2nd respondent herein] was over, the petitioner herein filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.4188 of 2014 under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. seeking to summon the 2nd respondent/P.W.64 as an additional accused so as to be tried together with the rest of the accused, who are already facing trial.Challenging the same, the petitioner/A5 is before this court with this criminal revision petition.The said criminal revision petition was admitted on 17.04.2014 and the same came up for hearing before this court on few dates.In the mean while, a petition in Crl.O.P.No.8102 of 2014 was filed by the First Accused Smt.N.Banu in the said sessions case - challenging the order passed by the trial court in Crl.M.P.No.3937 of 2014 wherein the trial court had allowed the said petition filed by the prosecution thereby permitting the prosecution to examine 11 witnesses in addition, who were not earlier cited as witnesses in the final report.Since both the matters were dealt with by two different Hon'ble Judges, on the note put up by the Registry, the then Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice, by order dated 14.07.2014 had directed to tag Crl.O.P.No.8102 of 2014 and ordered the same to be listed before some other Hon'ble Judge.The matter was accordingly heard by the Hon'ble Judge and on 05.09.2014, the Hon'ble Judge recused himself from these petitions and directed the Registry to place the papers before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for listing the same before some other Judge.While so, Mr.S.Ruban, Advocate, who is the counsel on record for the petitioner in the present Criminal Revision Petition gave a letter to the Hon'ble Chief Justice requesting to list the criminal revision petition before the Hon'ble I Division Bench itself or before any other Division Bench.In the said letter, inter alia, he has stated as follows:-.. .. .. On 16.07.2014 both the Revision Petition and the Original Petition came up for hearing before His Lordship Mr.We have a reasonable apprehension that anonymous petitions are sent to the Judges who are hearing the matter.The Registry accordingly placed the papers before the then Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice including the above letter of the learned Advocate Mr.S.Ruban.The then Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice on 07.10.2014 passed an order directing both the matters to be listed before me as specially ordered cases. Thereafter, the same were listed before me for hearing on 30.10.2014 and on that day, at the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, they were adjourned.In the mean while, Mrs.Sudha Vijayakumar, the wife of the victim filed a miscellaneous petition in M.P.No.2 of 2014 seeking to implead herself as a party in the Criminal Revision Petition.Accordingly, she was impleaded as 3rd respondent in the revision petition.L.Venkatesh was also examined during the course of investigation and his statement was recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.His Statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. was also recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate.He was cited as a witnesses on the side of the prosecution in the final report filed.He gave Rs.10,000/- to the third accused and also told him about the details of the work to be executed.At the instance of the second accused, he also told A3 that if Vijayan were done to death by them, Rs.4,00,000/- would be given to them.Then the second respondent returned home.(ix) Soon thereafter, the second accused contacted him over phone and wanted to know about the plan.Then the second respondent told the second accused about the fact that he had already taken A3 to MGR Garden and paid him Rs.10,000/- and also assured that he would kill Mr.Vijayan with the help of the third accused.The second accused wanted him to give the telephone number of A3 which the second respondent accordingly did.(x) But the second respondent did not do anything further to kill Mr.Vijayan because he lacked valour.This went on for four or five months.During that time, he heard that A2 and A3 were in direct contact with each other.When once he asked A3 as to whether he was in contact with A2, he in turn told him that he along with A2 had planned to commit murder of Mr.Vijayan.That time, he warned A3 that in the event Mr.Vijayan was killed, it might take serious turn and put him in trouble.The third accused replied that he would take care of himself in such an event.A3 did not heed to the words of the second respondent.Fifteen days thereafter, the second respondent came to know that Mr.Vijayan had been killed.(xi) Hearing about the occurrence, when he contacted the third accused over phone, he replied that everything had been finished and therefore there was nothing to talk about the same.When the second respondent asked him as to how he had executed the crime, he told that Vijayan's Santro car was dashed by an Ambassador car and after the car came to a halt, the other accused Deena, Karthik and Solomon emerged out of the car, attacked him and killed him as per the plan.He also warned the second respondent not to disclose the same to anybody and in the event the second respondent discloses the same, he would be done away with.The second accused also once called the second respondent over phone and threatened him of dire consequences if he discloses anything about the occurrence to anybody.(xii) Three months after the occurrence he was examined by the police and his statement was recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.(xiii) In the statement recorded from him under Section 164 Cr.P.C. also he had made the very same statement.(xiv) During trial, after completion of the chief examination of the said witness (second respondent) he was not chosen to be cross examined by any of the accused.It was at this juncture, the petitioner (5th accused) filed Crl.M.P.No.4188 of 2014 under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. to summon the second respondent as a co-accused in the case.(xv) The said petition was dismissed against which the present revision has been filed.I have heard Mr.N.R.Elango, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.S.Shanmugavelayutham, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, Mr.(e) While under cross examination, when an improper question is asked as dealt with in Clauses 2 and 3 of Section 148 of the Act, if the Court, inadvertently fails to warn the witness and the witness answers the question and if the said answer tends to incriminate him, he shall be protected by the proviso to Section 132 of the Act.Applying the above tests to the facts of the present case, if we look into the evidence of the 2nd respondent/P.W.64 it is crystal clear that he is entitled for the protection under the proviso to Section 132 of the Evidence Act because there was legal compulsion to answer the question as it was relevant to the matter in issue in the case.The compulsion has emanated from Section 132 of the Evidence Act.In view of all the above discussions, I hold that the evidence of the 2nd respondent, as a prosecution witness before the trial court, and the incriminating answers given by him amount to compelled testimony falling within the sweep of Section 132 of the Evidence Act and thus, he is protected by the proviso to Section 132 of the Evidence Act. In such view of the matter, solely on the basis of his evidence as P.W.64 before the trial court, he cannot be prosecuted either by summoning him as an additional accused in the present case or in a separate trial.At the same time, for the offence of conspiracy allegedly committed by A2 and A3 and the 2nd respondent herein, there can be a prosecution for offence under Section 120(b) r/w 302 of IPC.Having regard to the said statement made by the learned Public Prosecutor, I deem it appropriate to issue a direction to the trial court to hold trial on day-to-day basis and to dispose of the case at the earliest.In view of all the above, I do not find any merit at all in this criminal revision petition.The criminal revision petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.The trial court shall recall P.W.64-L.Venkatesh for cross examination by the accused.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.R.C.No.425 of 2014
|
['Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
18,499,907 |
The instant appeal, filed on behalf of the accused appellant, is directed against the judgment and order dated 9.5.2001 passed by learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow in Sessions Trial No.1096 of 1998 convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 302 IPC for life with rigorous imprisonment.The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Premawati was married with appellant Sanjay Balmiki and out of the wedlock they had six children.The appellant used to beat his wife Premawati deceased (victim) after taking liquor and due to that reason six years ago his brother Ram Prasad (P.W.1) took her to his home and a case for maintenance was filed, which was listed on 17.4.1996 for hearing.The appellant asked P.W.1 and deceased Premawati to withdraw the maintenance case to which they refused.The deceased Premawati used to do household cleaning work to earn her livelihood and her children.The servant of D.W.1 was filling water and P.W.2 Sangeeta, daughter of deceased was sitting nearby a tree.At that time, appellant Sanjay came armed with knife and told sister that he will not leave her alive as she has not withdrawn the case.Upon this, the deceased ran to save herself, however, she slipped and fell down and then appellant Sanjay gave her several knife blows.3. P.W.2 after seeing this, ran to the house of P.W.1 and told that appellant is killing her mother, then P.W.1 along with his brother went at the spot at (Kailash Narain Srivastava's) house and saw that lot of blood was on the floor, then D.W.1 told him that on his telephone Police came there and had taken the deceased to the hospital for treatment.A written report (Ex-Ka-1) dated 1.6.1998 was given to the Police Station Mahanagar Lucknow.Consequently, Chik FIR bearing Case Crime no.198 of 1998 under Section 307 IPC was registered against the accused appellant.During treatment deceased succumbed to her injuries.Later on, section 302 IPC was added which is (Exhibit Ka-7).After lodging of the First Information Report, police took up the investigation.The appellant in his further reply stated that P.W.1 Ram Prasad used to come to his house and drink and when he refused he had a quarrel with the appellant and took his wife and children to his house.Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.(Delivered by Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)Inquest report (Ex-Ka-5) was prepared on the same day.The Investigating Officer (P.W.4) prepared site plan (Ex.Ka-3) and recovery memo as (Exhibit Ka-4).The victim died in the hospital and Dr. Mahendra Pratap (P.W.-3) prepared the post mortem report which is marked as (Exhibit Ka-2).The prosecution after completing the investigation filed the charge sheet before the court concerned and the committal order dated 5.10.1998 was passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and since the matter was triable by the Sessions Court the case was sent to Sessions Court for trial.Thereafter, charge under section 302 IPC was framed by IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow and was read over and explained to the accused in hindi which pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.The prosecution has examined four witnesses P.W.1 Ram Prasad, (P.W.2) Sangeeta daughter of deceased (victim) and appellant.Dr. Mahendra Pratap as P.W.3, who performed the post mortem examination.When he went to take them back, he refused to send back and he has been falsely implicated in this case.Heard Shri Rajesh Kumar Dwivedi, learned amicus curiae for the appellant and learned AGA for the State.The post mortem of the deceased victim was conducted by Dr. Mahendra Pratap (P.W.-3).On that day P.W.-3 was assigned to perform the autopsy.The post mortem report is (Exhibit Ka-2).On perusal of post mortem report, the following ante mortem injuries were found on the body of the deceased.Multiple stabbed wound in an area of 30 cm x 22 cm present on posterior lateral aspect on left (side) chest and abdomen just above the left laccrest.Total No.(8) right size varin refer 2 cm x 1 cm x ms.deep to 3 cm x 1 cm x cavity deep;Stab wound 2 cm x 1 cm x Ms. Deep present of outer aspect of left thigh 15 cm below left of the crust;Multiple stab wound in area 30 cm x 6 cm present on back of left upper arm and fore arm above below Elbow total no. six (6) size varying from 2.5 cm to 1 cm x ms.deep to 4.0 cmx2cm x bone deep;"The doctor opined that cause of death was due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of ante mortem injuries.P.W.1-Ram Prakash is the first informant of this case.He deposed that the appellant used to exert pressure on her sister (deceased) to withdraw the maintenance case filed by her.On 1.6.1998 his niece P.W.2 Sangeeta at about 11:30 a.m. informed him that appellant is killing her mother and requested to save her.The incident occurred at the gate of Kailash Narain Srivastava D.W.1 when he reached there, D.W.1 told him that his sister is injured and police took her to the Medical College and then he reached there.He further stated in his statement that P.W.2 was present with the deceased at the time of occurrence and she told her the entire incident.10. P.W.2 is daughter of appellant and the deceased (victim) who stated that on 01.06.1998 her mother was killed at 11:30 a.m. while she was working at the house of Kailash Narain Srivastava and she was sitting under the tree.The servant of Kailash Narain namely Suresh was filling water, suddenly his father Sanjay came there from Railway track having knife in his hand and when he saw his father she told her mother to run and then her mother ran but due to the water on floor she slipped and appellant inflicted 8 to 10 knife blows on her mother.She started crying and blood was oozing out from the body of her mother.The appellant ran away, thereafter, several persons came and she ran to the house of P.W.1 which was 10-15 steps away from the place of occurrence and told her the entire story.11. P.W.3 is the autopsy surgeon who has found multiple stabbed wounds in an area of 30 cm x 22 cm present on posterior lateral aspect on left side chest and abdomen just above the left pelvic crest.Total No.(8) right side varying from 2 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep to 3 cm x 1 cm x cavity deep; Stab wound 2 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep present on outer aspect of left thigh 15 cm below left iliac crest ; and Multiple stab wounds in an area of 30 cm x 6 cm present on back of left upper arm and fore-arm above and below elbow, total no. six (6) size varying from 2.5 cm to 1 cm x muscle deep to 4.0 cm x 2 cm x bone deep.He opined that these wounds were inflicted at around 11:30 a.m. on 1.6.1998 and could be caused by knife.12. P.W.4, the Investigating Officer was also examined and he stated that after receiving information from wireless he reached on the spot i.e.at the house No.D-38, Mahanagar where he found that lady inside the gate was lying in the verandah bodily injured and he sent the injured victim to the KGMC College for treatment.He took the statement of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 on the spot.Later on, after preparing the recovery memo and conducting the inquest report, he prepared the site plan and while he was doing investigation, he was informed that Premawati had died in the hospital and on that basis, case was got converted into Section 302 IPC.An inquest report was prepared by Chowki In-charge K.G.M.C. He further deposed that during investigation, he found that accused Sanjay Balmiki was facing a maintenance suit in the Family court and the case was in its last stage.He further deposed that appellant wanted his wife (deceased) to withdraw the case for which in the past also he has exerted pressure on her but she did scummed to pressure that is why to remove her from his way, the accused had killed his wife Premawati.The defence has examined D.W.-1-Dr.Kailash Narain Srivastava, owner of House No.D-38 Mahanagar.He stated that on 1.6.1998, around 11 to 11:30 a.m. the incident took place in the gallary outside the house and he was not present there at the time when incident took place.He returned at 11:30, he saw people gathered around there and on asking he was told that somebody had killed Premawati by knife.Learned amicus curiae for the appellant submitted that the accused appellant was arrested by the police of Mahanagar Police Station, Lucknow on 13.8.1998 at 17:50 hours near Channi Lal Chauraha but nothing has been recovered from him.He further submitted that appellant has been convicted on the statement of sole eye witness P.W.2 who was a minor girl of 15 years of age.He further submitted that there is no independent witness to support the prosecution version and P.W.1 and P.W.2 are interested witnesses.He also submitted that there is no public witness of arrest of the accused appellant.On the other hand, learned AGA supported the prosecution version and has submitted that P.W.2 is the daughter of the deceased and her deposition fully corroborates the prosecution case.The learned court below after appreciating the evidence filed by prosecution witness has convicted the accused-appellant.After giving anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, we have noticed that the sole eye witness in none other than daughter of the appellant and she is the star witness of the prosecution.She has seen the incident and in her statement she has stated that at the time of incident she was present near her mother and on 1.6.1998 at around 11:30 a.m. she went to the house of Kailash Narain Srivastava for doing household work and her mother was cleaning while she was sitting under the tree.She saw his father Sanjay came armed with knife and immediately she raised alarm and told her mother to run saying that ''papa is coming' upon this her mother ran but slipped and appellant gave 8-10 knife blows to her mother then due to alarm raised, several persons came there before that his father ran away.Thus he went to the house of his maternal Uncle P.W.1, about 10-15 paces away and informed him.When she came back, the police took her mother for treatment to the hospital.This witness has been cross examined in detail by defence but no evidence has come so as to show his presence at the spot may be doubted.She further deposed that his father has killed his mother by knife.She also deposed that she never asked her mother to reside with her father because she said that there is no use of residing with the said killer.In the year 1992 when this girl was residing along with her parents she must have seen physical abuse of his father upon her mother due to which she has stated that there is no use of living with such a killer.She met her father in the Court after the incident but she did not went to talk to him.She further deposed that her mother told her that she had filed case for maintenance upon her father that's why she had been killed so that the appellant may not have to give money.The same motive has been attributed on the appellant by the Investigating Officer (P.W.4) who stated in his examination-in-chief that a case for maintenance was filed against the appellant in the Family Court which was pending and was in the last stage and that appellant wanted the deceased to withdraw this case.Earlier also, appellant has made pressure on his wife but she did not pay heed to the appellant in order to save himself from the case, he killed his wife-Premawati.Considering the motive attributed both by P.W.4 and P.W.2 against the appellant D.W.1 Kailash Narain Srivastava has also stated that the deceased victim used to do the cleaning work at his house and on 1.6.1998 at around 11:30 a.m. when this occurrence took place, he went to police station and when he returned, saw the people gathered in front of his house and then somebody told him that deceased Premawati was killed by somebody by knife.Then he informed the police on telephone and within 10-15 minutes police came on the spot.He has further admitted that a person named Suresh used to work at his house and when he asked Suresh he informed that Premawati was cleaning and he was pouring water, meanwhile one person came armed with knife and after causing injuries to Premawati, with knife ran away.He further deposed that deceased was working at his house for the last 3-4 months during this period, the appellant has never come to his house, therefore, he does not recognized him.The argument of learned amicus curiae for the appellant that P.W.2 was 13 years of age at the time of incident and she was tutored by P.W.1 due to enmity is baseless.A child of 13 years of age will not give false testimony aginst her own father merely by tutoring her.In front of her eyes her mother was killed and inspite of the detail cross examination of P.W.2, no evidence could be procured by defence in their support and the evidence of P.W.2 remain intact.So far as the argument of learned amicus curiae for the appellant that she was under the influence of her maternal Uncle-P.W.1 also does not appear to be probable because deceased Premawat and her children were not dependent on his brother P.W.1 Ram Prasad.The gupti was recovered at the instance of the accused and such recovery was not otherwise possible if the accused himself had not assisted for such recovery of the gupti.The said gupti was stained with human blood and no reasonable explanation has been given by accused for such blood stain.The injuries found on the person of the deceased could be inflicted by a gupti and complicity of Prakash in inflicting the fatal injuries by gupti has been corroborated by the eye-witness.There may be some minor discrepancies in the evidence of the eye-witness but so far as the complicity of Prakash is concerned, the depositions of the eye-witnesses were consistent.In discarding the evidence of the brother of the deceased namely Ajay Singh the learned Additional Sessions Judge was influenced by the tender age of Ajay (about 14 years) and was of the view that he was likely to be tutored.We do not think that a boy of about 14 years of age cannot give a proper account of the murder of his brother if he has an occasion to witness the same and simply because the witness was a boy of 14 years it will not be proper to assume that he is likely to be tutored.The High Court has given very convincing reasons for accepting the evidence of Ajay Singh as an eye-witness of the murderous act and we do not find any infirmity in the finding made by the High Court.In so far as the dying declaration is concerned, we are inclined to accept the finding of the High Court that the deceased was alive at least up to half an hour after the assault.He had been taken to the hospital where he received some treatment for about 10-15 minutes.It is not borne out from the evidence of the doctor that the injuries were so grave and the condition of the patient was so critical that it was unlikely that he could make any dying declaration.In the ordinary course, the members of the family including the father were expected to ask the victim the names of the assailants at the first opportunity and if the victim was in a position to communicate, it is reasonably expected that he would give the names of the assailants if he had recognised the assailants.In the instant case there is no occasion to hold that the deceased was not in a position to identify the assailants because it is nobody's case that the deceased did not know the accused persons.It is therefore quite likely that on being asked the deceased would name the assailants.In the facts and circumstances of the case the High Court has accepted the dying declaration and we do not think that such a finding is perverse and requires to be interfered with.As a matter of fact, on second thought, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has accepted the dying declaration and has convicted Prakash on the basis of dying declaration.The appeals therefore fail and are dismissed.The bail bond of the accused Prakash is discharged and he would surrender and serve out the sentence."
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
97,086,833 |
As per the medical report, Ramveer has sustained two abrasions and amputation of index finger, swelling, abrasion and bruises.Perused the case diary.This is the first bail application filed by the applicants under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.The applicants are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.167/2014 registered at P.S. Badarwas, District Shivpuri for the offence punishable under sections 323, 294, 324, 506-B/34 and 326 of IPC.As per the prosecution case, when the complainant reached near Nala, Amar Singh, Rambabu, Nepal and Kalla Yadav armed with Lathi, Farsa.Nepal gave a Farsa blow on the left hand of the complainant.Amar Singh gave a Lathi blow, which hit him below the knee.Rambabu gave a Lathi blow.When brother and sister-in-law of the complainant came to save him, they were also beaten.It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that applicants have falsely been implicated.They have not committed any offence.The applicant No.1 Kalla Yadav is a minor.It is further submitted that initially Crime No.167/2014 was registered under Sections 323, 294, 324, 506-B/34 of IPC and 2 M.Cr.C. No. 5 1 0 5 / 2 0 1 4 later on Section 326 of IPC has been added.Dharmendra has sustained abrasion and bruises.Multlan sustained lacerated wound on left forearm and four bruises.Meerabai has sustained two lacerated wounds.Considering the aforesaid facts and allegation against the applicant No.2 Nepal Singh, he is not entitled for anticipatory bail.So far as applicant No.2 Nepal Singh is concerned, his bail application stands dismissed.However, considering that as per the mark sheet the date of birth of applicant No.1 Kalla Yadav @ Upendra Yadav is mentioned as 9.9.1996, he is entitled for anticipatory bail.Consequently, the bail application of applicant No.1 Kalla Yadav @ Upendra Yadav S/o Nepal Singh is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant No.1 shall be enlarged on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs.Fifty Thousand Only) with a surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of Arresting officer/competent Court.The applicant No.1 shall make himself 3 M.Cr.C. No. 5 1 0 5 / 2 0 1 4 available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required and he will co-operate in the investigation.He shall further abide by the other conditions enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of Cr.P.C.3 M.Cr.C. No. 5 1 0 5 / 2 0 1 4(D.K.Paliwal) Judge Patil
|
['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
97,096,585 |
A.Nos.536/2016, 612/2016 & 613/2016 Page 1 of 31 Trial Court, in SC no. 102/2013 arising out of FIR No.24/2012, P.S. Swaroop Nagar, whereby the appellants have been held guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 302/326/34 IPC.Since the common judgment of conviction and order on sentence have been challenged by all the three appellants, Ramanjeet Singh (accused no.1), Manpreet (accused No.2) and Kamaljeet Singh (accused no.3), the individual appeals filed by them are being taken up together for hearing and disposal.The prosecution case started with the Police Control Room (PCR) receiving a call at 23:16:37 hours on 10.02.2012 from mobile phone No.7428374690, to the effect that "House No. J-964, Gali No.2, Swaroop Nagar-Kayi Log H-Jo Kirpan Nikal Kar Lad Rahe H".In the meantime, the said information was also forwarded to the local police which was Crl.A.Nos.536/2016, 612/2016 & 613/2016 Page 2 of 31 recorded vide DD No.64-B (Ex.Finding nobody at the spot, he made some enquiries and came to know that the injured had been taken to BJRM hospital.On reaching BJRM hospital, he found that, pursuant to a quarrel, some persons had been admitted in the hospital.One of them was declared 'brought dead' and the other, an injured (Surender) was receiving treatment.The family members of the deceased and the injured were also present there.A.Nos.536/2016, 612/2016 & 613/2016 Page 2 of 31SI Krishan Kumar obtained the MLC of Surender and recorded his statement (Ex.PW-13/A) to the effect that after finishing his work at 11 p.m. in the night, while he was coming back to his home, he saw that his brother, Narender was held down on the ground by Manpreet (accused no.2), Gulvinder Kaur & Balvinder Kaur while Ramanjeet Singh (accused no.1) & Kamaljeet Singh (accused no.3), who had Gandasas in their hands, were assaulting Narender with the Gandasas.When he tried to set his brother free, Ramanjeet Singh & Kamaljeet Singh gave Gandasa blows to him also which landed on his left shoulder & finger of his right hand whereafter, he became unconscious.He also stated that he did not remember as to who had brought him & his brother to the hospital.After regaining consciousness, Surender came to know that his brother, Narender had expired.He stated that his brother Narender was killed by Ramanjeet Singh, Kamaljeet Singh, Manpreet, Balvinder Kaur & Gulvinder Kaur.On the basis of this statement, FIR bearing No.24/2012 (Ex.PW-1/C) under Sections 302/307/34 IPC was registered at PS Swaroop Nagar.A.Nos.536/2016, 612/2016 & 613/2016 Page 3 of 31During the investigation, Inspector Harish Chander lifted samples from the spot which included blood stained earth, sample earth, one pair of chappals of brown colour, one pair of hawai chappal of red/pink colour, one woollen cap of red and black colour (59 written on it).Ramanjeet Singh got recovered one Gandasa from under the bushes near a ganda nala near Khadda Colony.On 12.09.2012, Kamaljeet Singh was arrested.The other co-accused, Balvinder Kaur and Gulvinder Kaur absconded and they were declared proclaimed offenders (P.O).The prosecution examined a total of 22 witnesses.The material witnesses are the brothers and the sister of the deceased.The PCR form (Ex.PW-10/A) was proved by W/Ct.The PCR van reached the spot at about 11:23:40 hours and reported back.The PCR form records "- RCD 5 -property par rishte daro ka jhagda tha jisme do injured the.Jo pahle hi hospital chale gaye tha".It also recorded that the local police had reached the spot at about 12:16:37 hours.DD No.64B (Ex.PW-1/A) was proved by HC Raj Kumar, who also proved DD 3B (Ex.PW-1/B), FIR (Ex.PW-1/C) and the Crl.A.Nos.536/2016, 612/2016 & 613/2016 Page 4 of 31 rukka (Ex.PW-1/D).The scaled site plan (Ex.PW-2/A) was proved by Inspector Manohar Lal (PW-2).HC Yashveer Singh, the Storekeeper was examined as PW-4 and he proved the entries in Register No.19 (Ex.PW- 4/A to Ex.PW-4/C), Register No.21 (Ex.PW-4/D), FSL receipt (Ex.PW- 4/E).Baljeet (PW-19), HC Rajender Singh (PW-21) and Inspector Harish Chander (PW-22) along with PW-13 were examined to prove the arrest of Ramanjeet Singh and Manpreet as well as the subsequent arrest of Kamaljeet Singh.In his defence, Kamaljeet Singh examined DW-1 and DW-2 to support his plea of alibi.Cut and fractures of right mandible and cheek bones present, brain was cut marks below injuries with sub dural sub arachnoid hemorrhage, brain parenchyma was pale.All the organs were pale, stomach was full of semi digested food material.OPINION : In my opinion death was due to coma and shock consequent upon multiple injuries.A.Nos.536/2016, 612/2016 & 613/2016 Page 6 of 31Naresh Kumar, Sr.Scientific Officer, FSL, Rohini, Delhi, who was examined as PW-11, proved the FSL Report (Ex.PW-11/A).In the forensic examination, blood was detected on the clothes of the deceased and Surender (PW-13).In the serological report (Ex.PW-11/B), blood on the T-shirt of PW-13 was found to be of blood group 'A'.The blood on the clothes of the deceased were found to be of blood group 'O'.Dr Gopal Krishna also proved the MLC of Surender as Ex.PW- 18/B. The MLC of Surender bearing no 37627, was prepared at 12:20 a.m. on 11.02.2012 with an alleged history of physical assault.The patient was shown to have been brought by his brother, Rajvinder Singh.The MLC records three injuries including lacerated wound and abrasions.The patient was referred to the Orthopedic and Surgery wards.He was shown to be conscious and oriented.MATERIAL WITNESSES Crl.A.Nos.536/2016, 612/2016 & 613/2016 Page 7 of 31A.Nos.536/2016, 612/2016 & 613/2016 Page 7 of 31Surender (PW-13), brother of the deceased deposed that on 10.02.2012, at about 11 p.m., he was coming back from Azadpur Mandi to his house and when he reached the corner, he heard his brother, Jasvinder screaming 'bachao bachao'.He saw his other brother, Narender @ Kala lying on the ground near the backside gate of his house.While Manpreet, Gurvinder Kaur & Balvinder Kaur had caught hold of his brother, Kamaljeet Singh & Rummy (Ramanjeet Singh) were giving him Gandasa blows.He noticed his sister, Jeet Kaur, inside the gate seeing the entire incident from the staircase.He deposed that he tried to help his brother on which the appellants started inflicting injuries on him also due to which he fell down and became unconscious.He did not remember as to who had shifted him to the hospital.He proved his statement made to the police (Ex.PW-13/A).He further deposed that on 13.02.2012, he had joined the investigation and handed over his blood- stained T-shirt which he was wearing at the time of the incident.The blood-stained T-shirt was taken into possession vide seizure memo (Ex.PW-13/B).P-2B, blue and white sweater as Ex.P-2C and greyish/greenish banyan as Ex.P-2D, the woollen cap of black color and a pair of red stripe and blue colour slippers as Ex.P-3 & Ex.The T-shirt which was got recovered by the said witness was identified as Ex.P-5].He also identified a pair of brown colour leather slippers, stated to be of Ramanjeet Singh, as Ex.A.Nos.536/2016, 612/2016 & 613/2016 Page 8 of 31During his cross-examination, Surender stated that his statement was recorded at 3 a.m. in the hospital and since he was illiterate, he had affixed his thumb impression on the same.He was confronted with his earlier statement (Ex.PW-13/A) where the factum of seeing his sister Jeet Kaur was not so stated.He replied that nobody was present in the factory of Ravi when the Gandasa was got recovered.He stated that the Gandasa was got recovered from the bushes outside the gate of Ravi's factory and the said place was not accessible to public, as it was a hidden place.He also stated that there was a ganda nala next to the bushes from where the Gandasa was got recovered.On a Court question, the witness replied that it was Ramanjeet Singh who went to the bushes and got the Gandasa recovered.He denied the suggestion that the recovery was planted and that he was not present at the spot at the time of the incident.She tried to save the deceased but Gurvinder Kaur ran after her forcing the witness to rush back to her house and shut the doors to save herself.She had called 100 number and raised an alarm, because of which her brother, Jasvinder Singh also rushed to the spot.She deposed that Kamaljeet Singh and Ramanjeet Singh also gave gandasa blows to Surender.1) did not state anything about the OPD slip.A closer look at the above exhibits reveals that the OPD slip dated 06.02.2012 indicated that after an X-ray, a POP casting was done on the right foot of Kamaljeet Singh.However, neither any X-ray film nor any X-ray report was produced to prove the said injury and the treatment given.The OPD slip also did not advise any duration of time for the POP casting.Though the prescription showed that the patient was advised admission, however, no proof of admission was produced.More importantly, the appellant did not examine the concerned Doctor who had written the said prescription.As per the Trial Court record, the deceased has been shown to be a resident of J-964, Gali No.2, Swaroop Nagar, Delhi which was also the residential address of Surender.The incident had taken place at the back-side gate of their house.The witness was injured in the same incident in which his deceased brother received fatal injuries resulting in his death.The challenge in the present appeals filed by the appellants is to the common judgment on conviction dated 22.04.2016, passed by the Crl.The appellants have also challenged the order on sentence dated 23.04.2016, whereby all the three appellants were sentenced to:A.Nos.536/2016, 612/2016 & 613/2016 Page 1 of 31(i) undergo rigorous imprisonment for life (each) and pay fine of Rs.25,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months each for the offence punishable u/s 302/34 IPC.(ii) undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years each and pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months each for the offence punishable u/s 326/34 IPC.He also examined DW-3, DW-4 and DW-5 to urge that he was arrested a day prior to the day shown in the record.A.Nos.536/2016, 612/2016 & 613/2016 Page 4 of 31Dr. Bhim Singh (PW-14) proved the postmortem report (Ex.PW- 14/A) which reads as under:POST MORTEM "External ante-mortem injuries on the body of the deceased.Lacerated wound 3cm x 1cm x 1cm, front of left leg.Reddish bluish two in number over inner and front aspect of left lower thigh and upper part of leg measuring 6 cm x 2.8 cm each.Reddish bluish 6cm x 8 cm present over front of left side of chest.Incised chop would 6cm x 1.3cm x 1cm over back of chest left scapular region with two incised wounds situated 2.5cm over left shoulder region measuring 5cm x 0.8cm and 4cm into 0.8cm x 0.6cm.Chop wound 6.8cm x 2cm x bone deep situated on back of neck just below occipital region.Chop wound 6.5cm x 2cm x bone deep over occipital region. 'Chop wound 6.6cm x 2 cm x bone deep over left prito occipital region.Incised chop wound 4cm x 2cm x 3cm were right side of neck outer aspect.Chop wound right side of face and jaw 6.5cm x 2cm x bone deep with fractures of mandible and teeth.A.Nos.536/2016, 612/2016 & 613/2016 Page 5 of 31Incised chop wound 6cm x 2cm x bone deep right side of cheek.Incised chop wound 6.5cm x 2cm x bone deep right parietal region.Lacerated wound 3cm x 0.8cm x 0.5cm front of right neck.On internal examination:-Head:- As mentioned in external injuries chop wounds were present over right parietal region cut and fracture of underline bones, dura exposing brain matter.All the injuries were ante-mortem, fresh in duration.Injury No.4 to 11 were caused by heavy sharp edged weapon.Other injuries could be caused by hard blunt object.The above injuries were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.Time since death was about 14 hours".Dr. Bhim Singh also proved his opinion (Ex.PW-14/C) on the cut marks found on the clothes of the deceased in relation to the Gandasa and the same reads as under:"As I had already mentioned cuts on the clothes of the deceased is corresponding with the injuries mentioned in the P.M. report no. 114/12, dated 11-2-12."Dr Bhim Singh had also given an opinion (Ex.PW-22/G) on the MLC of Surender which reads as under:2. 2012".Although, blood was detected on the Gandasa, but no grouping could be obtained.MLC OF THE DECEASEDDr. Gopal Krishna who was examined as PW-18, proved the MLC of the deceased (Ex. PW-18/A).The MLC of the deceased bearing No.37626, was prepared at 12:15 a.m. on 11.02.2012 with an alleged history of physical assault.The deceased who was shown to be brought by his brother, Rajvinder Singh, was found to be unconscious and was declared 'brought-dead'.MLC OF SURENDER (PW-13)Surender further deposed that on the same day, i.e., on 13.02.2012, at about 5:30 p.m., Ramanjeet Singh and Manpreet were arrested on his identification.He further deposed that Ramanjeet Singh got a Gandasa recovered from under the bushes situated near the factory of one Ravi which was seized vide seizure memo (Ex.PW-13/G); that Ramanjeet Singh and Manpreet pointed out the place of the incident vide Ex.Both were taken to the Police Station where Ramanjeet Singh had threatened to eliminate him and his family.The witness also proved the site plan of recovery of the Gandasa as Ex.PW- 13/G. He identified the Gandasa as Ex.P-1; clothes of the deceased as Crl.A.Nos.536/2016, 612/2016 & 613/2016 Page 8 of 31 Ex.P-2 (Colly) [blue jeans as Ex.P-2A, white shirt as Ex.He also denied the suggestion that the injuries were self-inflicted.He admitted that there was a dispute between him and Ramanjeet Singh for which both were arrested for breach of peace.She deposed that on 10.02.2012, at about 11.00/11.30 noon, she had heard the noise of quarrel and screams.On coming out of the house, she saw that the appellants were hitting the deceased with a Danda and Gandasas.While Manpreet and Balvinder had caught hold of the deceased, Kamaljeet Singh gave gandasa blow to the deceased and Gurvinder Kaur Crl.A.Nos.536/2016, 612/2016 & 613/2016 Page 9 of 31 hit the deceased with a danda.In the meantime, Jasvinder Singh went to the house of their other brother, Rajvinder Singh @ Raju.In between, Kamaljeet, Ramanjeet and Manpreeet ran away and Rajvinder Singh brought his champion scooter and removed the injured and the deceased to the BJRM hospital.During her cross-examination, she admitted that her signatures were not present on any of the documents.A.Nos.536/2016, 612/2016 & 613/2016 Page 9 of 31He deposed that on 10.02.2012, at about 11.00/11.15 pm, on hearing voices, he came out of his house where he saw Kamaljeet Singh and Ramanjeet Singh assaulting his brother with a Gandasa.Gurvinder Kaur was also assaulting him.Manpreet and Balvinder Kaur had caught hold of the deceased.As PW-17 was handicapped, he stated that he along with his sister, Jeet Kaur, started shouting.In between, Surender also reached at the spot and tried to help but Kamaljeet Singh and Ramanjeet Singh gave Gandasa blows to him too.He further deposed that Ramanjeet Singh and Manpreet ran after him and in order to save his life, he ran towards the house of Rajvinder.When he and Rajvinder came back to the spot, all the three accused had already fled away.In his cross- examination, the witness stated that his statement was recorded on 11.02.2012 at 5:30 am and the statement of his brother, Surender was recorded before that, at 3:00/4:00 am.He was confronted with his earlier statement (Ex.PW-17/DX-1) made to the police where he had not Crl.A.Nos.536/2016, 612/2016 & 613/2016 Page 10 of 31 mentioned about the presence of Jeet Kaur.He also admitted that his signatures were not present on any of the documents.A.Nos.536/2016, 612/2016 & 613/2016 Page 10 of 31The next witness, Rajvinder Singh, brother of the deceased who was examined as PW-20, deposed that on 10.02.2012 at about 11:15/11:30, his brother Jasvinder had knocked at his door and told him "Dono Bhai Mar Gaye Jaldi Chal".On reaching the spot, he saw Surender and the deceased lying on the ground.We have heard the arguments advanced by both sides.Shamshravish Rein, Advocate has argued for Kamaljeet Singh, Mr. Chetan Lokur, Advocate has argued for Manpreet, Ms. Dimple Vivek, Advocate has argued for Ramanjeet Singh and Mr. Amit Gupta, learned APP for the State.We have also carefully examined the trial court record.Now we shall proceed to discuss the pleas taken by learned counsel for the appellants to assail the impugned judgment of conviction.WHETHER SURENDER, JEET KAUR AND JASVINDER WERE EYE WITNESSESIt has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that Surender, Jeet Kaur and Jasvinder were not the eye witnesses of the incident.It was urged that in the rukka (Ex.PW-13/A), which was recorded on the basis of the statement of Surender, the presence of Jeet Kaur and Jasvinder Singh was not mentioned and even as per the case of the prosecution, Rajvinder was not an eye-witness.A.Nos.536/2016, 612/2016 & 613/2016 Page 11 of 31The presence of Jasvinder has been disbelieved by the Trial Court on the ground that there were contradictions in his testimony and that of his brother, Rajvinder.On going through their testimonies, we find that the Trial court had rightly disbelieved the presence of Jasvinder at the spot at the time of the incident as he did not inform the name of the assailants to his brother Rajvinder, at the first instance.We shall next examine as to whether Surender (PW-13) and Jeet Kaur (PW-16) were present at the spot.As per the testimony of Surender, in his initial statement made to the police (Ex.PW-13/A) which was recorded on 11.02.2012 at 3:00/4:00 am, i.e. after a gap of four hours, he did not mention about the presence of any of his siblings including Jeet Kaur, at the spot, at the time of the commission of the offence.The above statement of Surender was recorded after he was declared 'fit for statement' by the Doctor.Indeed, it was Jeet Kaur, who had called up the PCR from her mobile phone.The said number is also reflected in the PCR form (Ex.PW-6/A).Jeet Kaur has deposed that when Rajvinder along with Jasvinder removed Narender and Surender in a champion scooter to BJRM hospital, she had remained at the spot.She also deposed that after the police had reached the spot, she had gone to BJRM hospital.The next morning, when she returned to her house, the police had recorded her statement along with the statement of her brother, Jasvinder.In her statement (Ex.PW-16/DX-1) made to the police, she did not mention the presence of Jasvinder at the spot.Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the prosecution did not bring on record any CAF (Customer Application Form) to prove that the mobile number, which was used to inform the police, belonged to Jeet Kaur.However, we find Crl.A.Nos.536/2016, 612/2016 & 613/2016 Page 12 of 31 that the appellants did not put any question to Jeet Kaur, during her cross examination, to doubt her ownership of the mobile phone number.A.Nos.536/2016, 612/2016 & 613/2016 Page 12 of 31In his statement made to the police, he did not mention the presence of either Jeet Kaur or Jasvinder at the spot.His statement was made on 11.02.2012 at 3:00/4:00 am.During his deposition, he mentioned that he saw his sister, Jeet Kaur standing inside the gate and watching the entire incident.He was confronted with his earlier statement where the factum of the presence of Jeet Kaur was not mentioned.From the above discussion, it follows that although Jeet Kaur has stated that she remained at the spot after the incident and met the police officials, however, neither the PCR form nor do the testimonies of SI Krishan (PW-15) and Ct.Baljeet (PW-19), who were the first police officials to reach the spot, indicates her presence at the spot.Rather, it has come in the testimony of SI Krishan that when he reached the spot, he did not find anybody there.He tried to make enquiries but could not find anyone as no resident was prepared to state anything except for the fact that some public persons had removed the injured to BJRM hospital.More importantly, in his first statement recorded after about 4 hours of the incident, Surender did not mention the name of Jeet Kaur.In the light of the above, we are of the view that the factum of Jeet Kaur (PW-16) being an eye-witness, is not free from doubt.Learned counsel for the appellants have also questioned the presence and the testimony of Surender by contending that the injuries recorded in his MLC could not have been caused by the Gandasa.A.Nos.536/2016, 612/2016 & 613/2016 Page 13 of 31Surender, brother of the deceased, has described in detail as to how when Manpreet alongwith the other accused (P.O.) had pinned down and caught hold of his brother, Ramanjeet Singh and Kamaljeet Singh gave Gandasa blows to the deceased.When he tried to save his brother, he was also injured in the same incident in which his brother, Narender was assaulted.The injuries suffered by the deceased were noted in MLC bearing No. 37626, prepared at 12.15 a.m. and contemporaneously, the injuries suffered by Surender were noted in a sequential MLC bearing No. 37627, prepared at 12.20 a.m. in the same hospital.Both were shown to be brought to the hospital by their other brother, Jasvinder.Dr. Bhim Singh (PW-14) proved his opinion recorded in the post mortem report that the injuries suffered by the deceased were possible by the Gandasa.He also proved his opinion that the cut marks on clothes of the deceased were possible by the Gandasa.Surender's MLC was also proved by Dr. Gopal Krishna.In the MLC, he was shown to have suffered lacerated wound in the upper part of left scalp region and two abrasions on the finger.The injuries were opined to be grievous.Surender deposed that in the process of trying to save his brother from the Gandasa blows given by the appellants, he too was assaulted by them.Surprisingly, during his cross-examination, the defence counsel gave contradictory suggestions to Surender and Dr. Gopal Krishna regarding the injuries suffered by Surender.Dr. Bhim Singh also gave an opinion (Ex.PW-22/G) that the injuries suffered by Surender were possible by the weapon used for inflicting injuries mentioned in the post mortem of the deceased.In the cross examination, no question/suggestion was given on behalf of the appellants challenging the above opinion of Dr. Bhim Singh.A.Nos.536/2016, 612/2016 & 613/2016 Page 14 of 31In light of the above discussion, we are of the view that the oral testimony of Surender regarding the assault committed by the appellants on Narender, stands duly corroborated by the testimonies of Dr Bhim Singh and Dr Gopal Krishna as well as the medical evidence brought on the record.It stands proved that the injuries suffered by Surender were during the same incident in which his brother was also assaulted.Further, the evidence of the eye witnesses was disbelieved as it was alleged that they were attacked by a mob of 60 to 100 people but the two eyewitnesses had suffered only 3 injuries each, which was held to be inconsistent with the prosecution case.Learned counsel for the appellants have also urged that the testimony of Surender ought to be disbelieved on the additional ground that he is an interested witness, being the brother of the deceased.Indeed, the evidence of an eye-witness, when he is related to the deceased, is to be scrutinized very carefully.Although, the presence of Jeet Kaur and Jasvinder at the spot has been found to be doubtful, Crl.A.Nos.536/2016, 612/2016 & 613/2016 Page 15 of 31 however, the presence of Surender is free from any doubt.The incident had taken place at about 11 pm and the place of the incident was adjacent to his house.He suffered injuries in the same incident in which his brother was assaulted.The injuries were opined to be possibly caused by the same Gandasa which was used for causing injuries to the deceased.In the case of Mahavir Singh (supra), it was observed that there were contradictory statements of the prosecution witnesses coupled with unmatched medical evidence, delay in recording the statement of witnesses by the I.O. and absence of the ballistic report which factors were held to be fatal to the prosecution case.The above decision is of no help to the appellants as in the present case the ocular testimony of Surender is well corroborated by the medical evidence on record.In the captioned case, the witness was disbelieved as he was related and interested, but not injured.However, in the present case, Surender is related and injured.The injuries were inflicted on him in the same incident in which the deceased was assaulted.Furthermore, the injuries on him were opined to be inflicted by the same weapon which was used for assaulting the deceased.The testimony of an injured witness has its own relevancy and Crl.A.Nos.536/2016, 612/2016 & 613/2016 Page 16 of 31 efficacy as he has sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence and this lends support to his testimony that he was present at the time of occurrence.Thus, the testimony of an injured witness is accorded a special status in law.Such a witness comes with a built-in guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate someone."Convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured witness".Thus, the evidence of an injured witness should be relied upon unless there are grounds for the rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein".(emphasis added)A.Nos.536/2016, 612/2016 & 613/2016 Page 16 of 31On the basis of the above discussion, we can safely conclude that Surender was a natural eye witness.He was present at the spot at the time of the incident when his brother was assaulted.He suffered injuries in the same incident.During the trial, Ramanjeet Singh and Manpreet did not set up any defence that they were not present at the spot.In fact, no such suggestion was given to any of the prosecution witnesses.Even during their examination under Section 313 Cr.PC, they did not raise any such defence.However, Kamaljeet Singh did take the plea of alibi in the trial.Malkeet Singh, a Pharmacist, had brought the OPD register of Sardar Amrik Singh Crl.A.Nos.536/2016, 612/2016 & 613/2016 Page 17 of 31 Memorial PHC Hospital, Amritsar that contained an entry at Sl no. No.177 dated 06.02.2012 (Ex.DW-2/A) in the name of Kamaljeet Singh, aged 34 years, male with injuries (R Foot).During his cross-examination by the learned APP for the State, the witness had replied that on 06.02.2012, he was not on duty and that the cutting above entry No.177, was done by Dr. Jorawar Singh Bhatia, In-charge of the hospital.He produced an OPD slip dated 06.02.2012 (Ex.DW-2/A) of the above hospital mentioning the injury allegedly suffered by him.He also produced an RTI reply (Ex.DW-2/B) received from Dr. Jorawar Singh, Medical Officer, In-charge of the said hospital.In this regard, the Trial Court had observed that the said RTI reply did not bear any signature and only the name of the Doctor was mentioned there.Malkeet Singh (DW-A.Nos.536/2016, 612/2016 & 613/2016 Page 17 of 31A.Nos.536/2016, 612/2016 & 613/2016 Page 18 of 31The plea of alibi sought to be taken by Kamaljeet Singh, the same remained unsubstantiated.It has come in the testimonies of the police witnesses, namely Ct.Baljeet (PW-19), HC Rajender Singh (PW-21) and Insp.Harish Chander (PW-22) that Ramanjeet Singh and Manpreet were arrested on 13.02.2012, on the basis of secret information and on the identification of Surender.The arrest memos of Ramanjeet Singh and Manpreet (Ex.PW-13/C and Ex.PW-13/D) were signed by both of them.In his testimony, Surender had deposed on similar lines.The prosecution examined Ct.Baljeet, HC Rajender Singh and Insp.It has come on record that Kamaljeet Singh was arrested after he was declared a proclaimed offender (P.O).Kamaljeet Singh had denied his arrest and examined DW-3, DW-4 and DW-5 in support of his plea of alibi.DW-3 brought the records from 12.09.2012 to 17.09.2012 of the concerned P.S. at Amritsar which did not contain any entry showing the arrival of Delhi Police.The examination of DW-3 was irrelevant as it was nobody's case that Kamaljeet was arrested in Amritsar.A.Nos.536/2016, 612/2016 & 613/2016 Page 19 of 31DW-5 stated that on 11.09.2012, Kamaljeet Singh was at Sarai Majnu Ka Tilla where he was arrested by the officials of Delhi Police.Given the above position, the aforesaid defence witnesses were rightly disbelieved by the Trial Court as their testimonies did not cause any dent to the prosecution case.We may also note that the appellants did not give any suggestion to any of the police witnesses that their signatures on the arrest memos were obtained forcibly.Nor did they lead any evidence to show that they were arrested one day prior to the date shown in the arrest memo.RECOVERY OF THE WEAPON OF OFFENCE, A GANDASARamanjeet Singh and Manpreet were arrested on 13.02.2012, pursuant to which Ramanjeet Singh had got recovered one Gandasa from the bushes near the ganda nala, Khadda Colony.The same was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW-13/G. The site plan of the Gandasa was exhibited as Ex.PW-13/L. The said recovery was witnessed by Surender.During his deposition, Surender had identified the Gandasa (Ex.P-1).The testimony of Surender was corroborated by the testimony of the police witnesses namely, Ct.A.Nos.536/2016, 612/2016 & 613/2016 Page 20 of 31 recovery of the Gandasa was not effected from any factory, but from the bushes near the factory and the ganda nala.A.Nos.536/2016, 612/2016 & 613/2016 Page 20 of 31In the present case, PW-19, PW-20 and PW-22 were the police witnesses associated with the recovery.It has come in their testimonies that the recovery of the Gandasa was made at around 7:45 pm.It has also come in their testimonies that though the place of recovery was an open place, but no public person was present at that time and the nearby factory was also locked.The obligation to take public witnesses is not absolute.If after making efforts which the court considered in the circumstances of the case reasonable, the police officer is not able to get public witnesses to associate with the raid or arrest of the culprit, the arrest and the recovery made would not be necessarily vitiated.The court will have to appreciate the relevant evidence and will have to determine whether the evidence of the police officer was believable after taking due care and caution in evaluating their evidence." (emphasis added)It would depend Crl.A.Nos.536/2016, 612/2016 & 613/2016 Page 21 of 31 upon the veracity, credibility and unimpeachably of their testimony.A.Nos.536/2016, 612/2016 & 613/2016 Page 21 of 31This Court, after referring to State of U.P. v. Anil Singh 1989 SCC (Crl.) 48; State, Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Sunil (2001) 1 SCC 652 and Ramjee Rai v. State of Bihar (2006) 13 SCC 229, has laid down recently in Kashmiri Lal v. State of Haryana (2013) 6 SCC 595 that there is no absolute command of law that the police officers cannot be cited as witnesses and their testimony should always be treated with suspicion.Ordinarily, the public at large show their disinclination to come forward to become witnesses.If the testimony of the police officer is found to be reliable and trustworthy, the court can definitely act upon the same.If, in the course of scrutinising the evidence, the court finds the evidence of the police officer as unreliable and untrustworthy, the court may disbelieve him but it should not do so solely on the presumption that a witness from the department of police should be viewed with distrust.On a Court question, the said witness had answered:In his testimony, Surender had deposed that one week prior to the incident, the Rummy (Ramanjeet Singh) had a quarrel with him in a barber shop and he had called up 100 number whereafter, both of them were taken to the police station.While they were in custody, Rummy @ Ramanjeet Singh had threatened to eliminate Surender and his family members.During the cross-examination of Surender, learned counsel for the appellant had also given a suggestion to the witness that there was a previous quarrel between him and Ramanjeet Singh.While answering the suggestion, the witness had admitted about the previous dispute and further stated that they were arrested by the police for breach of peace.He also stated that previously too, he had made complaints to the police on account of the threats given by Ramanjeet Singh.However, no action was taken by the police on his complaint.During their examination under Section 313 Cr.PC, in response to Question No.57, all the appellants had individually replied that Surender Crl.A.Nos.536/2016, 612/2016 & 613/2016 Page 23 of 31 and Ramanjeet Singh (wrongly typed as Ramandeep) had a quarrel and both of them were booked under Section 107/151 Cr.PC.Learned counsel for the appellants have urged that the delay of four hours in recording the statement of Surender also points towards deliberate false implication of the appellants in the present case.He had suffered injuries which were opined to be grievous.Dr. Gopal Krishna proved the MLC of Surender and deposed that the same indicated that after stitching and bandaging, the patient had been referred for further treatment to SR (Ortho) and SR (Surgery).Given the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that the delay in recording the statement of Surender stands well explained.Learned counsels for the appellants next argued that non- mentioning of the names of the appellants in the initial information given to the PCR as well as in the 'history of assault', as recorded in the MLC also point towards deliberate false implication of the appellants.A.Nos.536/2016, 612/2016 & 613/2016 Page 24 of 31Merely because the weapon of assault was wrongly described in the cryptic information, would not be a ground to treat the entire incident as doubtful.Next, it was urged by the counsels for the appellants that grave prejudice has been caused to the appellants as the Trial Court had Crl.No doubt a word of caution has often been given by the Supreme Court that the material witnesses who are examined on a particular day, ought to be cross-examined on the same day.The said order was passed Crl.A.Nos.536/2016, 612/2016 & 613/2016 Page 26 of 31 with the consent of the Amicus Curiae.With this order, the case was directed to be listed for recording the entire prosecution evidence four months later, i.e. on 06.09.2013A.Nos.536/2016, 612/2016 & 613/2016 Page 26 of 31Moreover, out of 20 prosecution witnesses examined, 11 were formal in nature who were examined by way of affidavits.The record reveals that these witnesses were not cross examined substantially.Notably, during this period, no objection was raised by any of the appellants to the above order of the Trial Court.Besides, the Trial Court had given sufficient time of over four months to the learned Amicus Curiae to prepare the entire prosecution evidence.In these peculiar facts and circumstances, we are of the view that no prejudice has been caused to the appellants.Not only, no objection was taken by them on 06.09.2013, no challenge or prejudice was claimed by the appellants thereafter or, even during the trial.As for the plea that there was an anomaly as to who had prepared the unscaled site plan, SI Krishan Kumar (PW-15) had deposed that he had prepared the unscaled site plan at the instance of Jasvinder.In fact, the rough site plan was prepared by Insp.Harish Chander (PW-22).The unscaled site plan bears his signature.In his testimony, Insp.Harish Chander confirmed that he had prepared the rough site plan.Once the cross examination of Insp.Harish Chander reveals that no specific question was put to him that he did not prepare the rough site plan, we think it is too late in the day for the appellant to take such a plea.A.Nos.536/2016, 612/2016 & 613/2016 Page 27 of 31It is worth mentioning that the order sheet of Crl.A. No.613/2016 filed by Manpreet reveals that on an application moved by the State under Section 391 read with 482 Cr.PC, the following order was passed by the High Court on 12.09.2018:"Crl.1. Having heard learned counsel for both parties, this Court finds that at this stage, the taking on record of copies of FIR No.417/2014 registered at PS SamaypurBadli and the consequent charge sheet which has been filed against the accused in that case is not going to prejudice any of the present Appellants as arguments anyway will be heard on the effect of the incidents spoken about in the said charge sheet on the present case.It is also noticed that although charges have been framed in the case arising out of FIR No.417/2014, the trial has not yet concluded.Since only two documents are required now to be exhibited, the matter is sent to the trial Court for listing before it on 24th September 2018 for the limited purposes of the IO in the case arising out of FIR No.417/2014 being examined as a PW to exhibit the said documents.The said additional evidence will be put to the Appellant under Section 313 Cr.;PC for his supplementary statement and in relation thereto, if he so chooses, he will be permitted to lead defence evidence.The trial Court will conclude the said proceedings and sent the record of the additional evidence together with trial Court record back to this court no later than 1st October 2018."In terms of the above order, the statement of Shri Sanjeev Kumar, ACP, Saraswati Vihar was recorded by the Trial Court in the present case who had exhibited a copy of FIR No.417/2014, PS Samaypur Badli, registered under Sections 302/307/34 IPC as Ex.CW-1/A and a copy of the main charge-sheet, supplementary charge-sheet with the documents were exhibited as CW-1/B (Colly).As per the said charge-sheet, Manpreet along with other fellow prisoners, while being lodged in Ward No.2, had assaulted and killed Rajvinder Singh (PW-20) who was also lodged in the same ward in connection with some other case.Manpreet Crl.A.Nos.536/2016, 612/2016 & 613/2016 Page 28 of 31 was examined under Section 313 Cr.PC on 25.09.2018 and the said exhibits and the circumstances of the said case were put to him which were denied.A.Nos.536/2016, 612/2016 & 613/2016 Page 28 of 31It is an admitted case that one week prior to the incident, a quarrel had taken place between Surender and Ramanjeet Singh, which was also reported to the police and because of this, Ramanjeet Singh had threatened to eliminate Surender and his family members.This circumstance was never challenged in the cross-examination.On the contrary, it was the admitted case of the appellants that both, Surender and Ramanjeet Singh were arrested for breach of peace on account of that quarrel.The appellants had also given a suggestion to Surender that there was animosity between their family and the family of the deceased, as the daughter of one of the relatives of the appellants was allegedly allured by the deceased.The said suggestion was denied by the witness.From the above, it is clear that there was a previous enmity between the two families.The time gap between the earlier dispute and the date of the incident was only one week.The incident of assault on Narender was witnessed by his brother, Surender whose testimony has been found to be credible and trustworthy.Both, the deceased (Narender) and Surender (the injured brother of the deceased) were admitted in Babu Jag Jeevan Ram Hospital at about the same time, within one hour of the first information given to the PCR.The MLCs of both, i.e. the deceased as well as Surender show that they were brought by their brother, Rajvinder Singh.The said injuries on Surender Crl.A.Nos.536/2016, 612/2016 & 613/2016 Page 29 of 31 appeared on his left scapular region as well as on the fingers.The injuries could not have been self-inflicted, as suggested to the witness during his cross-examination.We are of the opinion that the testimony of this witness can be relied upon being a truthful witness and a natural witness, who was present at the spot.A.Nos.536/2016, 612/2016 & 613/2016 Page 29 of 31The weapon of offence, i.e. the Gandasa was recovered at the instance of the Ramanjeet Singh.The said recovery was witnessed not only by the police witnesses namely, Ct.Baljeet, HC Rajender Singh and Insp.Harish Chander, but also by Surender.Though, no grouping could be obtained on the Gandasa in the forensic examination, however, human blood was detected on the same.Dr. Bhim Singh, who proved the post mortem report of the deceased, also proved his opinion with respect to the injuries and the cut marks on the clothes of the deceased and stated that they could have possibly been caused by the recovered Gandasa.The said witness also opined on the injuries suffered by the injured, Surender and stated that they could possibly be caused by the recovered Gandasa.The Gandasa blows on the deceased and the injured have been attributed to Ramanjeet Singh and Kamaljeet Singh and whereas the role attributed to the co-accused, Manpreet, Balvinder Kaur and Gurvinder Kaur (both P.Os) was that they had caught hold of the deceased.As per the postmortem report, a total 12 injures were inflicted on the body of the deceased, most of which were on the vital parts of his body, i.e., the head, face and chest.Injuries No.4 to 11 were opined to be sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.The incident had taken place Crl.A.Nos.536/2016, 612/2016 & 613/2016 Page 30 of 31 in the night of 10.02.2012, at about 11-11.15 p.m. The appellants came armed with Gandasas and Dandas.The recovered Gandasa was 4 ft in length.All the appellants played an active role in assaulting Narender (the deceased).The number of injuries, the seat of the injuries, the kind of weapon used in the assault amply prove that the appellants had come with a premediation to commit the murder of Narender.The murder was committed with pre-planning and common intention of all the appellants.As a result, the conviction of the appellants punishable under Sections 302/34 IPC, are upheld.A.Nos.536/2016, 612/2016 & 613/2016 Page 30 of 31The appellants had also caused injuries to Surender, opined to be grievous in nature.From the nature of injuries inflicted on the injured, we are of the view that they were caused by the appellants in furtherance of their common intention and with prior concert.Therefore, the conviction of the appellants punishable under Sections 326/34 IPC is upheld.The impugned judgment dated 22.04.2016 and the order of sentence dated 23.04.2016 are upheld.Consequently, the three appeals filed by the appellants namely Ramanjeet Singh, Manpreet and Kamaljeet Singh are hereby dismissed.All the appellants who are in judicial custody, are directed to serve their remaining sentences, as awarded by the Trial Court.(MANOJ KUMAR OHRI) JUDGE (HIMA KOHLI) JUDGE APRIL 26, 2019 dc/sm/na Crl.A.Nos.536/2016, 612/2016 & 613/2016 Page 31 of 31A.Nos.536/2016, 612/2016 & 613/2016 Page 31 of 31
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
97,100,340 |
The lock was broken open and in the bedroom of the said flat, a highly decomposed dead body was found which was later on identified to be that of R. R. Anyara, son of K. R. Anyara.Apparently, to the police officers, it appeared to be a case of murder and accordingly a case was registered and investigation was taken up by the Station House Officer.The said flat was inspected and blood stained earth, red chilli powder and a broken lock was taken into possession.Apart from this, a sweater, lungi and bed sheet were seized.Thereafter, post mortem was got conducted on the dead body.Advocates who appeared in this case:Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? YES BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 13.08.1993 delivered by the Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 103/1990, emanating from FIR No. 354/1989 registered at Police Station Vikas Puri.The appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC').By a separate order dated 16.10.1993, the appellant was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.A. 6/94 Page No.1 of 11A. 6/94 Page No.1 of 11The learned counsel for the appellant, at the outset, pointed out that this was a case based entirely on circumstantial evidence.According to him the Trial Court convicted the appellant on the basis of three circumstances:-putrefied state, were allegedly recovered at the instance of the appellant; andThe learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Trial Court had committed a gross error in concluding that the appellant had any motive to kill his uncle R. R. Anyara, who was a bachelor.According to the learned counsel for the appellant when the appellant was a child, his mother had passed away and his father re-married and it is his uncle, late R. R. Anyara, who took care of him.The learned counsel submitted that the only circumstance that has been construed to be a motive for killing R. R. Anyara is the fact that late R. R. Anyara had given the name of the appellant as a nominee in his service record so that in the event of his death all benefits accruing as a part of his service would be handed over to the appellant.He submitted that the Trial Court took the view that because R. R. Anyara was allegedly thinking of entering into matrimony, this was motive enough for the CRL.A. 6/94 Page No.2 of 11 appellant to kill his uncle because he felt that if his uncle entered into matrimony, then he would no longer continue to be a nominee in respect of these service benefits, which had earlier been indicated to be in favour of the appellant.According to the learned counsel for the appellant this is hardly any motive and certainly not one for murdering the uncle, who looked after him and took care of him since his childhood.A. 6/94 Page No.2 of 11Insofar as the recovery of the keys at the instance of the appellant is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that, first of all, the recovery of the keys themselves do not link the appellant with the commission of the crime.Secondly, he submitted that the appellant allegedly gave his disclosure statement in Malayalam, which was translated by one Babu Joseph (PW16), who was a constable at that point of time posted at Police Station Vikas Puri.He submits that that statement cannot be regarded as a statement made by the appellant.As regards the third circumstance, that is, absence from the native village between 20.10.1989 and 31.10.1989, the learned counsel submitted that this has not been established and in any event, according to him, absence from the native village does not mean that the appellant was in Delhi.He submitted that there is no evidence brought forward by the prosecution to show the presence of the appellant in Delhi during those dates.A. 6/94 Page No.3 of 11 learned counsel for the appellant that the chain of circumstances has not been completed and there is sufficient doubt for which benefit must be given to the appellant.A. 6/94 Page No.3 of 11Apparently, the house was found locked and a foul smell was emanating from the said flat.The investigation proceeded and ultimately the charge-sheet was filed.It appears that the deceased R. R. Anyara was aged about 62 years and was a bachelor and had a property at Kerala as well as at Delhi and that he had nominated the appellant as his beneficiary in his CRL.A. 6/94 Page No.4 of 11 service record.It may be pointed out at this stage itself that, though the post mortem report (Exhibit PW20/D) is on record, the doctor, who conducted the same, was not examined.The post mortem report indicates that the time of death could be around seven days from the date on which the post mortem was conducted and the post mortem was conducted on 04.11.1989 at the spot itself.A. 6/94 Page No.4 of 11Mr Dudeja also submitted that the police party had gone to the appellant's native village in Kerala on 15.11.1989 where they met the appellant and made some preliminary inquiries.Thereafter, the appellant accompanied the police party of his own volition to Delhi.And, it is only on 22.11.1989 at Delhi that he produced the said clothes, which were seized.The said clothes, according to Mr Dudeja, were sent to Central Forensic Science Laboratory as Exhibit 12a and 12b.No blood was visible on the said clothes at the time they were seized as, according to them, the appellant had stated that they had been washed several times.However, at the CRL.A. 6/94 Page No.5 of 11 Central Forensic Science Laboratory, when the seized articles were examined, it was found that Exhibit 12a was one very dirty blue full sleeved bush-shirt having a small speck of brown stain on the upper back left region and exhibit 12b was found to be one dirty brown pant.As per the chemical analysis done at the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, the quantity of blood was too small insofar as Exhibit 12b was concerned for the purposes of serological analysis.However, blood was detected in Exhibit 12a, namely, the bush-shirt.The report indicates that though the blood was of human origin, insofar as the blood group test is concerned it did not give any reaction.Therefore, the blood group could not be ascertained.According to Mr Dudeja, the fact that the blood was found in the clothes of the appellant which had been produced by him is a very important circumstance which goes towards the guilt of the appellant.Mr Dudeja supported the Trial Court judgment in its entirety and stated that the circumstances noted by the Trial Court completed the chain of circumstances necessary for returning a finding of guilt against the appellant.A. 6/94 Page No.5 of 11We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on both sides and have also gone through the evidence on record in detail.As regards the motive, we find that there is reference to certain letters, translations of which have been exhibited as PW16/B, PW16/C and PW16/D dated CRL.A. 6/94 Page No.6 of 11 03.12.1988, 25.05.1989 and 15.12.1988 respectively.However, there is nothing to prove or establish that these letters were written in the hand of the deceased and, therefore, we need not deal with this aspect of the matter any further.The other aspect with regard to motive was the issue of nomination by the deceased in his service record.This, to our minds, is too flimsy a reason for constituting a motive for murder.There is nothing to indicate that there was any animosity between the appellant and the deceased.On the contrary, there is evidence to show that the deceased was a bachelor and he had taken care of the appellant since he was a child and ever since the appellant's mother had passed away.A. 6/94 Page No.6 of 11With regard to the circumstance of the appellant being absent from his native village during the dates 20.10.1989 to 31.10.1989, we find that the prosecution has produced two witnesses, namely, C. P. Thangappan (PW7) and M. N. Thangachan (PW8).Insofar as PW7 C. P. Thangappan is concerned, he has stated in his examination-in- chief that from 20th to 31st October, 1989, the accused was not at his CRL.A. 6/94 Page No.7 of 11 house in Kerala.He also stated that he did not know where he had gone.He has also stated that he did not enquire from the father of the accused about his whereabouts but the father of the accused had told him that he had no knowledge about the whereabouts of the accused.From this, the Trial Court has inferred that the appellant was absent from his village in Kerala and also that he was present in Delhi.Although the second inference cannot be made even if the appellant was absent from his village during that period, even the conclusion with regard to the first inference is not correct.This is so because the said witness, namely, PW7 C. P. Thangappan has not given any direct testimony with regard to the absence of the appellant from his village.He only stated that he came to know through his mother-in-law, who in turn had been informed by the mother of the appellant.It may also be noted here that the appellant's mother had died when he was only 2-1/2 years old and the reference to the mother of the appellant is probably to his step- mother.Furthermore, since the appellant was residing with his father, the said witness could have made enquiries from the appellant's father.But he admittedly did not do so.A. 6/94 Page No.7 of 11A. 6/94 Page No.8 of 11A. 6/94 Page No.8 of 11The next witness that has been relied upon by the prosecution is PW8 M. N. Thangachan, who stated that in the month of October, 1989 he had gone to the house of the accused and he was told that he was not there for the last one week.He further stated that the appellant had come to his house in the beginning of November, 1989, that is, on 6th or 7th of November, 1989 and that he had told him that he (the accused) had gone to the house of Emini and Sunny at Ettamanur and Tripunitura.First of all, the testimony of this witness does not disclose the exact period of the month when the appellant was absent from his house.It could have been the beginning of the month of October, middle of the month of October or any other week of the month of October.Furthermore, the said witness has also stated that the accused told him that while he was away from the native village, he had gone to other places in Kerala itself.From these statements made by PW7 and PW8, it cannot be inferred by any stretch of imagination that the appellant was present in Delhi in those dates during which the death of R. R. Anyara took place.With regard to the circumstance of recovery of keys, we are of the view that this is by itself cannot be a circumstance to implicate the appellant unless it forms part of the chain of circumstances.In any event, it does appear to us to be a little strange that the appellant would have hidden the keys under the tank on the roof of the flat and taken the CRL.A. 6/94 Page No.9 of 11 murder weapon with him and thrown it from a running train.Did he expect to return some day and open the flat with those keys when he knew very well that the body would be discovered at some point of time and the lock would be broken open? We think not.A. 6/94 Page No.9 of 11The last circumstance is of the recovery of the blood stained clothes.With regard to this also, we find that there is insufficient material to link the blood on the said shirt and pant with the deceased.First of all, the blood that has been discovered in the shirt is just a small speck on the top left of the back region of the shirt.Secondly, although it has been identified as human blood, the blood group could not be ascertained.Furthermore, we find that no question was put to the accused with regard to these blood stained clothes in his Section 313 statement.There is, therefore, no link between the blood stained clothes and the deceased.Apart from this, we also find it to be quite unnatural that the appellant would bring his blood stained clothes with him on 15.11.1989 after about 20 days of the death of the deceased and hand them over to the police.For all these reasons, we feel that the evidence on record, as brought forward by the prosecution, is insufficient to form a complete chain so as to convict the appellant on the basis of circumstantial evidence only.There is enough doubt in the case and the benefit goes CRL.A. 6/94 Page No.10 of 11 to the accused.Consequently, we set aside the impugned judgment and order on sentence and acquit the appellant.The appeal stands allowed.The bail bond stands cancelled and the sureties are discharged.A. 6/94 Page No.10 of 11BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J P. K. BHASIN, J March 27, 2009 SR CRL.A. 6/94 Page No.11 of 11A. 6/94 Page No.11 of 11
|
['Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
971,018 |
ORDER D.G. Deshpane, J.1. Heard Mr. Bichu for the applicant and A.P.P. for the State.The petition is filed for quashing the order of the Special Judge (U.D. Salvi), Mumbai, dated 4-12-1997 by which he rejected the application of the accused petitioner which was filed for discharge.For all these reasons, the petition is required to be allowed.However, prayer of the accused to discharge him from all the offences cannot be allowed and granted because along with the offences under the Act of 1989, he has also been charge-sheeted under I.P.C. Therefore, he will have to face the prosecution for those offences.Hence the order:ORDER Petition partly allowed.Accused to appear before the Special Judge on 22-12-1998. 'Petition partly allowed.
|
['Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
97,102,051 |
At that time, the petitioner was working as Manager of Allahabad Bank, Branch Badchicholi tahsil Pandhurna District Chhindwara.Petitioner had signed certain papers he had also paid an amount of Rs.3000/- to Mr. Kishore BhujadeThe respondent received a notice on 15.01.2008 from the Bank to the effect that a loan of Rs.25,000/- under General Credit Card 2 was advanced in the name of respondent and the loan amount was not paid.He pleaded that the petitioner and another person Mr. Kishore Bhujade, had committed forgery and they had taken his signatures on certain papers.(Pronounced on 25.10.2017)Petitioner has filed this petition against the order dated 25.09.2008 [Annexure-A-1] by which, the trial Court has taken cognizance against the petitioner for commission of offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 471/34 of IPC and under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.Respondent-Naanhu filed a private complainant against the petitioner that one Mr. Kishore Bhujade, had taken the respondent in confidence and assured him that he would secure a loan for the respondent.When the respondent informed the petitioner about receipt of notice, petitioner had given a cheque of Rs.28,000/- to the respondent of his bank account.He deposited the cheque on 09.05.2008, however, the cheque was 'dishonored'.Thereafter, he served the notice on the petitioner.
|
['Section 155 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
97,104,235 |
The facts necessary to be exposited for adjudication of thisappeal are that on 3rd of April, 2006, a ‘Barkhana’ was organized at 85,Armoured Regiment to bid farewell to the outgoing Risaldar, Major MadanLal.At the Barkhana venue some heated arguments took place between theappellant and Risaldar, Nand Lal Prasad, PW5, and in course of argumentsaid Nand Lal Prasad slapped the appellant.However, the matter wasdefused with the intervention of Major Raj Nandan, PW4, who instructedLance Dafdar Anil Kumar, PW6 and Lance Dafadar Murari Singh, PW7, to takethe accused to his living barracks of Headquarter Squadron.As per the prosecution version during the altercation and assaultbetween the accused and Nand Lal Prasad, deceased Dafadar Ram Pratap hadtried to intervene and was abused by the accused.After the accused hadleft for the barracks of the Headquarter, about 12.30 a.m., Sowar BalwinderSingh, PW6, came to the line after finishing his duties allotted to him,and after entering the room switched on the light and found Dafadar RamPratap was lying in a pool of blood and blood was also oozing out from hismouth.He was immediately shifted to the Army Hospital where he wasdeclared dead.About 1.30 a.m. on 4.4.2006, information was received fromthe police station Babina by the 85, Armoured Regiment that a personbelonging to their regiment had surrendered at the police station andstated that he had stabbed one person with a knife.On receipt of the saidinformation, the concerned J.C.O. was sent to the police station where hesaw that Dafadar Om Prakash was present.DIPAK MISRA, J.After receiving the informationfrom the J.C.O., the Commanding Officer, Col. Rajiv Chib, PW27, along withLt.Atul Kumar Bhat, PW15, reached the police station Babina about1.50 a.m. and enquired from the accused about the details to which heconfessed that he had stabbed the deceased.Thererafter, an F.I.R. waslodged by the Adjutant Captain Abhishek, PW3, and the accused was handedover to the Military Police.As the narration would further unfurl, theproceedings of the General Court Martial (GCM) under the Army Act wasinitiated by order dated 8.10.2006 passed by Major General A.K. Singh,General Officer Commanding, 31st Armoured Division.Be it noted, the accused was charged for the offences under Section302 of I.P.C. for intentionally causing death of Ram Pratap of his unit,but subsequently stood convicted for culpable homicide not amounting tomurder under Part-II of Section 304, I.P.C. As is demonstrable, theprosecution in order to substantiate the charge had examined as many as 31witnesses and during the court martial number of documents were exhibited.The Court Martial relied on Exbt.36 which was recorded at the time ofsummary of evidence wherein the accused had admitted that the deceased andhe were involved in a fight.He had also stated that the deceased in theroom had abused him and tried to kick him but failed in the attempt andwhen the accused stood up on ‘charpai’ the deceased boxed him on the faceand at that time he pushed him back with both hands as a result of which hefell on the box and was hurt on his back.As the statement furtherproceeds, the deceased left the room and came back within five minutes.The accused, in the meantime, had picked up the knife from the locker andkept it on the box.While he was sitting in the ‘charpai’ the deceasedcame into the room and caught hold of the neck of the appellant and pulledhim towards his own locker.The appellant got hold of the knife andstabbed the deceased on the chest so that he would leave his neck.Apartfrom the aforesaid, a confessional statement made by the accused to Col.Rajiv Chib, Commanding Officer of the regiment, PW27, at police stationthat he had stabbed the deceased was also given credence to.The testimonyof Lt. Col. Atul Kumar Bhat, PW15, who had witnessed the confession wasalso taken into consideration.In addition, during the court martial thecorroborating statement of Court Witness No. 7 Naib Subedar J.M. Sharma,wherein the accused had stated to CW-7 at Police Station on 4th of April,2006 about the incident that was caused due to anger and intoxication, wasalso exhibited.The GCM also believed that part of the testimony of CW-7wherein he had stated that from the condition of dress worn by the accused,it appeared that he was involved in a quarrel, for the accused had a minorbruise on his right temple of the head.The GCM referred to the evidenceof Major (Dr.) M.C. Sahoo, PW1, and Dr. R.K. Chaturvedi, PW28, who haddeposed that the stab wound injury inflicted on the chest of the deceasedwas sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death.The GCM alsotook certain circumstances, namely, that the deceased was lying on thefloor in a pool of blood; that the accused was found lying on the ‘charpai’in the room in an injured condition; that he was present in the room andeventually held thus:-“Even though the accused had no intention to kill the deceased, the accusedshould be knowing the consequences of his action.The accused should beconscious, that by stabbing at chest, which is a vital part of a humanbody, the injured person is likely to die, due to the effect of suchinjury.A man expects the natural consequences of his action.By causingsuch bodily injury on Dafadar Ram Pratap, the accused should be knowingthat death is the likely consequence of that injury even though accusednever intended to kill Dafadar Ram Pratap.Hence the court finds him Not Guilty of committing a civil offencethat is to say Murder contrary to Sec. 302 of IPC but Guilty of committinga civil offence that is to say, culpable homicide not amounting to murderunder Part-II of Sec. 304 of IPC.”In appeal the tribunal after adverting to the facts and the evidencebrought on record took note of the chain of circumstantial evidence broughton record and opined thus:-“The appellant/accused himself reached at the Police Station Babina andreported with regard to the incident and desired him to be taken intocustody.From the statement of the PW31 Constable Clerk Munna Lal Vermawho informed to the military authorities about the surrender of the accusedat Police Station Babina.It was also clarified by him in his statementthat it was the intervening night of 3/4th April 2006 at about 1.30 hoursor 2.00 a.m. the accused came to the Police Station and was slightlyfrightened and told that in the Unit there was Barakhana party.He hadquarrel with few people and so he be protected.There the accusedalso confessed his guilt before PW3 Abhishek Sharma that he had causedstabbed injury to Dafadar Ram Pratap.The testimony of these witnessescould not be assailed.However, PW29 Sub Inspector Lal Singh made it clearthat on the first day the accused confessed his guilt and for that anapplication was also moved before the Magistrate but on next day he did notgive his confessional statement.The fact remains that before informantCaptain Abhishek Sharma he confessed his guilt and his testimony remaineduncontroverted and it was supported by the statement of PW30 Lt. Col.Sandeep before whom in the course of Summary of Evidence the accusedproduced original copy of the statement (unsworn statement) vide Exbt.36.In his statement he has also admitted his guilt.There is ampleincriminating circumstances appearing against the appellant and proving thecomplete chain of circumstances consistent only with hypothesis of theguilt of the appellant.In that regard, reliance may be placed on GilbertPereira v. State of Karntaka AIR 2004 12 SCC 281 wherein it was held asunder:The incriminating circumstances proved against the appellant form acomplete chain of circumstances which is consistent only with thehypothesis of guilt of the appellant.Each circumstance is incriminatingin nature and the totality of circumstances conclusively establishes theguilt of the appellant.From such incriminating circumstances which were incompatible withthe innocence of the guilt of any other person the GCM was justified indrawing the inference of guilt of the accused/appellant.” Being of this view, the tribunal concurred with the opinionexpressed by the GCM.We have heard Mr. Mohit Kumar Shah, learned counsel for the appellantfor the appellant and Mr. B.V. Balram Das, learned counsel for therespondent.First we shall record the injuries inflicted on the deceased.R.K. Chaturvedi, PW28, who had conducted the autopsy had found thefollowing injuries on the body of the deceased:-“The two ante mortem injuries were found on the dead body.The one whichcan be called Number 1 injury was stab wound on chest, at the left side ofsize 3 x 2 cms and the second injury was linear abrasion at right back sideof chest.The size of linear abrasions was 3 ½ x 1 ½ cm.The stab wound was 3 x 2 cm, at the margin of wound.The wound was deepupto chest cavity, it was sharp and averted meaning protruding outside.The linear abrasion was below the lower angle of right scapula.”In the opinion of the autopsy surgeon the injury number 1 could becaused by knife which had caused the death of the deceased.From theevidence brought on record it has been established that on 3.4.2006 therewas a farewell party, that is, ‘Barkhana’ to bid farewell to RisaldarMajor Madan Lal; that drinks were served in the said party; that theappellant had entered into an altercation with Risaldar Nand Lal Prasad,PW5, and the appellant had fought with him and abused him and consequentlyPW5 had slapped the appellant; that the appellant had abused PW5 and thedeceased; that the said altercation was intervened by Risaldar Major RajNandan Rai, PW4, and at that juncture he had directed Lance Dafadar AnilKumar, PW6, and Lance Dafadar Murari Singh, PW7, to take the accused to hisliving barracks; that as per the directions of the authority PW-6 and PW-7had guided the appellant to the barracks; that the deceased was found lyingon the floor bleeding from mouth and nose and the appellant was found lyingon his bed on his stomach with hands folded beneath in the same room bySowar Balwinder Singh, PW26, at about 0030 hours when he had returned tothe barracks; that on being alerted by PW 26, Dafadar Muneshwar, PW13, andSowar Nakul Prasad, PW12 had made arrangements for taking the deceased formedical aid; that apart from the deceased and the appellant, no one elsewas present in the room as per the testimony of Dafadar Major GhanshyamPukan, PW18, Sowar Balwinder Singh, PW26, Sowar Nakul Prasad, PW12 andDafadar Muneshwar, PW13; that Dafadar Major Ghanshyam Pukan, PW18, andDafadar Muneshwar, PW13, had witnessed the appellant leaving the roomquietly via the rear door; that the appellant was absent from the ‘fall inparade’ that was conducted at 0200 hours; and that at 0150 hours theCommanding Officer, Col. Rajiv Chib, PW27, and Lt. Col.Atul Kumar Bhat,PW15, met the appellant at PS Babina, wherein the appellant hadsurrendered.From the aforesaid established facts which are founded on properappreciation of the evidence by the forums below, and we are inclined tothink rightly, it is quite vivid that the chain of circumstances iscomplete.We have concurred with the analysis of the evidence aftercritically scrutinizing the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.Learned counsel for theappellant had endeavoured to argue that other persons were present in theroom and for the said purpose he has shown some lines from here and therebut the evidence read in entirety established beyond any shadow of doubtthat the accused was alone in the room.He being present at the policestation and not being present at the “fall in parade” are circumstanceswhich would go against him.He has not been able to give any explanationabout his presence at the police station and the factum that on beinginformed by the Head constable the army officers arrived at the concernedpolice station.Apart from the aforesaid evidence, we have to consider theevidentiary value of Exhibit 36, the statement recorded at the time ofsummary of evidence under Rule 23 of the Rules.The said Rule deals withprocedure for taking down the summary of evidence.The summons shall be in the form provided in Appendix III.As we have seen from the statement recorded in the said proceeding,all the safeguards were followed.The appellant, as has been indicatedhereinbefore, had stated thus:-After Squadron Dafedar Major left, Lance Dafedar Chunbad Prasadreached.He was going on posting.He closed his bedding and got hisluggage lifted by two Ors.He before leaving the barrack/room said to me,“Adjutant Mera, Officer Commanding Mera, Troop Leader Mera, Senior JCOMera, Agar to Report Karega to Teri Maa Chudwa Doonga”.After this Dafedar Ram Pratap came inside the room while Lance DafedarChunbad Prasad and Dafedar Muneshwar Sah were standing outside the room.Dafedar Ram Pratap kicked me, but it hit the Charpoy.He said “MadarchodRaste Me Charpoy Dal Kar So Raha Hai”.As soon, I stood up on the Charpoy,be boxed me on my face.At that time I pushed him back with both hands.He fell on the box.His vest got torn and was hurt on his back.Thereafter, Dafedar Ram Pratap went out of the room.He came back tothe room after approximately 5 minutes.I picked up my knife from lockerand kept it next to me on the box.I kept sitting on the Charpoy.He cameback to room and got hold of my neck and pulled me towards his own locker.Meanwhile, I was hit by a stick on my shoulder.I got hold of the knifeand stabbed him (Dafedar Ram Pratap) on the chest so that he would leave myneck.He fell on the ground between the two charpoys.”The said statement has been proven during the GCM vide Exhbt.36 byCol.Despite roving cross-examination, both the witnesses havefirmly stood embedded to their version.The challenge to the said documentshows the hollowness of assault on the part of the appellant.In that context, the two-JudgeBench opined:-
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
109,177,584 |
The petitioner is a well known political leader.He was arrested in connection with certain communal clashes and was remanded to judicial custody.This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1 of 2014 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddalore thereby taken cognizance for the offence under Section 499 r/w 500 of IPC.2.The impugned complaint has been filed by the respondent seeking to punish the petitioner herein for having allegedly committed the offence of defamation punishable under Section 500 of IPC.The complaint reads that the petitioner herein is a senior political leader of Tamil Nadu and founder of a recognised political party.On 19.01.2014, at subbarayalu Thirumana Mandapam, Cuddalore Town, allegedly the petitioner had given a defamatory speech as against the then Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu.3.In this regard, this Court passed an order in a similarly placed matter in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19555 of 2013 dated 05.04.2018 as follows:-“3.The complaint reads that the petitioner herein is a senior political leader of Tamil Nadu and founder of a recognized political party.The petitioner was arrested in connection with the communal clashes at Marakkanam and was remanded to judicial custody at Central Prison, Trichirappalli.While coming out onhttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 bail, at the entrance of Central Prison, Trichirappalli, he gave an interview delivering a broadside against the then Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu.The impugned complaint has been filed on the ground that the petitioner herein had defamed the then Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu Ms.J.Jayalalitha, who has since passed away.It is also to be noticed that the petitioner is also aged about 81 years now.”Considering all these circumstances and in the interest of justice, the impugned prosecution deserves to be quashed.The proceedings in C.C.No.1 of 2014 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddalore are therefore quashed.5.This Criminal Original Petition is allowed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.28.02.2019 Index: Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking Order ay/nl To1.The Public Prosecutor, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.2.The Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddalore.3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.http://www.judis.nic.in 8 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J ay Crl.O.P.No.16732 of 2014 and M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2014 Dated:28.02.2019http://www.judis.nic.in
|
['Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
109,182,274 |
This is First application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Applicant Atmaram is seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.214/2016 for the offence punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of the IPC registered at Police Station Pachore, District Rajgarh.Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a permanent resident of District Rajgarh, having no criminal antecedent.The prosecutrix is aged about 25 years and a married woman.She has lodged the report after 17 days whereas; as per the prosecution case when the applicant was committing offence at that time the prosecutrix's mother-in- law came there but immediately she has not narrated the incident to her mother-in-law.The whole story seems to be a false and concocted one.Applicant has been falsely implicated in this case.The applicant is ready to co-operate in the investigation.In such circumstances, the applicant be granted anticipatory bail.On the other hand, learned Govt. Advocate for the non-applicant/State opposes the prayer.It is made clear that if the applicant will breach any of the condition, then this order shall automatically stand cancelled without reference to this Court and the concerning Court shall be free to take appropriate action to secure the presence of the applicant.Certified copy as per rules.
|
['Section 438 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.
|
1,091,839 |
In fine, the Habeas Corpus Petiton is dismissed.(D.M.,J.) (S.P.V.,J) 09.07.2008Index :YesInternet:The Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Excise Dept., Fort.He has been clamped with the detention order dated 28.07.2007 by means of the proceedings in No.353/2007 by the second respondent, branding him as Goonda.He came to adverse notice of J-6 Thiruvanmiyur Police Station as many as 13 cases.The facts of the ground case goes to show that one Sudhagar, who is working in a hotel on 8.7.2007 at about 07.15 hours was proceeding at Indira Nagar, near the Youth Hostel to attend his work with his brother Lokesh.At that time, the detenu along with two other confederates by name Selvam and Jose @ Mariya Doss, who came in a cycle, wrongfully restrained Sudhagar and Lokesh.This ground is enough to quash the order of detention made by the respondents."In that case before the Honourable Supreme Court, there were three adverse cases under Section 379 I.P.C. and in the ground case, the detenu was found committed robbery of Rs.1000/- at the knife point and disturbed even tempo of public life.In the second adverse case in Cr.No.365 of 2007 on 21.4.2007 the detenu and his associates committed snatching of cell phone from one Arun Balaji while he was walking on the road near the police booth opposite to Beach Road in Kalakshetra Colony, Chennai-90, in the 3rd adverse case in Cr.No.400 of 2007 on 2.5.2007 at 9.15 p.m at M.G.Road, Pazhamudir Solai shop, Thiruvanmiyur, the detneu and his confederates snatched cell phone from Selvi Akshaya while she was walking on the road.In the 4th, 5th and 6th adverse cases also, facts go to the effect that the detenu along with his friends committed theft of cell phones from the respective complainants while they were going in public places.No.587 of 2007 is concerned at New Beach Extention, Thiruvalluvar Nagar, Tiruvanmiyur, the detenu and his associates committed snatching of gold thali chain from one Tmt.Vijayalakshmi, while she was walking on the beach and she struggled with them and recovered only a small piece of thali chain and the snatchers were escaped.The petition does not merit consideration.St. George, Chennai.The Commissioner of Police, Chennai Police, Chennai.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
|
['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
109,195,304 |
As per prosecution case on 05/10/15 at about 12-15 p.m., applicant came to the house of the complainant and told that he has received phone call of sister of the complainant, he came inside the house, caught hold the hand of the complainant, bolted the door and thrown her on the ground.He also torn her kurti.When she raised alarm, he ran away.This is first application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. The applicant has been arrested in Crime No.209/2015 registered at Police Station, Leema Chohan, District Rajgarh, for the offence punishable under Sections 354, 454, 506, 354-B of the IPC, Section 3(1)(11) of ST/SC (Prevention of Atrocities) Act & Section 7/8 of POCSO Act.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has not committed any offence.He has falsely been implicated because the brother of the complainant have committed theft and the report was lodged by the brother of the applicant.Conclusion of trial likely to take time, hence, prayed for bail.The prayer is opposed by learned counsel for the respondent/State.
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
109,199,793 |
Brief facts to comprehend the disputes are that the petitioner no. 2, a disabled War veteran, was allotted a retail outlet for the sale of petrol and petroleum products by the respondent no.1, Indian Oil Corporation, at Gurgaon Road, near Palam New Delhi on 11th July, 1997 under a scheme of allotment of petrol pumps on preferential basis to Ex-servicemen, particularly those who suffered disabilities while in action.Petitioner no.2 started a petrol pump under the name and style of Bharat Filling Station (Petitioner no.1).Though initially petitioner no.2 was the sole proprietor of petitioner no.1, it was subsequently converted into a partnership firm consisting of petitioner no.2, his son - Flying Offr.An agreement dated 8th February,1998 was executed between the petitioner no.2 and the respondent no.1 for running the aforesaid outlet.On 10th June, 2001 the Economic Offences Wing, Crime Branch, Delhi Police along with the officials of the respondent no.1 corporation came for inspection at 8 P.M. at the petitioners petrol pump on the basis of some complaint filed before them and inspection was carried out.According to the respondents during this inspection it was found that 3 Z-line dispensing units (2HSD & 1MS of 2-3 wheelers) were WP(C) 9432-33 of 2005 Page 2 of 62 having extra fittings which were not part of original equipments.WP(C) 9432-33 of 2005 Page 9 of 62The petitioners has further contended that the impugned order is contrary to the Marketing Discipline Guidelines, in particular Chapter 6-Prevention of Irregularities at Retail Outlets, as the said guidelines do not contemplate such a major penalty as termination of dealership for a minor irregularity of short delivery of products at the first instance.Relying on Delhi Petrol Dealers Association & Anr.The petitioners submitted that their retail outlet had an impeccable record of service and efficiency.The petitioners contended that the past record and performance of the petitioner at the filling station and the previous inspection records by various agencies till a week before the raid on 10th June, 2001 were not considered by the respondents while making the order of termination.It was submitted that the Retail Outlet Inspection Report dated 27th November, 2000 had recorded that the Weight and Measures seals and the Totalizer seals were intact and the delivery at the 6 Dispensing Units randomly inspected out of the 13 dispensing units were found to be correct.The report of another Retail Outlet inspection conducted on 19th February, 2001 had also recorded that all the seals were intact and the delivery at the 6 inspected Dispensing Units were correct.It was also recorded in the report that the sales in the Trading Area was more than the Trading Area Average and that the dealer enjoyed a good reputation.An inspection conducted by the Area Sales Manager of the Respondent Corporation on 19th May, 2001 had also found the seals to be intact and the delivery of the 6 dispensing units inspected was found to be correct.A random inspection conducted by Mrs. Banerjee, an official of the respondent Corporation on 28th March, 2001 had found that one Dispensing Unit for Petrol and one Dispensing Unit of High Speed Diesel were delivering excess quantities and the petitioners were WP(C) 9432-33 of 2005 Page 11 of 62 advised to re-stamp those Dispensing Units.On 3rd June, 2001, one week prior to the inspection that led to the discovery of the alleged irregularities, Mr. Marwah, Director, Marketing of the respondent Corporation had conducted a surprise comprehensive inspection of the petitioners petrol pump and no complaint of any short delivery was made.It was also submitted that there is a general resentment towards dealers from the defense background as they do WP(C) 9432-33 of 2005 Page 12 of 62 not generally comply with these practices of entertaining and gratifying such officials.It was further submitted that presently only one defense officer is running the petrol pump allotted to him.It is further submitted that only the Department of Weights and Measures have the authority to conduct verification under the Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985 and to issue certificate of verification.However no official of the said WP(C) 9432-33 of 2005 Page 13 of 62 department was present at the time of the raid nor was any certificate of verification obtained from them subsequently to verify the allegation and charge of short delivery.It was further submitted that neither petitioner no. 2 nor the Manager, Shri.Jai Bhagwan was present at the retail outlet at the time of the raid and the employees who were present were confined to a room during the duration of the investigation.Though petitioner no. 2, on arriving at the outlet later on, had requested that the sealing tape be removed and he be shown the alleged extra switch, he was not allowed to go near the dispensing units nor shown the switch.In the present case the respondent no.1 corporation seems to have treated the post decisional hearing as a mere mechanical exercise to validate the earlier illegal order of termination that had been passed by them.The respondent no.1 corporation had not laid down any rules or procedure for conducting the enquiry proceedings.The enquiry had been conducted by two different officials and neither of them seems to have submitted any enquiry report to the authority who had to take punitive action against the petitioners.Further the disciplinary authority doesnt seem to have taken into consideration any of the defenses taken by the petitioners in the reply to the show cause notice submitted by them, while making the order of termination.During the pendency of the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the respondents against the judgment dated 18th March, 2003 in Civil Writ Petition No.3916/2001 setting aside the termination order dated 13th June, 2001 and directing the respondents to restore the possession of the petrol pump to the petitioner, the show cause notice dated 7th May, 2003 was given by Sh.Ravi Prasad for Chief Divisional Retail Sales Manager to the petitioner alleging inter-alia that on 10th June, 2001 on Inspection by Economic Offence Wing of Crime Branch, Delhi, it was found that three Z-line dispensing units (2 HSD & 1 MS of 2-3 wheelers) were having extra fittings which were not part of the original equipment resulting in short supply of 200 ml in every 5 Litres; the L&T expert who had supplied the equipment had also confirmed the extra switch installed by the petitioners which was not the part of the original equipment leading to filing of an FIR No.239/2001 under Section 120 and under Section 420 of IPC.The alleged malpractices were in violation of the terms and conditions of the agreement more particularly Clause 16, 23 and Clause 56(k) and were also in violation of MS/HSD Control Order 1998 and Weight and Measures Act. On account of it the dealership agreement was terminated on 13th June, 2001, however, in compliance with the order of the Court the petitioners were directed to show cause within 7 days as to why the dealership agreement should not have been terminated by filing a reply and the petitioners were also permitted to appear before Sh.In reply to the allegations made in the show cause notice it was categorically stated that the show cause notice and alleged enquiry initiated by the respondents was with the sole purpose of completing a mere formality as the respondents have already arrived at a pre determined conclusion adversarial to the petitioners.The petitioners categorically demanded the inspection of alleged extra fitting and a complete set of documents on the basis of which the alleged show cause notice dated 7th May, 2003 was issued as after 10th June, 2001 neither the inspection of alleged extra fitttings was given nor even access to the petrol pump was given to the petitioner nor any documents have been supplied to the petitioners on the basis of which the allegations made against the petitioners could be inferred.The respondents had alleged that Officials of L & T had confirmed the alleged extra fittings, however, there report was also not given to the petitioners so that they could reply to the allegations made against them.The petitioners, thereafter, on 17th May, 2003 sent another reminder and a reply to show cause notice dated 7th May, 2003 seeking inspection of alleged extra fittings which allegedly had led to short WP(C) 9432-33 of 2005 Page 24 of 62 supply of fuel on the basis of which the whole case had been made out by the respondents against the petitioners.WP(C) 9432-33 of 2005 Page 24 of 62In reply to the demand by the petitioners for inspection of the alleged extra fittings which was the basis for taking action against the petitioners and the alleged documents, the respondents sent a letter dated 21st May, 2003 alleging that the police authorities during the raid had sealed the alleged extra fittings and since the criminal case was still pending, therefore, the inspection of the dispensing machine with alleged extra fittings could not be provided to the petitioners.The respondents, however, provided the copies of the inspection report carried out by the concerned officials.The respondents, however, did not provide the reports of L & T officials confirming the alleged presence of extra fittings in the pumps.By letter dated 21st May, 2003 the petitioners were asked to file a reply to show cause notice within four days.In the reply besides the various details given by the petitioners, they categorically stated the particulars of surprise and routine inspection earlier carried out by various agencies and by Weight and Measure officials in which nothing was found.The details of inspections carried WP(C) 9432-33 of 2005 Page 25 of 62 out earlier by various agencies including the officials of respondents are as under:-WP(C) 9432-33 of 2005 Page 25 of 62By Weights and Measures Officials (Annexure-III) Dispensing units and their nozzles checked for 24/6/2000 accuracy and stamped Dispensing and their nozzles checked for accuracy 29/7/2000 stamped Dispensing units and their nozzles checked for 9/3/2001 accuracy and stamped Surprise Checked by weights and measures found 11/11/1999 every Pump within limits Hence the legal authorities charged with a duty to ensure correct delivery of MS and HSD, duly certified that the dispensing units with their nozzles were in compliance with the legal standards and hence in perfect order.The last certificate before the incident, dated March 9, 2001 reflects this position clearly even, during the raid by the Police, the stamped seals on the dispensing units were found intact.By Indian Oil Officials (Annexure-II)- SLV Retail Outlet Inspection and Analysis Report 19/05/2001 Sales Average-More than Trading Area Dispensing Unit Report-Delivery check within limits- Random surprise Inspection by 28/3/2001 Mrs.SC Banerjee, Sr.Consumer manager 2 HSD pumps showing excess delivery Dispensing Unit Report-Delivery check within limits-Surprise Mobile Lab Test of MS/HSD by 07/12/2000 State Level Coordinator Remarks-Density of all samples within limit-SLV Retail Outlet Inspection and Analysis Report 26/09/2000 Remarks-Sale more than trading area.Dispensing Unit Report-Delivery check within limits-SLV Retail Outlet Inspection and Analysis Report 28/08/2000 Remarks-Sale more than trading area.Dispensing Unit Report-Delivery check within limitsBharath Filling Station/petitioners:-"During Joint inspection, it was noticed that the external fitting has been installed in the machine which was connected to the wiring system of the display and it was found that in one direction of the switch, it was giving a variation in the range of 200mL in 5 Litre Measurement on lesser side."Chapter 6 of these Guidelines filed "Prevention of Irregularities at Retail Outlets" stipulates major as well as minor irregularities and provides for the penalties for such major and minor irregularities.At the end of Chapter 6, nine notes are given.Short-delivery of products is treated as major as well as minor irregularity.When weights and measure seals are tampered with, short delivery of products is treated as major irregularity and when weights and measure seals are intact but deliveries are below tolerance limit, short delivery of product is treated as minor irregularity.(iii) The cycle of calculating second and third instances shall be five years starting from the date of first irregularity.WP(C) 9432-33 of 2005 Page 49 of 62(iv) In case, two or more irregularities are detected at the same time RO, action will be taken in line with what is listed in the MDG under the relevant category for each irregularity.WP(C) 9432-33 of 2005 Page 1 of 62WP(C) 9432-33 of 2005 Page 1 of 62It was alleged that an extra switch was installed in the sloping column inside nozzle boot resulting in delivering short supply of 200 ML in every 5 litres.The officials of L&T were called to check the equipments, who confirmed that the extra switch installed by the petitioners in the aforesaid 3 Z-line machine was not a part of the original equipment supplied by them.On the basis of this inspection, the petitioner No. 2 was arrested on the same day i.e. 10.6.2001 and an FIR was lodged by the Crime Authorities under Section 120 and Section 420, IPC against him.WP(C) 9432-33 of 2005 Page 2 of 62The petitioners challenged the order of termination by filling a writ petition (CWP No. 3916 of 2001) before this Court.The High Court by an order dated 18th March, 2003 quashed the Termination order dated 13th June, 2001 holding that the order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice as the petitioners were not given an opportunity of being heard and directed the restoration of petrol pump and its dealership to the petitioners.This Court passed the following order:Termination order dated 13th June, 2001 is hereby quashed.WP(C) 9432-33 of 2005 Page 3 of 62It may be mentioned at this stage that before this writ petition could be filed the respondent had taken over the possession of the petrol pump.It is being run by the respondent no. 2 at present.Since the termination order dated 13th June, 2001 is quashed, the respondent no 2 shall restore the position of this petrol pump to the petitioner.The respondent no. 2 shall be at liberty to take appropriate action after complying with principles of natural Justice and in accordance with marketing discipline guidelines.In the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs."However during the pendency of the LPA the respondent Corporation accorded the petitioners a post decisional hearing, consequent to which by an order dated 18th July, 2003, the termination order dated 13th June, 2001 was maintained.The Honble Division Bench disposed of the LPA No. 299 of 2003 by an order dated 18th July, 2003 stating:"........During the pendency of the appeal the appellant was protected but in the meanwhile the enquiry has been conducted, post decisional hearing has been given and the decision has been taken in accordance with law according to the appellant.It would be open for the parties to raise all the contentions/question which are raised herein, if the petition is filed by the respondent herein.This appeal having become infructuous, stands disposed of."WP(C) 9432-33 of 2005 Page 4 of 62Thereafter the petitioner filed the present petition challenging the order of termination dated 14th July, 2003 after allegedly giving him post decisional hearing.The petitioner no. 2 has averred in his petition that despite the Division Bench of this Court having afforded him liberty to file a petition challenging the validity of the Order of Termination dated 14th July, 2003, he was unable to institute a petition before 24th May, 2005 as his physical condition had been fragile and perilous.The Petitioner no.2 submitted that over the past few years he had been diagnosed with CAD Angina Pectoris, Ischaemic heart disease, Ostephytes with Sclerosis, Episodic dizziness, neural disorder, high blood pressure, Hypertension Cervical Spondylosis, Chronic Bronchitis, Cervical Radiculopathy, vertigo, tingling and numbness of both arms and an undiagnosed neuro problem causing a sleep disorder and since the treatments had been undergoing, it prevented him from filing the present petition on an earlier date immediately after 18th July, 2003 when liberty was given to him to challenge the order of termination of his dealership.The petitioner has contended that the termination order dated 14th July, 2003 is arbitrary and discriminatory as both M/s. Libra Filling Station and M/s Bharath Filling Station had been raided on 4th June and 10th June, 2001 respectively and charged with short WP(C) 9432-33 of 2005 Page 5 of 62 deliveries of 25% and 5% respectively and both had their dealerships terminated.However the possession of the petrol pump was restored back to M/s Libra Filling Station, pursuant to a settlement reached between the respondent no.1 Corporation and Libra Filling Station even though the short delivery in their case was 5 times that of the petitioners, whereas the dealership of the petitioners still stands terminated and has not been restored.The petitioners have also cited the cases of M/s. Hemkunt Service Station and M/s. United Engineers Service Station v. Union of India (judgment dated 25-11-2005 in WP(C) No. 2281/2003) to contend that the usual disciplinary action in cases of short delivery is only suspension of sales and services and the termination of dealership of the petitioners in the present case is arbitrary and discriminatory.WP(C) 9432-33 of 2005 Page 5 of 62The petitioners also contended that the post-decisional hearing that was accorded to them by Respondent Corporation was not a proper hearing, as access to the relevant documents and inspection of the alleged extra switches was denied to the petitioner.The petitioner submitted that though he had made an application to the respondent no.1 corporation vide letters dated 12th May, 2003 and 17th May, 2003 seeking the inspection of the alleged extra fittings and the production of a complete set of documents on the basis of which the Show Cause Notice was issued, however, the respondent no.1 declined to provide WP(C) 9432-33 of 2005 Page 6 of 62 inspection of the machines and equipment in question without any cogent and legally sustainable reasons.The petitioners further alleged that the respondent no.1 corporation declined to hand over the documents as sought and that they conducted the post decisional proceedings in undue haste.The petitioners contended that the denial of the inspection of the Dispensing machines have caused great prejudice in their defense, as without examining and inspecting the same, the petitioners could neither explain nor account for their presence/absence.It was also submitted that the respondents in their letter to the petitioners, dated 21st May, 2003, had stated that they were not in a position to provide inspection of the said machines as the dispensing units which were found to have extra fittings during the raid were sealed by the police authorities and the criminal proceedings lodged against the petitioners were still pending.WP(C) 9432-33 of 2005 Page 6 of 62The petitioners have contended that the enquiry conducted by the respondent Corporation was defective as no specific enquiry officer was appointed to conduct the enquiry.It was submitted that the Show Cause Notice was issued by Mr. Ravi Prasad on behalf of Mr. A.K. Verma, the Chief Divisional Sales Manager.On 12th May, 2003 when WP(C) 9432-33 of 2005 Page 7 of 62 the petitioners had appeared they were heard by Mr. Ravi Prasad, however, on 28th May, 2003 they were heard by Mr. A.K. Verma.The petitioners further contended that no rules or procedure were laid down by the respondent no.1 Corporation for conducting the enquiry and that no enquiry report was ever prepared or handed over to the Disciplinary Authority.WP(C) 9432-33 of 2005 Page 7 of 62The petitioners have contended that the impugned order is neither a reasoned nor a speaking order and that none of the grounds set out in the reply by the petitioners were considered by the Disciplinary Authority.It was averred that the order merely records Reply not found satisfactory.No cause to recall the earlier Order of Termination.The petitioners have further contended that the Order of Termination proceeds on the basis that in his reply to the Show Cause Notice, petitioner no. 2 had admitted that extra fittings were installed in the machine resulting in short delivery.However it is averred that in the reply to the show cause notice, petitioner no. 2 had stated that he gave a three line statement that he knew nothing about the extra fittings in the 3 units.WP(C) 9432-33 of 2005 Page 8 of 62WP(C) 9432-33 of 2005 Page 8 of 62The petitioners have contended that the impugned Order of Termination is illegal as it proceeds as if it was a continuation of the earlier enquiry.It was averred that the earlier order of termination was set aside by this Court and the respondents were directed to conduct a fresh enquiry.However, the impugned order records that there was no reason to recall the earlier order of termination.It is averred that this Court had clearly found that the alleged offence cannot be said to be so grave that it was necessary to dispense with the requirement of observance of Show Cause Notice.It was contended that a post-decisional enquiry can be contemplated only when the danger to be averted or the act to be prevented is imminent or where the action to be taken can brook no delay and that the circumstances of the present case does not justify a post decisional hearing.The petitioners have relied on Liberty Oil Mills v. UOI, 1984 (3) SCC 465 and Allied Motors Ltd. v. Bharat Petroleum, 2004 (76) DRJ 720 in support of their contention.WP(C) 9432-33 of 2005 Page 9 of 62v. Union of India, 81 (99) DLT 400 the petitioners have contended that the Marketing Discipline Guidelines, which were framed to prevent arbitrariness and discrimination by the respondent no.1 corporation in their dealings with the retail outlets, have the force of law and that the respondent no.1 corporation was bound to follow them.The petitioners further contended that despite the express and specific direction of this Court, given in the order dated 18th March, 2003 to take appropriate action after complying with the principles of natural justice and in accordance with the Marketing Discipline Guidelines, the respondents has not conducted the enquiry proceedings nor levied the penalty in accordance with the Marketing Discipline Guidelines.The petitioners further contended that the respondents has not set out any reasons for departing from the guidelines and imposing the major penalty of termination in its order of termination dated 14th July, 2003 and therefore, the order is illegal, non-est and liable to be set aside.WP(C) 9432-33 of 2005 Page 10 of 62The only irregularity found was that the sales and other rooms were found to be locked and without lights resulting in the entire building being dark and other similar minor irregularities.The petitioners further contended that the alleged infraction in the present case even theoretically could not have exceeded 7 days as the inspection conducted by the Director, Marketing of the respondent Corporation on 3rd June, 2001 had not found any instance of short delivery and therefore, the highest penalty of termination of dealership was unwarranted.WP(C) 9432-33 of 2005 Page 11 of 62The petitioners have contended that the raid conducted by the Economic Offences Wing on 10th June, 2001 was pre-determined and mala-fide.The petitioner has submitted that the Chief Divisional Manager, Marketing Division and The Area Sales Managers had demanded illegal gratification from the allotees of the various retail outlets on a regular basis and victimize those who do not submit to their illegal demands.It was also submitted that as the petitioners had refused to oblige the contractor appointed by the respondent no.1 Corporation, various structural and civil defects such as leaking office ceiling, faulty electrical wiring and system survived the revamping of the petitioners outlet under the Vision 2000 scheme.It was also submitted that Mr. Rakesh Arora, the Area Sales Manager of the respondent no.1 Corporation from 1991 to 2001 had informed the Petitioner sometime in April, 2001 that he had been instructed by Mr. G. Tewari, the Chief Divisional Manager to discover some pretext of irregularity and to shut down the outlet, as they wanted to re-allot the same to some more obliging allotee.The petitioners have further contended that the mala-fide of the respondent no.1 Corporation is clear from the fact that no officials of the manufacturers of the original equipment, M/s. Larsen & Turbo, nor any of the Department of Weights and Measures were present at the time of the raid.It was submitted that the 3 dispensing units were sealed on the night of the raid itself without ascertaining whether the alleged extra fittings were extra or original fittings and part of the original equipment.WP(C) 9432-33 of 2005 Page 12 of 62WP(C) 9432-33 of 2005 Page 13 of 62The writ petition is contested by the respondents.Thereafter, during the pendency of appeal, the respondents gave a notice to the petitioner and has again held by order dated 14.7.2003 that the order of termination dated 13.6.2001 is sustainable.The question for consideration in this writ petition is whether the order dated 14th July, 2003 has been passed in compliance with the principles of natural justice and whether the order of termination of dealership dated 13th June, 2001 can be sustained.They have already been thrown out of employment and having been deprived of livelihood they must be facing serious difficulties.There is no justification to throw them out of employment and then given them an opportunity of representation when the requirement is that they should WP(C) 9432-33 of 2005 Page 21 of 62 have the opportunity referred to above as a condition precedent to action.A detailed reply dated 28th May, 2003 was filed by the petitioners.-SLV Retail Outlet Inspection and Analysis Report 19/2/2001 Remarks-Sale more than Trading Area due to good reputation of the Dealer Dispensing Unit Report-Delivery check within limits WP(C) 9432-33 of 2005 Page 26 of 62WP(C) 9432-33 of 2005 Page 26 of 62-SLV Retail Outlet Inspection and Analysis Report 27/11/2000 Remarks-Sale more than Trading Area due to good reputation of the Dealer Dispensing Unit Report-Delivery check within limits- Surprise Mobile Lab Test of MS/HSD by 12/05/2000 State Level Coordinator Remarks-Density of all samples within limitPerusal of the record of alleged enquiry which was produced by the respondents, reveals that on the basis of alleged show cause notice dated 7th May, 2003 and replies given by the petitioner, a note was prepared by Sh.Ravi Prasad, Senior Sales Manager stipulating that the dealer has not given any satisfactory reply to show cause notice and the malpractices having been admitted by him, the punitive action of termination taken against the petitioner firm, is wholly justified and no ground is made out for recalling the order of termination under the WP(C) 9432-33 of 2005 Page 27 of 62 circumstances.It was also stated that the petitioners are also facing trial for malpractices committed by him.The note does not deal with any of the contentions and pleas which had been raised by the petitioners.It does not deal with the plea of the petitioners to give them the inspection of the dispensing pump with alleged extra fittings.It does not deal with the plea of the petitioners to supply them all the incriminating material to them so that they could reply to show cause notice effectively.WP(C) 9432-33 of 2005 Page 27 of 62On account of this note by Sh.Ravi Prasad, the order dated 14th July, 2003 has been passed by Mr.Y.Sahai, General Manager, D&H. Though by letter dated 21st May, 2003 the respondents had asked the petitioner to appear before Sh. A.K.Verma on 26th May, 2003 at 11 AM, however, no hearing was given to the petitioners on the said date.Prior to 21st May, 2003 even the relevant documents had not been supplied nor the inspection was given.In the termination order it has been mentioned that the hearing was given to Sqr.WP(C) 9432-33 of 2005 Page 28 of 62By merely giving a show cause notice dated 7th May, 2003 the principles of natural justice were not complied with.First the petitioners terminated the dealership without even giving notice.Again only a formality of giving a notice was fulfilled, which notice also did not detail the specific allegations against the petitioners and the basis of the same and without giving a due opportunity to the petitioners to represent their case.The documents, the opinions about the alleged extra fitting and the alleged extra fittings inspection was given nor any cogent reasons had been disclosed for not giving the same.Even if the dispensing pump was sealed by the police and the matter was in the Court, the permission could be obtained.No efforts were made to even approach the police authorities or the Court for obtaining permission to give inspection to the petitioners.It has not even been alleged that any application was filed by the respondents before the police authorities or the Court for permission for inspection.WP(C) 9432-33 of 2005 Page 29 of 62 Notice is only the first limb of the principles of natural justice which should also be precise and unambiguous.After the notice is given the time should be given to respond to it within adequate time so as to enable the person concerned to make his effective representation and thereafter, an opportunity ought to have been given to the petitioners in the facts and circumstances to explain their version or their defense in the facts and circumstances of the petitioners.WP(C) 9432-33 of 2005 Page 29 of 62The allegations of the respondents that the petitioner admitted that there was tampering on their behalf is also not borne out from the record and any of the correspondence by the petitioners to the respondents.Any alleged admission ought to have been specific and unequivocal.There is no such admissions on the part of the petitioners.In the circumstances, the minimum which was required from the respondents was to show them the alleged extra fittings and the alleged opinion/submissions of officials of L&T who had alleged that the alleged extra fittings were not a part of the original equipment supplied by them.The show cause notice dated 7th May, 2003 should have been precise and unambiguous, if the case of the respondents was that the petitioner had admitted about using that extra fitting on the basis of which the respondents had come to the conclusion that the extra fittings was used and was inserted on behalf of and within the knowledge and consent of the petitioners.Rather the petitioners had categorically asserted and gave details of various inspections carried out WP(C) 9432-33 of 2005 Page 30 of 62 earlier in which no tampering or any additional fitting was found.In the circumstances the allegations of the respondents that the petitioners had admitted that the extra fittings were in the pumps is deliberate attempt by the respondents to justify their illegalities.WP(C) 9432-33 of 2005 Page 30 of 62The learned counsel for the respondents is unable to explain as to where is the admission on the part of the petitioners about the extra fittings on the basis of which the alleged termination order is passed.K.D.Mehra had stated that he did nothing wrong on the pump and he had expressed complete ignorance of the happenings that led to the incident.He had even given the statement before the police that he knew nothing about the alleged extra fittings which were not shown to him by the police authorities and even by the petitioners.There is no evidence led by the respondents before the enquiry officer or documents produced to substantiate the allegations made by them against the petitioners.Rather who was the enquiry officer is also not clear from the record.No cogent reason was disclosed for not giving the relevant documents including the reports/opinions of the L & WP(C) 9432-33 of 2005 Page 31 of 62 T officials and the alleged report of M/s Oilco Services (India) Ltd, the copies of which are available in the record produced by the respondents before this Court.The relevant documents had been demanded by the petitioner even thereafter, however, the respondents failed to supply them.WP(C) 9432-33 of 2005 Page 31 of 62Thereafter Sh.A.K.Verma, Chief Divisional Retail Sales Manager had denied inspection of alleged extra fittings.Though while denying the inspection of alleged extra fittings the petitioners were asked to appear before Sh.A.K.Verma on 26th May, 2003, however, no such opportunity for personal hearing was given and rather termination order had been passed on 14th July, 2003 by the General Manager, Y.Sahai on the basis of alleged note of Sh.Ravi Prasad which also does not deal with the pleas and contentions raised by the petitioners and is based only on the premise that the petitioners had admitted their culpability.If the respondents themselves had allowed personal hearing to the petitioners, then why the hearing was not given, has not been explained by the counsel for the respondents.The inevitable inference on perusal of the record of enquiry and these facts and circumstances is that show cause notice in the alleged post decision hearing was a mere eyewash and an attempt to justify the illegal order of termination WP(C) 9432-33 of 2005 Page 32 of 62 passed by the respondents which had been set aside by the Court in the earlier writ petition.WP(C) 9432-33 of 2005 Page 32 of 62This has also not been disputed that the Weights and Measure seals were intact on the pumps.The respondents have also made contradictory submissions in as much as the inspection of alleged extra fittings was declined on the ground that they had been sealed by the police on 10th June, 2001, however, in the show cause notice it was stated that the units were sealed after the joint inspection was carried out on 11th June, 2003 with the officials of the respondents and crime branch officials.The respondents have not taken into consideration various pleas which have been raised by the petitioners which included that the seals were found intact in the retail outlet inspection and analysis report which was conducted on 19th May, 2001 just three weeks before the alleged incident.Even a surprise check was conducted 9 weeks prior to the alleged raid and another random surprise inspection report dated 28th March, 2001 of Ms.S.C.Banerjee, Senior Consumer Manager had recorded that high speed diesel pumps were in WP(C) 9432-33 of 2005 Page 33 of 62 fact delivering in excess of the stated amount on account of which the petitioners were advised to re-stamp the excess delivery unit.These pleas have been raised by the petitioner even in the present writ petition and in the reply it has been stated that they are not relevant.WP(C) 9432-33 of 2005 Page 35 of 62" On perusal of record it reveals that as far as contentions regarding role of different accused persons are concerned the same is subject matter of trial and maintainability of the investigation and the final report is necessary to be considered at this stage only.It is clear from the contents of the charge sheet and the documents attached with the same that the basic allegations against accused persons is regarding supply of less quantity of the petrol against consideration of more quantity.The respondents have also produced he file of the M/s Libra Filling Station.A perusal of the order of termination that was communicated to both M/s. Libra Filling Station and M/s. Bharath Filling Station quite clearly shows that the charges against both the filling stations was of tampering with the dispensing units resulting in short delivery.The relevant portion of both the letters are extracted WP(C) 9432-33 of 2005 Page 45 of 62 below- The order of termination dated 18th June, 2001 send to M/s. Libra Filling Station-"During the inspection it was found that you have willfully and deliberately tampered/manipulated with the metering unit in one of the dispensing units (MIDCO Serial No 9677) by superimposing 0 on 1 so as to dupe the customer resulting in the delivering less quantity for payment made."The order of termination dated 13th June, 2001 send to M/s.(ii) Suspension of sales and supplies for 30 days along with a fine of Rs. 50,000/- in the second instance.(iii) Suspension of sales and supplies of all products for 45 days along with a fine of Rs. 1 lakh in the third instance.That being so the respondent Corporation was bound to follow the guidelines while imposing penalties for offences that have been enumerated in the guidelines.In United Engineers Service Station v. Union of India & Anr., this Court had observed, " It has to be kept in mind that the Marketing Discipline Guidelines have force of law having been upheld by this Court in Delhi Petrol Dealer Association & Anr.The object is salutary to provide for checks and balances and penalties uniformly by different oil companies while dealing with defaulting dealers.The irregularity that has been alleged against the petitioner is short delivery of products resulting from the introduction of an extra switch in the nozzle.Even if this is treated as a major irregularity termination is contemplated by the guidelines only at the third instance.The respondent has given no reasons for considering the offence to be so serious as to warrant termination at the first instance.Apparently even if it is proved that the petitioners had indulged in short delivery which has not been proved, the extreme penalty of termination is disproportionate to the allegations made by the respondent no.1 Corporation.WP(C) 9432-33 of 2005 Page 51 of 62The respondent no.1 has not also taken into account the past conduct of the petitioners.The guidelines have provided a skewed structure for imposing penalties.The gravity of the penalty to be imposed has been made dependent on the number of instances of irregularities the offender has been found guilty off before the present irregularity.The petitioners had been running the retail outlet for 23 years prior to the order of termination.There has never been any complaint of short delivery or other malpractices against the petitioners.A surprise inspection WP(C) 9432-33 of 2005 Page 52 of 62 conducted by the Director, Marketing of the respondent corporation on 3rd June, 2001,i.e.one week prior to the inspection that had led to the alleged discovery of the alleged irregularities, had not found any instances of short delivery.WP(C) 9432-33 of 2005 Page 52 of 62The impugned order reiterating the termination order dated 13th June, 2001 was passed on 14th July, 2003 and the Division Bench of this Court had disposed of the LPA filed by the respondents on 18th July, 2003 granting liberty to the petitioners to file a petition challenging the order of termination.The present writ petition had been instituted by the petitioners on 24th May, 2005 and so it is alleged that there has been a delay of close to 2 years.The petitioners have stated that petitioner no. 2 had been suffering from a number of ailments and was undergoing treatment for the same which prevented him from filing the petition at an earlier date.A perfunctory show cause notice was given and again without conducting a proper enquiry, the order of termination has been sustained.The Petitioner no.2 is a war veteran and is suffering from various problems.Resources are required for initiating the litigation.No effort at all was made by the respondents as even an application to this effect was filed with the concerned police officials or the concerned Court.In the circumstances, the plea of the respondents that writ WP(C) 9432-33 of 2005 Page 61 of 62 petition will be barred as an alternative remedy is available to the petitioners, cannot be accepted.WP(C) 9432-33 of 2005 Page 61 of 62Therefore, in the facts and circumstances and for the foregoing reasons the Writ Petition of the petitioners is allowed.Costs be paid by the respondent no.1 within four weeks.With these directions, the writ petition is allowed and all the pending applications are also disposed of.ANIL KUMAR, J.
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
109,200,454 |
Heard Mohd. Asif, learned counsel for applicants in Application u/S 482 No. 13903 of 2007 and for respondent-2 in Criminal Misc.Writ Petition No. 9954 of 2008, Sri Shahroze Khan, learned counsel for respondent-2 in Application u/S 482 No. 13903 of 2007 and for petitioners in Criminal Misc.Writ Petition No. 9954 of 2008 and learned AGA for State of U.P.In Application under Section 482 No. - 13903 of 2007, applicants have sought to quash Chargesheet No. 98/07 as well as further proceedings of Case No. 1581 of 2007, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station Kotwali, District Ghazipur, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghazipur.In Criminal Misc.Matter was referred to Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court.As per report dated 02.04.2019 submitted by Deputy Registrar/ Incharge, Allahabad High Court, Mediation and Conciliation Centre, settlement/agreement has arrived between the parties and they have signed on 27.03.2019 and para- 6 of said settlement reads as under:-The following settlement has been arrived at between the Parties hereto:-Out of aforesaid wedlock parties have two sons Sayad Ayan and Sayad Afaan, 14 and 07 years of age respectively.b) The wife has been living with her parents from 2006 to 2012 due to strain relation with her husband.However, the dispute between the husband and wife were resolved in the year 2012 and since they are living as husband and wife with perfect harmony.d) That before coming for Mediation parties Sri Mukeem Akhtar alias Tannu (Applicant No. 1- husband) and Smt. Zahida Khatoon (Sister of O.P. No. 2, wife) have decided to reunite and live together as husband and wife, accordingly they have been living together since December, 2012 in perfect harmony forgetting all previous disputes and differences.e) That it has been agreed between the parties that following cases shall be withdrawn by them by taking appropriate steps:-(i) Criminal Case No. 1581/07 u/s 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 of D.P. Act, arising out Case Crime No. 1105/2006, PS Kotwali, District Ghazipur, pending in the Court of CJM, Ghazipur.(ii) Criminal Case No. 417/2008 arising out Case Crime No. 825C/2007 u/s 313, 315, 316 IPC PS Kotwali, District Ghazipur pending in the Court of CJM, Ghazipur.(iii) Criminal Case No. 417/2018 arising out Case Crime No. 825C/2007 u/s 313, 315, 316 of IPC, PS Kotwali, District Ghazipur, pending in the Court of CJM, Ghazipur"
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
109,200,874 |
2 Cri.WP-1612-16The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that an order passed by respondent No. 3 externing the petitioner from the territorial limits of Ahmednagar District and also from the area/territorial limits of adjoining districts to Ahmednagar District is excessive inasmuch as there are no reasons assigned, why externment of the petitioner was warranted from the area of adjoining districts to the Ahmednagar District.It is also submitted that alleged offences mentioned in the show cause notice are registered at Newasa Police Station, ::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 26/01/2017 00:49:16 ::: 3 Cri.WP-1612-16 District Ahmednagar.State of Maharashtra1, Umar Mohamed Malbari Vs.State of Maharashtra and another7 and Yeshwant Damodar Patil Vs.Hemant Karkar, Dy.ORAL JUDGMENT : ( PER : S.S. SHINDE, J. )1. Rule.Rule made returnable forthwith.With consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, heard finally.::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 26/01/2017 00:49:16 :::It is the case of the the petitioner that the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 14-01-2016 by respondent No. 3 taking recourse of the provisions of section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 (for short "Act of 1951").The petitioner has filed reply to said notice.Respondent No. 3 by his judgment and order dated 30-03-2016 externed the petitioner from Ahmednagar District and also area/limits of adjoining districts to Ahmednagar district.Being aggrieved by order passed by respondent No. 3 the petitioner filed appeal bearing Externment Appeal No. 48 of 2016 before respondent No. 4 - appellate authority.Hence, this writ petition.In support of afore said contention, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed his reliance on the reported/unreported judgments, viz; Juber Abdul Vahid Kureshi Vs.K.P. Gaikwad Dy.Commissioner of Police and another 2, Balu Vs.the Divisional Magistrate, Pandharpur3 ,Pandiarnath Shridhar Ragnekar Vs.Commissioner of Police State of Maharashtra 4, Sunil Mani Shetty Vs.Commissioner of Police Ors.5, Nisar @ Nigro Bashir Ahmed Khan Vs.Commissioner of Police, Zone-::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 26/01/2017 00:49:16 :::VI Mumbai and ors.6, Prasad Shrikant Purohit Vs.Appeal Nos. 1969-1970 of 2010 decided on 15-04-2015 : (2015) 7 SCC 440 8 1989 (3) Bom.C.R. 240 ::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 26/01/2017 00:49:16 ::: 4 Cri.He further submits that in the show cause notice there is no reference to the proceedings initiated against the petitioner under the provisions of Maharashtra Control of Organized crime Act 1999 ( for short "MCOCA"), and therefore, the petitioner had no opportunity to reply about the same.He further submits that in crime No. 186 of 2010 registered with Newasa Police Station for the offence punishable under sections 307, 143, 147,148, 379, 353 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (for Short "IPC") and section 3/25 of the Arms Act, the concerned court has already framed the charge and the contention of the respondents that in the said crime even petitioner deserves to be tried for the offences under MCOCA has no basis inasmuch as neither there is reference in show cause notice about such initiation of the proceeding under MCOCA Act nor there is discussion in detailed in the impugned order about applicability of provisions of MCOCA, in the case of petitioner, in crime No. 186 of 2010 registered with Newasa Police Station for the offence punishable under sections 307, 143, 147, 148, 379 353 and 120B of the IPC and section 3/25 of the Arms Act.::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 26/01/2017 00:49:16 :::::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 26/01/2017 00:49:16 :::It is submitted that if grounds in the show cause notice and reasons assigned by the authorities are considered conjointly the same lead to the conclusion that the petitioner's externment from Ahmednagar District and area/limits of the adjoining districts to the Ahmednagar District was warranted, therefore, respondent No. 3 has passed the order externing the petitioner from the Ahmednagar District and also from area/limits of adjoining districts to the Ahmednagar District.::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 26/01/2017 00:49:16 :::We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, with their able assistance perused the grounds taken in the writ petition annexures thereto, and also original record made available for perusal.At this juncture, it would be apt to make reference to the provisions of Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Act of 1951, which reads thus:::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 26/01/2017 00:49:16 :::56.Removal of persons about to commit offence (1) ....It is true that it is legally permissible for respondent No. 3 to initiate externment proceeding not only from one district but from the adjoining districts also.However, the ::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 26/01/2017 00:49:16 ::: 9 Cri.WP-1612-16 authority while passing the order of externment from the area of particular district/districts wherein offences are not registered against the concerned person, has to assign specific reasons, why externment of said person is necessitated from the more than one districts.::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 26/01/2017 00:49:16 :::As already observed, even in show cause notice, there is no mention of initiation of any proposal or proceeding against petitioner under the provisions of MCOCA, therefore, the casual reference of said alleged initiation of proposal against the ::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 26/01/2017 00:49:16 ::: 10 Cri.::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 26/01/2017 00:49:16 :::The order of externment can also be passed against a person if there are reasonable ::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 26/01/2017 00:49:16 ::: 11 Cri.In addition to this the designated officer should be of the opinion that witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against such person by reason of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their person or property.::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 26/01/2017 00:49:16 :::[Underlines added]Be that as it may, even if we consider/take into consideration that respondent No. 3 has recorded in camera statements of the witnesses.Therefore, inevitable conclusion is, the order passed by respondent No. 3 and confirmed by respondent No. 4 externing the petitioner from Ahmednagar District and area/limits of ::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 26/01/2017 00:49:16 ::: 12 Cri.WP-1612-16 adjoining districts to Ahmednagar District is not legally sustainable.Hence, writ petition deserves to be allowed and accordingly the same is allowed in terms of prayer clauses "B and C".::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 26/01/2017 00:49:16 :::Rule made absolute to above extent and accordingly writ petition stands disposed of.No order as to costs.::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 26/01/2017 00:49:16 :::
|
['Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,092,009 |
(a) The accused is the husband of Tmt.Because of the accusation, they have developed some kind of animosity.On 22.1.1993, at about 7.00 p.m., P.W.5 questioned the conduct of the deceased and the same was counter attacked by hurling accusation against the husband of P.W.5, viz., the accused.The accused who heard this accusation against his wife got furious and assaulted Guruvammal, by M.O.1, Aruval.After assaulting, the accused left the place, with weapon.(c) Easwari and one Mary (P.W.4) after the incident, took the injured to the hospital as per the direction of P.W.2, where she was attended by doctor, P.W.7, who had noticed as many as 12 injuries, over the body of Guruvammal, which are incorporated in Ex.Despite the treatment given by P.W.7 and others, she succumbed to the injuries on the same day at about 8.00 p.m., which was informed to the police under Ex.(d) The accused who assaulted Guruvammal realysing his folly, surrendered before the Village Administrative Officer, P.W.9 on the same day at about 7.15 p.m. The confession made by the accused, was reduced into writing under Ex.P.W.9 prepared a report, Ex.P7 and handed over the accused, along with the confession (Ex.P.6), his report (Ex.P.7)and M.O.1 to the police, through P.W.10, his menial.(e) On receipt of Exs.P6 and P7, the then Sub Inspector of Police, registered a case in Cr.NO.99/93, under Section 307 I.P.C., for which Ex.P.13, F.I.R. was submitted to the court concerned.P.W.16 also arrested the accused, recovered M.O.1 and informed the matter to the Inspector of Police, for investigation.(f) P.W.17, the Inspector of Police, on receipt of the copy of the F.I.R., commenced her investigation.The injured, Guruvammal, when succumbed to the injuries, and the same was informed to the police, resulting alteration of the case from 307 I.P.C. to 302 I.P.C. under Ex.P.W.17, rushed to the scene of crime at about 9.30 a.m., prepared Ex.From the scene of crime, P.W.17 recovered, M.Os.4 & 5 in the presence of P.W.10 and another, under the cover of Ex.P.10, Mahazar.JUDGMENT M. Thanikachalam, J.The facts in brief to decide the case:Thereafter, she examined the witnesses, recorded the statements.In order to ascertain the real cause for the death, the Investigating Officer took steps, for conducting autopsy.(g) On receipt of requisition, under Ex.P4 from the investigating officer, P.W.8 conducted autopsy, over the body of Guruvammal on 23.1.1993 at about 3.00 p.m., which revealed the following external injuries.1. '?' shaped cut injury with clear margin midline of forehead 10 cm x 1 cm x bone deep.2. Semicircular incised injury with clear margin over the right parietal region 8 cm x 1 cm x bone deep.Horizontal incised wound with clear margin over the Rt.Parietal region of 4 cm x 1/2 cm x bone deep.Lacerated injury over the back of neck - horizontally V shaped extending from - 2 cm below the lobule of Rt.ear 15 cm x 14 cm x 3 cm bone deep exposing the vertebra crossing the midline.Lacerated injury behind the Rt.ear of 7 cm x 2 cm x bone deep with fracture site of L shaped of 1 cm x 2 cm length.Lacerated horizontal injury occipital region of 3 cm x 1 cm x bone deep.Incised wound over the lateral aspect of Rt.arm above the elbow of 5 cm x 2 cm x bone deep.Incised wound over the lateral aspect of rt.forearm 1 cm x 1/2 cm muscle deep just below the rt.elbow joint.Incised wound lateral aspect of Lt. Elbow joint of 5 cm x 2 cm exposing the joint.Lacerated wound below Lt. Wrist 4 cm x 3 cm bone deep vertical of the palm.Cut injury Rt.ring finger hanging loose only by the skin at the level of distal phalanx.Incised wound over the middle of Rt.middle finger 1 cm x 1/2 cm exposing the tendon.The doctor probing the external as well as internal injuries, came to the conclusion that the injuries 4, 5 & 6 are proved to be fatal.Considering the over all effect of all the injuries, the doctor opined, that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and hemorrhage, due to the injuries sustained by him, which are incorporated in Ex.(h) P.W.17 in continuation of the investigation, recorded the statements of other witnesses also and caused the material objects to be sent, for chemical analysis through Court.The conclusion of the investigation, brought to surface that the accused alone had committed the murder of Guruvammal, due to previous enmity and in this view, a final report was filed seeking appropriate punishment, leading to trial, ending in conviction as aforementioned, which is under challenge.7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant Mr. R. Sankarasubbu and the learned Government Advocate, (Criminal Side).The defence is one of total denial.Before going into the veracity of evidence available on record, to decide, who did this murder, now let us see what is the cause for the death of Guruvammal, and the effect of injuries sustained by her.In Ex.11. P.W.5, Easwari, the wife of the accused also admits, that there was an incident, then she along with her husband and P.W.4, went to police station, in order to prefer complaint.It is in evidence, from the mouth of P.Ws.1 & 2 that P.Ws.4 & 5 alone have taken the deceased, to the hospital, which is in conformity with the evidence, given by P.W.7, who has recorded the presence of Easwari.Hence, we conclude, that the injured was brought to the hospital, only by P.W.5, the wife of the accused and immediately thereafter, she died.There were number of cut and incised wounds, and some of the injuries had caused damage to the internal organs, thereby causing hemorrhage.The doctor considering the over all effect of the injuries, opined that the deceased died due to shock and hemorrhage, which were caused by the injuries sustained by her.When P.W.8 has given the opinion about the cause of death, as well as the nature of injuries, they are not challenged.Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we conclude, that Guruvammal died due to the multiple injuries, sustained by her on 22.1.1993 at about 7.00 p.m, which caused hemorrhage and shock, thereby taking away her life, on the same day at about 8.00 p.m. For the injuries noted in Exs.P.1 & P5, if it is proved, the accused is the cause, then his act would certainly, attract the penal provisions.The contention of the learned counsel, that there was no motive is not acceptable to us, because of the inspiring evidence available on record.P.W.11 has deposed, that on the compliant given by Guruvammal, enquiry was conducted and the accused namely, Easwari, since tendered apology, no further action was taken.The occurrence took place on 22.1.1993 at about 7.00 p.m. Therefore, there is every possibility of identifying the known person, even in the absence of light.P.W.12 has been examined, to prove that in this area, electrical lights were burning from 6.00 p.m. till the next day 6.00 a.m. The suggestion thrown to P.W.12 that he is giving false evidence, to support the case of the prosecution, appears to be an imagination and in this view, we conclude that there was sufficient light, from the street light also, to identify the accused as well as, to witness the commission of crime.As aforementioned, there is long standing strained relationship between the parties, thereby indicating that they are known to each other, and therefore, if the witnesses have identified the accused and depicted his act, in assaulting the deceased Guruvammal, we would not find any reason, to ignore the same.As seen from the cross examination of P.W.1, some incident is admitted, since it is suggested, that at the time of the occurrence, the husband of Guruvammal alone cut her.The snap answers elicited from P.W.1, that she was not present, when the injured was taken in an auto, would not nullify the effective evidence, given by her, during the examination in chief.Probably, after the incident, when P.Ws.4 and 5 took the injured to the hospital, she might have left the place, and in this view alone, she would have stated that she was not present at that time.But the same would not mean, that she had not witnessed the incident.It is also suggested to P.W.1 that while the accused ran away from the scene of crime, he through the Aruval nearby a pit.If this is correct, then we could say, that the accused has not only admitted his presence, but also admitted his involvement also, to certain extent.P.W.1 narrating the wordy altercation between Easwari and Guruvammal regarding their conduct, as well as the conduct of the husband, would state :",UtUk; tha; jfuhW bra;jnghJ vjphp mUthis tPl;Lf;Fs;s ,Ue;J vLj;J te;J. @eP bjhiye;jhy; jhd; epk;kjpahf ,Uf;fKoa[k; vd;W jiy.,uz;L if.fGj;J Kfk; Kjypaitfspy; khwp.It is the further case of P.W.1, that at that time, P.Ws.2 & 3 were also present witnessing the incident and attempted to prevent.He has further deposed that the accused had warned them, not to approach him, if approached, they would also be taken into task.The above evidence given by P.W.1, connecting the accused, is fully corroborated by P.Ws.2 & 3 identifying M.O.1 also.The subsequent events viz., taking the injured to the hospital, is proved by the oral evidence of P.W.4, Mary supported by oral evidence of P.W.5, the wife of the accused.As we have already adverted to above, the doctors have immediately attended the injured, but unable to save her life.The Village Administrative Officer, P.W.9 has no axe to grind against the accused.He would state as P.W.9 that on 22.1.1993 at about 7.15 p.m., the accused came to his office, with blood stained dothi as well as Aruval and informed that he had committed the murder of Guruvammal, wife of Sivanukumar.P.W.9, testified further that the statement given by the accused was reduced into writing as Ex.P6, which was handed over to the police, accompanied with Ex.P.W.16 arrested the accused, registered a case forthwith, originally under Section 307 I.P.C., since at that time, it was not known to the police, whether Guruvammal was alive or not.After the death intimation, the case was altered to Section 302 I.P.C. From P.W.16, P.W.17 took the case for investigation and he has categorically spoken about the investigation step by step, including the examination of the witnesses, then and there, as well as the recovery of the material objects, connecting the accused.As seen from the sketch Ex.As pointed out, the weapon was identified by the eye witnesses and therefore, the absence of any blood group of the deceased, in the weapon, would not negate the case of the prosecution.The trial Court considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, from all possible and probable angle, had reached a just conclusion in convicting the accused, which cannot be found fault.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
109,201,637 |
Brief facts of the case may be stated as follows :i) PW 8 Gautam, son of the deceased Shivram More, lodged complaint to the police station Bhadgaon on 06.12.1998 alleging that he resides at village Picharde along with his father Shivram ( since deceased), mother Rankorbai, younger brother Jibhau More and Sanju More.::: Uploaded on - 20/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/06/2018 00:45:39 :::3 CrAppeal 105 03JHe has three sisters and they are married and residing at their matrimonial house.The appellant/accused persons and their family members are residing in front of the house of complainant Gautam (PW 8).ii) Two months prior to the incident there was quarrel between wife of Vikram, s/o accused No. 2 Sonu More and the complainant.Therefore, there was no talking terms with the accused persons.iii) On 06.12.1998 complainant, his father Shivram and other family members were in their house.At about 2 p.m. accused No. 2 Sonu while going to answer natures call was abusing.After 15/10 minutes, while returning to home, accused No. 2 again started abusing.iv) Thereafter accused No. 2 Sonu, accused No. 1 Shankar came in front of house of complainant armed with iron rod and lathi.They started abusing to the complainant.At that time accused No. 2 armed with Lathi.Then accused No. 1 assaulted the complainant on his back by iron rod.So also accused No. 1 assaulted Shivram on his head by iron rod.Accused No. 3 snatched the lathi from the hands of accused No. 2 and started to beat complainant and his father.Due to assault Shivram fall down.Even thereafter, accused No. 2 assaulted him with fists and kick blows.When 3/18 ::: Uploaded on - 20/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/06/2018 00:45:39 ::: 4 CrAppeal 105 03Jthe incident was going on at that time the mother of complainant Rankorbai and brother Jibhau came there.The accused persons assaulted them also.Witness Gahinabai came there and rescued the scuffle.The incident was witnessed by one Dhudku More, Sambhaji Wagh, and Shantabai Dhudku More.Shivram received head injury due to which there was bleeding.Immediately Shivram succumbed to the injuries.Shivram on his head by iron rod.Accused No. 3::: Uploaded on - 20/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/06/2018 00:45:39 :::Investigating Officer Dinkar Pingale (PW 10), after registration of the crime arrested the accused persons.He prepared spot panchnama and inquest panchnama.Dead body was sent for postmortem.During investigation, the investigating officer recorded the statement of witnesses including statement of PW 7 Gahinabai w/o Shankar Wagh, PW 9 Jibhau Shivram More and other witnesses.Clothes of the deceased Shivram were seized vide panchnama Exh.During the investigation the accused No. 1 Shankar made a statement that he will produce the iron rod.4/18 ::: Uploaded on - 20/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/06/2018 00:45:39 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/06/2018 00:45:39 :::Then accused No. 3 made a statement that he will produce the stick.PW 5 Pravin, police constable carried the muddemal i.e. iron rod for Chemical Analysis to Chemical Analyzer's Office.P.W. 6 Balasaheb, police constable, carried the muddemal i.e. soil mixed with blood, plain soil, Dhoti, Bandi and blood sample of Shivram.PW 11 Dr. Sonwane conducted the postmortem on the dead body of the deceased and also examined complainant Gautam and issued postmortem report (Exh. 82) and injury certificate (Exh. 83).It was sent to chemical analysis and on chemical examination human blood was detected on it.It further reveals from his evidence that at the relevant time of incident the accused No. 2 looking at the house of complainant abused as "Gadhadichyala Baghato".After about 15 minutes he returned back from attending natures call and while returning to his home he started abusing.After half an hour, accused No. 1 came there.He further deposed that accused No. 3 snatched the stick from the hand of accused No. 2 and assaulted to the father of complainant.Due to the beating, his father fall down.At that time Gahinabai and Sambhaji came there.Gahinabai rescued the quarrel.After beating, the accused persons ran away.Due to the assault, Shivram died on the spot itself.On perusal of aforesaid admission, it appears that this may be in reference to the earlier quarrel between this witness and the wife of Vikram.On perusal of the cross-examination there are some minor variance in the evidence and complaint, however, that are not enough to disbelieve the entire testimony of this witness.The presence of this witness is established on the spot of incident, as he was also injured in the incident.On internal examination, after opening the scalp PW 11 Dr. Sonwane found that there was blood collection all over skull and muscles were ecchyhmosised underneath the injuries on scalp and skull on left side parietal surface was found fractured.That fracture was from coronal sutured posteriorly up to lamboid sutured (occipital bone).Criminal Appeal No. 105/2003 is presented against the judgment and order passed by the First Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon, in Sessions Case no. 97/1999 dated 27.12.2002, by the original accused No. 1 and 3 against their conviction for the offence punishable under section 304 Part I read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the State also preferred Criminal Appeal No. 416/20-03 for the acquittal of the accused persons for the offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.2/18 ::: Uploaded on - 20/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/06/2018 00:45:39 :::C.A. Reports were received and same were attached with the police papers.After investigation the investigating officer filed charge-sheet in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhadgaon, who committed the case to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Jalgaon.Learned First Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon framed charge against accused persons.The contents of the charge (Ex. 40) were explained to accused, to which 5/18 ::: Uploaded on - 20/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/06/2018 00:45:39 ::: 6 CrAppeal 105 03Jthey denied and claimed to be tried.The defence of accused is of general denial.::: Uploaded on - 20/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/06/2018 00:45:39 :::In order to establish the offence of murder committed by the accused No. 1 to 3, in furtherance of their common intention, the prosecution has examined in all 11 witnesses.After scrutiny of the evidence on record, the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, convicted the accused/appellants for the offence punishable under section 304 Part I read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.We have heard the arguments of Mr. Satej Jadhav, learned counsel for appellants/accused and Mr. Dhasalkar, learned APP for the respondent/State.However, the determination of the group of blood was inconclusive.Clothes of the 6/18 ::: Uploaded on - 20/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/06/2018 00:45:39 ::: 7 CrAppeal 105 03Jdeceased Shivram i.e. Dhoti and Baniyan which were sent to chemical analysis on which human blood of 'O' group was detected.::: Uploaded on - 20/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/06/2018 00:45:39 :::From the record it appears that the incident took place in a broad day light at about 2 p.m. on 06.12.1998 in front of house of the complainant.Further it appears from the record that the house of the accused persons is also adjacent at some distance.Further it reveals from record that there was a quarrel between complainant and wife of Vikram (another son of accused No. 2 Sonu namely Vikram).The prosecution has claimed that because of this minor incident the accused No. 2 while returning to his home he abused the complainant and his family members and thereafter the accused No. 1 came there armed with iron rod and accused No. 2 came there along with stick.So it is necessary to scrutinize the evidence of the eye witnesses.The complainant Gautam (PW 8) and witness Jibhau (PW 9) are the sons of deceased Shivram, PW 7 Gahinabai appears to be an independent witness.9. PW 8 Gautam, who is one of the injured in the same incident deposed that incident occurred on 06.12.1998 at about 3 p.m., in front of their house.Before two months of the incident, quarrel had taken 7/18 ::: Uploaded on - 20/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/06/2018 00:45:39 ::: 8 CrAppeal 105 03Jplace between him and wife of Vikram.Then all the accused were abusing.All the accused persons dragged the complainant and his father from courtyard in the lane and started beating them.He specifically deposed that accused No. 1 was assaulted with iron rod and accused No. 3 was assaulted with stick.Accused No. 1 assaulted him with iron rod on his right hand and also on back.Thereafter accused No. 1 assaulted his father with iron rod on his head.Thereafter police patil Suresh Wagh came there.P.W. 8 narrated the incident to him and went along with police patil to 8/18 ::: Uploaded on - 20/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/06/2018 00:45:39 ::: 9 CrAppeal 105 03JBhadgaon police station, where the first information report was lodged.::: Uploaded on - 20/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/06/2018 00:45:39 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/06/2018 00:45:39 :::Police had filed a chapter case against him.The medical officer, P.W. 11 Dr. Sonwane deposed that on 16.12.2008 at about 10 p.m. he examined Gautam i.e. complainant and found following injuries.in direction side by side of size 4" x 1 ½" and 3 ½" x 1 ½".::: Uploaded on - 20/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/06/2018 00:45:39 :::All the aforesaid injuries were caused within eight hours from the time of examination.The injuries were caused by hard and blunt object and all the injuries were simple in nature.So the oral version of this witness regarding beating incident to him is supported with medical evidence.Likewise, P.W. 11 Dr. Sonwane deposed that, he performed autopsy on the dead body of Shivram and found following injuries on his person.(a) On right upper arm posterior and outer side of size 3" x 1 ½" and 2 ½" x 1 ½" and they were side by side.(b) On left side of abdomen, oblique in direction size 6" x 1 ½".(c) On back right side upper part three in number size 3" x 1 ½", 6" x 1 ½" and 5" x 1 ½" from above downwards.(d) On left side of head on parietal surface oblique in direction 3" x 2 ½" with surrounding haematoma of bluish colour of size 4" x 3 ½ ".(e) On right side of parietal surface of head mid part above right ear oblique in direction of 10/18 ::: Uploaded on - 20/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/06/2018 00:45:39 ::: 11 CrAppeal 105 03J size 3" x 1 ½" with haemotoma around it of size 4" x 3".::: Uploaded on - 20/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/06/2018 00:45:39 :::After opening skull, intra cranial haemorrhage was seen all over.Anterior part of left hemisphar of the brain was lacerated wound of size 2" x 1" x ½" and oblique in direction.In the opinion of this witness, cause of death of deceased Shivram was due to shock as a result of fracture of skull and intra cranial haemorrhage.Accordingly, he issued postmortem report (Exh. 82).Besides the aforesaid evidence, similar evidence of witness Jaibhau (PW 9) is on record.The same is also in the line of deposition of PW 8 Gautam.There is also evidence of an independent witness namely Gahinabai (PW7) who deposed that house 11/18 ::: Uploaded on - 20/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/06/2018 00:45:39 ::: 12 CrAppeal 105 03Jof this witness is at a distance of 40 feet from the house of deceased Shivram.That time she was going to attend the natures call.She heard noise of riot and went to the spot.She specifically deposed that accused No. 1 was holding iron rod and accused No. 3 was holding stick.They were assaulting with the same to Shivram.Accused No. 2 assaulting Shivram with fist and kick blows.The complainant Gautam and his brother Jibhau who are sons of Shivram came to the spot.They were trying to pacify the quarrel.This witness also pacify the quarrel.Deceased Shivram fall on the ground and died on the spot itself.::: Uploaded on - 20/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/06/2018 00:45:39 :::During the cross-examination this witness has admitted that today she came to the Court along with Gautam and his relatives.On the contrary, the oral evidence of this witness is quite natural.She has nothing to do either with accused or the complainant.Therefore, her evidence assumes much importance, particularly, 12/18 ::: Uploaded on - 20/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/06/2018 00:45:39 ::: 13 CrAppeal 105 03Jthere is no reason to disbelieve her version, which is supported by medical evidence.::: Uploaded on - 20/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/06/2018 00:45:39 :::Besides the oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses there is recovery of weapon at the instance of accused No. 1 and 3, which has been proved by the prosecution by examining PW 3 Virbhan Sonwane as a panch witness.In presence of panch witness the police have seized the clothes of the deceased namely Dhoti, Band, Kaddora vide panchnama exh.He further deposed that on 09.12.1998 he was called in the police station where accused Ravindra was present.He gave statement that he will produce the stick.Accordingly memorandum panchnama was prepared (Exh. 58).They all went to the house of accused No. 3 Ravindra.Accused Ravindra produced a stick from woods, which is seized under panchnama (Exh.59).He further deposed that, again he was called by the police on 22.12.1998 to the police station.Accused No. 1 Shankar was present there.He gave statement before the panch and police that he would produce iron rod, which was concealed in Picharde shivar, on the bank of river Girna.Accordingly 13/18 ::: Uploaded on - 20/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/06/2018 00:45:39 ::: 14 CrAppeal 105 03Jmemorandum panchnama was prepared (Exh. 56).In pursuance to the memorandum, accused No. 1 had shown the place where the iron rod was concealed and from there he produced iron rod, which was seized under panchnama (Exh. 57).So the recovery of weapons at the instance of accused No. 1 and 3 is duly proved by the prosecution.::: Uploaded on - 20/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/06/2018 00:45:39 :::From the aforesaid oral as well as medical evidence coupled with the evidence of panch witness it has been established by the prosecution that the accused persons assaulted Shivram by iron rod and lathi and due to which he died.But the evidence of the prosecution is silent about the multiple assault made by accused No. 1 on the head of Shivram by iron rod.A reference has made to the injuries sustained to Shivram, as per the postmortem report and evidence of PW 11 Dr. Sonwane.There were five external injuries on the person of Shivram.14/18 ::: Uploaded on - 20/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/06/2018 00:45:39 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/06/2018 00:45:39 :::15 CrAppeal 105 03JInjury No. 'D' an 'E' mentioned in the deposition of PW 11 Dr. Sonwane reads as follows:(d) On left side of head on parietal surface oblique in direction 3" x 2 ½" with surrounding haematoma of bluish colour of size 4" x 3 ½ ".(e) On right side of parietal surface of head mid part above right ear oblique in direction of size 3" x 1 ½" with haemotoma around it of size 4" x 3".So looking to the nature of aforesaid injuries it appears that there were two fracture injuries to the parietal region of the deceased which indicates that there may be two hits given on the head of deceased.However, PW 11 Dr. Sonwane has deposed that if a person falls on the ground on the scalp side and causes fracture to the opposite of that part, fracture can also be caused which is known as counter coup fracture.By referring the nature of the injuries and the aforesaid admission given by PW 11 Dr. Sonwane, Mr. Satej Jadhav, learned counsel for appellants has argued that such two fractures are possible by one hit by a hard substance.The argument of Mr. Jadhav is 15/18 ::: Uploaded on - 20/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/06/2018 00:45:39 ::: 16 CrAppeal 105 03Jacceptable for the reason that there is no evidence on record to show that accused No. 1 gave multiple stroke on the head of deceased Shivram with the help of iron rod.So it is seen that there is only one hit given by accused No. 1 on the head and rest of the injuries were caused due to assault by lathi.The accused persons are charged for the offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.But looking to the evidence on record it cannot be said that there was intention of the accused persons to commit murder of Shivram.::: Uploaded on - 20/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/06/2018 00:45:39 :::So looking to the entire evidence, it appears that, the provision of section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code is attracted to the present case.When the accused gave one hit with iron rod on the head of deceased, the intention to cause death cannot be imputed to him but it would be reasonable to infer that he had knowledge that any injury on the vital part of the body of deceased would cause death.The accused persons came on the spot armed with iron rod and lathi which indicate that they have common intention to assault Shivram and the complainant.From the record it is seen that the accused No. 1 had given single blow on the head of deceased Shivram, which is proved to be 16/18 ::: Uploaded on - 20/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/06/2018 00:45:39 ::: 17 CrAppeal 105 03Jfatal.However, from the circumstances it appears that there was no intention or premeditation in the mind of the appellant/accused to inflict such injuries to the deceased as were likely to cause in ordinary course of nature.::: Uploaded on - 20/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/06/2018 00:45:39 :::Considering the entire evidence including medical evidence, the appellant/accused persons ought to have been convicted under section 304 part II of the Indian Penal Code instead of under section 304 part I of the Indian Penal Code.In view of the aforesaid finding, the State has failed to establish the offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against all the accused persons.In view of the above, we pass following order.Criminal Appeal No. 105/2003 is partly allowed.Judgment and order passed by the learned Firsthoc Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon, in Sessions Case No. 97/1999 dated 27.12.2002 is modified as follows :17/18 ::: Uploaded on - 20/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/06/2018 00:45:39 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/06/2018 00:45:39 :::18 CrAppeal 105 03J The appellants/accused are convicted for the offence punishable under section 304 Part II read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code in stead of offence punishable under section 304 part I read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand only) each.Criminal Appeal No. 416/2003 is dismissed.Both Criminal Appeals are disposed of accordingly.(K. L. WADANE, J.) (T.V. NALAWADE, J.)mkd 18/18 ::: Uploaded on - 20/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/06/2018 00:45:39 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/06/2018 00:45:39 :::
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
75,199,449 |
Heard on IA No. 1050/2016, appellant's application for giving exemption from filing affidavit in support of application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.For the reasons stated in the IA, the same is allowed and appellant is exempted from filing of the affidavit in the aforesaid application.Heard on IA No. 1049/2016, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing the appeal against the conviction and sentence under Section 302 read with 34 of IPC awarded Life Imprisonment with further stipulation to pay fine, the same is filed barred by 63 days, as reported by the office.Having heard the counsel, keeping in view the arguments, after perusing the IA and in the available circumstances, so also taking into consideration that appellant has been convicted and sentenced under Section 302 of IPC, in order to facilitate him to extend a liberty of hearing on the merit of the matter, we are satisfied that sufficient cause is made out to condone the alleged delay in filing the appeal, the same is condoned.At the request of the appellant's counsel, he is heard on the question of admission.2 Cr.A. No. 121/2016If such record is not available, the same be requisitioned within 45 days.This appeal and aforesaid criminal appeal be listed for final hearing in due course for analogues hearing.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
75,211,615 |
JUSTICE S.P.GARG MR.M. (Bail) 2303-2304/11 Page 5 Sanjay fired a shot at Ajay and injured him.The witness deposed that Sonu, son of Roshan Pehalwan attacked Ajay with his knife and stabbed his head.After this attack all the accused and Pappu ran towards the pan shop thiya.While running, they continued to threaten members of the public that in case anybody interfered with them, he too would be stabbed; they were also waving their weapons in the air.PW-2 also deposed that the incident was witnessed by his brother Sanjeev; Ajay was wearing a jacket and grey coloured trousers; he was taken to the Pentamed hospital by Sanjeev and his servant Subedar (i.e. Santosh Subedar), who was also sitting there.PW-2 left for his house to collect money and also inform people there.Whilst at home he received a call asking him to reach the hospital; his mother gave him ` 10,000/-; he went to the hospital.Ajay was breathing but he immediately died thereafter.In this appeal, correctness of the judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, dated 11-11-2011 convicting the present appellants for the offences punishable under Section 302/34, and sentencing them to undergo imprisonment for life, has been impugned.Although the Crl.A.1590/2011, Crl.M. (Bail) 2303-2304/11 Page 1 appeal was registered before this Court in 2011, the Court heard the matter finally since the incident took place in December, 2003, and the Appellants have been continuously in custody for over 8 years.The Trial Court records were called for, and considered, in the light of the submissions made by counsel for both parties.The prosecution case is that in an incident which took place at 03:15 PM on 06.12.2003, one Ajay was shot dead by the present appellants.The prosecution alleged that the motive for the crime was that the deceased had complained and deposed against the accused in a previous incident, in which they were accused of and implicated in, having committed an offence punishable under Section 308 IPC.According to the prosecution, intimation about the commission of the offence was received by the police, through a PCR intimation on the day of the offence at 03:25 PM (Ex.PW-08/A).The prosecution alleged that as soon as intimation was received about the incident, PW-9 reached the spot of occurrence since the police post was less than a kilometer away.The injured Ajay was taken away to the hospital in a gypsy vehicle.It was alleged that the injured Ajay was taken to the Penta- Med Hospital at 03:30 PM (EX PW-17/A).It is also alleged that the statement of the complainant/informant Sanjeev Kumar, who deposed during the trial as PW-7, was recorded at 05:30 PM after which the F.I.R. was registered.In the statement recorded by PW-7, it was alleged that the present appellants had approached Ajay, held out a threat that since he had deposed against them and that as they had now been cleared or acquitted, they would get rid of him from the world.After uttering these words, the deceased Ajay Crl.A.1590/2011, Crl.M. (Bail) 2303-2304/11 Page 2 was fired upon with country- made pistols.Upon his being taken to the hospital, he was declared dead.On the basis of the information collected, and statements recorded, the police started investigation into the crime; after its conclusion, the accused, who were arrested in the meanwhile, were charged with having committed the offences for which they stood trial.These three were Santosh, Jaibhagwan and Bhajan.The prosecution story about PW-2 and PW-7 being present at the site could not be believed for the reason that the MLC in this case, PW-17/A mentioned the names of the said three individuals who had not been examined as witnesses and did not mention the names of these two witnesses who claimed to have been present at the spot when the shooting incident occurred.Characterizing this to be the clearest pointer to the un-tenability and falsity of the prosecution version, learned Counsel urged that the Trial Court fell into error in not giving any importance to this aspect.It is urged that not only did the non-examination of three independent witnesses seriously undermine its credibility, what the Trial Court overlooked was the fact that the testimony of PW-21 mentioned that the statement of PW-7 was recorded at 07/08:00 PM.Elaborating on this aspect it was urged that even though the prosecution witnesses deposed that the special report was sent to the Magistrate at around 10 PM that night, the evidence on record revealed that the concerned Magistrate received the report much later, at 06:00 AM next morning.This fact gave a complete lie to the prosecution story that the F.I.R. was registered around 06:00 PM the previous evening.In fact the deposition of PW-21 about the statement being recorded much later, and the special report in fact being received by the Crl.A.1590/2011, Crl.M. (Bail) 2303-2304/11 Page 4 Magistrate nearly 10 hours later, casts grave doubts and suspicions about the real time when the FIR was registered.The prosecution was clearly under a duty to explain this delay; since none was offered or even given in the present case, the court ought to have concluded that the F I R was ante- timed.7. PW-2 Vijay Kumar, brother of the deceased stated that on the fateful day, he was sitting at his thiya, whereas his other brothers Ajay and Sanjeev were also sitting on their thiyas.His father had left the vegetable market by that time for their house.There were four thiyas between his thiya and that of his brother Ajay.Sanjeev's thiya adjoined his thiya and the distance between that and the thiya of Ajay was 20 paces.He deposed that the appellant Sanjay, Sonu and another Sonu son of Jagdish were roaming around with their associate Kanchu near the vegetable market for the last 20- 25 minutes.The witness further stated that Sanjay was known to him earlier as he was an accused in another case involving Ajay, where the latter was the complainant; he was roaming around in the vegetable market at Azadpur and he knew the other accused Pappu son of Roshan Pehalwan who also was roaming around in the market.He further claimed that he knew Sanjay's elder brother, Pappu.According to him Ajay was sitting on his stool at his thiya, and Pappu went near that; at that time he saw a country made pistol in the hand of Sanjay and Sonu son of Roshan had a long knife in his hands.Sanjay kicked Ajay due to which he fell down from the stool.Sanjay took out his weapon, pointed it to the right side of Ajay's abdomen and challenged him by saying "Sale tere chakkar mein court ke teen sale kate hai, hum bari ho gaye, aj tujhe duniya se bari kar dete hain", after which Crl.A.1590/2011, Crl.The other accused Sonu, who had a knife, stepped on the right arm of Ajay to ensure that he did not get up; all the accused surrounded him.When Ajay tried to get up, Sanjay loaded his katta and fired again and caused injuries on his right shoulder.Sonu son of Roshan continued stabbing Ajay, while the other Sonu was standing, keeping his legs on Ajay, and waving his knife in the air threatening to stab anyone who went to save the injured.PW-2 claimed that he raised an alarm to save his brother from the accused.The police too reached the hospital.A.1590/2011, Crl.M. (Bail) 2303-2304/11 Page 6PW-7 was the informant; he mentioned that the incident occurred at 3:00 PM or 3:15 PM when Ajay was sitting on his seat at the shop in the market.All the accused went to the shop; Sanjay held a Katta and the other accused were holding knives.Sanjay told Ajay that he had made him appear in the court for three years and that he had been acquitted; he further stated that he (Sanjay) and the other accused would acquit him i.e. the deceased from the world.According to the witness, Sanjay then placed the Katta on Ajay's abdomen and fired a shot; the injured fell forward and the other accused started giving him knife injuries.Sonu, son of Roshan, gave knife blows on the head and the other Sonu, son of Jagadish, stood on the hands of his brother while brandishing their knives and abused him.The accused Sanjay loaded his katta and, after abusing him, fired at his hand.Then, they all ran away shouting and abusing.PW-7, along with members of the public in the Mandi and his servant Santosh, lifted Ajay; at that time he was breathing.They took him to the Pentamed hospital, where he expired half an hour later.Counsel for the appellant argued that the depositions of both PW-2 and PW-7 were untrustworthy and it was extremely doubtful whether they were in fact eyewitnesses.It was argued in this context that PW-2's conduct was highly unnatural.Though he saw his brother Ajay being attacked and there was a fair chance to save him, since the other brother Sanjeev was admittedly present, and could have easily overcome the assailants, neither of them took any action.It was highly improbable that when a relative and a sibling was brutally attacked, Crl.A.1590/2011, Crl.M. (Bail) 2303-2304/11 Page 7 brothers would be mute spectators and continue to watch the spectacle without even making an effort to save the victim.It was argued that there were material contradictions about the attack itself.The testimony of PW-2 showed that two shots were fired at Ajay.It was alleged that he was alive when being taken to the hospital.PW-2's testimony showed that everything did not happen at one go; they first confronted Ajay, then Sanjay fired a shot and after that other accused stabbed Ajay.There was sufficient time if the brothers had so chosen, to intercede and stop the attack upon Ajay.It was argued that this unnatural conduct is underlined by the fact that PW-2 admittedly did not accompany his brother when he was taken to the hospital.He unhurriedly went home, claiming that money was needed.If in fact he had witnessed a horrendous event such as a murderous attack upon his brother, he would barely have had his wits about him and certainly not been composed enough to realize the necessity of going home and collecting cash with a view to taking it to the hospital for the purpose of treatment of the injured.It was contended that the prosecution story was also unbelievable, because if indeed PW-7, the informant, had gone to the hospital, and accompanied the injured Ajay, there was no reason why the doctor who recorded the MLC would not have mentioned his name.In this respect, Crl.A.1590/2011, Crl.M. (Bail) 2303-2304/11 Page 8 much emphasis was placed on Ex. PW-17/A, the MLC, which lists Santosh, Jai Bhagwan and Bhajan.The non-examination of these natural eyewitnesses ought to have led the Trial Court to draw an adverse inference against the prosecution.Its omission to do so rendered its findings liable to be interfered with.Counsel argued that apart from Ex. PW-17/A, there were other materials in the form of testimonies of PW-17 and PW-21, which established that PW-7 did not go to the hospital as was claimed by him.They significantly failed to mention his presence; however the names of the other three individuals were stated.M. (Bail) 2303-2304/11 Page 9 PW-7, or that of PW-2 (since the latter claimed that his clothes were blood stained when the deceased was lifted and taken to the hospital); the failure to give the alleged weapon of offence to the doctor for his opinion, and the circumstances surrounding the alleged arrest of the appellants, created grave doubts and suspicions about the veracity of the prosecution story, which could not have been taken at its face value.Learned counsel made a serious grievance that despite availability of several public witnesses, the prosecution did not choose to examine any one of them; that cast a cloud on its fairness, and the entire truthfulness about the involvement and role of the accused.Taken together, these materials were insufficient to conclude that the accused were guilty beyond reasonable doubt.It was urged that both PW-2 and PW-7 were natural witnesses, who were present at the spot, and had witnessed the crime.Even the application moved by the police for their examination through video conferencing was not accepted, by the Trial Court.This revealed that the witnesses were intimidated in this case, despite the accused's continued detention.Counsel argued that in fact if the two witnesses had not seen the incident, they would not have been able to assign the role to each accused; both of them did so, clearly, and corroborated each other on all material aspects, in this regard.It was argued that the Trial Court for all the right reasons disbelieved the testimony of PW-21, because if indeed he had gone to the site at the time deposed to by him, he would in all likelihood have witnessed the incident, which he did not.Similarly, urged counsel, the Trial Court applied its mind carefully to the facts, and all the evidence led during the trial and concluded that Sonu s/o Jagadish was not guilty, and accordingly acquitted him.Having regard to the role of the other accused, i.e. Sanjay and Sonu, of firing and stabbing the deceased, the conviction for the offences punishable under Section 302/34 as well as the offence under the Arms Act, was justified.During the course of hearing, the appellant's counsel was able to point out some discrepancies as regards the number of injuries inflicted upon the deceased; one witness said four injuries were inflicted; the other mentioned more.Although the role of the co-accused was not prominent, as to warrant his conviction, since he was alleged to have kept his foot on the deceased, the role of the present appellants was consistently spoken to.Both were armed; one with a knife and the other with a long knife.M. (Bail) 2303-2304/11 Page 13 immediately; his mother gave him ` 10,000/- which he took to the hospital.The prosecution had sought examination of Subedar; on several dates of hearing, orders were made, for service of summons to Subedar, i.e. on 3-3-2007 (when process was not received back); 30-4-2007 (process was received back unserved).On 22-8-2007 an Crl.M. (Bail) 2303-2304/11 Page 15 application was moved that Subedar was afraid of the accused, and that his deposition be recorded through video-conferencing.On 25th August, 2007, the accused's counsel was unavailable; the application for videoconferencing had to be taken up later.29-9-2008, Trial Court most curiously by its order said that video conferencing would be lengthy and time consuming, and turned it down.A direction was given to IO to provide adequate security to Subedar to depose in the Court.Counsel for the accused said that the threat allegation was unfounded; he also said that the Subedar could be provided security.Importantly, Counsel did not oppose video conferencing.These circumstances were set out by the Court to show that even though in principle no opposition was made for recording evidence through video-conferencing, the Court rejected it on flimsy and untenable grounds.A fresh application was made to provide security to Sanjeev Kumar Banga, though he had given his evidence.The order dated 27-4-2010 gave special directions to the beat officers and constable in the area, to keep special vigil; also a direction to Crl.A.1590/2011, Crl.M. (Bail) 2303-2304/11 Page 16 take special measures for Banga's security.The order of 21-10-2010 records that the prosecution did not furnish any special reason why Subedar was not examined till date.Subedar was asked to be served on 30-11-2010 and directed to be served through SHO.The order of 7-2-2011 states that Subedar could not be served either through SHO or DCP; the Court therefore gave him up.The preceding discussion would reveal that Subedar was initially willing to be examined, if the Court facilitated the process through video- conferencing.The Court for entirely illogical reasons denied the request.The process of trying to serve him took unduly long; the police was not able to trace and serve him.In Phola Singh, the High Court had observed that there was unusual delay in lodging the FIR, which was registered after deliberation.The incident took place at 5:30 AM; the FIR was lodged at 10:45 A.M. and the special report reached the Magistrate at 2:40 P.M. on the same day.There was evidence that the distance between the Police Post and the Illaqa Magistrate was about 20 Kms.There is other material, in the form of witnesses' statement, supporting his presence.Moreover, he was extensively cross examined on this aspect by all the accused.In fact, during the cross examination, he stated the circumstances under which the deceased was taken to the hospital, i.e. in a red Maruti, and was accompanied by the others, Santosh Subedar, Jaibhagwan and Bhajan.Cross examination is an unequal duel between a rustic and refined lawyer.XXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX"In this case, the variations and discrepancies between the testimonies of PW-2 and PW-7 are not vital.There is no variation as to who were the attackers, or the place of the incident; nor is there any variation or contradiction about the role played by the different accused, or the time when the incident took place.Similarly, both the witnesses reached the hospital, within reasonable time; PW-7 accompanied his injured brother; PW-2 went home to collect money, and then went to the hospital.The statements of these witnesses were also recorded by the police within a reasonable time.In this background, Sanjay pointed a katta, at Ajay and said "Sale tere chakkar mein court ke teen sale kate hai, hum bari ho gaye, aj tujhe duniya se bari kar dete hain" The witness, PW-7 was cross examined extensively on this aspect.However, his testimony remained unshaken.The appellant Sanjay and his associates were acquitted of the charges leveled against them in the earlier incident; this was the cause of their angst and grudge.
|
['Section 308 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.
|
75,212,799 |
C.R.M. 11268 of 2010 In the matter of : The applications for Anticipatory Bail Under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on July 26, 2010 And In re.: Dilip Bagdi & 5 Ors.This is an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on behalf of the petitioners who apprehend arrest in connection with Kandi Police Station Case No. 281 of 2010 dated 09.7.2010 under Sections 143/341/323/326 of the Indian Penal Code.We have heard the submissions of the learned advocates for the petitioners and the State.Perused the petition as well as the petition of complaint made before the learned Magistrate under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.It is abundantly made clear that our order for grant of anticipatory bail must not preclude the learned Magistrate from considering the prayer for regular bail on their surrender, on the material available to him as on that date.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus disposed of.( Banerjee, J.) ( Raghunath Ray, J.) akb
|
['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
752,193 |
The case of the prosecution is that deceased Murugan is the brother of P.W.1 Kali.A.1 Easwaran and one Mani are the sons of A.2 Selamban.Mani used to talk with the wife of deceased Murugan.As such there was frequent quarrel between deceased Murugan and Mani.On the date of occurrence, i.e. on 28.5.2006, at about 7.00 p.m., when deceased Murugan was in the house of P.W.1 Kali, A.1 Easwaran and A.2 Selamban came there and dragged deceased Murugan and took him near Perumal temple.A.1 Easwaran attacked deceased Murugan with wooden cot leg on his hands and A.2 Selamban attacked deceased Murugan using the wooden cot leg on his head.Thereafter, A.1 Easwaran and A.2 Selamban ran away from the scene of occurrence.This occurrence was witnessed by P.W.2 Ponnusamy, who is the brother-in-law of P.W.1 Kali, and also by P.W.3 Semalaigounder.P.W.1 Kali and P.W.2 Ponnusamy covered the wounded place of injured Murugan using cloth.On the next day morning, i.e. 29.5.2006, deceased Murugan was taken to Tiruppur Government Hospital.P.W.6 Dr. Senthil had seen deceased Murugan and also noted the following injuries (1) Cut injury scalp left occipital region, size 5 x 1 cms.; (2) Cut injury scalp left parietal region 4 x 1 cms.; (3) Fracture right humerus with multiple abrasion 1 x 1 cm.; and (4) compound fracture left humerus with multiple laceration injury, size 5 x 4 cms and 6 x 4 cms.P4 is Accident Register Extract.As injuries were serious, he advised to take injured Murugan to Coimbatore Medical College Hospital.Injured Murugan was also taken to Coimbatore Medical College Hospital on 29.5.2006 at 2.53 p.m. In the meantime, P.W.10 Sub-Inspector of Police of Uthukkuli Police Station, on receiving the intimation from the Out-Post Police Station of Tiruppur Government Hospital, went to Tiruppur Government Hospital and as he came to know that the patient had already been sent to Coimbatore Medical College, Hospital, he reached there on 29.5.2006 at 8.30 p.m. As Murugan was unconscious and not in a position to speak, he could not get any statement from him.On 30.5.2006, at 5.30 a.m., he recorded the statement from P.W.1 Kali and came back to the Police Station and registered a case at 8.00 a.m. in Crime No.313/06 under Sections 452, 324, 506(2) IPC.P14 is the First Information Report.Later, he went to the scene of occurrence and prepared Ex.P2 Observation mahazar, drew Ex.P15 Rough Sketch and recovered M.O.3 wooden cot leg under Ex.P3 and on the same day, at 12.15 p.m., he arrested both the accused near Sadayampathi bus stop and sent them for remand at about 2.00 p.m. and at about 4.00 p.m., he recovered M.Os.1 and 2 shirt and dhoti respectively, of the deceased from one P.W.2 Ponnusamy, under Form 95, which is Ex.Injured Mohan, who was in the hospital, died on 13.6.2006 at 1.00 a.m. and Ex.P12 is the Death Intimation.P.W.9 Sub-Inspector of Police, on receiving the death intimation, altered the offence to one under Section 302 IPC and prepared Ex.P13 Express First Information Report.P.W.11 Inspector Raju, on receiving copy of the Express Report, went to Coimbatore Medical College Hospital and conducted inquest and examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and others.P17 is the Inquest Report.At about 4.00 p.m., he sent the requisition through Head Constable for conducting post-mortem on the body of the deceased.P.W.7 Dr.(Judgment of the Court was rendered by T.SUDANTHIRAM, J.) The appellants, who are A.1 and A.2 in Sessions Case No. 195 of 2006 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge [Fast Track Court No.I], Erode, stand convicted for the offences under Sections 449, 302 r/w 34 and 506(ii) IPC and sentenced to undergo ten years Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence under Section 449 IPC; life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC; and two years Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence under Section 506(ii) IPC and the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the accused have preferred the present appeal.Menaka Sekar, on receiving Ex.P5 Requisition, conducted Autopsy at 4.05 p.m. and found the following -"Injuries:(1) Deformity present over right lower arm, on dissection there is fracture of humerus at the junction of upper 2/3 and lower 1/3 surrounded by dirty thick brown coloured fluid of about 200 ml, with a butterfly segment.There was no evidence of fracture healing.(2) 10 x 8 cm open wound present over the front of the left lower arm, exposing the muscles and upper end of the lower fragment of the fractured humerus, which is jutting out the fracture level being upper 3/4 and lower 1/4 : the fracture ends and the wound show evidence of infection.(3) Bedsore measuring 6 cm x 4 cm, each present over the occipital and sacral regions.(4) Both the lungs are adherent to chest wall.(5) There is 10 cm healed sutured wound present over the left parietal region.(6) There is a 2 cm x 2 cm healed wound over the back of right parietal region.(7) The gall bladder is enlarged and contains 150 ml.Of thick bile with sludge.(8) Sub arachnoid haemorrhage seen over the surfaces of both the parietal regions of the cerebral hemispheres.Other findings:Pleural and peritoneal cavities: Empty.Lungs cut section congested.Heart: Right side chambers contains fluid blood.Left side chambers empty, coronaries patent.Hyoid bone intact.As P.W.11 Inspector Raju was transferred, P.W.12 Inspector Ramasamy continued the investigation and examined the witnesses.P9 is the Chemical Analyst's Report and Exs.To prove the case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 12; marked Exs.The accused were examined under Section 313 CrPC and they denied their complicity.No witness was examined and no document was marked on the side of the defence.The trial Court found the accused guilty of the offences under Sections 449, 302 r/w. 34 and 506 (2) IPC and sentenced them as stated as above.Mr.A.K.Kumarasamy, learned counsel for the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2, submits that the eye-witnesses, namely, P.Ws. 1 to 3, could not have been present at the scene of occurrence and their conduct is very unnatural and though the occurrence is said to have taken place on 28.5.2006 at 7 pm, the victim-Murugan was taken to hospital only on the next day morning.The learned counsel further submits that if P.W.1-Kali, who is the brother of the deceased-Murugan, had informed to P.W.6-Dr.Senthil that three known persons attacked deceased Murugan with unknown weapons, but the present prosecution case is that only two persons attacked deceased Murugan and there is no explanation from the prosecution with regard to this vital contradictory factor.The learned counsel further points out that there was enormous delay of 36 hours in preferring the complaint.He further submits that even though the place of occurrence is said to be near the Perumal temple and it is alleged by the prosecution that the victim-Murugan was taken from the house of P.W.1-Kali, admittedly the deceased-Murugan was living with his mother in a separate house and the house of the deceased was shown in Ex.P15-Rough Sketch, but the house of P.W.1 was not shown and it is somewhere else and therefore the version of the prosecution case that Murugan was forcibly taken from the house of P.W.1, is suffering from infirmity.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.Kumaresan submits that the delay in preferring the complaint has been properly explained by the prosecution.He also submits that though the occurrence had taken place at 7 pm on 28.5.2006, as no vehicle was available, the victim-Murugan could not be taken to the hospital immediately and only on the next day morning, he was taken to Tirupur Government Hospital and on intimation from the Tirupur Government Hospital Outpost Police Station, Sub Inspector of Police, Uttukuli Police Station went to Tirupur Government Hospital and as he received information that the victim-Murugan was taken to Coimbatore Medical College Hospital from there, he had gone to Coimbatore Medical College Hospital, and received the complaint from P.W.1-Kali.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submits that P.W.3-Semalai Gounder, who is an eye-witness in the case, is an independent witness and there was no reason for him to depose falsely against the accused.This Court considered the submissions made by both sides and perused all the records, with deep consideration.P.Ws.1 to 3 are eye-witnesses to the occurrence and among them, P.Ws.1 and 2 are related to the deceased.Though the occurrence is said to have taken place on 28.5.2006 at 7 pm and the victim-Murugan had sustained serious injuries on both the hands, no attempt was made by anyone immediately to take Murugan to the hospital.Though it is stated that no bus facility was available, no attempt was made by the witnesses to take the victim-Murugan by any private vehicle, during the cross-examination, P.W.1-Kali had stated that the victim-Murugan after sustaining injuries, was lying at the scene of occurrence itself throughout the night.P.W.3-Semalai Gounder, in the chief-examination, has stated that the victim-Murugan was kept at the scene of occurrence throughout the night.The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 on this aspect creates a doubt with regard to their presence at the time of occurrence.If P.Ws.1 to 3 had been present at the time of occurrence, immediately they would have taken some steps to take the victim-Murugan to the hospital, who sustained serious injuries on his hands.Even according to P.W.1-Kali, TVS-50 vehicle was available in the village and that they are also owning two-wheeler.The answers given by P.Ws.1 to 3 for not taking the victim-Murugan to the hospital immediately are not convincing and that injured Murugan was lying at the scene of occurrence throughout the night leads to a possible conclusion that the victim-Murugan was seen by them only on the next day early morning.10. P.W.6-Dr.Senthil of Tirupur Government Hospital was informed by P.W.1-Kali that the victim-Murugan was attacked by three known persons with unknown weapons.These particulars are also mentioned in Ex.P4-Accident Register extract that the victim was attacked by three known persons by unknown weapons near Salapalayam.The present case of the prosecution, as per the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is that only two persons viz., accused Nos.1 and 2, have taken part in the occurrence and they attacked the victim-Murugan with M.O.3-Wooden Cot log.The prosecution is not in a position to explain as to why P.W.1-Kali had given such information to P.W.6-Dr.Senthil, which is the earliest narration available about the occurrence.Apart from that, though it is the case of the prosecution that only M.O.3-Wooden Cot log was used as a weapon in this case for causing the injuries sustained by the deceased-Murugan, according to P.W.6-Dr.Senthil, the injury on the head, mentioned as injury Nos.1 and 2 could have been caused by sharp-edged weapon.Senthil had further mentioned in his evidence that the total four injuries could have been caused by two different weapons.Though the victim-Murugan was treated for a period of 17 days as in-patient in Coimbatore Medical College Hospital, the prosecution has not examined the Doctor who gave treatment to Murugan and not produced the medical records from the said hospital.The prosecution has not elicited any opinion from P.W.7-Dr.Menaka Sekar as to whether the injuries on the head of the deceased could have been caused by M.O.3-Wooden cot log.The Police Station is only at a distance of 5 kilometers from the place of occurrence.None of the persons who had witnessed the occurrence had gone to the Police Station after the occurrence and only after getting intimation from the Tirupur Government Hospital Outpost Police Station, the Sub Inspector of Police, Uttukuli Police Station had gone to Tirupur Government Hospital.Though P.W.10-Sub Inspector Rajaravithangam had gone to Tirupur Government Hospital on being informed that victim-Murugan was taken to Coimbatore Medical College Hospital, he went there and having reached the hospital at 8.30 pm on 29.5.2006, he had received the complaint from P.W.1-Kali, the brother of deceased, only on the next day morning at 5.30 am.Though the deceased was in unconscious stage, P.W.10-Sub Inspector Rajaravithangam could have obtained the complaint from P.W.1-Kali even at 8.30 pm on 29.5.2006 when he reached the hospital.The victim-Murugan was admitted in the Coimbatore Medical College Hospital at 2.53 pm on 29.5.2006 and according to P.W.1-Kali, the Police had come to the hospital within two hours from the time of admission of the deceased in the hospital.These aspects throw considerable doubt with regard to the manner in which the First Information Report was prepared.As already seen, there was a delay of 36 hours in preparing the First Information Report and in the said circumstances, the First Information Report itself is doubtful.Even though P.W.3 is claimed to be an independent eye-witness by the prosecution, it is not possible for this Court to accept his evidence in view of other reasons given above in this case.He is only a chance witness.P.Ws.1 and 2 are coolie workers in his field.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
75,219,672 |
Later on, on different occasions, applicant received Rs.1,40,000/- in addition to the aforesaid amount on installments from the complainant.When the applicant demanded more money, it created doubt in the mind of complainant and enquired from the Railway Department then he came to know that there is no tender for the Railway Canteen at Beena.Heard on this first bail application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail to the applicant in connection with Crime No.343/2018, registered at Police Station Bairagarh, District Bhopal, for the offences punishable under Sections 420 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.As per prosecution, the allegation against present applicant, in short, is that few days before the incidence, the applicant introduced himself to be a prominent person of Maharashtra and had said that if he needs any canteen contract in Railway then he can help you.On that promise, complainant Sahil Chawla has started to make contact on mobile phone to him and on his call, he reached at Bairagarh Bhopal on 16/07/2018 and handed over Rs.50,000/- on the pretext of helping him to provide a contract of Bina canteen.When complainant not received any satisfactory answer from the applicant then he lodged report at Police Station Bairagarh District Bhopal.On that basis, Crime No.343/2018 under Section 420 r/w 34 of the IPC has been registered against the applicant and two other co-accused persons.Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State on the other hand has vehemently opposed the application.Consequently, this application for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the applicant deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed.(MOHD.FAHIM ANWAR) JUDGE manju Digitally signed by MANJU CHOUKSEY Date: 04/01/2019 22:13:53 3 MCRC-51493-2018 Digitally signed by MANJU CHOUKSEY Date: 04/01/2019 22:13:53
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
75,221,055 |
Prosecution case, in short, is that complainant Dharmendra (PW2) is an agriculturist.He, along with his younger brother Raghvendra (PW4) went to Bharat Gas Agency on 1/3/13 to book a filled-up gas cylinder from the Agency.When the book of gas-booking was given to accused Rajkumar, then he told to come after an hour.Raghvendra (PW4) has stated in paragraph 4 of his cross-examination that no quarrel took place at the Gas Agency and he and his brother had gone to the Police Station on Mudguard of a Tractor.The incident took place at the Gas Agency of Gohad which was approximately 1 km away from the Police Station.Raghvendra (PW4) has stated that quarrel did not take place at the Agency and it should have been mentioned in the FIR that the victim had visited the Police Station on a Tractor.If anyone goes on a Tractor for 1 Km then certainly 10 minutes would be required to cover the distance and thereafter some time would be required for giving information to Officers of Police Station and to register the FIR.It is strange that FIR (Ex.P/3) was registered within 20 minutes of the incident.Also Raghvendra (PW4) has accepted that the incident did not take place at the Gas Agency.Thereafter, respondents started abusing with obscene words.Rajvir gave a blow of Iron Rod on the head of victim Raghvendra (PW4) and thereafter Santosh gave a blow of Hockey Stick on right knee of complainant Dharmendra.Thereafter Rajkumar gave a hockey blow on right palm of complainant Dharmendra.Respondent Chhotelal gave a blow of Iron Rod on his back causing injujry.Various witnesses like Girraj (PW6), Deepu (PW5) and Gabbar (PW10) came and saved them.Thereafter, respondents closed the shutters of Gas Agency and ran away.Complainant immediately went to Police Station Gohad and lodged the FIR (Ex.P/3).C. No. 10780/2016 (State of M.P. Vs.Santosh Jatav and Others) Complainant Dharmendra and Raghvendra were sent for medico-legal examination.Dr. Alok Sharma (PW1) examined them and prepared MLC reports Ex.P/1 and P/2 respectively.Two simple injuries were found on the body of complainant Dharmendra, whereas, three injuries were found on the body of victim Raghvendra.The third injury was "bleeding from right ear".Hence, he was referred to ENT Specialist.Thereafter, he was referred to J.A. Hospital for neurological treatment.Dr. Vivek Jain (PW14) examined and treated Raghvendra.After due investigation, charge-sheet was filed.After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the prosecution and considering the evidence led, the trial Court found that respondents had no motive to assault a customer who visited the Gas Agency.They are falsely implicated in the matter due to previous enmity of Dharmendra and Raghvendra with respondent Santosh etc. who have no concern with the Gas Agency.In support of such contention, defence witnesses Banti (DW1), Sahid Ali (DW2) and Shyam (DW3) were examined to show that victims Raghvendra and Dharmendra had sustained the injuries due to Motorcycle accident.In the present case, eye-witnesses were mainly complainant Dharmendra (PW2) and Raghvendra (PW4).They have stated that respondents assaulted them with various weapons like Hockey Stick and Iron Rod due to which they have sustained injuries.First of all, nature of injuries caused to victim Raghvendra is being considered.According to Dr. Alok Sharma (PW1), he had sustained one (3) M.Cr.C. No. 10780/2016 (State of M.P. Vs.Santosh Jatav and Others) lacerated wound on the right side of head and one contusion on his right back and scapular region.Bleeding was found from his right ear and, therefore, for treatment of this injury, he referred the patient to ENT Specialist.In the entire prosecution evidence, no ENT Specialist has been examined.Dr. Avtar Singh (PW13) was examined who prepared the discharge ticket of victim Raghvendra.However, that discharge ticket was not exhibited, which indicates that it was not on record.Dr. Avtar Singh did not mention that he had done any surgery on the head of victim Raghvendra.Dr. Vivek Jain (PW14), DM Neurology, has stated about the case-sheet of Raghvendra i.e. Ex.According to him, one stitched wound was found on his right head and it was treated.The patient was treated and ultimately discharged.Thereafter, Rajkumar gave a blow of hockey on right palm of complainant Dharmendra.According to Dharmendra (PW2), one Chhotelal gave a blow of rod on his back.However, Dr. Alok Sharma (PW1) did not find any injury on the back of victim Dharmendra and there is no explanation as to how he did not sustain the injury.Similarly, according to eye- witnesses, no second blow of Iron Rod was given by respondent Rajvir on the head of victim Raghvendra, but one contusion was found by Dr. Alok Sharma on his right scapular region.There is no explanation given by Raghvendra or Dharmendra as to how that wound has been caused to him.It is true that evidence of these witnesses was corroborated by one Deepu (PW5).Deepu has stated that he was residing in Village Ruri Ka Pura which is 16-17 Kms.from Gohad.He is nephew of complainant Dharmendra.When he was asked as to how he reached the spot when the incident took place, then in paragraph 3 of his cross- examination, he has stated the he had no work at Bharat Gas Agency and he could not show any satisfactory reason for his presence on the spot.This possibility cannot be ruled out that (5) M.Cr.C. No. 10780/2016 (State of M.P. Vs.Santosh Jatav and Others) name of Deepu was mentioned by the complainant because Deepu was his nephew and would have supported the prosecution story.Similarly, it is most unnatural that if anyone visits a Gas Agency having a Gas Connection then the staff of Gas Agency would assault him unnecessarily.He was resident of Village Tubeda, District Bhind.He has claimed that at the spot, he was standing with Gabbar and Deepu, which indicates that he is close friend of Deepu, nephew of complainant Dharmendra (PW2) and similarly Gabbar is also friend of Deepu.Gabbar (PW10) was asked whether he had any gas connection and whether he had brought any book to show that he had any gas connection to show that he had to visit the Gas Agency, to which, he could not give any positive reply.On the basis of aforesaid facts and circumstances, it appears that evidence of Dharemendra (PW2) and Raghvendra (PW4) was not totally corroborated by medical evidence.It was not proved as to how the victim Dharmendra did not sustain any injury on his back portion and similarly there is no reason as to how Raghvendra sustained injury on his scapular region.Possibility cannot be ruled out that they have sustained the aforesaid injuries due to Motorcycle accident.Dr. Alok Sharma (PW1) has indicated that such injuries found on the body of Dharmendra and Raghvendra, could have been caused due to fall from Motorcycle in an accident.Possibility cannot be ruled out that due to enmity with one or any of the accused persons, a false case was (7) M.Cr.C. No. 10780/2016 (State of M.P. Vs.The eye- witnesses were relatives and friends of complainant Dharmendra who could say in favour of complainant and Raghvendra.Similarly, no words have been informed by the witnesses alleged to be spoken by any particular accused and, therefore, respondents could not be convicted for the offence under section 294 of the IPC.The trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondents from the aforesaid charges.Copy of this order along with the record be sent to the trial Court for information.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
75,227,036 |
(Order of the Court was made by A.SELVAM,J.) This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to call for the records relating to detention order, dated 28.3.2016, passed in CMP No.18/Goonda/Salem City/2016 by the detaining authority, who has been arrayed as second respondent herein, against the detenu, by name Vijay @ Vikki @ Vignesh, son of Ramesh and quash the same.The Inspector of Police, Ammapet Police Station, as sponsoring authority, has submitted an affidavit to the detaining authority, wherein it is averred that the detenu has already involved in the following adverse cases:(1) Hasthampatty Police Station Crime No.74 of 2016, registered under Sections 147, 148, 307 IPC and Section 27 of Arms Act r/w Section 3 of Explosive Substance Act, 1908 @ into Sections 147, 148, 307 IPC r/w 120(b) IPC & Section 27 of Arms Act r/w Section 3 of Explosive Substance Act.(2) Hasthampatty Police Station Crime No.75 of 2016, registered under Sections 147, 148, 307 IPC r/w Section 3 of Explosive Substance Act, 1908 @ into Sections 147, 148, 307 IPC r/w 120(b) IPC r/w Section 3 of Explosive Substance Act, 1908Considering the fact that the detention order in question has already been revoked, the relief sought in the petition has become infructuous.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
108,594,189 |
I. The application is hereby allowed.The applicant SONALI W/O. SUKHDEO THORAT be released on bail in connection with Crime No. 748 of 2019 registered with Newasa Police Station, Taluka Newasa, District Ahmednagar for the offence punishable under vre/-::: Uploaded on - 29/09/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 30/09/2020 08:39:35 :::::: Uploaded on - 29/09/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 30/09/2020 08:39:35 :::( V. K. JADHAV, J. ) ...::: Uploaded on - 29/09/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 30/09/2020 08:39:35 :::::: Uploaded on - 29/09/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 30/09/2020 08:39:35 :::
|
['Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
108,594,611 |
Shri Mayank Shrivastava, learned counsel for the complainant.With consent heard finally.This is the first application preferred by the applicant under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. wherein he is apprehending his arrest in a case registered at Crime No.477/2019 at Police Station Janakgarnj, District Gwalior for the offence under Sections 376, 506 of IPC.It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that on the basis of registration of case on false pretext, he is apprehending his arrest.Once the applicant filed private complaint against the prosecutrix and her accomplice for the offence under Sections 292, 384, 386, 389, 392, 506-B and 120 of IPC then as a counter-blast instant FIR has been lodged.Applicant also made complaint to the Inspector General of Police, Gwalior Range and Superintendent of Police, Gwalior District about cheating and blackmailing by prosecutrix and her friends.Confinement would bring social disrepute and personal inconvenience.He undertakes to cooperate in investigation and would make himself available as and when required by the investigating officer and also undertakes to do some community service.Consequently, he prayed for bail of anticipatory nature.THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 2 M.Cr.C. No.33649/2019 On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submits that there is named FIR against the applicant, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the application.A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance.Certified copy as per rules.(Anand Pathak) Judge Anil* Digitally signed by ANIL KUMAR CHAURASIYA Date: 2019.08.20 15:22:51 +05'30'
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 384 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
10,860,967 |
Prosecution story as unfolded is that FIR No. 458/01 under Section 386 read with Section 34 IPC was registered on the complaint of one Onkar Singh (complainant).It is alleged in the FIR that complainant was owner of plot no. B-7, Shankar Garden Colony near Dholi Piau, Delhi.In his absence five persons had visited his house three times and this fact was informed to the complainant by his servant, namely, Rakesh when complainant returned to his house at about 7:30 pm.Satender @ Pappu caught the collar of complainant and told him to sign certain blank papers.He threatened that if complainant did not do so he will be killed.Thereafter, Satender placed four blank papers on the bonnet of Honda City car and commanded the complainant to sign the papers.Sanjay Kumar brandished an iron punch while Sunil, Sanjay @ Pahalwan and Karambir abused the complainant.They forced him to sign four blank papers.P. 341/2012 Page 2 of 7 Complainant signed those four blank papers under fear.Thereafter, Satender @ Pappu told the complainant that henceforth the plot of Shankar Garden was their and asked the complainant to vacate the same.When petitioners and co-accused were leaving the spot complainant raised alarm "Pakro Pakro".A police team comprising of SI Sharat Chandra, Const.Desh Raj, Const.Rambir, Const.The owner of the Honda City car was examined as PW2, who has deposed that on 13th September, 2001 car was given by him to Sanjay.PW4 Const.Deshraj has stated that he along with Const.Petitioners were convicted under Section 386 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC" for short) by the Trial Court and sentenced to imprisonment for two years with fine of `10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. was also given to the petitioners.Aggrieved by the said judgment petitioners preferred an appeal against their conviction and sentence before the Additional Session Judge, Delhi which has been dismissed vide judgment dated 11th June, 2012 whereby conviction as well as sentence awarded by the Trial Court has been affirmed/upheld.P. 341/2012 Page 1 of 7P. 341/2012 Page 1 of 7Ravinder and HC Rajesh, who were on patrolling duty in the area came there and apprehended the petitioners and co-accused.P. 341/2012 Page 2 of 7SI Sharat Chandra (Investigating Officer) seized the four blank papers bearing signatures of complainant from the right hand of Satender @ Pappu.Prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses.Ravinder, Const.Ramvir, HC Rajesh Tyagi and SI Sharat Chandra were on patrolling duty and when they reached village Nagli Jalib they heard the alarm "Pakro CRL.P. 341/2012 Page 3 of 7 Pakro"; They reached near the house No. WZ 13 where petitioners and co-accused were apprehended.Both the cars were taken in possession.One metal punch was also recovered from Sanjay and four blank papers bearing signatures of complainant were recovered from Satender @ Pappu.PW5 to PW8 have corroborated these facts.Trial Court has found the testimony of abovementioned witnesses to be trustworthy and reliable.PW1 has not fully corroborated prosecution version.He has not identified the petitioners and co-accused.However, his testimony has supported happening of the incident and that the persons involved were apprehended by the police officials.He deposed that at about 8:30 pm when he was standing outside his house 4/5 boys came there and caught hold of him from behind and asked him to sign certain blank papers and threatened to kill him in case he refused to do so.He signed the blank papers due to fear.He raised alarm "Pakro Pakro".A police gypsy which was passing through, apprehended the said persons.He has stated that he was unable to see the faces of those persons.Defence counsel argued before the Trial Court that since complainant (PW1) had turned turtle complicity of petitioners in the crime was not proved.This argument was not accepted.Recovery of the vehicles from the spot was also established from their statements.As per PW2 and PW3, their vehicles had been lent by them to the persons involved in this case, on that particular day.This evidence was sufficient to conclude the guilt of accused persons.P. 341/2012 Page 3 of 7He has not even denied that the persons who come there and forcibly obtained his signatures on certain blank papers were apprehended by the police party who were present in the area at that time.It is only on the point of identification that he had turned hostile.Petitioners were apprehended by the police at the CRL.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
108,621,531 |
Subsequent to the registration of the subject FIR the parties arrived at an amicable resolution of all their outstanding disputes with the aid and assistance of the Delhi Mediation Centre, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.The salient terms and conditions of the aforesaid amicable resolution as contained in the proceeding sheet dated 21.04.2016 of the Delhi Mediation Centre, Karkardoom Courts, Delhi, are as follows:-Through: Ms Neha Dhir, Advocate for Ms Nandita Rao, Addl.Standing Counsel (Crl.) for State.SI Mukesh Yadav, PS- Jagat Puri.HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL)The present is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) seeking quashing of FIR No.510/2015, under Sections 419/420/467/468/471 W.P. (CRL) 1743/2016 Page 1 of 5 IPC, registered at Police Station- Jagat Puri, Delhi, and the proceedings arising therefrom.W.P. (CRL) 1743/2016 Page 1 of 5The subject FIR came to be registered on an allegation made by the complainant, respondent No.2 herein, that Mr Satpal Malhotra, the petitioner herein, had instituted a civil suit for specific performance of contract in respect of property bearing No.59, Mausam Vihar, Delhi- 110051, after forging and fabricating documents in this behalf.It is agreed between the parties that plaintiff Sh.Satpal Malhotra shall hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property bearing No.59, First Floor, Mausam Vihar, Delhi-51, to the defendant Sh.Om Prakash Kalra as stated in the subsequent paras of the present settlement.It is agreed between the parties that the plaintiff shall approach the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi for quashing of the above mentioned FIR W.P. (CRL) 1743/2016 Page 2 of 5 No.510/2015, PS Jagat Puri, U/s 419/420/467/468/471 IPC within one month from the date of settlement and the defendant shall cooperate with the plaintiff and make appropriate statement in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi for quashing.W.P. (CRL) 1743/2016 Page 2 of 5It is agreed between the parties that the plaintiff shall remove all his belongings from the suit property and deposit the keys of the suit premises in the Court of Dr. Hardeep Kaur, Ld.ADJ, KKD Courts, Delhi, on or before 30.04.2016 and the plaintiff has no objection to the release of the keys of the suit property to the defendant after quashing of above mentioned FIR No.510/2015, PS Jagat Puri, U/s 419/420/467/471 IPC.It is agreed between the parties that the defendant shall withdraw the above mentioned suit for possession bearing No.CS No.576/16 from the court of Sh.It is agreed between the parties the plaintiff may get refund of court fees as per law.It is agreed between the parties that the settlement has been read over to the parties in vernacular and has been fully understood by signing the same.It is agreed between the parties that the above-said settlement has be en arrived at between W.P. (CRL) 1743/2016 Page 3 of 5 the parties voluntarily and without any duress, pressure or coercion etc.W.P. (CRL) 1743/2016 Page 3 of 5It is agreed between the parties that they shall remain bound by the terms and conditions of this settlement."Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Anr.The offences alleged to have been committed in the subject FIR are private in nature and do not have a serious impact on society.In view of the foregoing, since the dispute that led to the registration of the subject FIR, which arose out of the ownership of the subject property, has been settled amicably by and between the parties without any undue W.P. (CRL) 1743/2016 Page 4 of 5 influence, pressure or coercion no useful purpose will be served by proceeding with the subject FIR and the proceedings arising therefrom.W.P. (CRL) 1743/2016 Page 4 of 5Resultantly, the FIR No.510/2015, under Sections 419/420/467/468/471 IPC, registered at Police Station- Jagat Puri, Delhi, and the proceedings arising therefrom are hereby set aside and quashed qua the petitioner subject to his depositing a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with the Victims' Compensation Fund within a period of four weeks from today.A copy of the receipt thereof shall be provided to the Investigating Officer in the subject FIR.With the above directions the writ petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly.9. Dasti.SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J MAY 30, 2016 mk W.P. (CRL) 1743/2016 Page 5 of 5W.P. (CRL) 1743/2016 Page 5 of 5
|
['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
108,622,103 |
I respectfully differ with the said judgement .There will, however, be no order as to costs for this litigation.Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on usual undertaking.(Indrajit Chatterjee, J.)
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
108,627,477 |
(M.M.S.,J.) (T.K.R.,J.) 15.11.2019 Index : Yes / No mmi/ssm Page 4 of 6http://www.judis.nic.in HCP No 1895 of 2019 ToPage 4 of 6Page 5 of 6http://www.judis.nic.in HCP No 1895 of 2019 M.M.SUNDRESH, J.Page 5 of 6and RMT.[Order of the Court was made by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.] The petitioner is the father of the detenu, Paul Praveen, son of Alan Micheal,male, aged about 26 years.The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.Page 2 of 6http://www.judis.nic.in HCP No 1895 of 2019Page 2 of 64.For appreciating the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the relevant averments in para 4 of the grounds of detention are extracted below:I am aware that Thiru.The sponsoring authority has stated that the relatives of Thiru Paul Praveen are taking action to take him out on bail in P2 Otteri Police Station Crime No.467/2019 by filing bail application before the appropriate court.Further in a similar case registered at F-1 Chintadripet PS Cr.No.809/2014 u/s 147,148,341, 307 IPC @ 302 IPC bail was granted by the Principal Sessions Judge at Chennai in Crl.If he comes out on bail, he will indulge in further activities which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.” .......No.809/2014 u/s 147,148,341, 307 IPC @ Page 3 of 6http://www.judis.nic.in HCP No 1895 of 2019 302 IPC bail was granted by the Principal Sessions Judge at Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.17395 of 2014 and therefore, there is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in the ground case in Crime Nos.467/2019 and indulge in such activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.The similar case relied on by the authority was registered for the offences u/s 147,148,341, 307 IPC @ 302 IPC whereas the ground case were registered for the offence under Section 341 and 307 IPC.Therefore, there is non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority in not considering the similar case for arriving at subjective satisfaction.Hence the impugned order of detention is liable to be set aside.Page 3 of 6In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in BCDFGISSSV No.493 of 2019 dated 14.08.2019 passed by the second respondent is set aside.The detenu, namely, Paul Praveen, son of Alan Micheal,male, aged about 26 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.1.The Secretary to Government, Home,Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Veppery, Chennai.3.The Superintendent, Central Prison,Puzhal,Chennai.4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
108,631,119 |
As per the complaint lodged by Ramji Lal, respondent Mehar Singh and others armed with iron chains, lathis, danda, stones etc. stopped a bus, rebuked the conductor of the bus as to how he dared to take the fare from one of their associates.Those who intervened were beaten-up.They received injuries.The miscreants broke the side window panes of the bus by W.P. (C) No. 2333/2015 Page 8 of 19 throwing stones.In such a situation, we would not like to dilute the importance and efficacy of a mechanism like the Screening Committee created by the Delhi Police to ensure that persons who are likely to erode its credibility do not enter the police force.At the same time, the Screening Committee must be alive to the importance of trust reposed in it and must treat all candidates with even hand".Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.Application stands disposed of.W.P. (C) No. 2333/2015 & CM.By the instant Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner questions the tenability of the impugned order dated 21.07.2014 passed by learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, whereby the learned Tribunal dismissed the Original Application preferred by the W.P. (C) No. 2333/2015 Page 1 of 19 petitioner.W.P. (C) No. 2333/2015 Page 1 of 19We would now turn to the facts of the case for better comprehension:-The Petitioner was selected as Constable (Executive) Male in Delhi Police.During the process of recruitment undertaken by the respondents in 2009, his name appeared in the provisional Selection List and found its place under General category.He was called for Medical Test and Police verification on the basis of Written Test.He was asked to appear on 18.06.2010 along with original documents/testimonials and to collect the offer of appointment letter.He duly reported to the Recruitment Cell on the appointed date with necessary documents and submitted that he had duly intimated to the Recruitment Cell of Delhi Police about the pendency of criminal proceedings against him in the Sessions Court arising out of FIR No.147/2010 in connection with the complaint registered at Police Station Sadar, Bahadurgarh, against him and his family members.The petitioner contends that he had been falsely implicated in the said criminal case by the complainant, in collusion with the local Police, though he was not at all concerned with the said case, and he had prayed that either he should be allowed to join, or a vacancy should be reserved for him in the Delhi Police in the interest of justice.On their part, through letter dated 12.07.2010 the respondent No.2 had asked him to submit a certified copy of the judgment passed in the above-said criminal case as and when the same was decided by the Court, and he was advised that till then his candidature for the post of Constable (Executive) had been kept in abeyance, and his case will be examined as and when the judgment of the Hon'ble Court is received.Through the judgment dated 20.11.2012, the Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajjar, acquitted him of all the charges levelled against him, giving him benefit of reasonable doubt, about which he had duly informed the respondents.He had also informed the respondents that another case in FIR No.509/2012 at Police Station, Bahadurgarh, had also been registered against him in the meanwhile.The petitioner submitted his reply dated 20.03.2013, and prayed for being permitted to join Delhi Police.However, after considering his representation, the respondents passed the order dated 25.03.2013, and not having found his reply to be satisfactory, keeping in view the observations of the Screening Committee, the respondents cancelled his candidature for the post of Constable (Executive) Male in Delhi Police.W.P. (C) No. 2333/2015 Page 2 of 19Assailing the legality and correctness of the impugned order dated 21.07.2014 passed by the learned Tribunal, Mr. Rabin Majumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been truthful in apprising the respondents about the criminal cases registered against him W.P. (C) No. 2333/2015 Page 3 of 19 and also the fact of his honourable acquittal from the criminal case registered against him vide FIR No. 147/2010 but, nevertheless the respondents cancelled the candidature of the petitioner.Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that in the later FIR registered against the petitioner, viz., FIR No. 509/2012 the petitioner's name was not mentioned in the FIR and in the Challan dated 8.1.2013 filed in the Court, yet the respondent - Department issued a show cause notice dated 11.3.2013 to the petitioner asking as to why his candidature should not be cancelled.W.P. (C) No. 2333/2015 Page 3 of 19W.P. (C) No. 2333/2015 Page 4 of 19Counsel further submits that the reply filed by the petitioner to the show cause notice was duly considered but the explanation given by the petitioner was not found to be satisfactory and accepting the recommendation of Screening Committee the respondent - W.P. (C) No. 2333/2015 Page 5 of 19 department ultimately proceeded to cancel the candidature of the petitioner.W.P. (C) No. 2333/2015 Page 5 of 19The complainant was also injured.This incident is undoubtedly an incident affecting public order.The assault on the conductor was pre-planned and pre- meditated.The FIR was registered under Sections 143, 341, 323 and 427 of the IPC.The order dated 30/01/2009 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khetri shows that so far as offences under Sections 323, 341 and 427 of the IPC are concerned, the accused entered into a compromise with the complainant.Hence, learned Magistrate acquitted respondent - Mehar Singh and others of the said offences.Learned Magistrate, therefore, acquitted all the accused of the said offence.This acquittal can never be described as an acquittal on merits after a full fledged trial.W.P. (C) No. 2333/2015 Page 8 of 19Respondent - Mehar Singh has not been exonerated after evaluation of the evidence.So far as respondent - Shani Kumar is concerned, the FIR lodged against him stated that he along with other accused abused and threatened the complainant s brother.They opened fire at him due to which he sustained bullet injuries.Offences under Sections 307, 504 and 506 of the IPC were registered against respondent - Shani Kumar and others.Order dated 14/5/2010 passed by the Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar shows that the complainant and the injured person did not support the prosecution case.They were declared hostile.Hence, learned Sessions Judge gave the accused the benefit of doubt and acquitted them.W.P. (C) No. 2333/2015 Page 11 of 19Adverting back to the facts of the present case, the petitioner was facing criminal prosecution in two separate FIRs.A criminal case was registered against him vide FIR No.147/2010 under Section 148/149/323/307/452/506 of IPC with Police Station Sadar, Bahadurgarh and as far as this case is concerned, he was acquitted by the Ld. Addl.Another case was registered against the petitioner vide FIR No. 509/2012 under Section 148/149/323/506 of IPC, Police Station Bahadurgarh and this criminal case has not yet been finally decided.The role of the petitioner in the said two FIRs was examined by Screening Committee of Police Headquarters constituted by the CP/Delhi and the finding of the said Committee which W.P. (C) No. 2333/2015 Page 12 of 19 were referred to in the show cause notice dated 11.03.2013 are reproduced as under:-W.P. (C) No. 2333/2015 Page 12 of 19"Accordingly, your case was examined by the Screening Committee of PHQ constituted by the CP/Delhi who found that case FIR No.147/2010 dated 23.04.2010 u/s. 148 /149 / 323/ 307/ 452/ 506 IPC & 25 Arms Act, PS/ Sadar Bahadurgarh, Distrcit Jhajjar was registered on the complaint of Shri Balbir Singh S/o Shri Roop Chand on the allegations that at about 6:30 PM he was standing in front of his house.In the mean time you along with your associates armed with pistols, fired at the complainant thereby causing injury on his body.He became unconscious and fell down on the ground.After reviving he found himself admitted at Govt. Hospital Bhahadurgarh.All the accused had assembled with an intention to kill him.During trial of the case, main witness turned hostile from his earlier statement given to the Police.The screening Committee found that in case FIR No.509/2012 dated 13.11.2012 u/s 148/148/323/506 IPC PS/ Sadar Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar (Haryana) was registered on the complaint of Shri Harvir Singh S/o Shri Inderpal R/o Village Jhakhoda who reported that you also with your associates equipped with country made pistols, mousers and danda assaulted the complainant in his filed.On raising alarm the complainant was rescued by his uncle Nepal.After completion of investigation the local police filed challan u/s 173 Cr.P.C. on 3.1.2013 concluding therein that you were found innocent as you were present in the office of Malaria Department, MCD Sultan Puri, Delhi at the time of occurrence.However, challan against others was filed in the Court.W.P. (C) No. 2333/2015 Page 18 of 19
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
110,043,895 |
DATE: APRIL 9, 2015 ORAL JUDGMENT:The appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction dated 18.3.2010 passed by the learned District Judge 2 & Additional Sessions Judge, Baramati in Sessions Case No.2 of 2009, thereby convicting the appellants for the offences punishable under section 376 (2) 1/9 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2015 23:59:31 ::: apeal.359.2010-j_4.doc::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2015 23:59:31 :::(g) of the Indian Penal Code.The appellants were sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/-, i/d to suffer R.I. for six months.Criminal Application No.31 of 2015 is received through jail from the applicant Sunil Somnath Suryawanshi, original accused No.1, on 8.12.2014, praying that he has not preferred the appeal due to his poor financial condition and he has served the sentence and, therefore, the applicant has no income to pay the fine amount of Rs.50,000/-.It is impossible for him to pay the huge amount and, therefore, the fine amount be reduced to enable him to pay from his wages earned by him in prison.He has made the application that the appeal be admitted, heard and concluded only against the huge fine amount of Rs.50,000/- and waive off or remit the fine considering the bad financial condition.He has also prayed that an advocate from legal aid is to be given.Pursuant to the said application, the present appeal alongwith the criminal application are taken up for hearing together and decided finally.It is to be noted that this appeal is filed on behalf of both the applicants.In fact, it is filed on behalf of both the applicants/accused by the learned Counsel appearing for them.It is the case of the prosecution that on 21.7.2008, the prosecutrix attended her work at Sonawane Mala and then while returning alone at 2/9 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2015 23:59:31 ::: apeal.359.2010-j_4.doc around 6.30 pm from Sonawale Mala to Navale Mala, at around 6.30 pm, she was caught by the applicants/accused.They pulled her in a sugarcane crop field.They removed her clothes and both the accused raped her one after the other repeatedly.At the time of rape, they were smoking and also igniting matchstick to threaten her.Though she resisted, it was not possible for her to run away from them at that time.::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2015 23:59:31 :::The incident was going on nearly for 1½ hours to 2 hours.It was late night at 8 pm to 8.30 pm, so her husband and family members came there in search of her.Her husband was calling her loudly.In response, she also shouted.One of the accused persons went to take the motor cycle and in between she could manage to escape out of the sugarcane crop towards her husband and the accused could not get chance to take away their motor cycle and so they ran away.The prosecutrix narrated the incident to her husband and the family members.They took her to the nearby hospital of Dr.Manisha Sunil Jagtap on that night.It being a medico legal case, the doctor referred her to Sassoon hospital, Pune.She was examined and treated there.They found one motor cycle; they seized the same during the course of the investigation, they found a bag alongwith the motor cycle and the said motor cycle was stolen.On the 3/9 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2015 23:59:31 ::: apeal.359.2010-j_4.doc basis of that clue, the police could nab the applicants.They were taken in custody.The accused pleaded not guilty and the trial was conducted.It concluded in the conviction and hence, this Appeal.::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2015 23:59:31 :::They have not committed the crime.The learned trial judge has not properly appreciated the evidence.The applicants/accused were not arrested immediately but they were traced after 3 to 4 days.Alternatively, he argued that the application moved by one of the accused in respect of reduction of fine also to be considered on the ground of his poor financial condition.::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2015 23:59:31 :::The learned Prosecutor submitted that the case against the appellants is foolproof as the survivor has stated about the incident with all details and has also identified the accused in the test identification parade.He relied on the evidence of PW10 Dr.The applicants were arrested by the police within 3 - 4 days as the police got clue on the basis of the motor cycle.He submitted that the survivor was 3 months pregnant and gang raped.He supported the judgment of the trial Court.The victim is a star witness in the case of rape.The prosecutrix has given a consistent and detailed evidence on the point of how and when and where the offence had taken place.In the FIR, such details are not mentioned.She has only mentioned that both the 5/9 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2015 23:59:31 ::: apeal.359.2010-j_4.doc appellants had raped her twice, in a period of nearly 2 hours.She has described the act of sexual intercourse in her evidence before the Court.::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2015 23:59:31 :::It is necessary for the Judge to understand what victim wants to convey by uttering the word 'rape'.It is to be noted that at the time of giving the FIR in the present case, the scribe was not a female.It was recorded by a male police Hawaldar.It is natural that a woman may not give such details to a male though he is holding a position as a member of the investigating team.She hopes that she 6/9 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2015 23:59:31 ::: apeal.359.2010-j_4.doc will not be ridiculed, she would be believed and will get justice at the hands of a Judge and, therefore, when she is taken in confidence by the Prosecutor, she may give details of the act of the intercourse.In the Court, the statement is given on oath in a very different atmosphere.::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2015 23:59:31 :::Further, a case may differ when a married woman or a woman from educational working class states that she has been raped, then it is presumed that she knows a meaning of the word and she utters the word with full understanding of its connotation.The victim has stated that the accused were igniting matchsticks to threaten her and were smoking beedis.The prosecutrix can identify her rapists and these two persons were with her for more than 1½ hours.Thus, though it was late evening and early night, there was full opportunity and visibility to the prosecutrix to see their faces.The evidence of test identification parade is rendered by the prosecution to prove the identification.The prosecution has relied on the evidence of two medical officers and the medical certificates issued by them and her medical case papers in the Sassoon hospital.The evidence of PW10 Manisha Jagtap is very important.She was the first Doctor, who examined her clinically at 10.30 pm on 21.7.2008 i.e., immediately about 2 hours after the incident of rape.::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2015 23:59:31 :::apeal.359.2010-j_4.doc She found the marks and scratches on her neck, over the face and at thighs, her clothes were stained with mud.She was fully conscious.On genital examination, she found that she had marks of vulval oedema and presence of semen on perennial region.She has opined that she was subjected to sexual intercourse recently.She certified and then referred the case being a medico legal case immediately to Sassoon hospital.The applicant was produced before Dr.Neha, who prepared her medical case papers.The medical case papers were produced by Dr.Thus, the medical evidence corroborated the evidence of the prosecutrix on all counts especially the force was used and she resisted the act.On the point of tracing, in the evidence of Rajendra Mohite (PW13), the Investigating Officer, it is stated the appellants have committed theft of motor cycle as the owner was different.So a separate offence is registered against them.Then, test identification parade was carried out.At the time of spot panchanama, a beedi bundle, match 8/9 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2015 23:59:31 ::: apeal.359.2010-j_4.doc box and one nicker, pair of chappals were found.These articles support the case of the prosecution.Thus, it is a foolproof case and the learned trial Judge has rightly held the accused guilty and convicted them under section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code.::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2015 23:59:31 :::As regards the prayer of the applicant/accused No.1 that his fine be reduced as he is poor, it is necessary to highlight the condition of the prosecutrix.At the time of the rape, she was a young woman of 20 years who had married one year back and she was having pregnancy of 3 months.It was a gang rape.The appellants had repeatedly raped her nearly for 1½ hours.In view of this, I am not inclined to consider the application for reduction in the amount of fine or show leniency.The application is therefore rejected.In these circumstances of the case, the impugned judgment and order is maintained.(MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) 9/9 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2015 23:59:31 :::::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2015 23:59:31 :::
|
['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
110,044,770 |
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-respondent.Parties are in agreement to decide this criminal revision petition at the stage of admission only.Learned Additional Government Advocate has submitted that notice to opposite party No.2 will only delay the proceedings of the present case.Present criminal revision petition is filed under Section 397 Cr.P.C., challenging the order dated 24.11.2018 passed by learned Vth Additional District & Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad in S.T. Case No.77 of 2018 (State vs. Rajendra Singh and others) u/s 498 A, 304 B IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Shamshabad, District Farrukhabad (arising out of Case Crime No.303 of 2016) whereby discharge application 5B, u/s 227 Cr.P.C. filed by the revisionist has been dismissed.As per prosecution case, the complainant/opposite party No.2 lodged a F.I.R. registered as Case Crime No.303 of 2016 on 26.9.2016 that her sister Nanhi was married to the revisionist about three years prior to date of FIR.At the time of marriage, they have given dowry as per their financial capacity, but revisionist and his sister, her father and mother in law (uncle and aunty) used to torture her for not giving adequate dowry.Accused persons have also demanded gold chain and motor cycle.Revisionist informed the complainant on phone on 25.9.2016 that his sister has died due to burning.Revisionist was not named in the FIR whereas his uncle and aunty were named.Post mortem of the body of deceased Nannhi was conducted and as per opinion of doctor, cause of death was asphyxia which was caused as a result of anti-mortem burn injury (deep burn were all over body).Informant in his statement has stated that:-o;ku oknh& onfj;kQ~Rk Jh jkds'kiky iq= Jh okowjkeiky fuoklh dqEg:vk Fkkuk tykyckn ftyk 'kkgtgkaiqj us ,QvkbZvkj dk leFkZu djrs gq, crk;k fd lkgc esjs firk th ugh gSA esjh eka dk uke lq"kek gSA eSa nks HkkbZ gSA eq>ls NksVk f'koiky gSA esjh 3 cgus FkhA lcls cMh foeyk fQj lksuh rFkk lcls NksVh uUgh dh 'kknh djhc 3 c"kZ iwoZ leqfpr nkungst nsdj fgUnw jhfr fjokt ls lqjthr iq= jktsUnz flag fuoklh dyqvkiqj lku ds lkFk fd;k Fkk ijUrq 'kknh ds ckn cgu dk llqj jktsUnz o pfp;k lkl fdju iRuh ftjUnw vfrfjDr ngst esa lksus dh pSu] eks0 lk0 dh ekax dks ysj cgu dks izrkfM+r djrs FksA cgu us dbZ ckj ;g ckr ge yksxksa dks crk;h Fkh rc ge yksxksa us okrkZ dh Fkh fdUrq jktsUnz ds fdlh ls laca/k gksus ds dkj.k cgu dks ijs'kku djrs jgs eSaus dgk fd xjhc vkneh gwWA ikuhir esa etnwjh djrk gwWA bl ij jktsUnz flag us xkyh xykSt fd;kA fn0 25-09-16 dks dksbZ cguksbZ lqjthr tks xksaMk ds fodjh dS.Mh esa ukSdjh djrs gSA us lwpuk fn;k fd rqEgkjh cgu uUgh dh vkx yxus ls e`R;q gks x;h gSA eSaus dgk fd eS vk jgk gwWA tc rd eSa u vkÅ vafre laLdkj u fd;k tk;saA izkFkhZ fn0 26-09-16 dks 3 cts cyqvkiqjk igqapk rks xkao esa dksbZ ugh feyk xkao okyksa us crk;k fd pfp;k lkl fdju o llqj jktsUnz us feydj mldh gR;k dj nh gSA lkgc bu yksxksa ds ngst ds dkj.k esjh cgu dh gR;k dj nh gSA Brother of deceased Shiv Pal in his statement has stated that :-uUgha esjh lcls NksVh cgu Fkh] ftldh 'kknh lqjthr iq= jktsUnz fuoklh dyqvkiqj Fkkuk 'ke'kkckn ds lkFk dh FkhA 'kknh ds ckn mldk ifr lqjthr] llqj jktsUnz] pfp;k lkl fdju ngst ds fy;s izrkfM+r djus yxs cgus us ;g ckr crkbZ Fkh fn0 25-09-16 dks mldh gR;k gksus dh lwpuk ij eSa Hkh ekSds ij x;s Fkh u gh cgu ns[kus dks feyh Fkh fdlh vkSj u gh ?kj okys feys FksA rc esjs HkkbZ jkds'k us Fkkus ij eqdnek fy[kk;k Fkk cgu dk ifr oLrh esa osdjh QSDVjh esa dke djrk FkkA Revisionist was granted bail by this Court vide order dated 6.4.2017 passed in Criminal Misc.After investigation, the Police submitted charge-sheet under Section 498-A, 304B IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against revisionist, his uncle and aunty.The Revisionist filed application for discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C. on 4.8.2018 on the ground that :-izkFkhZ dk ?kVuk ls dksbZ lEcU/k u gksus ds dkj.k rFkk xks.Mk esa ukSdjh djrk Fkk ijUrq ,slk dksbZ dFku ugha fd;k x;k gS fd og ?kVuk ds le; ?kVukLFky ij ekStwn ugha FkkA izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr lqjthr dh rjQ ls ;g dgk x;k gS fd ;g ?kVuk ds le; ekSds ij ekStwn ugha Fkk cfYd xks.Mk esa izkbosV ukSdjh dj jgk FkkA izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr lqjthr }kjk fd;k x;k ;g dFku lk{; dk fo"k; gSA ;|fi fd oknh eqdnek jkds'kiky }kjk Fkkus ij nh x;h rgjhj ,oa mlds /kkjk 161 na0iz0la0 ds c;ku esa dfFkr ?kVuk dkfjr djus esa izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr lqjthr dks lafyIr gksuk ugh dgk x;k gS ijUrq e`rdk uUgh nsoh ds nwljs HkkbZ f'koiky ,oa cgu foeyk }kjk vius /kkjk 161 na0 iz0 la0 ds c;kuksa esa Lik"V :i ls dfFkr ?kVuk dkfjr djus esa vfHk;qDr lqjthr ¼e`rdk ds ifr½ dks Hkh lafyIr gksuk dgk x;k gSA vfHk;kstu }kjk dsl Mk;jh esa miyC/k lEiw.kZ lk{;ksa ls vfHk;qDrx.k ds nks"kksa dks lkfcr djus dh izLFkkiuk dh x;h gS vkSj esjh jk; esa dsl Mk;jh esa miyC/k lEiw.kZ lk{;ksa ds vk/kkj ij ;g mi/kkj.kk djus dk vk/kkj gS fd vfHk;qDrx.k lqjthr] jktsUnz flag o fdju }kjk&498 ,] 304 ch Hkk0 na0 la0 fodYi esa /kkjk 302@34 Hkk na0 la0 ,oa /kkjk 4 ngst izfr"ks/k vf/kfu;e esa n.Muh; vijk/k fd;k x;k gSA vr% fdlh vfHk;qDr dks mUeksfpr fd;s tkus dk vk/kkj ugha ik;k tkrk gS vkSj lHkh vfHk;qDrx.k lqjthr] jktsUnz flag o fdju ds fo:} /kkjk&498 ,] 304 ch Hkk0na0la0 fodYi esa /kkjk 302@34 Hkk0na0la0 ,oa /kkjk 4 ngst izfr"ks/k vf/kfu;e ds vUrxZr vkjksi fojfpr fd;s tkus dk vk/kkj Ik;kZIr ik;k tkrk gSA rnuqlkj izkFkZuki= 5 ch vUrxZr /kkjk 227 na0iz0la0 fujLr fd;s tkus ;ksX; ik;k tkrkA Thereafter, the learned trial court framed charges against all the accused under Section 498A and 304 IPC (alternatively 302/34 IPC) and Section 9 of Dowry Prohibition Act.Revisionist has challenged the order dated 24.11.2018 in the present revision petition.Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that present revision petition be allowed on the following grounds :-(iii) Revisionist was working at Gonda and he was not present at the place of occurrence when the incident happened.I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,100,457 |
Appellants 1 and 2 are brothers.They are residing in the Tin sheds owned by one Tawaskar in Guruwar Peth, Satara, The deceased Nanda is the wife of appellant No. 1 Yeshwant Dhondiba Khule.At the time of incident, she was living in his tin sheet shed.His another brother Jalinder also residing another in shed which is adjacent to the former.The marriage of the deceased Nanda with appellant No. 1 Yeshwant was solemnized before three years of the incident.The parents of the deceased reside at Chopade, Taluka Sangola, Dist.Three days before the incident, deceased Nanda went to her maternal house to meet her ailing grandfather and in her absence, the appellant No. 1 Yeshwant shifted his residence to the aforesaid shed of Tawaskar.He was in the habit of consuming liquor and ill-treating the deceased Nanda because she could not conceive a child.On 20-4-1994 deceased Nanda along with Suman, wife of appellant No. 2, and one Sarika, the daughter of her cousin brother-in-law went to Krishna Theatre at Satara to see a movie between 6.00 p.m. to 9.00 p.m. She returned to the tin shed of appellant No. 1 at 9.00 p.m. and had her dinner.The appellant No. 1 Yeshwant was present in the tin shed and he started asusual quarreling with her on account of not conceiving a child.He asked her to go away to her maternal house but she refused and therefore he started abusing her.Appellant No. 2 Hari also came there and he also joined appellant No. 1 Yeshwant in abusing her.Appellant No. 1 had threatened her saying that he would set her on fire, and thereafter he would contract a second marriage.Deceased Nanda requested the appellant No. 1 Yeshwant to reach her to her maternal house, but appellant No. 1 insisted that she must go alone.But she refused to go alone.Then suddenly, the appellant No. 2 Hari caught hold of her and appellant No. 1 Yeshwant poured kerosene from a tin on her person and lighted the match stick to her saree whereby she started burning.She shouted 'save-save'.Deceased Nanda was not saved by anybody and therefore she herself got poured water from the pot so as to extinguish the fire.The appellant No. 1 Yeshwant also sustained burn injury to his right hand in the heat of setting her on fire.Deceased Nanda sustained burn injury all over her body and she was taken to Civil Hospital, Satara at about 10.45 p.m. and she was treated by Medical Officer Dr. Lavand.A message was sent to the police station from the Civil Hospital and A.P.I. Shri Naikwadi Fattulal Aziz went to the hospital.He recorded dying declaration of deceased Nanda at about 11.45 p.m. He sent the said dying declaration to the police station for registration of the offence and C.R. No. 118/94 under section 307 r/w 34 of I.P.C. was registered.In the meanwhile a memo was issued to the Executive Magistrate Mr. Maske to record dying declaration of the deceased Nanda.In that dying declaration also deceased repeated that the appellant No. 2 caught hold of her and appellant No. 1 set her on fire by liting the match stick.It appears that somebody gave message to the parents of deceased Nanda and her father Nanasaheb came to the hospital on 21-4-1994 at about 4.00 p.m. Before him also deceased Nanda made oral dying declaration that she was set on fire by both the appellants.Deceased Nanda ultimately treated in the Civil Hospital, Satara in the burn ward but on 21-4-1994 at about 6.30 p.m. she succumbed to her injury.Thereafter the post mortem was conducted on her body (Exh. 23) by the Medical Officer.He opined that the death was caused due to shock due to 83% burns.The Medical Officer Dr. Lavand also issued death certificate in the matter (Exh. 24).Appellant No. 1 Yeshwant also had burnt injury to his right hand and so he was also sent to Civil Hospital, Satara for examination.Dr. Lavand in the Civil Hospital examined the appellant No. 1 on 21-4-1994 at 12.30 a.m. The mother of both the appellants namely Sarubai also sustained injury of burn while extinguishing the fire on deceased Nanda and she was also sent to the hospital on 21-4-1994 at 5.00 a.m. and she was treated there.The Investigating Officer A.P.I. Naikwadi proceeded with the investigation.He prepared a panchanama of the tin shed of the appellant No. 1 in presence of two panchas.He seized burn pieces of shirt and saree, kerosene can, used match sticks and match box.He collected the sample of kerosene in a bottle; sealed it under the same panchanama.Patient herself has given the history stating that at 7.30 p.m. on 20-4-1994 the appellants poured kerosene from the can and lit her fire.She then herself poured water on her and extinguished the fire.Doctor noticed 83% burn on her face, head neck and upper extremity left and right thorax and abdoman over the back.The doctor says that she was admitted as indoor patient and she died on 21-4-1994 at 6.30 p.m. He further says that the case was immediately reported to the police as soon as the patient was reached to the hospital.He says in his deposition that on 21-4-1994 from 12.15 a.m. to 12.30a.m.the dying declaration of the patient was recorded by Special Executive Magistrate, Satara and he was also present at that time and he had certified that the patient was conscious and she was responding to the order.He has made his endorsement to this effect and put his signature.The Special Executive Magistrate in his examination stated before the Court that on 20-4-1994 at about 11.30 p.m. he received a call from Satara City Police Station reporting that a burning case in Civil Hospital and he is required to record the dying declaration.He went to Civil Hospital, Satara at 11.45 p.m. and he met Medical Officer Dr. Lavand.He enquired with the doctor whether the patient was conscious and able to speak and give statement.Then he and Medical Officer went to the room where deceased Nanda was kept.The Medical Officer then removed all the relatives of the patient outside the room and examined the patient and told the Executive Magistrate that she was conscious and she was in a position to give statement.Then he enquired with the patient about her name, her place of residence and about her marriage and she gave very coherent reply to these questions.Then he enquired with her as to how she sustained the injury.She narrated the entire incident and he recorded her narration in his handwriting andobtained her thumb impression.The statement was read over again to her and she assured that it was correct.Magistrate also obtained the signature of Medical Officer and he also put his signature and he identified his signature in the Court.Then we have evidence of P.W. 11 Shri Naikwadi Fattulal Aziz, the Police Inspector in charge of the Satara City Police Station at the relevant time.He says in his evidence that on 20-4-1994 there was a message from Civil Hospital, Satara that the deceased had admitted in the Hospital in burnt condition.She prepared food.ORDER T.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.By the impugned judgment dated 16-3-1995 the appellants were convicted and sentenced (a) each for Rigorous Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. l,000/- in default R.I. for six months for the offence under section 302 read with 34 of I.P.C. and (b) for Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of 500/- in default further R.I. for three months for the offence under section 498-A read with 34 of I.P.C., in Sessions Case No. 115/94 of the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Satara.The prosecution case runs as under :---The seized articles were sent for Chemical Analyser.After the death of deceased Nanda the offence was converted into one under section 302 I.P.C. and after completing the investigation A.P.I. Naikwadi submitted the charge sheet against the appel-lants before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Satara, who in turn committed the case to the Sessions Court.Before the Sessions Court both the appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.The defence suggested is that one lady by name Shalan who is the wife of their brother Mohan, who had on enimical terms with the appellants, instigated deceased Nanda and her father to lodge false prosecution against them.Appellants pleaded that they were not in the scene at the time of occurence.Court after trial has convicted the appellants and sentenced them in the manner indicated in the opening paragraph of this judgment.We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.She also took us through those dying declarations in detail to bring home her contentions.Before adverting to her arguments, we have to examine the evidence led by the prosecution in this case.The medical case papers shows that deceased Nanda has attributed that her husband set her on fire.P.W. 6 Dr. Sudhakar Lavand in his evidence stated that on 20-4-1994 at 10.45 p.m. the deceased was brought to the Civil Hospital, Satara by her husband Yeshwant.He immediately went to the hospital and when he met Medical Officer Dr. Lavande, who told him she was in a condition to speak.He immediately went to the burn ward and recorded the statement of Nanda in the presence of Dr. Lavande.He further states in his evidence that the statement was read over to Nanda and he obtained her thumb impression.He then sent the statement to the police station for registering the offence and Crime No. 118/94 was registered under section 307 read with 34 of I.P.C. He also stated that on the next day he visited the spot and collected the articles such as kerosene sample, match stick etc. under panchanama.He says that he arrested the appellants on the same night and appellant No. 1 was sent to hospital because he was having a burn injury.Appellant's mother Sarubai Khule was also sent to hospital because she was also injured.He then sent collected article for C.A. report.P.W. 10 Ganesh Suryawanshi is the neighbour, who saw the incident at a distance of 10 ft.He says that he was staying in adjacent shed of Tawaskar.At 10.00 p.m. he was standing outside the lodge, and there was quarrel and abuses going on between the appellants and the deceased.While hearing that quarrel one customer came and therefore he has to go inside the lodge.Thereafter he heard the shouts of Nanda 'save, save'.Then he came out and saw Nanda in a burning condition and her husband Yeshwant these appellant No. 1 and his brother appellant No. 2 was just watching her.Her mother in-law tried to extinguish the fire.We see no reason to disbelieve the witness.Inspite of the thorough cross examination, their testimony could not be demolished.The panch of the spot panchanama says that at the spot the residues of portion of shirt of appellant No. 1 also found.It is therefore clinches that at the time of the incident, the appellants were present at the scene.This clinching evidence belies the contention of the accused put forth in defence that they were not in the spot at the time of the incident and that both of them had gone out.Moreover, they also contended in the defence that deceased Nanda was burnt out of an accident, according to them, the lamp was accidentally fallen on her body and she was burnt.This story of the defence also appeared to be false when the panch found that a can of kerosene containing three litres of kerosene were seen on the spot.Moreover, the panch did not see any lamp in the hut.Therefore contention of the defence is quite artificial and contrary to the evidence revealed in this case.On the other hand the materials on record and evidence discussed above give much credence to the case of the prosecution.We have to address the criticism levelled by the learned Counsel for the appellants against dying declarations relied on by the trial Court in the case.As we noted earlier, in fact, we have three dying declarations legally acceptable in this case.Besides those dying declarations, we have medical casepapers which shows that she was brought to the hospital by her husband with fully conscious.The record reveals that patient herself has told that her husband and brother-in-law poured kerosene on her and set her on fire.We have no reason to discard this primary material recorded by doctor, who attended her as soon as she was admitted in the hospital.Then we have dying declaration recorded by Assistant Police Officer, Satara City Police Station wherein the patient has given very comprehend and coherent declaration.She stated in the dying declaration Exh. 37 which was treated as F.I.R. that she has studied at 5th standard.Three days before she went to her maternal house to see her grand father and on 20-4-1994 she was at her residence since morning and her husband went for his work.He gave her money for going to movie and she herself and her sister-in-law Suman and the daughter of her brother-in-law Sarika went to Krishna Theatre for watching movie.Her husband had purchased 5 litres of kerosene for the house hold purpose in the afternoon.Her husband was at home.At that time her husband Yeshwant Khule started quarreling with her on account of not having a child.He asked her to go to her native place.When she refused to go at that time, her brother-in-law Hari Khule who was with her husband also started abusing her.Her husband threatened her that he would marry second time and that he would burn her.She told him to send her to " her maternal house.Her brother-in-law then caught her and her husband poured kerosene on her body by opening the kerosene tin and put her saree on fire.She shouted for help but her husband or her brother-in-law did not try to extinguish the fire.Therefore she poured water on her body by taking it from the carton pot and extinguished the fire.Her husband and his brother had consumed liquor.While putting her on fire by pouring kerosene, her husband also received burn injury to his right hand.It was 9.30 p.m. Since she received burn injury on her face, head, chest, stomach and back and the same became unbearable she started shouting.Thereafter her husband and his brother brought her to Civil Hospital, Satara by rickshaw.While bringing her to the hospital, her husband and her brother-in-law changed her saree and brought her to the hospital.This statement was completed at 11.45 p.m. Yet another dying declaration is also there which the patient had given to her father about which we would discuss as little later.It depends mainly on the attending circumstances in which it was made.The next dying declaration was recorded by the Executive Magistrate Shri Mhaske.The learned Counsel for the appellant Mrs. Joshi attacked this dying declaration for its length and minute details.She criticised that from a dying patient such a detailed statement is normally expected.She further argued that endorsement of the doctor that she is conscious, was taken after the dying declaration was completed at 12.30 a.m. It should have been takenbefore it started at 12.15 a.m. This gives a doubt as to whether when recording of dying declaration began, patient was conscious.In the evidence of doctor and Executive Magistrate it has come out without any pale of doubt that when it was recorded, the doctor was present and the Magistrate was satisfied before starting the recording that the patient was conscious as ascertained from the doctor.We have already discussed about other materials which corroborate the said dying declaration.The dying declaration recorded by Magistrate.F.I.R. recorded by P.I. and other evidence of P.W. 8 and P.W. 10 and medical evidence give sufficient assurance about the guilt of the appellants.In the result, we find no merit in this appeal.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
110,047,413 |
2 The factual matrix of the prosecution case can be summarised as under :-They used to reside in the houses built for labourers by said Ghuge.The appellant i.e. accused Damodhar Rambhau Inchal was also residing at some distance from their house along with his daughter and son-in-law.3 It is the prosecution case that on 9.1.2008 PW1 Eknath had gone to Pawar Vasti to attend last rites of her cousin father-in-law, as well as his wife PW4 Sunita had also left the house for agricultural work in the adjacent land with other women.During this period, their daughter i.e. victim was in their house.It is also alleged that daughter of the accused had handed over key of their house to the victim to be given to the accused when he would come.It is further alleged that PW4 Sunita, while doing agricultural work in the field, heard hue and cry of her daughter i.e. victim at about 1.00 p.m. Hence, she rushed towards her house.She also heard cry from the house of the accused.Thereupon victim disclosed that she had been to the house of the accused to give key of his house, but accused caught hold of her hand and dragged her inside the house and made her to lie flat on the ground and removed her nicker, as well as he removed his dhoti and inserted his penis in her private part.Hence, PW4 Sunita examined private part of the victim and found bleeding injury.Thereafter PW4 Sunita took her daughter victim towards PW1 Eknath and narrated the whole incident to him.Thereafter PW1 Eknath, PW4 Sunita along with victim went to Osmanpura police station and lodged the complaint at about 5.15 p.m. on the said date and C.R. No. I-6 of 2008 was registered against the accused herein for the offences punishable under Sections 376(F) and 342 of the Indian Penal Code.4 It is also the case of prosecution that PW10 Police Sub-Hence, he verified the complaint and went to the place of incident and prepared the spot panchanama (Exh. 16) in presence of panchas including PW2 panch witness ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:04:53 ::: 5 Bhimrao Ghandge.Moreover, he also arrested the accused on 9.1.2008 and made inquiry with him and seized his clothes including his dhoti (article 1) under panchanama (Exh.19) in presence of panchas including PW3 panch witness Vijay Patil.The prosecution case further recites that the victim was taken to the Government Medical College and Hospital for medical examination and PW9 Dr. Anjana Santpure examined the victim and issued the medical certificate to that effect (Exh.31).Moreover, the accused was also referred to the Government Medical College and Hospital for medical examination along with letter dated 9.1.2008 (Exh.36) and examined by PW11 Dr.Pushpa Rokade and she issued the medical certificate (Exh.37) to that effect.Moreover, during the course of investigation, PW10 P.S.I. Jilani Madar recorded the statements of witnesses.6 It is further the case of prosecution that the seized articles were sent to the Chemical Analyzer's office for examination purpose along with forwarding letter dated 22/1/2008 (Exh.43).Moreover, the samples collected by the doctor in respect of victim were also sent to the office of the Chemical Analyser vide letter dated 11.1.2008 (Exh.44), as well as blood sample collected by the doctor pertaining to the accused was sent to the Chemical Analyser's office for examination purpose along with letter dated 11.1.2008 (Exh.45).Pursuant to the same, reports from the office of the Chemical Analyser and the medical reports were received, which are marked as Exhs.46 and 47, respectively.7 Accordingly, after completion of investigation, the investigating officer filed the charge sheet before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad on 5.3.2008 and the offence being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Aurangabad committed the said case to the Court of Sessions, Aurangabad on 11.3.2008 for trial.13 In the said context, coming to the deposition of PW4 Sunita i.e. the mother of the victim, who deposed that on the day of incident, they were residing at Ghuge Vasti in the vicinity of village Satara near Aurangabad and she knows the accused Damodhar Inchal, who was residing near her house.She also stated that she was residing along with her husband, two sons and a daughter victim, and the incident occurred at about 1.00 p.m. She further deposed that on the date of incident, her husband had been to Pawar Vasti to attend the last rites of her cousin father-in-law and her two sons had gone to the school and she was working in the land near her house; whereas her daughter i.e. the victim was at her house.She also stated that when she was working in the field she ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:04:53 ::: 10 heard hue and cry of her daughter i.e. victim from the house of the accused, and therefore, she immediately rushed towards the said house and saw that the accused and and her daughter i.e. victim together and her daughter was crying and her nicker was having blood stains.Hence, she asked her about the incident.Thereupon her daughter disclosed her that when she had been to the house of accused to give key of his house, the accused held her hands and dragged her inside the house and made her lie down on the floor and removed her nicker and he removed his dhoti and inserted his penis in her private part.Hence, PW4 Sunita examined private part of her daughter i.e. victim and found bleeding injury.Thereafter she stated that she took her daughter victim towards her husband PW1 Eknath and narrated the whole incident to him.Thereafter she herself, her husband PW1 Eknath and her daughter i.e. victim went to Osmanpura police station and PW1 Eknath lodged the complaint.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:04:53 :::14 During cross-examination, she stated that wife of the accused is alive and daughter of the accused used to keep key of their house with her daughter.She further stated that she was working at a distance of 2000 ft. away from their residential houses and her house was not visible from the place where she was ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:04:53 ::: 11 working.She further stated that blood was oozing from the injuries sustained by her daughter from her private part and her private part was swollen and when she saw her private part, she made hue and cry and people had gathered there, but nobody attempted to beat the accused.15 Suggestions were given to her that no such incident had taken place as deposed by her and there was no injury to private part of her daughter and blood was not oozing from the same, but same were denied by her.It was also suggested to her that her daughter victim used to play by climbing on the trees and she was in habit to play, but same was denied by her.Suggestion was also given to her that she and her husband concocted story and filed false complaint against the accused, but same was denied by her.16 That takes me to the testimony of PW1 Eknath complainant, she has stated that the incident took place on 9.1.2008 and at the said time he was residing at Ghuge Vasti , Satara Parisar, Aurangabad along with his wife, mother and children.His daughter i.e. victim was five years old, his eldest son Ajay was about ten years; whereas son Vijay was eight years old.He stated that he ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:04:53 ::: 12 knew the accused who was residing near his house and both were working with one Ghuge on yearly basis.He also stated that accused was residing with his daughter and son-in-law.He further stated that on the day of incident i.e. on 9.1.2008 at about 10.00 a.m. He had gone to Aloknagar for last rites of his uncle Asaram, but at about 1.00 p.m. to 1.30 p.m. his wife PW4 Sunita came to Aloknagar with his daughter and met him and his wife PW4 Sunita disclosed him that accused committed rape upon their daughter when their daughter had gone to the house of the accused to hand over the key of his house which was kept by his daughter with victim and on hearing noise of cry from the house of the accused, she went there and found that her daughter victim was frightened and she disclosed occurrence of the incident to her.Accordingly, PW1 Eknath stated that he, his wife PW4 Sunita and his brother Kaduba Pawar went to Osmanpura police station with victim daughter.He also stated that he personally saw the blood and semen on the thighs of his daughter and her private part was having bleeding injuries and her clothes were knicker were having blood and semen stains.Hence, he lodged the complaint (Exh.14) in the police station against the accused.17 During cross-examination, he stated that he was on leave and his daughter and son-in-law were working in another land of Ghuge; whereas accused was working in the agricultural land of Ghuge and working hours were 6.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. Suggestion was given to him that on the date of incident the accused was working in the agricultural land of Ghuge which was at different place, but same was denied by him.Suggestion was also given to him that his wife has not narrated him the incident of rape upon his daughter victim by the accused, but same was denied by him.18 Coming to the testimony of PW5 victim herself and since she was a child witness of five years old, her understanding to relevancy of question was verified by the learned Trial Judge, and accordingly, her deposition was recorded, wherein she stated that she knew Damodhar Baba.i.e. the accused herein, who resides at their neighbourhood, as well as she knew Karuna Tai, who had given her key of lock asking her to hand over the said key to Baba whenever he comes.The accused came in the afternoon.Karunatai had gone to work after giving key to her.She further stated that Karuna was residing near their house, but she used to play alone.She further stated that she was climbing on the mango trees, but denied that she fell from mango tree at any time.She further denied that she had been tutored by her mother what to depose in the court.And on that day one Damodhar Rambhau Inchal i.e. the accused was referred by Osmanpura police for his medical examination with history of sexual assault, along with letter dated 9.1.2008 (Exh.36).Accordingly, she examined the said accused and she produced the M.L.C. papers.On examination, she found that his height was about 5.2 ft, weight was 48 kg., he had 14 teeth and his secondary sex character were fully developed, but there was no presence of mud, seminal and blood stains upon the wearing of the accused.She further stated that there was no evidence of violence upon his person and his genital organs were normal as there was no presence of pubic hairs of victim on the genital part of the accused and also there were no seminal and blood stains on the genital part.23 In the cross-examination, she stated that she had not examined accused so as to ascertain his age, and she gave his age ranging between 65 to 70 years.She further stated that since the accused had no genital disease and his all the secondary sexual characters were fully developed, she opined that he was capable for sexual intercourse.However, she admitted that she had not done any other test to ascertain his capability of sexual intercourse.Suggestion was given to her that she had not examined the accused, but same was denied by her.24 Turning to the testimony of PW3 Vijay Laxman Patil, panch to the seizure panchanama (Exh.19), who has stated that on 9.1.2008 he was called by the police personnel of Osmanpura police station at about 8.00 p.m. to act as panch, and another panch Baban Bhalerao was with him.DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 15.6.2010 DATE OF PRONOUNCMENT OF THE JUDGMENT : 01.7.2010 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:04:52 ::: 2 J U D G M E N T :-::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:04:52 :::1 The challenge in this appeal is to the conviction and sentence awarded by learned Additional Sessions Judge-5, Aurangabad in Sessions Case No. 102 of 2008 on 21.11.2009, convicting the appellant (original accused) herein for the offence punishable under Section 376 (2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of non-payment of fine to suffer further Rigorous Imprisonment for two months; and also convicting him for the offence punishable under Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of non-payment of fine to suffer further Rigorous Imprisonment for one month.Both the said substantive sentences were to run concnurrently.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:04:53 :::Hence, she rushed towards the house of the accused and went inside the house of the accused and saw victim and accused together and victim was crying and her nicker was ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:04:53 ::: 4 blood stained.Hence, PW4 Sunita inquired with the victim.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:04:53 :::Moreover, nicker of victim was produced by PW1 Eknath and same was also seized under seizure panchanama (Exh.20).::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:04:53 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:04:53 :::8 The learned Additional Sessions Judge-5, Aurangabad framed the charge against the accused on 2.9.2008 at Exh.10 under Sections 376 (F) and also under Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code.The accused pleaded not guilty to the said charges and claimed to be tried.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:04:53 :::9 To substantiate the charges levelled against the accused, the prosecution examined in as much as eleven witnesses as mentioned below :-::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:04:53 :::denied the entire incriminating evidence adduced and produced against him and took a stand that the witnesses deposed falsely against him due to previous quarrel and falsely implicated him in the present case, and therefore, he claimed to be innocent.11 After scrutinizing and appreciating the evidence, learned Additional Sessions Judge-5, Aurangabad convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as aforesaid.Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said conviction and sentence, rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge-5, Aurangabad by judgment and order dated ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:04:53 ::: 9 22.11.2009, the appellant has preferred the present appeal praying for quashment thereof and acquittal from the charges levelled against him.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:04:53 :::12 In order to deal with the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.P.P. for the respondent effectively, it is necessary to advert to the material evidence adduced and produced by the prosecution on record.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:04:53 :::He also deposed that the police personnel seized the nicker (article 2) of his daughter and she was referred to the Ghati ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:04:53 ::: 13 Hospital, Aurangabad for medical examination.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:04:53 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:04:53 :::Suggestion was also given to him that on the date of incident, he and his wife were not on duty, whereas their both the children were at Aloknagar with his brother Kaduba, but same was denied by him.It was also suggested to him that in order to teach lesson to the accused they all filed false case against the accused, but same was denied by him.He also denied that since he saw blood stains on the private part and nicker of his daughter and also bleeding injury on her private part, he is deposing falsely.Suggestion was also given to him that accused was 67 to 68 years of age at the time of occurrence of incident, but same was denied by him.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:04:53 :::She was in their house and her mummi was doing agricultural work near their house.Damodhar Baba i.e. accused came at the house in the afternoon and she handed over key to him after going to the house of the accused.Thereupon Baba i.e. accused took her inside his house and penetrated his penis in her private part and blood started from her private part.She further stated that her mummi came running towards her and thereupon she disclosed the occurrence of incident to her.Thereafter she was taken to the hospital and doctor examined her.19 During cross-examination, specific leading question was ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:04:53 ::: 15 put to her that her mummi taught her what to depose before the court and thereupon she moved her neck giving signal in affirmative and also stated that it is true that her mummi taught her.She also denied that accused Damu Baba never met her and she had never handed over key of his house.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:04:53 :::She also admitted that accused never caught hold of her and never took her inside the house.She further stated that she never disclosed the alleged incident to her mother i.e. PW4 Sunita and she also admitted that police never made inquiry with her about the said incident.20 That takes me to the deposition of PW9 Dr. Anjana Shikumar Santpure, who stated that on 8.1.2008 she was working as Lady Medical Officer in Gynecology Department and victim was referred by the police personnel from Osmanpura police station for medical examination with history of sexual assault as given by her mother and she recorded the said history.She examined the victim ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:04:53 ::: 16 and upon examination she found that her height was 100 cm., weight was about 11 kg.and she was having 20 teeth, as well as her secondary sexual character were not developed and she was five years old.There were seminal stains on her under garment and there was no evidence of violence upon her body.Her private part was normal and hymen was ruptured.She also stated that she took samples of blood, vaginal swab and nails and the said samples were handed over to Mr. L.M.Jadhav of Osmanpura police station.She further stated that to determine her age, she referred her to the Radiology Department.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:04:53 :::21 In the cross-examination, she stated that she examined the victim on 8.1.2008 at 11.00 p.m., but there was no semen and blood seen on her genitals.She also stated that hymen may be ruptured by trauma by sharp instruments and masturbation other than sexual intercourse, and hymen cannot be ruptured due to ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:04:53 ::: 17 veneral infection.She also stated that bleeding is possible in several veneral infection and external genital infection is possible due to non-hygienic condition of private part, as also inflammation and swelling is possible in external genital infection.She also deposed that to have a sexual intercourse with a child of about five years old, more force for penetration is required, but penetration is possible.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:04:53 :::However, during penetration there may or may not be injuries on the private part, and tears may or may not occur.She denied that by penetration there must be injury to Libia Majora/Minora.She also denied that in the absence of seminal and blood stains on the private part of victim, it cannot be said that there was no penetration, attempt to penetration or sexual intercourse.She further denied that it can not be said that the victim was not sexually assaulted.She admitted that mother of victim had not stated her the particulars of the incident.A specific court question was put to her that was there any infection on the private part of the victim and thereupon she replied in the negative that there was no infection on the private part of the victim.22 Coming to the deposition of PW11 Dr.Pushpa Baburao ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:04:53 ::: 18 Rokade, who stated that on 10.1.2008, she was attached to Government Medical College and Hospital, Aurangabad as C.M.O.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:04:53 :::She categorically stated that the patient was capable of having sexual intercourse.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:04:53 :::The accused was also present there at the poilce station and his dhoti article 1 bearing three white stains was seized under the said panchanama.He further stated that the police personnel also seized a red colour knicker having stains produced by the father of victim in their presence under the said panchanama (Exh.20).::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:04:53 :::25 In the cross-examination, he admitted that he is acquainted with the complainant in the present case and suggestion was given to him that he went to police station along with complainant and his wife, but same was denied by him.He further stated that another panch Bhalerao was already present in the police station prior to him.Suggestion was given to him that the police personnel did not seize the articles in his presence and they obtained his signature on already written panchanama, but same was denied by him.It was also suggested to him that he deposed falsely at the instance of complainant and his brother, but same was denied by him.26 Turning to the testimony of PW6 Karunabai Sheshrao Jadhav, who is the daughter of the accused, and although she turned hostile to the prosecution, she has categorically stated in her deposition that she handed over the key of their house to the victim.Moreover, she also stated in her deposition that she, PW4 Sunita i.e. mother of victim and PW7 Saraswatibai were doing agricultural work on the day of incident and she stated in the cross-examination that after completion of work, she, PW7 Sunita-mother of victim, Bhimabai and PW7 Saraswatibai came together to her house.PW7 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:04:53 ::: 21 Saraswatibai Limbaji Kukade also stated in her deposition that she knew PW4 Sunita i.e. mother of the victim, who was working with her in agricultural land of Ghuge.She also stated that at about 1.00 p.m. she left the work and went towards her residential house and at about 1.30 p.m. remaining all came towards their houses for lunch and at that time victim was crying and Sunita Pawar was taking her towards Aloknagar.She also stated in her deposition that they were working in agricultural land which was situated at about 1 km.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:04:53 :::Distance from Ghuge Vasti.27 On the background of the afore said evidence, learned counsel for the appellant canvassed that the deposition of PW1 complainant namely Eknath Kashinath Pawar i.e. father of the victim and PW4 Sunita Eknath Pawar i.e. mother of the victim are Dependant upon the testimony of victim i.e. PW5, but the testimony of PW5 victim herself has not been believed by the learned Trial Court, and therefore, consequently the depositions of PW1 complainant Eknath father of victim and PW4 Sunita mother of victim, which amount to hear say evidence, and are required to be discarded.It is also argued by learned counsel for the appellant that the depositions of PW1 Eknath and PW4 Sunita have not been ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:04:53 ::: 22 supported by the medical evidence.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:04:53 :::28 As regards the medical evidence, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, since there is no injury on the genital part of the victim, no rape took place upon her as alleged.Moreover, it is also pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant that the medical certificate (Exh.31) of the victim discloses that her private part and genital organ was normal, which explicitly reflects that no rape took place upon the victim as alleged.As regards the alleged rupture of hymen of the victim in the instant case, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that for rupture of hymen, there has to be deep penetration leading to injuries to Libia Majora/Minora and Vulva, resulting into bleeding in genetic part of a minor girl, but in the instant case, there was no bleeding injury in the genetic part and no injury to Libia Majora and Minora as well as Vulva and the said aspect falsifies the allegations of the prosecution in respect of alleged rape on the victim.Moreover, it is also canvassed by learned counsel for the appellant that the Chemical Analyser's report Exh.33 also discloses that no semen was detected on Exhs. 2 and 3 i.e. vaginal swab of the victim.So also, the Chemical Analyser's report (Exh. 46) in respect of dhoti of the accused discloses that no blood ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:04:53 ::: 23 was detected thereon.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:04:53 :::29 To substantiate the said contention, learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the contents in the Text Book of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology by Parikh, in Section IV, under the heading Sexual Offences-Rape, on page 434 thereof, as follows :-" Rape on children : In young children, as the vagina is very small and hymen deeply situated, adult penis cannot completely penetrate it.In rare cases of great violence, the organ may be forcibly introduced, causing great tearing of the tissues, often through the perineum into the anus."30 However, in the instant case, the victim was of about five years old, but her medical certificate (Exh.31) discloses that her private part i.e. genital organ was normal, and therefore, no rape took place upon her as alleged by the prosecution.31 Moreover, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that medical certificate (Exh.31) of victim discloses that hymen of victim was ruptured and in the said context PW9 Dr. Anjana has stated in the cross-examination that hymen may be ruptured by ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:04:53 ::: 24 trauma by sharp instruments and masturbation other than sexual intercourse and hymen cannot be ruptured due to veneral infection.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:04:53 :::32 In the said context, learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the contents in the Book Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, Twenty-Second Edition, Chapter XVIII, under heading Sexual Offences-Rape, on pages 503-504 thereof, as follows :-" In small children, the hymen is not usually ruptured, but may become red and congested along with the inflammation and bruising of the labia.If considerable violence is used, there is often laceration of fourchette and perinaeum.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:04:53 :::canal depends upon the degree of disproportion between the genital organs of both parties and the violence used on the female. "33 As regards the genital organ of the accused/appellant, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that it was examined by the doctor and medical certificate (Exh.37) was issued to that effect and the said certificate discloses that the private part/genital organ of the accused was also normal and there was no injury on the penis.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that hence rupture of hymen cannot be the cause to hold commission of rape, since PW9 Dr. Anjana had nowhere opined in her deposition that sexual intercourse took place between the accused and the victim.34 Learned counsel for the appellant also urged that since the victim narrated the incident to her mother i.e PW4 Sunita in presence of people, which is the matter of evidence, some independent witness, more particularly any lady should have been examined by the prosecution as independant witness, but no such witness has been brought by the prosecution and the said infirmity hampers the case of prosecution.Besides that, it is canvassed by ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:04:53 ::: 26 the learned counsel for the appellant that the place where the mother of victim was working was about 1 km. away, as stated by PW7 Saraswati in her deposition, and therefore, also the version of PW4 Sunita in that respect is doubtful.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:04:53 :::35 Accordingly, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges levelled against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and the appellant has been implicated in this case falsely, and hence, present appeal deserves to be allowed, quashing the conviction and sentence inflicted upon him and the appellant deserves to be acquitted in respect of the charges levelled against him.36 Moreover, learned counsel for the appellant also relied upon the following observations made in the judgment delivered by this court in the case of Suresh s/o Govinda Nagdeve and Anr.Vs State of Maharashtra, reported at 2008 ALL MR (Cri) 648 :-" The absence of hymen has also not been explained by the said Medical Officer.Had the incident of forcible rape been the first incident of sexual intercourse, there would have been definitely a fresh ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:04:53 ::: 27 tear of the hymen.When there are no relevant injuries, and when the Medical Officer is unable to opine as regards sexual intercourse, whether it has taken place or not, it is difficult and unsafe to accept the uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix for basing conviction. "::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:04:53 :::It is also necessary to bear in mind that, no judge can take a fact as proved unless there is a legal proof.The moral conviction cannot be said to be a legal conviction unless it is supported by unimpeachable and legally admissible evidence on record. "38 Learned counsel for the appellant further relied upon the observations made in the case of Pappu vs State of Delhi, reported ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:04:53 ::: 28 at 2009 CRI.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:04:53 :::"Accused was alleged to have raped prosecutrix, a minor girl of 6 years of age in a semi- constructed house.Serologist's report stated that no blood was detected either on underwear of prosecutrix or of accused, nor blood was detected on vaginal swabs of prosecutrix.It belies testimony of mother of prosecutrix that she saw blood on underwear and clothes of prosecutrix.Prosecution story also belied in view of statement of prosecutrix that labours were working in semi-constructed house.Besides that, admission of prosecutrix that whatever she stated in the Court is at the behest of her mother, is also suggestive of her being tutored.Hence, false implication motivated by father of prosecutrix to settle scores with accused not ruled out, and therefore, the conviction of the accused is nor proper. "It is also observed in the afore said judgment that ;-" In the light of Medical Jurisprudence on the subject, the victim was not subjected to any sexual assault.The reason is obvious.Medical Jurisprudence evidences that in adolescent girls the hymen is situated relatively more posteriorly and for said reason there is a possibility of rape being committed without the hymen being torn; the converse whereof would be that if the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:04:53 ::: 29 hymen of an adolescent girl is torn due to rape, the penetration has to be a deep penetration.The Medical Jurisprudence guides that the labia majora are the first to be encountered by the male organ and they are subjected to blunt forceful blows, depending on the vigour and the force used by the accused and counteracted by the victim.The narrowness of the vaginal canal makes it inevitable for the male organ to inflict blunt, forceful blows on the labia and such blows lead to contusion because of looseness and vascularity."::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:04:53 :::39 Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri S.D.Kaldate for the respondent countered the afore said arguments and submitted that admittedly the age of victim was about five years at the time of occurrence of the incident and the accused and the victim were residing nearby each other and the victim is immature, who was not believed by the Trial Court, and therefore, since there is no direct evidence, the circumstantial evidence has to be considered, which has been adduced and produced by the prosecution through the witnesses PW4 Sunita i.e. the mother of the victim and PW1 Eknath i.e. the father of the victim.In the said context, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the nicker of the victim was sent to the Chemical Analyser for examination purpose along with ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:04:53 ::: 30 forwarding letter dated 22.1.2008 (Exh.43) and the Chemical Analyser's report thereof dated 12.5.2008 (Exh.46) discloses that semen was found on the said nicker/jangya and the said semen was of blood group 'A' and pertinently blood group of the accused/appellant is also of 'A' group, and therefore, the stains of semen on the nicker of victim can be tacked with the accused/appellant, and the said vital circumstance is incriminating against the appellant.It is also canvassed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the victim disclosed the incident to her mother, which is quite natural and PW4 Sunita i.e. mother of victim stated before the Court the version of victim and since victim is immature and minor girl of five years she might have given certain admissions, but her evidence is required to be considered along with other circumstances, and hence, the version of PW4 Sunita needs to be considered in that perspective and deserves to be believed.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:04:53 :::40 According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the medical case papers (Exh.42) disclose that the examination of the victim was required to be done under the anesthesia and therefor she was admitted into hospital for three days i.e. from 9.1.2008 to 11.1.2008, and local examination of her genital organ disclosed that ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:04:53 ::: 31 her hymen was ruptured.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:04:53 :::In the instant case, since there are no suggestions and/or nothing has been brought by defence on record that rupture of hymen in the instant case was because of trauma or by sharp instrument or masturbation, it is certainly ruptured due to sexual intercourse by the accused with the victim.42 Accordingly, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that learned Trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant and arrived at a conclusion therefor with the sound and logical reasoning, and hence, no interference therein is warranted in the appellate jurisdiction, and relied upon the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:04:53 ::: 32 observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manga vs State of Haryana, reported at AIR 1979 SC 1194, wherein it is observed that :-::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:04:53 :::"It was then contended that the doctor found that hymen was torn and ruptured yet she did not find any swelling, redness or inflammation around the bruises which should have normally been found if rape had been committed recently.She stands on a higher pedestal than an injured witness.In the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:04:53 ::: 33 latter case, there is injury on the physical form, while in the former it is both physical as well as psychological and emotional.However, if the court of facts finds it difficult to accept the version of the prosecutrix on its face value,it may search for evidence, direct or circumstantial, which would lend assurance to her testimony.Assurance, short of corroboration as understood in the context of an accomplice, would suffice. "::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:04:53 :::" Accused was alleged to have raped girl of 13 years.As per report of Chemical Analyser, on all the seized articles by the police i.e. undergarment of accused, salwar of prosecutrix and chaddar on which accused committed rape, same group of semen was found.Vaginal swab also indicated presence of semen.Moreover, the Injuries found on person of accused also tallied with time when commission of rape was alleged.Besides, prosecutrix was found weeping by the neighbourers immediately after the incident and accused was also found leaving place at that time.Hence, it is held that case against the accused was established and acquittal was set aside. "::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:04:53 :::45 Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Harishchandra Vasudeo Vaity vs State of Maharashtra and anr., reported at 2007 (1) Bom." Rape of minor aged 5 years.The evidence of witnesses to whom she narrated the incident and who followed the matter further remains unshaken, as well as doctor testified injuries on victim who had to be hospitalized for about 10 days.Moreover, victim also testified facts in Court, and hence, case is supported by other corroborating evidence of clothes, etc. as were seized, and therefore, it was held that guilt of the accused has been proved offence by accused for which he is rightly charged.Sentence of life imprisonment imposed for an offence on a girl of 5½ year age is justified and is confirmed. "46 Learned Additional Public Prosecutor also relied upon the observations made in the judgment of this Court in the case of Mahesh Narayan Sahare vs State of Maharashtra, reported at 2007 (2) Bom.C.R. (Cri.) 46, which are as follows :-" The evidence of Dr. Tejram (P.W.1) in ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:04:53 ::: 35 pursuance of the finding recorded or observations noted in the Certificate Exh.20, no doubt, shows absence of any injury to the private part of the prosecutrix, so also the fact that all her sexual secondary organs, breast and pubic hairs were well developed.Her hymen was completely ruptured and vagina was found to be specious which showed that she experienced coitus repeatedly since long duration.This clinchingly shows that she was habituated to sexual intercourse.The Medical Officer has also opined that no definite opinion regarding the experience of last coitus could be given.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:04:53 :::There was no injury seen over the vagina or any other private part.These findings recorded by the Medical Officer have been highlighted by the defence to support its contention that the factum of sexual intercourse at the time and place has not been clinchingly established.In the first place, it is to be noted that when it was found that there was rupture of hymen and the vagina was specious, the prosecutrix has experienced coitus repeatedly since long.If that is so, then when the appellant had sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix, in all probabilities, there could not have been any injury on her private parts.Therefore, merely no injury was found on her private parts, it is very difficult to discard her claim that rape was committed on her.It is needless to say that the gist of findings of rape is ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:04:53 ::: 36 having forcible sexual intercourse against the consent of a woman.Therefore,in case a woman or a girl is unfortunately used to sexual intercourse, it is not necessary that in such a case, there would be evidence in the form of injury to her private parts as a result of sexual intercourse having been taken against her consent. "::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:04:53 :::47 Thus, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor supported the judgment of the Trial Court and submitted that there is no perversity in the impugned judgment, and hence, it does not call for any interference.48 I have perused the impugned judgment dated 21.11.2009 and scrutinized the oral and the documentary evidence and the medical evidence adduced and produced by the prosecution on record, and also considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties respectively and gave thoughtful consideration to the observations made in the respective cases cited by both the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent, and I am inclined to accept the submissions advanced by Shri S.D.Kaldate, learned Additional Public Prosecutor since admittedly the age of PW5 victim ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:04:53 ::: 37 was about five years at the time of occurrence of the incident and since she was immature and considering the tenor of her testimony, who was very well susceptible for tutoring, her testimony could not be relied upon, and therefore, there is no direct evidence in respect of occurrence of the incident.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:04:53 :::49 On the said scenario, the circumstantial evidence, which was been adduced and produced by the prosecution on record, more particularly through witness PW4 Sunita i.e. mother of the victim and PW1 Eknath i.e. father of victim, as well as other circumstances are required to be considered.As regards the said contention of PW4 Sunita that on the date of incident, she was residing at Ghuge Vasti as well as accused was also residing near her house, the same has been substantiated by the daughter of the accused, PW6 Karunabai as well as PW7 Saraswatibai, and therefore, there is no dispute that the victim was knowing the accused.As regards the occurrence of the incident at about 1.00 p.m. on the date of incident, PW4 Sunita th stated that her husband had been to Pawar Vasti for 13 day rites of his cousin brother and her two sons had been to the school and she was working in the land near her house; whereas victim-her daughter was at house.The aspect of PW4 Sunita working in the field has ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:04:53 ::: 38 been substantiated by PW7 Saraswatibai, and therefore, it is clear that PW4 Sunita did not accompany with her husband to Pawar Vasti, and she was working in the field near her house and her sons had been to the school; whereas victim alone was at her house.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:04:53 :::Moreover, PW6 Karunabai-daughter of accused specifically stated in her deposition that she handed over key of their house to victim, which is the prelude to the occurrence of the incident, and on the said background PW4 Sunita stated that when she was working, she heard hue and cry of her daughter from the house of the accused, and therefore, she immediately rushed towards the said house and went in the house and saw the accused there and her daughter was crying and nicker of her daughter was having blood stains and white colour stains.Hence, she asked the daughter about the incident and thereafter victim replied that when she had been to the house of accused to give him key of his house, the accused caught hold of her and made her lie on the ground and removed his dhoti and inserted his penis into her vagina.Hence, PW4 Sunita stated that she examined her private part and it had bleeding injuries.Thereafter she stated that she took her daughter at Pawar Vasti towards her husband and disclosed the incident to him and thereafter they went to police station.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:04:53 :::50 Hence, it is amply clear that victim had been to the house of the accused to give the key which was given to her by the daughter of the accused, namely PW6 Karunabai, which is the prelude to further occurrence of the incident as narrated by the victim to her mother PW4 Sunita, is the immediate conduct of the victim after the occurrence of the incident and disclosure of the said occurrence of the incident by victim to her mother immediately is quite natural and same has to be seen in that perspective.In the said context, it is important to note that the said nicker was sent to the Chemical Analyser for examination purpose and forwarding letter dated 22.1.2008 is at Exh.43and the Chemical Analyser's report thereof dated 12.5.2008 (Exh.46) discloses that semen was found on th said nicker/jangya and said semen was of blood group 'A' and pertinently blood group of accused/appellant herein is also 'A', and ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:04:53 ::: 40 therefore, the stains of semen on the nicker of victim can be very well tacked with the accused/appellant and the said vital circumstance is certainly incriminating against the appellant herein.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:04:53 :::52 Besides that, PW3 Vijay Patil stated in his deposition that dhoti of accused having three white stains was seized under the seizure panchanama (Exh.19) in his presence, as well as nicker of victim was also seized under seizure panchanama (Exh.20) in his presence and the said dhoti was sent to the Chemical Analyser for examination purpose and the Chemical Analyser's report thereof (Exh.46) dated 12.5.2008 also discloses that the said dhoti bore one human stain and although blood group of said semen could not be determined, no plausible explanation has been given by the accused in that respect.53 The afore said aspect is further strengthened, since the medical case papers (Exh.42) disclose that the examination of the victim was required to be done under anesthesia and she was admitted into hospital therefor or three days i.e. from 9.1.2008 to 11.1.2008 and medical examination of her genital organ disclosed that her human was ruptured.In the said context, the version of ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:04:53 ::: 41 PW9 Dr. Anjana is important, who examined the victim and on examination, she found that there were semen stains on her under-::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:04:53 :::garment and although there was no evidence of violence upon her body and her private part was normal, her hymen was ruptured.However, in the instant case, admittedly there are no suggestions in that respect by defence that the rupture of hymen of the victim in the instant case was because of trauma and by sharp instruments and masturbation, and therefore, it needs to be construed that hymen was ruptured due to sexual intercourse by the accused with the victim.54 PW9 Dr. Anjana further stated that during penetration there may or may not be injuries on private part and tears may or may not occur.She also denied that by penetration there may be injury to Libia Majora/Minora.Accordingly, the circumstances that there was rupture of hymen of victim, accused was found in his house along with the victim bearing blood stains and semen stains on her nicker and also semen stains on dhoti of the accused ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:04:53 ::: 42 immediately after the occurrence of the incident, are the vital incriminating circumstances against the accused/appellant herein.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:04:53 :::55 Thus, the relevant circumstances established by the prosecution against the accused/appellant herein, which connect him with the alleged crime, are as follows :-(i) Victim was found in the company of the appellant in the house of accused.thereafter victim, namely PW1 Eknath, who filed the complaint.(v) In medical examination of victim, hymen was found to be ruptured.(vi) Mother noticed the stains of semen and blood on the nicker of the victim.(vii) The Chemical Analyser's report is positive in respect of semen on dhoti and nicker of 'A' blood group, which is the blood group of the appellant/accused, establishing ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:04:53 ::: 43 nexus between the alleged crime and the appellant.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:04:53 :::The decision has to be considered on the background of factual scenario.Hence, the facts of the cited cases by the learned counsel for the appellant and the facts and circumstances in the instant case are quite different on various ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:04:53 ::: 44 aspects and since the present case has its own peculiar facts and the version of PW4 Sunita that she saw semen stains on the private part of victim and blood oozing from her private part is corroborated by the evidence of her husband i.e. PW1 Eknath and their immediate subsequent conduct is consistent with the incident of rape.The doctor's evidence disclose that hymen of the victim was ruptured and nicker was stained with semen and the Chemical Analyser's report clearly proves that the semen stains on the nicker of the victim were of human being and same were of blood group 'A' and the Chemical Analyser's report of blood of accused (Exh.55) clearly proves his blood group as 'A', which further categorically proves that the nicker of the victim was stained with the semen of the accused.Accordingly, reliance can be very well be placed on the observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manga vs State of Haryana [AIR 1979 SC 1194], cited supra, that the doctor examining the victim found that hymen was torn and ruptured and the mere circumstance that doctor found swelling, redness or inflammation around the bruises would not be sufficient to put the prosecution case out of court, because the fact that there was rupture of hymen and bruise around the hymen was sufficient to prove the act of rape.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:04:53 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:04:53 :::57 Besides that, it cannot be ignored that if at all there was any dispute between the complainant and the accused, as suggested in the cross-examination, the complainant PW1 Eknath and his wife PW4 Sunita would never involve their own daughter of five years with the allegations of rape upon her by the accused to take revenge against the accused.58 Having the comprehensive view of the matter and also after scrutinizing and analyzing ocular and medical evidence as well as evidence of Chemical Analyser adduced and produced on record by the prosecution, it is amply clear that the view adopted by the learned Trial Judge, after assessing and appreciating the evidence convicting and sentencing the accused for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code, as well as for the offence punishable under Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code, does not appear to be perverse and the reasoning adopted therefor cannot be faulted with, and therefore, this is not a fit case in which interference in the appellant jurisdiction is warranted.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:04:53 :::(SHRIHARI P. DAVARE), JUDGE.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:04:53 :::
|
['Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
110,058,907 |
Seeking a direction to the first respondent police to register the petitioner's complaint dated 20.03.2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 406, 420, 506(i) of IPC and expedite the investigation, the petitioner has come up with this petition.2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent police.P.N.PRAKASH,J ajr/dn3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that even according to the complainant, the opposite parties are in abscondence and therefore it may not be possible for the police to conduct enquiry quickly.Bearing this in mind, the first respondent police is directed to conduct enquiry and take action in accordance with the law laid down by the Honourable Apex Court in Lalita Kumari vs. Govt. of U.P. & others [2013 (4) Crimes 243 (SC)]..This Criminal Original Petition is disposed of with the above direction.16.04.2015ajr/dn1.The Inspector of Police, SRMC Police Station, Porur, Chennai.2.The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Ambattur, Chennai3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.OP No.9356 of 2015
|
['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
110,063,264 |
Thus, school is a private unaided school.The School is affiliated to Secondary Board of Secondary Education (CBSE).The petitioner in its meeting dated 14.02.2011 decided to enhance the fees for Class I to X by Rs. 600/- and for Class XI to XII Rs. 1000/- per quarter.Shri K.N. Gutpa, learned senior counsel contends that this decision of enhancement of fees was made known to the parents.The said decision of enhancement of fees was taken in the meeting of society and also in the meeting of School Management Committee (SMC).In the SMC, three parents' representative were also present.An enquiry Committee comprising of Principals of Govt. Railways Girls' Higher W.P.2450/2012 5 Secondary School, Govt. Vidyapeeth Higher Secondary School and Govt. Girls' Higher Secondary School Gwalior was constituted to enquire into the matter.The said committee issued a notice dated 12.12.2011 and demanded certain details.Thereafter a notice dated 12.01.2012 (Annexure P/2) was issued by Collector Gwalior informing that the report of enquiry committee aforesaid has been received by the Collector and petitioner should appear and plead his case in the office of Collector.It is common ground that Collector did not afford any opportunity to cross-examine the complainant.In turn, the impugned order dated 12.03.2012 was passed whereby the action of petitioner of enhancement of fees vide SMC meeting dated 12.02.2011 was disapproved and set aside.It is further directed that Registrar of Firms and Society should constitute a team and audit the accounts of petitioner- society of last three years.The said Commissions shall, while inquiring into any matters relating to child's right to free and compulsory education under clause (c) of sub- section (1), have the same powers as assigned to them respectively under sections 14 and 24 of the said Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act.Where the State Commission for Protection of Child Rights has not been constituted in a State, the appropriate Government may, for the purpose of performing the functions specified in clauses (a) to(c) of sub-section (1), constitute such authority, in such manner and subject to such terms and conditions, as may be prescribed.Redressal of grievances.-(k) "Limit of neighbourhood" means, in case of classes I to V, in rural area the village and adjoining villages and adjoining wards of urban area, if any, and in urban area, the ward and adjoining wards and adjoining villages, if any, and in case of classes VI to VIII, area of 3 k.m.from this limit;(5) If a school established before the commencement of the Act does not fulfill the norms and standards specified in the Schedule of the Act, the District Education Officer shall issue a provisional certificate granting permission to run the school for a period upto three years from the date of commencement of the Act. The provisional certificate shall be issued in Form 3 appended to these rules;Provided further that if the school does not claim further recognition within the period specified in the provisional certificate, the certificate issuing authority, on receipt of application for recognition, satisfy himself and shall issue the certificate of recognition as laid down under sub-rule (4):(7) Where a school contravenes the condition s of the recognition or any provisions of the Act, the authority issuing the certificate of recognition shall issue show cause notice to the school specifying the violations of conditions of grant of recognition.(8) The order of withdr5awal or recognition passed by the District Education Officer shall be operative from the immediate succeeding academic year and shall specify the neighborhood schools to which the children of that school shall be admitted.(9) Information of recognition of any school shall be sent to the local authority i.e. to the urban local body in case the school is situated in the urban area and to the Gram Panchayat and Janpad Panchayat in case the school is situated in the rural area.The school managing committee should consist of the following :--(a) the managing committee of a recognised W.P.2450/2012 23 aided school shall consist of not more than fifteen members; and the managing committee of a private unaided school shall consist of not more than twenty one members;xiv) It shall have the power to propose to the Society rates of tuition fees and other annual charges and also review the budget of the school presented by the Principal for forwarding the same to Society for approval.xv) The Managing Committee will meet at least twice in an academic session."The unaided schools should consult parents through parents' representatives before revising the fees.The fee should not be revised during the mid session.e/;iz n s ' k 'kklu lkekU; iz ' kklu foHkkx ea = ky;(3) Listing and mapping of amenities at village, block and district levels;(4) Determination of policies, programmes and priorities for development of the district, in order to ensure maximum and judicious utilisation and exploitation of available natural and human resources.(5) Formulation of draft Five-year and Annual Development plans of the district in their Socio- economic, temporal and spatial dimensions, consolidating the plans prepared by the Panchayats and Urban bodies and submission thereof to the State Government for incorporation in the State Plan; (6) Preparation of an employment plan for the district;(7) Estimation of financial resources for financing the district plan;(8) Allocation of sectorial and sub-sectorial outlays within the overall framework of the district development plan;(9) Monitoring, evaluation and review of progress under the schemes and programmes being implemented in the district under the decentralized planning framework including central sector and centrally-sponsored schemes, and the Local Area Development Schemes of Parliamentary Constituencies and Assembly Constituencies.(10) Submission of regular progress reports to the State Government in respect of schemes included in the District Plans;( 13 / 05 / 2015) In all these petitions there is a commonality of significant issue involved which basically relates to jurisdiction of Collector in taking coercive steps / coercive measures in the matter relating to school fee being charged by unaided private educational institutions in District Gwalior.WP No. 2450/2012The petitioner Little Angels Shiksha Samiti is a society registered under the Firms and Societies Act. The said society is running a school namely " Little Angels High School Gwalior".Admittedly, the petitioner is not getting any grant-in-aid from the Government.There is no justification in challenging the order of the Collector.A copy of said policy is provided to the court during the course of hearing.Mrs. Sudha C. Sharma, Advocate appeared for parents- Association.Appearing for the parents, she contends that schools are running to earn profit whereas imparting education is a work of charity.Profiteering if any, needs to be used for the development of institution itself.She supported the order of the Collector.It is urged that Collector being head of the administration in the District is empowered to pass the impugned order.It is contended that action was taken by the Collector based on complaint in "Jan Sunwai".Collector has wide powers to take cognizance on the grievance of public at large.It is submitted that petitioners have taken recognition from the State and affiliation from C.B.S.E. The affiliation of Little Angels School is provisional till date.The petitioners were required to fulfill a form which contained a condition that if any provision of the Act, rules or education code is violated, coercive action can be taken against them.She relied on various provisions of M.P. Education Code.It is contended that as per various provisions of Code, Collector has jurisdiction to deal with the question of fee hike.She submits that parent-teacher association is not constituted as per the provisions of the Act, rules and C.B.S.E. guidelines and Code.She relied on Clause-21 of C.B.S.E. regulation to bolster her submission regarding constitution of SMC.She relied on C.B.S.E. regulation for the purpose of question of determination of fees.The said order of Collector was not challenged.However, this contention is refuted by Shri Sanjay Dwivedi by contending that said order was challenged by amending the concerned writ petition.Thus, in cases where Collector has passed the order for these years, Collector's order has to be treated as null and void.The school shall be given at least one month time to file the reply.In case the explanation is not found to be satisfactory or no explanation is received within the stipulated time period, the District Education Officer W.P.2450/2012 22 may cause an inspection of the school, to be conducted by a committee of three to file members comprising of educationalists, civil society representatives, media and Government representatives, which shall make due enquiry and submit report, along with its recommendations for continuation of recognition or its withdrawal to the District Education Officer.On receipt of the report and recommendations of the committee the District Educational Officer may pass order for withdrawal of recognition :Provided that no order for withdrawal of recognition shall be passed by the District Education Officer without giving the school adequate opportunity of being heard :C.Sharma is based on Annexure R-1 dated 30.3.1990 (W.P. No.2450/12).I deem it apposite to reproduce the said order in its entirety:-The order of Collector is liable to be interfered with for yet another reason.The Hon'ble Chief Justice Shri A.K.Sikri (as His Lordship then was) has taken into account the relevant provisions and judgments on the question of fee hike.
|
['Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
110,065,182 |
1 167 11.03.2020 ss Rejected C.R.M. 2633 of 2020 In the matter of : An application for bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 06.03.2020 in connection with Bauria P.S. Case No. 169 of 2019 dated 18.10.2019 under sections 376(i)/354D(1)(ii)/506 of the Indian Penal Code and section 6 of the POCSO Act.And In the matter of : Ritwick Kr.Maity Mr. Arnab Chatterjee ... ... for the petitioner Mr. Ranabir Ray Chowdhury Mr. Arindam Sen ... ... for the State Petitioner is in custody for 145 days.It is submitted that there was love affair between the parties.Learned lawyer for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that petitioner had blackmailed the victim by uploading obscene pictures on social media and raped her.The application for bail is, thus, rejected.2 Trial court, however, is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same at an early date without granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.(Suvra Ghosh, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
110,067,504 |
Nearby to his house, the house of accused persons is situated.But, the accused persons are not residing in it and they were residing in a newly constructed house.However, they used to visit often in their old house.It is also the case of the prosecution that four months earlier to the date of incident which is 16.7.1998 on the point of raising boundary Wall certain hot altercations took place between the complainant side and the accused persons as a result of which their relations become strenuous and they were not in talking terms.On the date of incident at 8.30 pm on account of sludge being accumulated, a slab of flag stone was kept by the complainant party in order to save them from the sludge which was being accumulated on account of rains.It is said that this made a cause for fifth appellant Santosh to quarrel with the 3 Cr.A. No. 1536/00 complainant party and he started hurling the abuses.Not only this, he also broke the stone slab which was kept there by the complainant party.On the same day in between 9.30 to 9.45 pm.when deceased persons and their brother Daulatram were taking meals, at that juncture all the accused persons having sword, knife and danda (stick) came there and by calling the names of both the deceased persons and their brother Daulatram scolded upon them by their names and were insisting them to come out from their house.They were further saying that today they will kill all the persons.Thereafter when all the three brothers (two deceased persons and their brother Daulatram) came out from the house, all the accused persons dealt blows by sword, knife to first deceased Kailash and second deceased Mitthulal and also caused danda blow upon Daulatram.Hariprasad and Sitaram who are the residents of that locality intervened in the matter and in between Aziz and Ashfaq also came there and thereafter all the accused persons ran away from the place of occurrence.2 Cr.A. No. 1536/00Both the deceased persons were brought to Hamidia Govt. Hospital.The FIR was lodged by Daulatram in police station Khajuri on the basis of which a case was registered against the accused persons.3 Cr.A. No. 1536/00On lodging of the First Information Report, the criminal law was triggered and set in motion.The investigating agency arrived at the spot; sent the dead body of the deceased no.1 4 Cr.A. No. 1536/00 Kailash who died on the same day i.e. 16.7.1998 for post-mortem while upon death of deceased no.2 Mitthulal after one week sent his body for postmortem.The Autopsy Surgeon of the first deceased Kailash is Dr. Geeta Rani while that of second deceased Mitthulal is Dr. Arnit Arora.In furtherance to its investigation, the investigating agency prepared spot map; recorded the statement of witnesses as well as that of eye witnesses; seized the weapons which were by the accused persons at the time of commission of offence and sent them for FSL examination.4 Cr.A. No. 1536/00After the investigation was over a charge sheet was submitted in the Committal Court which committed the case to the Court of Session from where it was received by the Trail Court for trial.The learned Trial Judge on the basis of the allegations made in the charge-sheet framed charges punishable under Section 148, 302 read with Section 149 (two counts) and 323/149 IPC against the accused persons.Needless to say all the accused persons abjured their guilt and stated that they have been convicted maladroitly.In order to bring home the charge, the prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses and also placed Ex. P/1 to P/38, the documents on record.The defence of the accused persons is of false implication and the same defence they set forth in their statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. but they did not choose to examine any witness in 5 Cr.A. No. 1536/00 support of their defence.5 Cr.A. No. 1536/00The learned Trial Judge on the basis of the evidence placed on record convicted the appellants under Section 148, 302/149 IPC (two counts) and also under Section 323/149 IPC and passed different sentences which are mentioned in the concluding para of the impugned judgment of learned Trial Court.In this manner, this appeal has been filed by the accused persons before this Court assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence.The contention of Shri Ahuluwalia, learned counsel for the appellants is that first and third appellant namely Batanlal and Mukesh were not having any common object with the other co- accused persons to kill the deceased persons and if that would be the position, learned Trial Court has committed an error in convicting the appellants.Learned counsel submits that so far as causing injury to Mitthulal is concerned, the dying declaration Ex. P/38 was recorded by the Executing Magistrate R.S. Bhaskar.The deceased has firstly stated that Mukesh also dealt knife blow upon him, but immediately, he changed his version by saying that except appellant no.4 Raghuveer, all the accused persons caught hold of him while the fourth appellant Raghuveer dealt knife blows upon him.It is also submitted by him that if this dying declaration is kept in juxtaposition to that of FIR Ex. P/2, lodged by the eye witness Daulatram (PW-2) immediately after the incident at 10.30 6 Cr.A. No. 1536/00 pm, it would reveal that the name of Mukesh does not find place in the FIR.6 Cr.A. No. 1536/00By inviting our attention to the evidence of other two eye witnesses namely Ashfaq (PW-4) and Azeez Khan (PW-5) it has been submitted that the statements of these two witnesses are inconsistent to each other because Ashfaq in his case diary statement Ex. D/4 has stated that Mukesh caused injury to first deceased Kailash by knife but it cannot be relied upon for the simple reason that this witness arrived in the scene along with Azeez Khan who did not say about the presence of Mukesh 7 Cr.A. No. 1536/00 although he is a hostile witness.Hence, it has been submitted by learned counsel that so far as the involvement of third appellant Mukesh in the offence is concerned, It becomes highly suspicious because the evidence of the prosecution is not certain and every witness is saying different versions about his involvement in the crime as well as about carrying the knife in his hand and also his presence in the scene.7 Cr.A. No. 1536/00By putting a deep dent upon the case of prosecution in regard to the first appellant Batanlal it has been submitted by him that even to remote extent, it cannot be said that he shared his common object to kill the deceased persons along with other co-accused persons for the simple reason that all the eye witnesses in singular voice are saying that he simply caused danda (stick) blow upon the back of the injured eye witness Daulatram (PW-2).It has also been put forth by him that eye witnesses are not saying that this appellant caused any injury upon any of the deceased and if that is the position, he be acquitted from the charge punishable under Section 302/149 IPC.By inviting our attention to the evidence of the eye witnesses of the prosecution it has been submitted by him that the role assigned to other three appellants namely appellant no.2 Suresh, appellant no.4 Raghuveer and appellant no.5 Santosh, there is no incriminating evidence in order to hold that they have caused injury to the deceased persons and if that is the position, 8 Cr.A. No. 1536/00 the learned Trial Court has erred in convicting them for the charges punishable under Sections 302/149 IPC (two counts) and also under Section 148 and 323/149 IPC.Learned counsel submits that appellant no.2 Suresh, appellant no.4 Raghuveer and appellant no.5 Santosh are in custody since 25.7.1998 and 20.7.1998 respectively and they are in jail for more than 15 years.On these premises submissions, it has been submitted by learned counsel that this appeal be allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence be set aside and all the appellants be acquitted from all the charges.8 Cr.A. No. 1536/00On the other hand, Shri Mishra, learned public prosecutor argued in support of the impugned judgment and submitted that learned Trial Judge by considering the dying declaration of the 2nd deceased Mitthulal as well as the evidence of the eye witnesses vis-a-vis to each other has rightly came to hold that appellants have committed the offence and rightly passed different sentences and there is no need to interfere in the impugned judgment and, therefore, this appeal be dismissed.Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that this appeal deserves to be allowed in part.In the present case, the prosecution has examined as many as six persons as eye witnesses, they are Laxmibai (PW-1), Daulatram (PW-2), Hariprasad (PW-3), Ashfaq (PW-4), Azeez 9 Cr.A. No. 1536/00 Khan (PW-5) and also Bharat Singh (PW-6) who is a hostile witness.Laxmibai (PW-1) is the wife of first deceased Kailash while Daulatram (PW-2) is the brother of both the deceased persons.Hariprasad, Ashfaq, Azeez Khan and Bharat Singh are the independent witnesses.But, Bharat Singh (PW-6) is a hostile witness.9 Cr.A. No. 1536/00In the present case, the incident has occurred on 16.7.1998 in between 9.30 to 9.45 pm and FIR Ex. P/2 was lodged at 10.30 pm which would mean that a prompt FIR was lodged by eye witness Daulatram who is not only injured but is the brother of the deceased persons.When the author of the FIR Daulatram appeared in the Court as PW-2 although in the examination-in-chief he has said that the third appellant Mukesh dealt knife blow upon Kailash and also upon Mitthulal but when this fact was confronted to him in the cross-examination with the FIR, in para 7 he has specifically deposed that the factum of causing injury by Mukesh to first deceased Kailash was stated by him in the FIR but why this fact has not been written by the police in the FIR, he cannot say.According to us, this amount to material omission because if any clarification would have been given, he could have said that because on account of seeing the injury upon his two brothers 10 Cr.A. No. 1536/00 (deceased persons) he became perplexed and, therefore, he could not mention the names of appellant Mukesh in the FIR.Specifically, this witness is admitting in cross-examination that third appellant Mukesh did not cause any injury to deceased no.2 Mitthulal but it was dealt to first deceased Kailash.True, in the case diary statement of this witness which was recorded on 17.7.1998 the involvement of Mukesh in the scene has been stated by him and further it has been stated that he caused injury upon first deceased Kailash (Ex. D/3).10 Cr.A. No. 1536/00Normally, if in the FIR the name of an accused is not mentioned but, on the next day, his name is mentioned in the case diary statement, the Court should not pay any heed to it but looking to the facts and circumstances of this case and by paying heed that by the time the 161 Cr.P.C. statement could be recorded, the report of the postmortem of the first deceased Kailash was in the hands of the investigating agency and, therefore, according to us, in order to fit in the story of causing injury by knife by Mukesh in the slot of postmortem report of Kailash, his name has been mentioned in the case diary statement Ex. D/3 of Daulatram (PW-2).That apart, according to us, when the name of third appellant Mukesh was available with the investigating agency on 17.7.1998 only, there was no cause for it not to arrest him.7.1998 and on that 11 Cr.A. No. 1536/00 date only the knife which is alleged to be used as weapon in the commission of the offence was seized from him but in the FSL report, Ex. P/34 no blood stains were found upon the knife.11 Cr.A. No. 1536/00So far as causing of injury to second deceased Mitthulal by third appellant Mukesh is concerned, second deceased Mitthulal in his dying declaration Ex. P/38 although has said that appellant no.4 Raghuveer and appellant no.3 Mukesh dealt knife blow upon him but immediately thereafter by exonerating Mukesh he said that only fourth appellant Raghuveer caused knife blow upon him while other co-accused persons caught hold of him.However, this story which we find in the dying declaration has not been stated by any of the eye witness and learned public prosecutor could not point out that how the story put forth in the dying declaration by second deceased Mitthulal Ex. P/38 tallies with that of the evidence of other eye witnesses including Daulatram (PW-2) who is the real brother of deceased persons and thus we are of the view that the involvement of third appellant Mukesh for causing injuries to any of the deceased or he shared any common object with other accused persons to kill the deceased persons becomes highly doubtful.That, apart, Laxmibai (PW-1) who is the wife of the deceased Kailash in her examination-in-chief has stated that first appellant Batanlal and third appellant Mukesh were armed with danda (lathi).But by changing her version she has deposed in 12 Cr.A. No. 1536/00 para 3 of her examination-in-chief that the third appellant Mukesh dealt knife blow upon second deceased Mitthulal but this fact does not find place in the dying declaration Ex P/38 of the deceased Mitthulal.12 Cr.A. No. 1536/00The other eye witness is Hariprasad (PW-3).This witness has not at all stated the presence of Mukesh and on the limited point of involvement of Mukesh in the scene, he was also declared hostile.But in the cross-examination nothing has been carved out in order to hold that Mukesh was present in the scene according to this witness.We have also gone through the testimony of another eye witness Ashfaq (PW-4) and we find that this witness has stated the presence of Mukesh and has also stated that Mukesh was having knife in his hand.Further he has deposed that he caused injury to first deceased Kailash by knife but this witness was accompanied with Azeez Khan (PW-5) who has totally denied the presence of Mukesh in the scene.On this point this witness was not declared hostile but on some other ground later on in respect of seizure of sword this witness was declared hostile and was cross examined by the prosecution on the limited point of seizure.Hence, according to us, when Ashfaq (PW-4) and Azeez Khan (PW-5) appeared in the scene together and their evidence is not certain to each other in regard to the presence of Mukesh, the presence of Mukesh for causing injuries to any of 13 Cr.A. No. 1536/00 the deceased or he shared any common object with other accused persons to kill the deceased persons becomes highly doubtful.Hence, according to us, the offence under Section 302/149 (two counts) IPC accorded by learned Trial Court to the third appellant Mukesh cannot be allowed to remain stand because the case of prosecution against him for the said charge is highly doubtful and, therefore, we hereby extend our benefit of doubt to him.13 Cr.A. No. 1536/00So far as the conviction of Mukesh sharing a common object with first appellant Batanlal to cause injuries to Daulatram (PW-2) is concerned, we find that there is overwhelming evidence of all the witnesses in that regard and, therefore, according to us, the learned Trial Court has rightly convicted him under Section 323/149 IPC.For the same reasons we do not find any fault in the judgment of the learned Trial Court convicting the other accused persons under Section 323/149 IPC for causing injury by lathi to injured Daulatram (PW-2).The sentences awarded to them by the learned Trial Court have already been suffered by them for this offence.So far as the conviction of all the appellants under Section 148 IPC is concerned, according to us, in order to convict the accused persons, formation of unlawful assembly is pre- supposed because until and unless their is an unlawful assembly 14 Cr.A. No. 1536/00 as envisaged under Section 141 IPC, there cannot be any rioting under Section 146 IPC.14 Cr.A. No. 1536/00We shall now advert ourselves in regard to the role assigned to first appellant Batanlal.All the eye witnesses, the names of which we have mentioned hereinabove in their singular voice are saying that first applicant Batanala only gave injury by lathi on the back of the injured Daulatram (PW-2) and, he did nothing or shared his common object with other accused persons to cause death to the deceased persons.Hence, according to us, the conviction of the appellant no.1 Batanlal under Section 302/149 IPC is hereby set aside.However, he is held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 323/149 IPC.The sentence awarded to him by the learned Trial Court has already been suffered by him for this offence.Now we shall pay heed to the conviction of the second appellant Suresh, fourth appellant Raghuveer and fifth appellant Santosh.We have gone through the testimony of all the aforesaid 15 Cr.A. No. 1536/00 eye witnesses and we find that all of them have stated that they were having sharp edged weapons and they caused injury to both the deceased by these weapons.Learned counsel for the appellants could not point out that how the testimony of eye witnesses is not reliable so far as causing of injuries by these three appellants to deceased persons is concerned.15 Cr.A. No. 1536/00At this juncture, we have also gone through the reasonings assigned by learned Trial Judge from different angles and we find that learned Trial Court did not err in placing reliance upon the evidence of aforesaid eye witnesses holding that these three appellants have caused injuries by the sharp edged weapons to both the deceased which also find place in the postmortem report of the respective deceased persons.Hence, we hereby hold that second appellant Suresh, fourth appellant Raghuveer and fifth appellant Santosh have committed the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC.They shall now need not to surrender.Their bail bonds stand discharged.16 Cr.A. No. 1536/00
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
10,833,745 |
The detenu came to adverse notice in the following case:-Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law1.M-2 Madhavaram Milk Colony, P.S.Cr.No.635 of 2015449, 341, 294(b), 324, 307,302 and 506(ii) IPCThe alleged ground case has been registered against the detenu on 15.02.2015, by the Inspector of Police, Law and Order, M-2 Madhavaram Milk Colony Police Station, in Crime No.637 of 2015 for offences under Sections 294(b), 336, 427, 307 and 506(ii) IPC.Aggrieved by the order of detention, the present writ petition has been filed.Though many grounds have been raised in the petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned detention order only on the ground of non-supply of copy of the bail application in the similar case, 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.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the impugned detention order has been passed on cogent and sufficient materials and there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order of detention.However, he submitted that the copy of the bail application in the similar case, referred to in the grounds of detention was 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 the Grounds of Detention that in the similar case, the accused was released on bail by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, in Crl.M.P.No.6051 of 2014 in respect of the case in Cr.No.288/2014 for the offences u/s.341, 294(b), 324, 323, 307, 336 and 506(ii) IPC on the file of H-6 Dr.R.K.Nagar Police Station.On a perusal of the Booklet furnished by the prosecution, it is seen that it does not contain the copy of the said bail application in such case; but the bail order of the said similar case [both in English version and in vernacular version] has been furnished in page Nos.98 to 101 of the Booklet.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
108,339,024 |
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.8185 of 2010, pending on the file of the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.2.It is the case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is A3 in Crime No.277 of 2010 on the file of the 1 st respondent for the offence under Sections 498(A), 406, 506 (i) and 294(b) of IPC.The allegation as against the petitioner/A3 is that the petitioner was working along with A1 in Veterinary Clinic, so the petitioner/A3 instigated A1 to cause harassment to the 2nd respondent.3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there was no such relationship between the petitioner and the petitioner/A3 and the 1st accused were merely a friends and they were working in the same Veterinary Clinic.The 2nd respondent has given a false complaint.The learned counsel would also submit that based on the allegations made in the final report, no offence has been made out as against the petitioner.4.The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit thathttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme of Court in the case of “U.Suvetha Versus State by the Inspector of Police and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 757” the offence under Section 498A of IPC is held as follows:-“In the First Information Report except at one place the appellant has been described by the First Information as “girlfriend” of her husband and only at the end the word “concubine” has been used.The core question which arises for consideration is as to whether the “girlfriend” would be a “relative of husband of a woman” in terms of Section 498-a of the Penal Code.”Therefore, he prayed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.8185 of 2010 against the petitioner.7.The issues that have been raised by the learned counsel for thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 4 petitioner has to consider only in the trial.This Court is not in a position to appreciate these facts and does not want to interfere with the proceedings at this stage and it is left open to the petitioner to raise all the contentions before the Court below in the trial.8.In the result this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.Consequently the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.07.08.2019 Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No vv2 To1.The IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.2.The Inspector of Police, W-19, All Women Police Station, Chennai.3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.http://www.judis.nic.in 5 M.NIRMAL KUMAR.,J vv2 Crl.O.P.No.1389 of 2011
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
108,352,072 |
The next day i.e. 26.04.1996 at about 2.30pm, the said Police Station received a telephonic information from Shri Kallan Khan that a foul smell was emanating from the adjoining house.Upon receipt of the said information, an entry once again was made in the Daily Dairy being DD No. 22A. Thereupon Sub- Inspector (SI) Sanjay Daral alongwith Head Constable Satpal, Head Constable Balbir Singh, Constable Bijender Singh and Constable Ram Niwas left the Police Station to investigate the matter further.On arrival at the place indicated by Shri Kallan Khan, i.e. House bearing No. F-2/289, Mangol Puri, Delhi (in short the said premises) which is a house belonging to one Shri Pancham Singh, who alongwith his three sons viz Ashok Kumar (i.e. the Appellant/accused), Hem Raj and Suresh, resided in the said premises at the relevant point in time, the Police found the house locked.The Police team gained the access to the said premises which comprised of an inner room.Upon a search being carried out of the said premises, the Police team found the body of the deceased child, Shabana, wrapped in a yellow polythene stacked in a white sack on the shelf of the inner room.The investigating team after carrying out a search of the said premises took into possession the following articles :- (i) a book containing obscene literature, (ii) blood stained earth, (iii) One blood stained underwear, which Shri Kallan Khan, identified as one belonging to the deceased child.The underwear also found to have pubic hair stuck on it.Based on the material seized, a seizure memo was prepared by Inspector Rajinder Bhatia, Additional Station House Officer, which was witnessed by Shri Kallan Khan, the father of the deceased child.On 27.04.1996, a Post Mortem was conducted by Dr. K. Goyal.The articles taken into possession by SI, Sanjay Daral were a wooden box containing the viscera of the deceased child; a sample bottle containing the vaginal swab of the deceased, one plastic sack containing a salwar, shirt/frock, an underwear, a gunny bag and an envelope containing the sample of the blood of the deceased.All these articles were seized by SI Sanjay Daral with the seal of Dr. B Singh, Civil Hospital, Delhi.The Post Mortem carried out Criminal Appeal No. 394 of 2001 4 of 35 by Dr. K Goyal on 27.04.1996, at about 11.30 am, reveals that there were abrasions between the left ear and left eye, cheek, as well as, bruises on the middle of neck.The report opined that all injuries appeared to be ante mortem and were caused by use of blunt force.It further went on to opine that the pressure on the neck structure was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.However, it pointedly records that no definitive opinion could be given with respect to whether or not the deceased child had been raped due to protrusion of external genitalia on account of decomposition.The cause of the death was given as asphyxia due to manual strangulation.The time of the death is recorded as three (3) days prior to the date and time of the Post Mortem.After a great amount of effort and incessant search, on 01.05.1996, the Appellant/ accused was apprehended and arrested on being identified by Shri Kallan Khan, the father of the deceased.On the very same day, a medical examination of the Appellant was carried at Deen Dayal Hospital.In the Medical Examination conducted by Dr. Pawan Bhargva, he opined that there was no evidence to suggest that the Appellant was not capable of having sexual intercourse.The semen and under garment of the Appellant were sealed.On 02.05.1996, the Police based on the information supplied by the Appellant, Criminal Appeal No. 394 of 2001 5 of 35 discovered a metallic trunk at a place known as Village Mukandpur, Delhi.The said box was also seized by the Police in the presence of the victims father, Shri Kallan Khan.The metallic trunk was, as per the prosecution case, based on the disclosure made by Appellant, attempted to be used by the Appellant to stuff the body of the deceased, so as to enable him to carry away the body of the deceased from the scene of the crime.It transpired that when, the Appellant failed to fit the body in the trunk, he carried the empty trunk and threw the same away at the site at which it was found.The police found blood stains on the inside of the trunk.Consequently, a piece of the trunk with the blood stains was seized by the police.Smt. Anwari Devi (PW4) was examined to establish that on 26.04.1996, she identified the body of the deceased child, Shabana, in the said premises belonging to Shri Pancham Criminal Appeal No. 394 of 2001 8 of 35 Singh, that is, father of the Appellant.Head Constable Ram Niwas (PW5), was examined to establish that on 27.041996, the material recovered after Post Mortem was seized and, put into four (4) parcels with the seal of Dr. B Singh, and was handed over to SI Sanjay Daral , who prepared the seizure memo Ex.PW5/A.Head Constable, Mool Chand PW6, was examined to establish that the parcels received from the Inspector Rajender Bhatia on 26.04.1996 and from SI Sanjay Daral on 27.041996 and those received on 01.05.1996 from the Inspector Rajender Bhatia were received at the Malkhana of the said Police Station, and duly entered in the Register No. 19 on various dates.Dr. K Goyal (PW8), was examined to prove the Post Mortem Report.Dr. K Goyal proved his Post Mortem Report and deposed inter alia that the injuries referred to in the Post Mortem Report were ante mortem in nature and were caused by blunt force.He further opined that the pressure on the neck structure was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.Constable Ramesh Kumar, (PW11) was examined to establish that on 26.04.1996 he was posted at the said Police Station, and that he was handed over special report by the Duty Officer for delivery to the Senior Officers, as well as, the Metropolitan Magistrate Shri Vinod Kumar.Shri Kallan Khan (PW12) being the main witness of the prosecution deposed that on 24.04.1996 at about 4.00 pm, he found that his daughter, Shabana was missing.He further deposed that he, accordingly informed the Police who requested him to carry out the search of his daughter on his own.In his testimony, he says that on 25.04.1996, at about 1pm, he lodged a formal missing persons report with the Police.He further deposed that on 26.04.1996, he discovered that a foul smell was emanating from the said premises being adjoining house Criminal Appeal No. 394 of 2001 10 of 35 belonging to Shri Pancham Singh.He also stated that he, thereafter went in search of his daughter and when he returned at about 2.30 pm he found many people collected outside the said premises from where the foul smell was emanating.The Police soon reached the spot and broke open the lock of the said premises.Upon the sack being brought down and opened it was found to contain a yellow polythene bag.On opening the said yellow polythene bag, the dead body of the Shabana was discovered and at that point of time, she was wearing a shirt with red and white design; however, the salwar was removed.He further deposed that on a visual examination, it appeared that his daughter had been raped and killed.In his deposition, he further went on to say that Shri Pancham Singh was away to his native place at Madhya Pradesh for the last 10 - 12 days.He further went on to depose that he suspected the Appellant as the perpetrator of the crime as on an Criminal Appeal No. 394 of 2001 11 of 35 earlier occasion which took place in January 1996, he attempted to commit the same act with his daughter, Shabana.He accepted having given a statement to the Police (Ex.PW12/A).He also deposed that from the scene of the crime, several articles were seized such as the blood stained pillow vide memo Ex.PW12/B, one book containing obscene literature, blood stained earth, blood stained under wear with pubic hair stuck on it which was sealed in his presence vide seizure memo Ex.PW12/B.Shri Kallan Khan, (PW12) further went on to state in his deposition that he saw the Appellant being interrogated in the Police Station on 02.05.1996 when in his presence, the Appellant confessed to his guilt that he had raped and killed his daughter and since, he could not fit the body in the metallic trunk, he had stuffed the body in a polythene bag and the trunk with blood stains was thrown away by him.He admitted his signature to the disclosure statement of the Appellant being, Ex.PW12/C. He also deposed that the Appellant took them to village Mukandpur, Delhi where, in his presence, a metallic trunk was recovered.In his cross examination, Shri Kallan Khan (PW12) is stated to have said that when he returned after searching for his daughter on 26.04.1996, he found several people including his sister Smt. Anwari Devi and Smt. Madina, his sister in law, outside the said premises.He stated in his cross examination that sons of Shri Pancham Singh had not left the said premises in his presence.He denied knowledge of the fact as to when the accused/ Appellant was arrested.He further stated in his cross examination that on 02.05.1996, he was in the Police Station between 8.00 to 10.00 am and he remained there for about 1 hours.He further stated in his cross examination that no public person was called when the Appellant / accused was interrogated.In his cross examination, he further states that he could not recollect the exact time when he left the Police Station to go to Mukandpur village, where the trunk was discovered.He denied that any public person gathered at the Mukandpur village.He stated that he went to Mukandpur village in a police vehicle alongwith a number of police personnel.He stated in his deposition that upon reaching the crime scene it was found that a foul smell was emanating from the said premises and also that the door was locked from the outside.He is stated to have deposed that the lock of the said premises was opened with the help of a key, however, he did not recollect from where the said key was procured.PW12/B which bears his signature at point B.In his cross examination, SI Sanjay Daral (PW13) stated that the information as regards foul smell was received at the Police Station at about 4.20pm, whereupon he alongwith the Constables left for the location indicated.The time span between the receipt of information and their arrival at the spot was given as 8-10 minutes.He further deposed in the cross examination that the Additional Station House Officer, Inspector Rajinder Bhatia reached the place between 4.30 to 5.00 pm.He further deposed in his cross examination that information for registration of the case was sent after two hours.He also deposed that both the body and underwear were found in the sack.He reiterated in his deposition that the articles were seized from the scene of the crime.PW13/A).Inspector Rajinder Bhatia (PW15), was also examined, who deposed that on 26.041996 he was posted as the Additional Station House Officer at the said Police Station , and that at about 4.20pm an information was received from Shri Kallan Khan that a foul smell was emanating from the adjoining house at F- 289, Mangol Puri.He further deposed that the said information was recorded in DD No. 22A which was marked to SI Sanjay Daral and on receiving the said information, he reached the indicated place where he found Shri Kallan Khan and other persons at the spot.PW15/B), he also prepared the inquest report.He further deposed that he recorded statement of Shri Kallan Khan and Smt. Anwari Devi (PW4) who identified the body of the deceased Ex. PW15/D. He proved the statement of Smt. Anwari Devi (Ex.PW4/A).He deposed that he seized the articles Criminal Appeal No. 394 of 2001 16 of 35 referred to him and prepared the seizure memo (Ex.PW12/B) and that the parcels were marked and sealed with the seal of RB and were handed over to SI Sanjay Daral.He also deposed that he prepared the site plan (Ex.PW15/F).This is an Appeal against the judgment dated 22.04.1999 and sentence dated 26.04.1999 passed by Shri Raghubir Singh, Additional Sessions Judge; Delhi in Sessions Case No. 210 of 1996 (hereinafter referred to in short as the 'trial Criminal Appeal No. 394 of 2001 1 of 35 Court').By the impugned judgment, the Appellant has been convicted under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred in short as the IPC) and has been thus sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, failing which, the Appellant is required to undergo a further rigorous imprisonment for a period of three (3) months.The Appellant, being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, has preferred the present Appeal under Sec. 374 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to in short as Cr P C).In order to deal with the issues raised in the Appeal, it would be important to set out briefly the case of the prosecution in respect of the conviction of the Appellant in the matter.The prosecutions case is as follows :--On 25.04.1996, one Shri Kallan Khan, the father of the deceased child, Shabana, lodged a missing persons complaint with the Mangol Puri, Police Station (in short the said Police Station) with respect to his child, Shabana.Criminal Appeal No. 394 of 2001 2 of 35Soon thereafter, Shri Rajender Bhatia, Additional Station House Officer of Police Station, Mangol Puri, Delhi also arrived at the crime scene and prepared an inquest report.He also recorded the statement of the father of the deceased, Shri Kallan Khan.Criminal Appeal No. 394 of 2001 3 of 35 Based on the aforesaid events at about 6.30pm, on 26.04.1996, a First Information Report (FIR) was registered.The seized material was sent by the Police to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi (in short FSL).In all, thirteen (13) parcels were sent for analysis to the FSL which included the Salwar and shirt worn by the deceased child and the blood stained pillow found at the said premises amongst others.The FSL report also confirmed that the blood stains found on the pillow, underwear, ganji, frock/shirt, salwar, gunny bag, metallic piece taken from the trunk, were of human origin of AB Group.The semen stains on the salwar of the deceased and underwear of the Appellant/ accused matched and had an identical blood group which was of AB.Criminal Appeal No. 394 of 2001 6 of 35The Charges framed against the Appellant were as follows :-... That between 24.04.96 and 26.04.96, at House No. F-289, Mangol Puri, you committed rape on Km.Shabana, aged 7/8 years, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 376 IPC.Secondly, on the aforesaid date and place, you have committed the murder of Km.Shabana by causing her death by strangulation, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, and within my cognizance.And I hereby direct that you be tried by this Court for the above said offences.The Appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.Accordingly, trial was commenced against the Appellant.At the trial, the prosecution examined Sixteen (16) witnesses.The defence did not examine any witness.At this stage, it is important to note that the prosecution had listed brothers of the Appellant who were minors at the relevant point of time namely; Shri Hem Raj (PW1) and Shri Suresh (PW7), as their witness.However, they turned hostile and hence, were cross examined by the Additional Public Criminal Appeal No. 394 of 2001 7 of 35 Prosecutor.The prosecution in order to prove its case that the Appellant had first raped the deceased and then caused death by manual strangulation, relied upon the testimonies of the following witnesses :--Shri Bharat Chaudhary, (PW2) was examined, who deposed that in January 1996, nearly three months before the occurrence of the crime, an altercation had broken out between the father of the Appellant / Accused and the father of the deceased child, Shri Kallan Khan.The altercation ensued, according to the said witness, on account of an attempt made by the Appellant to molest the deceased child, Shabana.Since the childs interest was involved, the matter was compromised between the warring parties.Head Constable Dharshan Kumar, (PW3) was examined to prove the FIR (Ex.PW3/A) wherein, the information with respect to the crime on receipt of the message from the scene of the crime was recorded at about 6.30pm.On entering the said premises, they found an inner room, the lock of which was also broken.In the inner room of the said premises, they found blood on the floor, and on a further search a sack was discovered on the shelf of the room.He further deposed that a piece of the trunk with blood stains was cut and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW12/D, on which he appended his signature at point A. He also identified the metallic piece of the trunk (Ex. P-6), Salwar of the child (Ex.Criminal Appeal No. 394 of 2001 12 of 35 P-7), shirt / frock (Ex. P-8) and polythene bag (Ex. P-9).He further states in his cross examination that a metallic piece was taken Criminal Appeal No. 394 of 2001 13 of 35 from the trunk found at Mukandpur village after procuring a metal cutter from a neighbouring shop.However, he denied any recollection as to who brought the said cutter.He accepted the fact that salwar of the child and the underwear, as well as, blood stained earth and other articles were recovered by the police in his presence.He also admitted that the fact that accused led the police to Mukandpur village to recover the trunk.SI Sanjay Daral (PW13) was examined by the prosecution to establish that upon receipt of information by the Police Station he received a copy of DD No. 22A (Ex. 13A).Lady Constable Somna PW14, was examined to establish that on 25.04.1996 she was working as Duty Officer at the Police Station when Shri Kallan Khan, father of the deceased child had come to record a missing persons report about his daughter.She deposed that she had recorded the same and made requisite entry against DD No. 21A. She further deposed that on 26.04.1996 a telephonic message was received at the Police Station that a foul smell was emanating from the said Criminal Appeal No. 394 of 2001 15 of 35 premises.The said information was recorded vide DD No. 22A (Ex.He further deposed that on 27.04.1996 SI Sanjay Daral got the Post Mortem conducted and that he deposited the exhibits received from the Hospital in the Malkhana.Shri Rajinder Bhatia, (PW15) further deposed that after searching for the Appellant / Accused at several places including Muraini and other parts of UP, he received a information that the Appellant was in Delhi and finally apprehended the Appellant at the New Delhi Railway Station near the tonga stand.He deposed that a personal search was conducted (Ex.He further deposed that on 2.05.1996 the Appellant was interrogated in the presence of Head Constable Om Parkash and Shri Kallan Khan when his disclosure statement (Ex.PW12/C) was recorded.He further deposed that based on the information supplied by the Appellant, a metallic trunk was recovered from the field in Mukandpur village vide memo Ex.PW12/B. On recovery of the trunk, it was found discovered that inside of the trunk was stained with blood and that a small piece of the trunk was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW12/D. He further deposed that all the exhibits were sent to the CFSL and that, the Criminal Appeal No. 394 of 2001 17 of 35 Appellant/ accused was medically examined on 01.05.1996 when his semen, blood samples and pubic hair were preserved and sent to CFSL.In his cross examination, the witness Shri Rajinder Bhatia (PW15), stated that when he reached the scene of the crime, Smt. Anwari Devi was present.He has further deposed that he did not recollect whether the door was locked or not from outside.He stated that he did not take into possession any lock.He denied the suggestion that the body was not discovered from the said premises, that is, F 289, the house of Shri Pancham Singh, the father of the Appellant/ accused who reportedly was away to his native place, while other two younger brothers had gone to attend to their respective jobs and were hence, not present at that point in time.He stated that when the Appellant was arrested, no person from the general public except Shri Kallan Khan was joined, and it was the same position even when the Appellant was interrogated.He stated that no public person collected at the time of the recovery of the metallic trunk at village Mukandpur.He stated in his cross examination that the residential houses were at a distance of three kilometers from the place where the metallic trunk was discovered.He further deposed that on 01.05.1996 he seized semen and one sample blood vide memo Ex.PW15/J. He also reiterated that on Criminal Appeal No. 394 of 2001 18 of 35 02.05.1996 he had prepared the site plan (Ex.PW15/H) of the place from where the metallic trunk was recovered.HC Somna, PW16 was examined to establish that Shri Kallan Khan had lodged a missing persons complaint on 25.04.1996 which was recorded vide DD no. 21A and also to prove DD no. 22A (Ex.PW16/B).The accused/Appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr P C denied the case of the prosecution including the knowledge of recovery of body from his house or the recovery of the articles seized from the scene of the crime.He also denied making of any disclosure statement to the police and in fact stated that his signatures were taken on blank sheets of paper.Criminal Appeal No. 394 of 2001 19 of 35To buttress, the aforesaid general submission, learned counsel for Appellant attempted to pick holes in the prosecutions case by referring to the following :-(iv) the deposition of the (PW15) seems to indicate that the Appellant was arrested at 2.00pm on 01.05.1996 from a tonga stand at New Delhi Railway Station after receipt of information that he was in Delhi on being spotted and identified by Shri Kallan Khan.As against this Shri Kallan Khan, (PW12) in his deposition has stated that on 02.05.1996 he had visited the Police Station to inquire about the case, it was then that he saw the Appellant being interrogated by the police, and further in his cross examination he denied the knowledge of the fact as to when the Appellant was arrested;(v) and lastly, according to the Post Mortem Report the time of the death is stated to be three days prior to date and time of the Post Mortem.Thus, according to the information contained in the Post Mortem Report, the approximate time of death is 11.30am on 24.04.1996 in view of the fact that Post Mortem was conducted on 27.04.1996 at about 11.30am.As against this, the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) for the State relied upon the trial court judgment to support the case of the prosecution.It was the submission of the learned APP that looking at the totality of circumstances, it is clear that the case of the prosecution is Criminal Appeal No. 394 of 2001 21 of 35 proved beyond all reasonable doubt, in as much as:- (i) first, the fact that the Appellant had an evil eye on the child, Shabana is established by the testimony of Shri Bharat Chaudhary, (PW2) who deposed that the Appellant had attempted to molest the child in January 1996; (ii) second, the fact that the body of the deceased child, Shabana was recovered from the house of the Appellant, coupled with the fact that the recoveries were made from the said premises, that is, the house of the Appellant which included amongst others, the under wear of the child which had blood stains of blood group of AB, as well as, the semen stains on the salwar of the deceased child recovered from the said premises were identical to the blood group of the Appellant and;(iii) lastly, given the fact that the metallic trunk with the blood group of the deceased was recovered at the behest of the Appellant.Having perused the evidence on record, and after hearing submissions made by the learned counsel for Appellant, as well as, the Learned APP, this Court has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has been able to establish beyond reasonable doubt, though based on circumstantial evidence, that the Appellant is guilty of murder of the deceased child, Shabana.In arriving at this conclusion, the following Criminal Appeal No. 394 of 2001 22 of 35 material aspects are noted :--A perusal of the testimony of Shri Bharat Chaudhary, (PW2) clearly establishes that in January 1996, the Appellant had attempted to molest the deceased child, Shabana.On account of this, an altercation had broken out between the father of the deceased Shri Kallan Khan, (PW12) and the father of the Appellant, Shri Pancham Singh.In view of the fact that the interest of the child was involved, the matter was amicably settled between the feuding parties.What requires to be examined from hereon is, whether the Appellant took this incident further and committed the crime he is accused of.The first link in the chain is the prosecutions evidence with regard to the discovery of the body of the deceased child in the said premises, that is, the house of the Appellant.In this regard, prosecution placed reliance on the evidence of Smt. Anwari Devi (PW4), who is the sister of Shri Kallan Khan, (PW12), that is, aunt of the deceased.In her Criminal Appeal No. 394 of 2001 23 of 35 deposition, Smt. Anwari Devi, (PW4) clearly stated that on 26.04.1996 she identified the body of the deceased child, Shabana in the said premises, that is, the house of Shri Pancham, who is father of the Appellant where admittedly the Appellant resided at the relevant point in time.Smt. Anwari Devi (PW4) identified her signatures on the identification memo Ex.PW4/A. In the cross examination, the testimony of Smt. Anwari Devi (PW4) remained unshaken.There was no suggestion made to her with respect to discovery of the body of the child in the said premises.The testimony of Smt. Anwari Devi (PW4) has a ring of truth in it.Her testimony with respect to recovery of the body of the child from the said premises has to be accepted.The next link in the chain after having established that the body of the deceased was found in the house of the Appellant, is whether the Appellant could be linked to the dastardly crime.With respect to the same, the prosecution relied upon the scientific evidence to show that amongst other articles seized from the scene of the crime on 26.04.1996 and those seized on 27.04.1996, were the clothes of the deceased child, which included the shirt, salwar and under wear of the deceased child.Seizure memo being Ex.PW6/A dated 26.04.1996 was proved by Shri Rajinder Bhatia, Additional Station House Officer, (PW15); and after, the Post Mortem was conducted on Criminal Appeal No. 394 of 2001 24 of 35 27.04.1996; articles received from the Hospital which included the viscera of the deceased Shabana, one sample bottle containing vaginal swab, one plastic sack containing the clothes of the deceased, which included salwar, shirt, baniyan, one envelope containing the blood on the cloth were put in their respective parcels which were sealed with the seal of the concerned doctor; were proved by SI Sanjay Daral, (PW13).The medical examination of the Appellant was conducted on 01.05.1996 when in point of fact, his semen sample was collected; a fact which the Appellant has accepted as correct in an answer to the question made in his statement under Section 313 Cr P C. The forensic report which is Ex. A & B, its dispatch and receipt was proved through deposition of Shri Rajinder Bhatia (PW15), HC Mool Chand (PW6), and Constable Jogender Singh, (PW10).The report of CFSL clearly indicates that the semen samples found on the salwar of the child which was seized on 27.04.1996 and the semen of the Appellant which was taken on 01.05.1996 was found to be of same group i.e. AB group.There is no animus alleged or established with respect to these witnesses.The testimony of these witnesses has to be accepted.The submissions of the learned counsel for Appellant that under Section 100 (4) Cr P C, it was mandatory on the part of the police to involve public witness both at the time of Criminal Appeal No. 394 of 2001 26 of 35 recovery and identification of the body, in our view, is untenable.
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
108,356,096 |
On account of the prevailing conditions worldwide, brought about by the COVID 19 virus, this application has been heard and decided through video conferencing, to maintain social distancing.The necessary parties have effectively been represented by their respective counsels through video conferencing.This is the first bail application filed by the applicant Rajjan @ Pratap Singh under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.The applicant is in custody since 14.03.2020 in connection with Crime No. 25/2019 registered at P.S. Sukhi Sevaniya, District Bhopal (M.P.) for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376-2(n) and 506 of the IPC.It is alleged that the applicant assisted the main accused Ratan Yadav in committing rape with the prosecutrix.He had gone along with the main accused and dropped the main accused and the prosecutrix in a hut.Taking into consideration the only allegation against the applicant that he has assisted the main accused in dropping him at a particular place, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled for bail.Accordingly the application filed by the applicant is hereby allowed.It is directed that applicant Rajjan @ Pratap Singh shall be released from custody upon furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned court below.With the above, the application is finally disposed of.A typed copy of this order is being forwarded to the Office of the Advocate General and Shri Devendra Gangrade, learned Panel Lawyer on their respective email address for intimation to the Police Station concerned.The office is requested to forward a copy of this order to the learned court below.Certified copy as per rules.(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) JUDGE anu Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by ANUPRIYA SHARMA CHOUBEY Date: 2020.09.02 13:40:00 IST
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
108,356,807 |
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.The applicants have an apprehension of their arrest relating to crime No.337/2015 registered at Police Station Kareli, District Narsinghpur for offences punishable under Section 306 of IPC.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are reputed citizens of the locality.It is alleged against the applicants that they demanded the amount of loan given to the deceased.After death of the deceased, it was alleged against the applicants that they harassed the deceased and assaulted him.However, no FIR has been lodged by the deceased during his life time.The deceased had an opportunity to take the steps against the applicants, if they have done any cruelty with him.Allegations levelled against the applicants do not fall within the purview of Sections 107 or 109 of IPC and M.Cr.- 2 -therefore, prima facie no offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC is made out against the applicants.Nothing is to be recovered from the applicants.The police is unnecessarily harassing the applicants.Under such circumstances, the applicants pray for bail of anticipatory nature.Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposes the application.This order shall remain in force for a period of 60 days and in the meanwhile, if the applicants so desire, may move an application for regular bail before the competent Court.Bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. is given for a limited period, so that the evidence received against the applicants during further investigation may be considered by the concerned Court, who shall consider their application under Section 437 or 439 of the Cr.P.C.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE Pushpendra
|
['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
108,359,824 |
The injured was initially examined and the doctor had found six injuries on the person of the victim including the lacerated wound and contusion.Later on the injured succumbed to injuries and the post mortem was conducted by the doctor who had found one lacerated wound on the head and opined that the victim has died due to coma as a result of ante mortem injuries sustained by him.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that in the F.I.R. general role of assault has been assigned to all the appellants for causing injuries with lathi-danda to the deceased, while according to the post mortem report there is only one injury to be the cause of death, as such it is not ascertainable who was the author of the fatal injury.It is further submitted that the conviction has been recorded by the trial court under Section 304((ii) read with Section 149 IPC for eight years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.20,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, each of the appellant has to undergo six months additional rigorous imprisonment.There were only four accused persons, there was no fifth accused, yet the trial court has convicted the apepllants with the aid of Section 149 IPC, whereas for formation of an unlawful assembly five or more persons are required.No charge under Section 149 IPC was framed, causing prejudice to the appellants, though the charges were framed by the trial court under Section 304 read with 34 IPC.Learned AGA has contended that the order of conviction can be awarded under Section 149 IPC when the charges were framed under Section 34 IPC against the appellants who are four in number as they were aware of basic ingredients of the offence, hence no prejudice has been caused to them.However, under the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds a fit case for bail.Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the appellants, namely, Shreedev, Braj Kishore, Duli Chand and Sher Singh, convicted and sentenced in Session Trial No.638 of 2008, State Vs.After receipt of the record the office is directed to prepare the paper book and list the appeal for hearing in due course.Order Date :- 10.7.2013 Mustaqeem.
|
['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,086,346 |
There were 11 accused before the sessionscourt who were charge-sheeted forthe murder of one Tribuna Singh on theallegation that those 11 persons formedthemselves into an unlawful assembly withthe object to murder him.Although the sessionscourt convicted all the 11 personsunder Section 302 read with Section 149(besides some other lesser offences) a divisionbench of the High Court of Patna hadacquitted six out of the 11 parsons.In regardto the present four appellants the HighCourt convicted them for the offence underSection 302 read with Section 34 of theIPC although the High Court confirmed theconviction of the offences under Section147 and 148 etc. of the IPC also.Theseappeals are filed by special leave by thosefour persons.The four persons were arrayed in thetrial court as A1-Rameshwar Singh, A2-AnilKumar Singh, A3-Devender Singh and A4-ParashuramSingh.According to the prosecution version themotive for the incident was a dispute overa timber tree which stood almost on theboundary of the lands belonging to the familyof A3-Devender Singh and that of thedeceased.Perhaps many skirmishes wouldhave taken place on account of the saiddispute.On 17.11.87 around 2.00 p.m. allthe 11 persons.variously armed, went tothe field of one Mangal Kumar as the deceasedTribuna Singh was then found atthat spot.According to the prosecution versionAl-Rameshwar Singh made an oralexhortation and A2-Anil Kumar Singh inflictedcut blows with a Farsa and then thedeceased fell down.At that time A3-DevenderSingh inflicted three or four cutinjuries on the deceased and one of themwas on the neck.A4-Parshuram Singh hada pistol with which he hurled threats at theincoming persons.The deceased on sustaininginjuries died at the spot itself.Five witnesses were examined to speakto the occurrence as eye-witnesses.Weare told that all the said vive witnesses haveimplicated the above four appellants in themanner in which the prosecution has narratedthe case.It is too late in the day fordisbelieving the testimony of the five witnesses,particularly when the trial court andthe High Court have placed reliance on theirtestimony.Nonetheless, we have to evaluate therole played by A1-Rameshwar Singh andA4-Parashuram Singh in order to ascertainwhether they would have entertained acommon intention to murder the deceased.Neither of them had inflicted any injury onthe deceased.A1-Rameshwar Singh hada Lathi with him and inspite of that he didnot choose to give even a minor assault onthe deceased.All that is said against himis he ordered the killing the deceased.Itis not show that A1-had any particularreason for taking up the leadership of thegang.On the other hand the genesis of thequarrel was the dispute regarding the timbertree which stood on the boundary ofthe lands belonging to A3 on the one sideand the deceased on the other.For convictinga person merely on the basis of theoral statement made at the spot the Courtmust have other surrounding circumstancesto ensure the confidence that hemade such an exhortation.If A1 had reallyany intention to participate in the occurrence,much less any common intention tomurder the deceased, it is difficult for us toconceive as to why he did not use theweapon which was handy with him then.The role attributed to A4-ParashuramSingh is that he had a pistol with him andhe threatened the other persons whoreached the scene.Here also, if A4-ParshuramSingh had the common intentionto murder the deceased it is highly improbablethat he would have refrained fromusing the inherently lethal weapon like thepistol which was in his possession.Hewould have threatened others from cominginto the fray perhaps as a measureadopted by him to save them from receivinginjuries.For the aforesaid reasons we have difficultyto confirm the finding that A1-RameshwarSingh and A4-ParmeshwarSingh really entertained common intentionwith the other assailants to murder the deceased.The benefit of the reasonabledoubt emanating from the broad featuresof the case must be extended to those twoaccused.In the result, we set aside the convictionand sentence passed on A1-RameshwarSingh and A4-Parashuram Singh who arethe appellants before us.We acquit themand direct them to be set at liberty forthwithunless they are required in any othercase.We do not interfere with the convictionand sentence passed on the appellantsA2-Anil Kumar Singh A3-DevenderSingh.The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
108,648,197 |
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in Crime No. 354 of 2019 on the file of the first respondent police.Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No. 354 of 2019 for the offences under Sections 420, 294(b) and 506(ii) of IPC as against the petitioner.The learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) would submit that the investigation is almost completed and the respondent police have only to file final report.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 the ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused are prima facie made out in the complaint, the criminal proceeding shall not be interdicted."Hence this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.25.11.2019 Internet:Yes/No Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non speaking order aav To1.The Sub Inspector of Police Thuckalay Police Station Kanyakumari District2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in 5 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN.J, aav CRL.O.P.(MD)No.17238 of 2019 and Crl.M.P(MD)No.10182 of 2019
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 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.
|
1,086,493 |
(1) Narender Tyagi alias Baboo, the petitioner, by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges the order of his detention under sub-section 2 of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 made on May 13, 1988 by the Commissioner of Police Delhi, with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner, prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, This order was served on the petitioner on May 16, 1988 and since then he is detained in the Tihar Jail, New Delhi.(2) The grounds of detention served on the petitioner state that he was an active, desperate criminal who had indulged in the acts of murder.attempt to murder, planning for dacoity, illegal tresspass, criminal intimidation and offences punishable under the Arms Act. The petitioner was involved in the following criminal cases in the Union Territory of Delhi :-(1)F.I.R. No. 850, dated 13th October, 1986 under section 25 of the Arms Act, Police Station Connaught Place, New Delhi, On October 13, 1986 on receipt of information that a person sitting on a Bench in Central Park, Connaught place was in possession of unauthorised arms, the petitioner was apprehended by Head Constable Khajan Singh, and Constable Balwan Singh of Police Station Connaught place.He was found in possession of a revolver loaded with 6 cartridges.In addition 6 cartridges were recovered from his bag.He was arrested and the case was registered which was pending trial.(2)F.I.R. No. 851, dated 13th October, 1986 under section 399/402 Indian Penal above Code, P.S. Connaught Place, New Delhi.After the arrest of the petitioner in the case (F.I.R. No. 850, dated 13th October, 1986) Inspector P.N. Arora, S.H.O. Police Station Connaught Place, arrived there Along with other staff.Petitioner was produced before him.The petitioner informed the S.H.O. that he Along with four others, who were sitting in volga Restaurant, had come with a plan to commit dacoity in the Bank of India, 'B' Block, Connaught Place, New Delhi.On this disclosure the said four persons namely, Davinder Pal Singh, Om Parkash Bhatia, Balvinder Singh, and Raghubinder were apprehended in the Restaurant.On personal search a revolver loaded with 6 cartridges Along with seven other cartridges in a black holster were recovered from Devinder Pal Singh.A pistol 7.65 mm was recovered from the possession of Raghubinder Singh.A revolver of.38 bore was recovered from the possession of Balvinder Singh.They were arrested and the case was registered.Lajpat Nagar II.New Delhi was present at his shop with his father at about 4.30 P M. when he heard the sound of shots.In the meantime, one Pradeep resident of H-6/11/13, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi came from the park side shouting for help.He was followed by three unknown persons.Pradeep entered tho shop of Kukreja to save his life but two persons out of the three unknown persons fired shots at him.He fell on the floor.Kukreja asked them to stop but he was asked not to interfere.In the meantime, his father also came to the counter.One of the three unknown persons again fired upon Pradeep and ran away towards the Park.His father was also injured in the firing.Pradeep was taken to the Hospital.He died later on.One Vijay Kumar a friend of Pradeep was also injured by the said unknown persons.On this report the above mentioned case was registered.During the course of investigation one (Mukesh Gaur) Along with Sunil Tyagi, Narender Tyagi @ Baboo, Virender Tyagi @ Nikku and Kuldip had killed Pradeep due to old enmity.Rajdhani Park, Delhi.On 10th February. 1988 at about 4.30 P.M. eight/nine persons among whom one was a Sardar and remaining were clean shaven came there.Among those persons one was Prem wrestler who was already known to Wazir Singh.Sardar fired two shots from his revolver to kill Wazir Singh but he escaped.Another person whose name he came to know later on as Lokesh took out his revolver but he was caught Along with his revolver.Another person namely, Rajinder was also apprehended on the spot, The remaining attackers drove off in their vehicles which were parked on the road firing from their revolvers.The gathering pelted stones upon the vehicles as a result of which glasses of the vehicles were broken and the attackers also sustained injuries.The two attackers who were caught Along with their revolvers and six live cartridges also sustained injuries.(8) The first three cases subject matter of F.I.R. Nos. 850, 851, and 499, dated 13th October, 1986, 13the October, 1986, and 14th October, 1986, respectively, besides being not approximate to the order of detention, do not fall within the realm of public order.The first and the three cases were under section 25 of the Arms Act (Act 54 of 1959) which makes the possession of arms punishable.According to the averments in the F.I.R. 850, dated 13th October, 1986, the petitioner was found in possession of a revolver loaded with six cartridges and other extra six cartridges.He was not present there.The petitioner gave a letter to his wife.In the letter he had threatened to kill him.The petitioner is stated to have given similar threat to another Jail Warden Shri Daya Nand Yadav.After completing investigation challan was filed and the case was pending trial.(3)F.I.R. No. 499 dated 14th October, 1986 under section 25/54/59 Arms Act, Police Station Jahangirpuri, Delhi.On 14th October, 1986, Inspector P.N. Arora, S.H.O., Police Station Connaught Place, New Delhi Along with other staff recovered about 4 live cartridges from H. No. 332, Desu Colony, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi on the disclosure made by the petitioner.On this the above case was registered.The petitioner was challaned and the case was pending trial.The petitioner had also disclosed during the course of investigation of the case F.I.R. No. 851, dated 13th October.However, due to lack of direct evidence the petitioner could not be arrested in the said case but due to strong suspicion and indirect evidence his name was placed in Col, (2) of the Challan.The case was pending trial in the Court.(5)F.I.R. No. 34, dated 10th February, 1988 under section 452/306/ 506/34 Indian Penal Code and section 25 Arms Act, Police Station Nangloi, Delhi.One Wazir Singh used to train wrestlers at Wazir Vyayam Shala.They were banded over to the Police.On this the above case was registered.During the course of investigation Lokesh was identified as Narender Tyagi, the petitioner, who was arrested in the case.The case was under investigation.(6)F.I.R. No. 154, dated 5th May. 1988 under sections 506/34 Indian Penal Code Police Station Hari Nagar, New Delhi.Staff Quarters, Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi.On 1st May, 1988 at about 8.45 A.M. the petitioners Along with two Jail Wardens Siya Ram and Harkesh and an unknown person came to the above quarter in a white Fiat Car and asked about Ram Kumar.His wife informed that her husband was on duty.They handed over a letter to his wife in which the petitioner had threatened to Kill Ram Kumar.This letter was given to, Ram Kumar when he reached his house.Thereafter, he went to the office of Superintendent.Tihar Jail, where be met one Daya Nand Yadav, Jail Warden who also informed that the said persons had also visited his barrack at about 7.30 A.M They met Superintedent, Tihar Jail and narrated the whole storey, and requested for their protection.On this report the case was registered which was pending investigation.According to F-I.R. No. 499, dated.14th October, 1986 four live cartridges were recovered on the disclosure of the petitioner.These were purely cases relating to Law and Order.He was followed by three persons.Tho persons out of them fired on him.He fell on the floor.Nemi Chand asked them to stop but he (Nemi Chand) was asked not to interfere.One of the three persons again fired upon Pradeep and then they ran away towards the Park The father of Pradeep was also injured in the firing.Pradeep later on died.One Vijay Kumar, friend of Pradeep was also injured.Besides, this case affected Pradeep who was the main target and was shot and died due to injuries received.One Vijay Kumar who was injured was also a friend of Pradeep.This occurrence, thus affected individuals only.Eight/nine persons including the petitioner, it is stated, came there.One of them was a Sardar who fired shots from his revolver on Wazir Singh but Wazir Singh escaped.One Lokesh who was later on identified as Narender Tyagi, the petitioner, took out his revolver but was caught Along with his revolver.This ground was given irrelevant.According to the allegations made in the First Information Report the petitioner with two Jail Wardens and one unknown person went to the house of Ram Kumar Jail Warden.The grounds were irrelevant.(15) In conclusion,we accept the petition and quash the impugned order.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,086,590 |
After passing of the conviction order and sentence in the year 1984, the present appeal was filed by Bani Israil, Suratunnessa Bibi and Einnatunnessa Bibi and during pendency of the appeal, Suratunnessa Blbi has expired and now Bani Israll and Zinnatunnessa Bibi are before us in connection with the present appeal.The prosecution case in brief was that one Sok Elahi Sukhlal had a shop at Suri down for dealing in gamcha, cloth etc. and said Sukhlal used to visit different places like Jangipur, Samserpur, Dhullan etc. in connection with his business.On 13th May, 1973 said Sukhlal left Suri for Jangipur along with cash of Rs. 10,000/- and a wristwatch along with one Abdul Bari and appellant Bani Israil.Sukhlal, however, did not come back to his residence at Suri and for this reason his wife Hossainara Begum lodged a missing diary on 20th May. 1973 at Suri P.S.On 2nd June, 1973 Abdul Bari was found in Suri town, but, he fled away being chased by the relatives of Sukhlal and thereafter Samsergung P.S. In the district of Murshidabad searched the house of appellant Bani Israil on 5th June, 1973 and cash of Rs. 2090/-, some clothes and a wrist-watch allegedly belonging to Sukhlal were recovered.JUDGMENT Alok Kumar Basu, J.After conclusion of trial, Bani Israil was convicted under Sections 302/34, 364 and 201/34 of the IPC while Suratunnessa Bibi and Zinnatunnessa Bibi were convicted under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 of IPC.Ekramul Haque was, however, acquitted of all the charges.On 6th June, 1973 Hossainara Begum, wife of Sukhlal lodged a formal FIR alleging kidnapping of her husband Sukhlal by Abdul Bari and Bani Israil and also apprehending murder of Sukhlal by those persons.On 6-8-1974 police arrested Abdul Bari and on his showing, a spot near the house of appellant Bani Israil was excavated and therefrom some bones and a human skeleton were recovered along with a portion of terrylene ganji.The CID officer of Suri took up investigation of this case and after collecting of evidence, a charge sheet was ultimately submitted against the present appellants along with others under Section 302/201/34 and also under Section 364 of the IPC.The learned Trial Judge, on perusal of the statement of 32 witnesses which included wife of deceased, some relatives of deceased, some witnesses to the seizure of bones and skeleton, Dr. J.B. Mukherjee, one Amina Begum and the investigating officer and also after considering several documents produced by prosecution during trial and on hearing both prosecution and the accused persons, found Bani Israil guilty of the offences under Sections 364, 302/34 and also under Section 201/34 of the IPC and the female appellant was found guilty under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 of the IPC.P.W. 31 and P.W. 32 it was established beyond all reasonable doubt that the skeleton of Sukhlal was found from a place near the house of appellant Bani Israil and the female appellant and when from the evidence of P.W. 30 Amina Begum it was further established that Bani Israil and the female appellant had definite role behind the disappearance of Sukhlal, the learned Judge came to the conclusion that Bani Israil was guilty of the offence under 364 of the IPC as well as under Section 302/201/34 of the IPC and the female appellant was guilty of the offence under Section 302/201/34 of the IPC.Appearing for both the appellants, Mr. Joymala Bagchi after analyzing the prosecution evidence both oral and documentary submits that admittedly in this particular case the entire prosecution case depends on pure circumstantial evidences alone and the learned Trial Judge, accepting such circumstantial evidences, found no difficulty in recording the order of conviction against the present appellants.Mr. Bagchi contends that when we shall rely on and accept circumstantial evidence, we must be sure that the circumstances placed by prosecution in vindicating its stand must give a complete chain wherefrom only conclusion can be drawn pointing out the involvement of the accused persons and if there are lacunae in the chain of circumstances, the entire benefit must go to the accused persons.Mr. Bagchi contends that deceased Sok Elahi @ Sukhlal was alive till 13th May, 1973 and according to prosecution allegation as focused through FIR of P.W. 11 Hossainara Begum, on 13th May, 1973 de-ceased Sukhlal left his house in the company of Bani Israil along with other (Abdul Bari) and even if we accept prosecution evidence in this regard on its face value, we do not get any ingredient to attract the provision of Section 364 against appellant Bani Israil.Mr. Bagchi contends that in a charge under Section 364 of the IPC the basic requirement for prosecution would be to establish beyond all reasonable doubt the 'last seen together' episode and this episode would get recognition in the eye of law when the time gap between the 'last seen together' and the death of the victim would be minimum.Mr. Bagchi submits that in this particular case there is practically no evidence when Sukhlal was killed and for that reason even if it is accepted for the sake of argument that Sukhlal had left his residence in the company of Bani Israil, the 'last seen together' theory cannot help the prosecution case as sought to be built against Bani Israil under Section 364 of the IPC and for all these reasons, the learned Judge, merely acting on conjecture and surmise, held Bani Israil guilty under Section 364 of the IPC without finding any iota of legal evidence to substantiate this charge against Bani Israil.Mr. Bagchi contends that Bani Israil and the female appellant were found guilty both under Section 302/34 of the IPC and also under Section 201/34 of the IPC for the simple reason that deceased Sukhlal was allegedly murdered by Bani Israil and the female appellant along with others at the residence of Bani Israil and thereafter his body was kept concealed behind the pit of a privy.Mr. Bagchi contends that to look at the prosecution allegation in this regard the first requirement would be to establish the fact that the bones and skeleton allegedly recovered from the alleged pit of the privy were that of deceased Sukhlal.Mr. Bagchi contends that in this particular case the identification of the bones and skeleton raised serious doubt as it appears from the prosecution evidence itself.Mr. Bagchi contends that admittedly the bones and skeleton were recovered on 7th August, 1974 when Sukhlal was reportedly missing from 13 May, 1973 and according to prosecution from a piece of terrylene ganji allegedly attached to the lower side of the skeleton and from some hair of the skeleton P.W. 1 identified the dead body.Mr. Bagchi contends that regarding the terryline ganji, there is serious contradiction amongst the P.W. 26 the investigating officer, P.W. 11 wife of the deceased and P.W. 1 and naturally, after a gap of such a long period how far it is acceptable that from a disputed piece of ganji, relatives would identify the deceased from some bones and skeleton.Mr. Bagchi in this regard has seriously questioned the superimposition of a photo as done by the forensic expert to prove the identity of the deceased.Mr. Bagchi next contends that the entire story of recovery of bones and skeleton as put forward by the investigating officer P.W. 26 does not inspire any confidence at all since the entire recovery part was shrouded in mystery since no help of Executive Magistrate was sought by the investigating officer for holding inquest and for identification of the place wherefrom such recovery was made and Mr. Bagchi submits that under the provision of Section 174 of the IPC, in such a peculiar situation, service of an Executive Magistrate was mandatory.Mr. Bagchi contends that after alleged recovery and identity of skeleton of Sukhlal, the next attempt of the prosecution was to show that the dead body was kept concealed in a pit of a privy belonging to Bani Israil and female appellant and in this regard, the attempt of prosecution was proved to be futile when we consider the statement of prosecution witnesses who were present at the time of alleged recovery of bones and skeleton.Mr. Bagchi contends that from the statement of prosecution witnesses it is very much clear that the recovery of bones were made not from the land belonging to Bani Israil but from a nearby grave yard and the I.O., to keep the fact of recovery in cloud, even did not prepare any sketch map of the place wherefrom such recovery was made.Mr. Bagchi contends that to implicate Bani Israil, the further attempt of the prosecution was to show that some articles belonging to the deceased Sukhlal were recovered from the house of appellant Bani Israil, but, when we consider the exhibits of the prosecution along with relevant prosecution witnesses we find to our utter surprise that no seizure list was produced in Court in connection with such recovery and this part of the prosecution case was not acceptable at all in the eye of law.Mr. Bagchi next contends that according to the prosecution and according to the learned Trial Court the most damaging evidence against the appellants is that of the statement of P.W. 30 Amina Begum which gets corroboration from her earlier statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. Mr. Bagchi submits that if we examine cross-examination of P. W. 30 we cannot have any doubt in our mind to come to the conclusion that P.W. 30 was a tutored witness and he was procured by the CID officer only to implicate the appellants and even from the statement of investigating officer P.W. 28 we find that Amina Begum was tutored to give the statement before the learned Magistrate under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. and similarly before the Trial Court and for the absence of any other cogent and convincing evidence produced by the prosecution, no man of ordinary prudence would accept the evidence of P.W. 30 to convict any person under Section 302 of the IPC.Mr. Bagchi contends that from the above discussions one thing is very much clear that prosecution miserably failed to establish the main part of the prosecution story that Sukhlal was murdered at the house of Bani Israil and after murder, his body was allegedly kept concealed in the pit of the privy of the house and prosecution also miserably failed to prove that appellant Bani Israil was last seen in the company of the deceased Sukhlal and in that background, neither Bani Israil can be convicted under Section 364 of the IPC nor under Section 302/201/34 of the IPC and the female appellant also cannot be held guilty under Section 302/201/34 of the IPC.Mr. Mallick appearing for the State respondent has supported the order of conviction and sentence recorded against the present appellants.Mr. Mallick in his brief submission has drawn our attention to the evidence of P.W. 1, P.W. 5, P.W. 6, P.W. 11, P.W. 12, P.W. 26, P.W. 30, P.W. 31 and P.W, 32 to support the order of the learned Trial Judge.Mr. Mallick contends that when P.W. Dr. J.B. Mukherjee supported the prosecution case regarding identity of the dead body of Sukhlal and when that identification got further corroboration from forensic expert through super-imposition of the photo of the deceased, prosecution case cannot be disbelieved.Mr. Mallick contends that although recovery of the articles belonging to the deceased from the house of appellant Bani Israil was not satisfactorily proved for the lacuna on the part of the investigation, the statement of P.W. 30 Amina Begum is of much significance and if we accept the statement of Amina Begum, we have no doubt in mind to hold conclusively that Bani Israil along with the female appellant and others were responsible for the murder of Sukhlal and for concealing his dead body in a pit under their privy.We have carefully examined the entire prosecution evidence both oral and documentary and we have also considered oral submissions of both Mr. Bagchi and Mr. Mallick along with the written note of argument prepared by Mr. Bagchi.In this particular case certain features of the prosecution case are worth mentioning and those features are:Deceased left his house on 13th May, 1973;The missing report was lodged on 28th May, 1973 and that report was never exhibited and for that reason, we do not get any idea whether name of appellant Bani Israil was mentioned in the said missing report;On 6th June, 1973 formal FIR was lodged by P.W. 11 Hossainara Begum, wife of the deceased and there, for the first time, name of the appellant Bani Israil was mentioned;The bones and skeleton were recovered on 6th August, 1974 and after a gap of almost six months those bones and skeleton were forwarded for medico legal test.From the trend of prosecution evidence and also from the judgment of the learned Trial Court we find that according to prosecution and as supported by the learned Trial Court the following are the incriminating evidence against appellant Bani Israil:Bani Israil was found with deceased Sukhlal on 13th May, 1973 during the lifetime of the deceased;Certain articles namely cloth pieces, cash money and a wristwatch were recovered from the house of Bani Israil and at that time father of Bani Israil was also alive and he was also made an accused;Bones and skeleton of a human being were recovered from a place near the house of Bani Israil and subsequently through medico legal test and forensic expert report it was established that the bones and skeleton were that of deceased Sukhlal;P.W. 30 Amina Begum deposed about arrival of deceased Sukhlal at the house of Bani Israil and subsequently the deceased disappeared.From the trend of prosecution evidence and also from the Judgment of the learned Trial Court we find that the incriminating evidence against the female appellant was that of the statement of Amina Begum and also evidence regarding presence of the female appellant at the house of Bani Israil.In a case of murder, the first point that requires consideration is the recovery of the dead body and the report of the doctor who conducted post-mortem examination to ascertain the cause of death.In this particular case after disappearance of the deceased from his house in the month of May, 1973 the recovery of some bones and a skeleton were made on 6th August, 1974 and such recovery was made after digging earth as per indication given by one of the co-accused who did not face the trial as he expired before beginning of the trial.In our considered view, having regard to the peculiar feature involved with the fact of recovery of the bones and skeleton, it was the duty of the investigating officer to adhere strictly to the mandatory provision of law as contained in Section 174 of the Cr.P.C. to give the prosecution case sufficient credibility in view of its peculiar nature.We find from the evidence on record specially with reference to the evidence of the investigating officer P.W. 28 that he never requisitioned the service of the Executive Magistrate and, that apart, we find from evidence that the witnesses who were examined to support the fact of recovery did not support the prosecution case during trial.We also find from record that no satisfactory contemporaneous document was prepared to show that the place of recovery was adjacent to the house of appellant Bani Israil.We find that in the first missing diary which was the earliest information there was no mentioning of the name of Bani Israil and there are serious contradictions in the statement of prosecution witnesses regarding the 'last seen together' theory.It is settled position of law that a man can be asked to explain about the disappearance of another man with whom he was last seen before the disappearance of the man concerned and the time gap between 'last seen together' and disappearance of the man concerned is of much importance.In this particular case even if we accept the prosecution case that on 13th May, 1973 Bani Israil was found in the company of deceased Sukhlal, when we do not get any satisfactory evidence as to what was the actual date of murder of deceased Sukhlal, we cannot lend any legal support to the prosecution proposition of 'last seen together' as regards the appellant Bani Israil and naturally, we are in strong doubt as to whether prosecution succeeded in substantiating the charge under Section 364 of the IPC against Bani Israil.Mr. Bagchi was very much vocal regarding evidentiary value of the statement of P.W. 30 Amina Begum both through his oral submission and also through his written note and we have carefully considered this aspect and having regard to the deposition of P.W. 30, we have no doubt in mind that Mr. Bagchi was legally correct in this regard and having regard to the cross-examination of P.W. 30, we are sure that no importance and value can be given to the statement of this type of tutored witness while considering a case under Section 302 of the IPC.Urgent xerox certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, may be supplied expeditiously after complying with all necessary legal formalities.Kalidas Mukherjee, J.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
108,660,650 |
-:- 2 -:-CRA No.1549-2011, 1523-2011, 1589-2011 and 2225-2011 cases.S.T. No. Offence Sentence awarded by the trial Court.650/2010 392 IPC RI for five years and fine of Rs.3000/- 676/2010 392 IPC RI for three years and fine of Rs.200/- 649/2010 392 IPC RI for five years and fine of Rs.3000/- 645/2010 392 IPC RI for three years and fine of Rs.1000/-The appellant was tried and convicted in all the four cases, however, in S.T. No.649/2010, the sentence awarded by the trial Court of RI five years has been already completed by the appellant on 28.07.2014, as per the report sent by the Superintendent of Police, Central Jail Bhopal.-:- 3 -:--:- 4 -:-There is same allegation that the appellant and another co-accused Jumman @ Javed came on a motorbike and they had snatched gold chain of the complainant.The appellant was identified in identification parade.M tek ugha gSA 3 Ekku- U;k;ky; r`rh; vi-dz- 523@10 30-04-11 03 o"kZ lJe dkjkokl mDr ltk f}rh; dze dh vij l= U;k;k/kh'k S.T.N. 600@10] tqekZuk 200@&:- ;k 01 ltk lekIr gksus ds mijkar Hkksiky /kkjk 392 Hkk-n-fo- ekg vfr-lJe dkjkokl HkqxrkbZ tk,xh ,oa vFkZn.M tek ugha gSA 4 Ekku- U;k;ky; vi-dz- 325@10 30-04-11 03 o"kZ lJe dkjkokl mDr ltk r`rh; dze dh okjgosa vij l= S.T.N. 676@10] tqekZuk 200@&:- ;k 01 ltk lekIr gksus ds mijkar U;k;k/kh'k Hkksiky /kkjk 392 Hkk-n-fo- ekg vfr-lJe dkjkokl HkqxrkbZ tk,xh ,oa vFkZn.M tek ugha gSA 5 Ekku- U;k;ky; n'ke~ S.T.N. 645@10] 30-07-11 03 o"kZ lJe dkjkokl mDr ltk prqFkZ dze dh ltk vij l= U;k;k/kh'k /kkjk 392 Hkk-n-fo- tqekZuk 1000@&:- ;k 03 lekIr gksus ds mijkar HkqxrkbZ Hkksiky ekg vfr- lJe dkjkokl tk,xh ,oa vFkZn.M tek ugha gSA 6 Ekku- U;k;ky; izFke S.T.N. 584@10] 04/09/1 03 o"kZ lJe dkjkokl mDr ltk ekuuh; mPp vfr- l= U;k;ky; /kkjk 392 Hkk-n-fo- 1 tqekZuk 3000@&:- ;k 06 U;k;ky; vihy us Hkqxrh ltk ds f}rh; vfr l= ekg vfr- lJe dkjkokl ls nafMr fd;k x;k U;k- Hkksiky vFkZn.M ;Fkkor j[kk x;k gSA vFkZn.Panel Lawyer in all cases.Law laid down Significant paragraph numbers (J U D G M E N T) Pronounced on : 01.09.2017All these Criminal Appeals No. 1549-2011, 1523-2011, 1589-2011 and 2225-2011 are tagged together because these criminal appeals have been filed by the same accused i.e. Rajkumar Sharma @ Raju.The appellant Rajkumar Sharma @ Raju has been convicted in four separate trials and he has been held guilty for commission of offence of robbery punishable under Section 392 of IPC and awarded sentence of RI five years in two cases and RI three years in threeLearned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in all the cases did not contest the appeals on merit.They have contented that the appellant has already undergone actual jail sentence of near about seven years from the date of his arrest and including remission he has completed jail sentence of near about 10 years.Hence, the appellant shall remain in jail for a period of 19 years.I have perused the record of the criminal appeals.In all the appeals, allegation against the appellant Rajkumar Sharma @ Raju is that he had committed robbery by snatching gold chains and he was identified by the complainant.The trial Court awarded a sentence of RI five years and fine amount of Rs.3000/- each by holding the appellant and co- accused Jumman @ Javed guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC.There is same allegation that the appellant another co-accused Jumman @ Javed came on a motorbike and they had snatched gold chain of the complainant.The appellant was identified in the identification parade.The trial Court awarded a sentence of RI three years and fine amount of Rs.1000/- each holding the appellant guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC.The trial Court awarded a sentence of RI five years holding the appellant and another co-accused Jumman @ Javed guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC alongwith fine of Rs.3000/- each.The trial Court awarded a sentence of RI three years and fine amount of Rs.200/- each holding the appellant and the co-accused Jumman @ Javed guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC.The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Benson vs State of Kerala, (2016) 10 SCC 307 has considered the question of conviction of an accused in separate trials and the fact that whether the sentences would run concurrently or consecutively in exercise of powers under Section 427(1) of Cr.P.C. and has held as under:-:- 5 -:-According to the aforesaid communication, the appellant stands convicted and sentenced in 12 different matters including the present matters which appear at Serial Nos.9, 10, 11 and 12 in the chart.-:- 7 -:-M tek ugha gSAIn the present case, the appellant has already completed actual jail sentence of near about seven years and including remission he has completed more than nine years.All the cases are in regard to same offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC.The allegations are that he and another co-accused had snatched gold chains from the complainants.He has completed near about 10 years of jail sentence, hence, in my opinion, it would be just and proper if the appellant be released from jail by-:- 8 -:-The appellant is a poor person.This fact is evident from the fact that in one case the he has been granted suspension of sentence, however, he could not deposit the fine amount and he is still in jail.The appellant has already completed the jail sentence in default of payment of fine amount.Hence, it would not be proper that the appellant shall undergo the jail sentence in default of payment of fine amount.Consequently, all the appeals are disposed of on the following terms and conditions:
|
['Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,086,693 |
He is running several business concerns at Singapore.The petitioner is an Indian citizen.He is the holder of the Indian Passport issued by the High Commission of Singapore.He is a non-resident Indian.He is the Chairman of Mountamount Singapore Private Ltd., which was trading in cashew nuts in association with the other two companies known as Nagova Exim Private Limited and Sadeco Sari Private Limited.Both were incorporated at Singapore.Regarding trade, the respondent herein and various enforcement agencies conducted raids at the premises of the Indian companies which have dealings with the petitioner's company.In the course of the investigation, the respondent sent summons to the petitioner to appear for enquiry.But, he was unwell and was undergoing treatment at Singapore.(2) A summons to produce documents may be for the production of certain speci-fied documents or for the production of all documents of a certain description in the possession or under the control of the per-son summoned.(3) All persons so summoned shall be bound to attend either in person or by au-thorised agents, as such officer may direct; and all persons so summoned shall be bound to state the truth upon any subject respecting which they are examined or make statements and produce such documents as may be required :ORDER Akbar Basha Khadiri, J.The short point that arises in this Criminal Original Petition is whether refusal to receive the summons under Section 40(3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') would attract offence under Section 56 of the Act.The brief facts necessary to deal with the instant controversy are as follows :--The petitioner Muthu Krishna Varadarajulu is a resident of Singapore.Original Petition.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.
|
['Section 228 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
108,678,997 |
Certified copy as per rules.Shri Alok Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/Objector.This is the first bail application filed by the applicant in connection with Crime No.112/2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 366, 376 and 376 (2) (n) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 5 (j)(ii), 51 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 registered at Police Station Devlound, District Shahdol.Brief facts of the case are that he is stated to have established physical relationship with the prosecutrix who at the commencement of the relationship was just about 16 years and 8 months as per the State and over 17 years as per the learned counsel for the applicant.Even if either of them are correct, it is undisputed that the prosecutrix was a minor on the date of incident.The 164 statement of the prosecutrix has been read out and from that it clearly appears that the relationship was one of consent between the applicant and the prosecutrix.The applicant is also 23 years of age.From the relationship, it appears that a child has been born to the prosecutrix and after the birth of the child, when the parents of the prosecutrix went and met with the parents of the applicant for the purpose of marriage, the same was refused and they have stated to have behaved improperly with the prosecutrix and her parents.Learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail application and prayed for its rejection.Be that as it may.The case appears to be one of consent but also Signature Not Verified SAN keeping in mind that a child has been born from the said relationship, it would Digitally signed by ANINDYA SUNDAR MUKHOPADHYAY Date: 2020.11.06 11:48:37 IST 2 MCRC-34808-2020 be essential that the applicant be enlarged on bail so that atleast the child can be maintained for which the applicant is legally bound under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant - Pawan Kol shall be enlarged on bail upon his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty Thousand Only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court, subject to applicant's depositing Rs.3,000/- directly into the Bank Account of the prosecutrix on the first of every month for the maintenance of the new born child and where the applicant defaults from doing so, the prosecutrix shall be entitled to file an application for cancelling the bail granted to him.It is also made clear by this order that it does not stop the right of the prosecutrix to move the appropriate Court under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking higher maintenance for the child, if need be.The jail authorities shall have the applicant checked by the jail doctor to ensure that he is not suffering from the Corona Virus and if he is, he shall be sent to the nearest hospital designated by the state for treatment.If not, he shall be transported to his place of residence by the jail authorities.With the aforesaid directions, the application is finally disposed of.
|
['Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
643,262 |
JUDGMENT Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.The learned counsel for the petitioner (Kehar Singh S/o Chotu Ram) submits that he is and old man of 67 years and no injury has been attributed to him.According to him, the role ascribed by the prosecution is that he caught hold of Naveen when he was attacked by Lillu with a farsa.He further says that he is in noway responsible for the death of Anil, who died due to blows given by other persons.He further submits that cross cases have been lodged between the complainant partly and the accused part with regard to the same incident.Further, he submits that the charge-sheet has been filed on the basis of FIR No. 73/2003 registered at Police Station J.P. Kalan under, inter alia, Section 307 of the IPC.However, all those accused in that case are on anticipatory bail, whereas all the accused in the present case are in judicial custody.The petitioner has been in custody for over two years.v. State of Maharashtra: II (2001) CCR 5 (SC), the material portion of which reads as under:-There are two rival versions of one incident.The police after completing the investigation charge-sheeted both cases.Appellants are accused in the case involving offences under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code whereas the informant and others are the accused in the counter-case involving offences under Section 307 read with Section 149, IPC etc. As the charge-sheet has been laid in both the cases we think that appellants can be released on bail during the pendency of the trial.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
64,327,202 |
Mr. Kamalesh Chandra Saha ... for the petitioner Mr. Neguive Ahmed Mr. Mirza Firoj Ahmed Begg ......... for the State.The petitioner, an accused in connection with Habra Police Station F.I.R. No. 937 dated 27.11.2012 under Sections 420/ 467/468/471/506, Indian Penal Code, has presented this application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking bail.Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody for nearly seventy days and that he has been falsely implicated.Mr. Ahmed, learned advocate appearing for the State has produced the case diary.We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and perused the materials in such case diary.We find from the case diary that the petitioner as part of a racket received money promising the victim a job in the railways.The application stands rejected.(DIPANKAR DATTA,J.) (TAPASH MOOKHERJEE,J.)
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
64,327,989 |
In the matter of : Tanusree Dey (nee Ghosh) @ Tanusree Ghosh ...Petitioner.Biswas ...for the Petitioner.2 Liberty to pray for extension, modification, variation and/or vacating the interim order upon notice to the other side.Urgent Photostat Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied expeditiously after complying with all necessary legal formalities.(Joymalya Bagchi, J.)
|
['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
64,329,128 |
She was residing with him at 2 Cr.A. No.613/2005 village Bari Malvasi, Police Station - Raoti, District-Ratlam.On 27.05.2004, she went to her parents' house at village Tambolia to met her mother Tatubai (P.W.1) and was supposed to come back in the morning of 29.05.2005, however, she could reach only in the evening of 29.05.2005 along with her mother Tatubai (P.W.1).In the evening Madibai prepared meals for the family; after having dinner, Madibai went to sleep with her mother Tatubai (P.W.1).Allegedly, at around 10 p.m. appellant Lalu came to the house and asked Madibai as to why she did not turn up in the morning.Thereupon, responding allegedly, Madibai said - so what ? Thereafter, when she came out of the room, appellant threw a big stone on her, hitting her on the hip.Thereafter, the appellant first assaulted Madibai with a 'Lathi' on her abdomen and thereafter, further assaulted by fists and kicks.Tatubai (P.W.1) and Mangu, the father of the deceased tried to intervene so as to rescue her, however, the appellant did not yield to the requests made to him not to assault Madibai.As per prosecution, thereafter Madibai went inside the room, came back and felled down on the ground near the cot lying over there and died.2 Cr.A. No.613/2005A report regarding this incident was made by Tatubai (P.W.1) at Police Station - Raoti, on the basis whereof "Merg" No.15/05 was registered.D.B.S. Tomar (P.W.9), the then S.H.O, Police Station - Raoti carried out the 3 Cr.A. No.613/2005 inquest proceedings on the dead body and, vide Ex.P/1 found that Madibai has died because of internal injuries caused to her during assault.The dead body was sent for postmortem examination.P/4 found as under :3 Cr.A. No.613/2005Blood oozing out from both the nostrils and mouth.Contusion (swelling) on right lateral chest measuring about 10 cm.X 8 cm.Free movement (rotation) of head over the neck was observed.On internal examination, fracture of second cervical vertebra coupled with dislocation of surrounding tissue edematous and congestion was found.Right lung was found congested with hematoma measuring 6 cm.X 4 cm.over the lateral lobe.As per Dr. Rajesh Patni (P.W.7), Madibai died because of the injury caused to her vital organ i.e. spinal cord and that the death was within 24 hours of the examination.On the basis of findings of postmortem, First Information Report Ex.P/8 regarding the incident was registered at Police Station(Delivered on 28/06/2017) Per: Justice Ved Prakash Sharma This appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 02.05.2005 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Ratlam in S.T. No.111/2004, whereby appellant Lalu has been convicted under Section 302 of IPC for committing murder of his wife Madibai and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- with usual default stipulation.On 30.05.2004, Dr. Rajesh Patni (P.W.7) conducted autopsy on the dead body and, vide P.M. report Ex.- Raoti against the appellant.Investigation ensued.D.B.S. Tomar (P.W.9) during the course of investigation visited the 4 Cr.A. No.613/2005 site of occurrence and prepared the spot map (Ex.P/9).Witnesses were interrogated; the piece of stone and the bamboo stick said to have been used for assaulting deceased were recovered, vide seizure memo (Ex.P/2).The appellant was arrested.After usual investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the Court of Competent Magistrate, who after due compliance of Section 207 of Cr.P.C. committed the case to the Court of Sessions.The learned Sessions Judge framed the charge under Section 302 of IPC against the appellant, who abjured the guilt and claimed to be tried.4 Cr.A. No.613/2005The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 9 witnesses before the trial Court including Tatubai (P.W.1), who is said to be an eyewitness.Dr. Rajesh Patni (P.W.7) is the autopsy surgeon, while D.B.S. Tomar (P.W.9) has conducted the investigation.Apart this, documents Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/10 were also marked in evidence.The incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence were brought to the notice of the appellant during his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code').The appellant either denied the same or claimed innocence.The defence was that of false implication on the ground of enmity, however, the appellant choose not to produce any evidence in defence.The learned trial Court on the basis of evidence brought before it, vide the impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the 5 Cr.A. No.613/2005 appellant as stated hereinabove for committing murder of his wife.5 Cr.A. No.613/2005The contention is that the testimony of Dallu @ Chholibai (P.W.5), who is 7 years old daughter of the appellant was rightly disbelieved by the learned trial Court 6 Cr.A. No.613/2005 because she was prone to be tutored and that the tenure of her evidence was not found to be trustworthy.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully perused the record.X 8 cm.over the right ribs.He further found that the head was freely moving over the neck.On internal examination, he found two major injuries, firstly, there was fracture of second cervical vertebra coupled with dislocation of surrounding tissues which was edematous.Secondly, a blood clot (hematoma) measuring 6 cm.X 4 cm.was found in the lower lobe of the right lung congested.In view of these injuries, Dr. 7 Cr.A. No.613/2005 Patni (P.W.7) opined that Madibai died because of vital injuries on neck, meaning thereby, fracture of second cervical vertebra which has further damaged the spinal cord.Dr. Patni (P.W.7) has clearly stated that this injury was ante-mortem, thus, clearly ruling out that it was caused subsequent to the death.Dr. Patni (P.W.7) has further stated that if a person falls on the ground then there may be an external injury on the face, however, there will be no internal injury.He has further denied that the injury found on the neck could have been caused due to fall in a pit or dashing against a wall.He has testified that the injury found on the neck was fatal and the same could have been caused by a stone.The testimony of Dr. Patni (P.W.7), who is an expert independent witness has remained intact during cross-examination, as no material omission or contradiction has emerged therein, therefore, we do not find any reason to disbelieve the same.The fact that "Viscera" was not preserved does not make any difference in the situation because Dr. Patni (P.W.7) has stated in quite unequivocal terms that the death of Madibai occured due to neck injury.The testimony of Dr. Patni (P.W.7) eloquently speaks that Madibai died due to neck injury, as a result of fracture of second cervical vertebra and damage to the spinal cord.Thus, there remains not even an iota of doubt that the death was homicidal in nature and not accidental or suicidal.7 Cr.A. No.613/20058 Cr.A. No.613/2005In the aforesaid premises, the next question for our consideration would be whether the learned trial Court has rightly held the appellant guilty for death of Madibai and whether the same falls within the category of murder under Section 302 of IPC ?The prosecution has examined a number of witnesses, however, it is clear that Jalu (P.W.2) and Punja (P.W.3), both resident of Village Tambolia and Dhulji (P.W.4) also resident of Village Tambolia and co-brother of the appellant, i.e. son-in-law of Tatubai (P.W.1), are not eye- witnesses for the reason that they have not witnessed the incident and have come to know about the same either from Tatubai (P.W.1) said to be an eye-witness, or some other person.The case of Rangji (P.W.6) and Sugnabai (P.W.8) more or less lies on the same footing, meaning thereby, they are also hearsay witnesses.Tatubai (P.W.1) - mother of the deceased and Dallu @ Chholibai (P.W.5) - the daughter of the deceased as well as appellant, are said to be the eye-witnesses of the incident.Dallu @ Chholibai (P.W.5) is a girl aged about 7 years.She was examined without being administered oath.She has not supported the prosecution case and has stated that her mother died by consuming some medicine.Probably, considering that she is a child witness, the prosecution has not obtained formal permission to confront her with any previous 9 Cr.A. No.613/2005 statement.The learned trial Court dealing with the testimony of this witness has taken into consideration the possibility of her being tutored by the father or for that matter by the grandfather.In the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly considering that the appellant is none else, but her father, the possibility of her being under the influence of her father cannot be ruled out.Apart that, this witness was hardly 7 years old at the time of examination and has twice stated that her mother died because of consuming some medicine.The testimony of this witness in this regard appears to be little unrealistic because as generally understood, medicine is always to cure and not to kill.This somehow strengthens the probability that she was under the influence of her father.Be that as it may, considering her age and tenor of her testimony, it would be safe to exclude her testimony from consideration.9 Cr.A. No.613/2005This brings us to the testimony of Tatubai (P.W.1), who is not only mother of the deceased, but also mother-in- law of the appellant.Though a vague plea has been taken on behalf of the appellant that he is being falsely implicated in this case on account of enmity, but not even a slightest suggestion has been thrown upon Tatubai (P.W.1) that she for some reason has any enmity or ill-will against the appellant and, therefore, interested in falsely implicating him.10 Cr.A. No.613/2005Tatubai (P.W.1) has deposed that her daughter had come to her house at Village Tambolia and that she accompanied back her daughter to her in-laws' house.Her statement in this regard has not at all been challenged, therefore, presence of Tatubai (P.W.1) on the fateful night in the house of the appellant cannot be subjected to any doubt nor it can be said that she a chance witness.She has testified that around 5 pm., in the evening, she came back to appellant's house with her daughter, who prepared evening meals, which were enjoyed by all in the family except the appellant, who by that time, had not come to the house.This witness has further deposed that at around 10 p.m., appellant came to the house and assaulted Madibai by pulling her hand and thereafter, hitting her with a stone and further hitting with a 'Lathi' blow near waist and thereafter, pulled her neck.As deposed by this witness; she finding her daughter being assaulted by the appellant, tried to intervene and with folded hands requested the appellant to dissuade however, in vain.This witness has also deposed that the father of the appellant also tried to intervene, but the appellant did not stop.As per Tatubai (P.W.1), thereafter, Madibai felt giddiness and fell down on the ground and thereafter, she was no more.11 Cr.A. No.613/2005x 8 cm.and that, in the right lung, there was a congestion and hematoma measuring 6 cm.x 4 cm.Oozing of blood from the mouth in the shape of vomit can very well be attributed to the internal injury found in the right lung.Of course, viscera was not preserved, however, Dr. Rajesh Patni (P.W.7) has clearly opined that the death was due to injury on the neck, particularly the fracture of second cervical vertebra and consequent injury to spinal cord.Therefore, it cannot be said that foam mixed vomit was because of alleged consumption of any poisonous substance by the deceased.On the contrary, it is clear that it was because of the injury caused to right lung of the deceased, 13 Cr.A. No.613/2005 regarding which, Tatubai (P.W.1) has deposed that it was caused by ''Lathi''.13 Cr.A. No.613/2005In view of the aforesaid, we do not have the slightest hesitation in coming to the conclusion that it was appellant, who caused the death of Madibai.The learned trial Court has not adverted to this factual and legal aspect of the matter, therefore, the conviction recorded against the appellant deserves to be modified.14 Cr.A. No.613/2005Resultantly, the appeal is partly allowed.The appeal stands partly allowed accordingly.
|
['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.
|
643,305 |
Few cattle died in the village Thimmapur in 1997.The death of these cattle were due to sudden ill-health.Thevillagers of Thimmapur suspected that their cattle died due tosorcery practiced by some of the villagers.About fifteen days prior to theincident, one Boyana Bikshapathi, son of B. Venkataiah (A-17)and B. Rayalaxmi (A-72) and brother of B. Sampath (A-71) andB. Ravi (A-73) died at MGM Hospital at Warangal.Ten daysprior to the incident, one Pandunga Nirmala relative of P.Yadagiri (A-9), P. Hymavathi (A-10), P. Ramulu (A-26), P.Buchaiah (A-59) and P. Ellaswamy (A-76) died in the villagedue to ill-health.A-1,A-5 and A-6 entered the house of D-2 and dragged her out.Similarly, A-11, A-13, A-14 dragged D-5, A-9, A-10, A-26 andA-29 dragged D-3 and D-4; A-2, A-3, A-4 and A-17 draggedD-1; A-28, A-31 and A-33 dragged PW-6 and A-18, A-20 andA-24 dragged PW-7 out of their respective houses forcibly.A-1to A-15, A-17 to A-59 and A-63 to A-78 gave beating to D-1 toD-5, PW-6 and PW-7 with sticks and women accused sprinkledchilli powder sprinkled on their faces.PW-6 and PW-7 ran awayfrom the scene with injuries.The prosecution has further comeout with the case that A-19, A-65 and A-66 brought a drum ofkerosene and A-1 to A-15, A-17 to A-59 and A-62 to A-78poured kerosene on D-1, D-2, D-3, D-4 and D-5 and set themon fire, as a result of which D-1 D-2, D-3 and D-4 died on thespot while D-5 died at MGM Hospital, Warangal.3. S. Venkateshwara Rao (PW-1) - VillageAdministrative Officer - on August 3, 2000 lodged a reportabout the incident at police station Sangam at about 6.00 a.m. 5 Ch.Rajeshwar Rao (PW-20) - Inspector of Police - uponreceipt of information immediately rushed to the scene ofoccurrence; conducted Inquest Panchnama over the deadbodies and sent the dead bodies to MGM Hospital, Warangalfor post-mortem.About 90% of body surface area is involved.""No doubt, P.W. 2 has alleged in his chief-examination that he found A.2, A.3, A.7, A.17, A.60 and someothers hatching a plan to do away the deceased persons suspecting them to be sorcerers but he did not state the same before the Investigating Officer-P.W. 20 in his statement u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. He has also denied the said part of evidence in his cross-examination.R.M. Lodha, J.Five persons were done to death in the interveningnight of October 2 and 3, 2000 in village Thimmapur, DistrictWarangal.The villagers suspected that deceased werepracticing sorcery and due to that few deaths took place in thevillage.77 persons were sent up for trial for the offences underSections 148, 448, 307, 302, 120-B read with 109, IPC.TheCourt of 2nd Additional Sessions Judge at Warangal vide his judgment dated June 9, 2009 acquitted all of them.In theappeal preferred by the State of Andhra Pradesh, High Courtconfirmed the judgment of acquittal of 59 accused but convictednineteen persons for the offence punishable under Section 302read with Section 149, IPC and sentenced them to undergoimprisonment for life vide judgment dated October 4, 2007.Their acquittal for other offences was, however, confirmed.Allthese nineteen convicted persons preferred special leavepetition in which leave has been granted and appeal has comeup for hearing before us.T. Lingaiah (A-19),G. Sambaiah (A-60), B. Mallaiah (A-61), M. Ramreddy (A-62)and K. Veeraswamy (A-69) thought of identifying the culprits.They called M. Yakaiah (A-16) - a Mantrik from Lingapuramvillage; collected some donations from the villagers and paid tohim to identify the persons responsible for the death of cattle.A-16 revealed the names of Chatta Boina Ilu Mallamma @ 2 Ilamma (D-1), Velpula Narsamma (D-2), Konkanoori Yellaiah(D-3), Konkanoori Rajamma (D-4), Veera Uppakantha (D-5),Panduga Renuka (PW-6) and Pochala Yeshoda (PW-7)responsible for the tragedy.Laxmaiah (A-3),S. Babu (A-4), Ch.Shankar (A-5), I. Buchaiah (A-6), K.Sammaiah (A-7), K. Bhasker (A-8), P. Yadagiri (A-9), P.Hymavathi (A-10), I. Mogili (A-11), K. Raju (A-12), K. Suresh(A-13), I. Ellaiah (A-14), N. Sudhakaar (A-15), B. Venkataiah 3 (A-17), A. Chandraiah (A-18), T. Lingaiah (A-19), M. Venu(A-20), Neerati Sudhaker (A-21), Ch.PW-20 seized the kerosene drum (MO-1) atthe scene of offence and took steps towards investigation andafter collecting the evidence and on completion of investigation,submitted charge-sheet against A-1 to A-78 before the Court ofIII Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Warangal whocommitted them to court of sessions for trial.A-21 beingjuvenile was separated from the trial.That you A. 1 to A. 15, A. 17 to A. 59 and A. 62 to A.78 on 2/3.8.2000 at about 0100 hr.That you A.16, A.60 and A.61 on the above mentioned date, time and place were members of an unlawful assembly to do an illegal act i.e. murder of D.1 to D.5 and that the same act was done in pursuance of the agreement which was committed in consequences of abatement and that you have thereby committed an offence punishable u/S. 120-B r/w 109 IPC and within the cognizance of this Court."The prosecution examined twenty-two witnesses ofwhich PW-2, PW-3, PW-4, PW-5, PW-6, PW-7, PW-8 and PW-9 were tendered as eye-witnesses.The postmortem of dead body of D-1records that she died of burn injuries.A contusion of 8 x 6 cm present over the vertex area of scalp.A contusion of 6 x 4 cm present on outer aspect of left arm.A contusion of 7 x 4 cm present on outer aspect of right shoulder.A contusion over area of 16 x 10 cm present on back trunk.A contusion over an area of 9 x 5 cm present on right buttock.Antemortem, fresh deep burn injuries are present over scalp, face, neck, both sides of trunk, both upper limbs, perenium and both lower limbs up to knees, sparing both legs.The burns more deep over anterior abdominal wall and made a rent in it through which intestines are coming out.A contusion of 6 x 4 cm present on occipital area of scalp.A contusion of 3 x 2 cm present on outer aspect of left elbow.A contusion of 6 x 4 cm present on outer aspect of right shoulder.A contusion of 8 x 6 cm present on back of trunk.A contusion of 4 x 3 cm present on right buttock.A contusion of 8 x 4 cm present on outer aspect of left buttock.Antemortem, deep burns present on scalp, face, neck, both sides of trunk, both upper limbs, both lower limbs and perenium, with bone deep on left side body over arm and buttock and cavity deep at abdomen.About 100% of body surface area is involved."As regards D-3, the postmortem report records thefollowing injuries :A contusion of 6 x 4 cm present over vertex area of scalp.A contusion of 6 x 4 cm present over outer aspect of right arm.A contusion of 5 x 4 cm present over outer aspect of left arm.A contusion of 18 x 12 cm present over back of trunk.A contusion of 6 x 4 cm present on outer aspect of right wrist.A contusion of 3 x 2 cm present over right elbow, outer aspect.A contusion of 4 x 3 cm present over outer aspect of left elbow.A contusion of 4 x 3 cm present over outer aspect of left wrist.A contusion of 7 x 5 cm present on back of right buttock.A contusion of 8 x 6 cm present on back of left buttock.A contusion of 10 x 6 cm present on front of right thigh.A contusion of 8 x 4 cm present on front of left thigh.A contusion of 6 x 4 cm present on outer aspect of right leg.A contusion of 5 x 3 cm present on outer aspect of left leg.A contusion of 6 x 4 cm present on left sole.Antemortem, mixed burn injuries are present on scalp, face, neck, both sides of trunk, both upper limbs, both lower limbs and perenium, except over both feet.About 95% of body surface area is involved."9. D-4 also died of burn injuries.The postmortemreport records the following injuries on her.A contusion over an area of 20 x 16 cm present on entire area of scalp.2 Antemortem, deep burns present on scalp, face, neck, both sides of trunk, both upper limbs, both lower limbs and perenium.The burns are cavity deep at abdomen and intestines came out through the deficit and part of them are burnt.They are bone deep and muscles are charred 9 on both upper limbs and lower limbs.About 100% of body surface area is involved."The cause of death of D-5, as reflected inpostmortem report, is again burn injuries.A contusion of 3 x 2 cm present on scalp on vertex area.2 A contusion over an area of 20 x 8 cm, present on right shoulder outer aspect.3 A contusion of 10 x 8 cm, present on outer aspect of left arm.4 A contusion of 8 x 6 cm present on outer aspect of left wrist area.5 A contusion over an area of 16 x 10 cm present on right thigh, outer aspect.6 A contusion over an area of 10 x 8 cm present on outer aspect of left buttock.7 Antemortem burns of mixed degree, present on face, scalp, neck, both sides of trunk, both upper limbs, both lower limbs and perenium, with loss of entire superficial skin.About 100% of body surface area is involved."The death of D-1 to D-5 is neither accidental norsuicidal; rather their death is established to be homicidal.The trial court also noticed material contradictions in hisdeposition.During the cross- examination, P.W. 2 has admitted that he did not know about the approach of any of the accused persons to A.16 and bringing him to Thimmapur (v) in order to identify the sorcerers.P.W. 2 has deposed in his chief-examination that A.2, A.3, A.5, A.6, A.9 to A.12, A.14, A.41, A.48, A.59, A.68 and A.77 brought the deceased persons and P.Ws. 6 and 7 forcibly from their respective houses.But during his cross- examination, he could not say who brought the deceased Uppakantha and Narsamma to the scene of offence though admittedly, they were his neighbours.He has also admitted at the end of his cross-examination that A.10 did not take the deceased, mother of P.W. 2 to the scene of incident from his house.As per his evidence in the cross-examination, by the time he reached the scene of offence, he found gathering of 60 to 70 persons and that only 25 persons were near the deceased persons and others were at a distance.This version creates doubt about his version given in the chief- examination with regard to his witnessing of forcibly taking the deceased persons to the scene of offence.P.W. 2 has given the duration of the incident as 9.00 p.m. to 3.00 a.m. and his presence at the scene althrough.As per his version, he did not go to Police Station on the night of the incident due to fear but went thereon the following morning on 3.8.2k at 5.00 a.m. and informed about the incident to the SHO and returned back to his village.If this version is taken to be true, it can be said that the police received the information about the incident at 5.00 a.m. for the first time on 3.8.2k but not at 6.30 a.m. on the said day through PW-1 by way of his complaint, ex.But contrary to the evidence of P.W. 2, P.W. 10 has deposed that on the night of the incident itself at about 2.00 a.m. P.W. 2 went to P.W. 10, engaged his jeep, arrived to Thimmapur (v) at about 6.00 a.m. and then proceeded to Sangem P.S. and lodged a written complaint.In fact, P.W. 2 has denied about it to a suggestion given by the learned defence counsel in his cross-examination.10 in his cross-examination also deposed that P.W. 2 informed him that he came to know about the incident on that night.If the version of P.W. 10 is taken to be true, the entire evidence of P.W. 2 has to be jettisoned with regard to his actual witnessing of the incident.But the C.I. of Police-P.W. 20 has deposed that on the next day of the incident i.e. on 4.8.2k he has recorded the statements of witnesses including P.W. 2 and for the first time came to know about the names of accused persons.It is to be noted that as per the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.20, the C.I. of Police visited Thimmapur (v) at 9.00 a.m. on 3.8.2k and that at that time, P.W. 2 was also present in the village.This aspect creates doubt about the identity of the accused persons during the course of investigation conducted by P.W. 20."He has given time of the incident as 9.00 p.m. which is contrary to the time noticed in Ex. P.1 as 1.00 a.m. As per the evidence of P.W. 3, A.1, A.2, A.3, A.5, A.6, A.7, A.10 to A.13, A.34, A.37 and A.54 took his deceased wife forcibly from his house to the scene of incident.Though P.W. 3 alleged that A-9 beat his deceased wife with a stick on her head and she sustained bleeding injury and that A.71 sprinkled chilli powder on it.P.W. 2 did not whisper about it in his entire evidence.P.W. 2 has deposed that A.13, A.20 and A.65 15 brought kerosene drum from the house of A.19 and that A.10 sprinkled kerosene on the deceased persons but P.W. 3 has given the names of the accused persons noted above as to have brought the kerosene drum and that A.13 poured kerosene on the deceased.Though P.W. 3 has stated that A.17 supervised the whole affair, P.W. 2 did not state about it.These are material contradictions in the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 going to very root of the case.........As per the evidence of P.W. 3, he was with his deceased wife Appakanthamma at the scene of incident till she was shifted to MGM Hospital, Warangal for treatment and that although she was conscious and did not give names of the persons who poured kerosene on her body and set on fire.Evidently, she did not give names of any of the accused persons as responsible for causing burn injuries to her in her dying declaration dt. 3.8.2k vide Ex. P. 36."As regards PW-4 who is son of D-3 and D-4, theTrial Court found his evidence self-contradictory and alsodoubted his witnessing the incident.After scanning hisevidence, the Trial Court gave the following reasons in notaccepting the evidence of PW-4 :"P.W. 4 is son of deceased K. Yellaiah and K. Rajamma.His evidence is self-contradictory because during his chief-examination he has deposed that he saw A.1, A.5, A.7, A.8, A.10 to A.15, A.17 and A. 41 while beating his parents but in his cross-examination, he has deposed that by the time, he reached the scene of incident, his parents were already lying unconscious and were surrounded by 20 persons.Even at the end of his chief-examination itself, he has deposed that by the time he reached the scene of offence, he found the other accused persons, except the accused persons noted above, were not present there.Admittedly, when his parents were allegedly taken to the scene of offence forcibly, they were sleeping in the front portion of the house whereas PW-4 was sleeping inside the house.This aspect creates doubt about his witnessing the 16 incident.As per his evidence, he heard a commotion at about 12.30 midnight but as per the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3, the incident commenced at 9.00 p.m. itself, P.W. 4 has alleged that A.5, A.12 and A.13 only brought kerosene drum from the house of A.19 which is contradictory to the versions given by P.Ws. 2 and 3 noted above.Although PW-6 and PW-7 are injured witnessesand, according to prosecution, they were beaten at the scene ofoffence by the villagers but in their deposition, they stated thatthey went to the scene of occurrence voluntarily.Neither ofthem named any of the accused for the injuries sustained bythem.PW-9 deposedthat at midnight he heard the commotion and rushed to thescene of offence but he returned back to his house aftersomebody beat him and he could not identify as it was darknight.The Trial Court, thus, held that PW-5 to PW-9 havenot supported the case of prosecution at all.As a matter of factthey were declared hostile witnesses by the prosecution.The High Court affirmed the acquittalof the accused under Section 148, IPC holding thus :"Coming to charge No. 1, leveled against accused 1 to 15, 17 to 59 (except accused No. 21) and 62 to 78, for the offence punishable under Section 148 I.P.C., we are of the view that though the act of rioting is made out, regarding the persons and the weapons of offence said to have been used by them, there is no evidence about their presence much less usage of deadly weapons.The evidence of P.Ws. 2 to 4 is also totally silent on this.So, in the absence of main ingredient i.e., the presence of deadly weapons, the act of the accused, even assuming that the same is made out, cannot be brought into the ambit of Section 148 I.P.C. Accordingly, the acquittal of the accused recorded by the trial court for the offence under Section 148 I.P.C., is confirmed."With regard to the offence punishable under Section448, IPC, High Court held that the evidence was lacking as towho actually trespassed into the houses of the deceased andforcibly dragged them out of their respective house.The HighCourt, accordingly, affirmed the finding of the Trial Courtacquitting the accused for the offence under Section 448, IPC.However, the High Court held that PW-2 to PW-4were reliable being eye-witnesses of truth.This opinion was formed by the High Court byperusal of the statements of PW-2 to PW-4 recorded underSection 161(3), Cr.P.C. after calling for the case diary inexercise of the power of the Court under Section 172(2) ofCode of Criminal Procedure.In the first place, High Court erred in accepting theevidence of PW-2 to PW-4 without adequately meeting thereasons given by the Trial Court for not accepting theirevidence.Moreover, we considered the evidence of thesewitnesses ourselves and we find that the view of the Trial Courtin not accepting the evidence of PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 cannotbe said to be erroneous.Secondly, and more importantly, theHigh Court committed a serious error of law in discarding theevidence of PW-20 on the basis of case diary summoned inexercise of power conferred on the Court under Section 172 ofthe Code.
|
['Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
6,433,132 |
Through: Mr. O.P. Saxena, APP with SI Anand Prakash, PS Khyala R-2 in person CORAM:HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA % SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA (ORAL)This petition has been moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying that FIR 115/2011 under Section 498A/406/34 IPC registered at Police Station Khyala, and all the proceedings emanating therefrom, be quashed on the ground that the matter has been amicably settled.The petitioners and the complainant, Vandana, who is also arrayed as respondent No. 2 herein, are present.Issue notice.3. Counsel for the State, as well as the complainant/second respondent, enter appearance and accept notice.It is stated that the FIR in question came to be registered on 11.06.2011 as a result of certain matrimonial dispute that had arisen between the petitioners and the complainant, Vandana, who was married to the first petitioner, Shri Krishan Kumar Diwedi.CRL.M.C. 3086/2014 Page 1 of 6A copy of the settlement agreement has also been placed on the record.The petition stands disposed off in the aforesaid terms.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
64,334,316 |
Heard on the question of admission.HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR Cr.A. No.2291/2020 ( Devendra Meena Vs.State of Madhya Pradesh ) (2) Prosecution story, as found proved, is that on 5/2/2017, at about 4 PM, appellant along with co-convict Vinod took Manna Singh from his home and near a culvert beat him with kicks and fists due to which his spleen got ruptured and, ultimately, he died.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant has already suffered incarceration of about 14 months.His conviction rests on the testimony of witnesses whose evidence was recorded after about one and a half years.It is submitted that at the most offence under section 325 of the IPC would be made out.It is further submitted that disposal of this appeal is likely to take time and in view of COVID-19 outbreak, detention of appellant in already congested prisons may be detrimental.With the aforesaid submissions, prayer for suspension of sentence is made.E- copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance, if possible by the office of this Court.Certified copy/e-copy as per rules/directions.(S.A.Dharmadhikari) Judge (and) ANAND SHRIVASTA VA 2020.06.24 18:50:06 +05'30'
|
['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
64,341,956 |
In the course of argument, in response of some query of the court based on the available evidence of the case diary and the charge sheet, instead to argue further at this stage, applicant's counsel seeks permission to withdraw this petition with liberty to revive the prayer after recording the deposition of prosecutrix before the trial court or after four months, whatever is earlier.Considering his prayer the petition is dismissed as withdrawn and not pressed with liberty, aforesaid.
|
['Section 450 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
64,342,844 |
The petitioner was also posted as Platoon Commandar at Chhatarpur.The petitioner approached the complainant and initiated friendship and invited the complainant to his room and promised to marry her.Subsequently, they developed friendship which culminated into "live in relationship".The petitioner promised that even if there is opposition from his family, he would marry her.The petitioner subsequently established sexual relationship.On 03.1.2015 the petitioner had gone to Sagar.Brief facts of the case are that the complainant, belonging to reserved category, was posted as Sub Inspector of Police.When he returned, he avoided the complainant.On 15.1.2015, when the complainant insisted, the petitioner informed her that his "engagement ceremony" has been performed and he is not going to marry the complainant.On 17.1.2015, the complainant had gone to petitioner's room to meet her mother.When the complainant narrated the incicents to her, she bluntly refused to perform her son's marriage with the complainant stating that complainant does not belong to Brahmin caste and she will per her son's marriage with a Brahmin girl.She will not allow her son to marry with the "tribal girl".The petitioner threatened her to make public the material in his mobile, if she goes to lodge report against the petitioner.On 23.1.2015, she received a call from the mother of the petitioner at about 5.15 a.m. stating that she has fallen sick and the petitioner (Ramdatt Pandey) is not present at home.She is required to be taken to the hospital.When the complainant reached the room of the petitioner, she found that petitioner(Ramdatt) was very much present with his mother.His mother was not sick.When the complainant asked why she has been called on false pretext, mother of the petitioner said that you have different God and she humiliated her by calling her caste name as she belongs to tribe community.The complainant told that on 03.12.2014 by putting vermilion on her head the petitioner had performed marriage.How the petitioner can go for engagement ceremony with another woman? She lived with the petitioner as husband and wife for so much time.Why she was called her on a false pretext? She was humiliated because she belonged to Scheduled Tribe community.On behalf of the respondent/State, the petition has been opposed vehemently.It is vehemently contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that when the petitioner allegedly refused to marry her in January, 2015, she lodged report in March, 2015, i.e. after lapse of 45 days, which is unexplained.On behalf of the respondent no.2/complainant, referring to certain portion of statements and the report it is submitted that there is clear distinction between rape and consensual sex and in case when there is promise of marriage the Court must carefully examine whether the accused had actually wanted to marry the victim or had the malafide motive and had made false promise to this effect only to satisfy his lust.If at all, assuming that there was some assurance to marriage, even then mere breach of promise will not consititute the offence under section 376 of I.P.C. He relied on the decision in the case of Sachin @ Devendra Gajanand vs. State of Gujarat decided on 26.3.2015 in Criminal Misc.Placing reliance on the decisions rendered in the cases of Uday vs. State of Karnataka, AIR 2003 SC 1639, Deelip Singh alias Dilip Kumar vs. State of Bihar, AIR 2005 SC 203, Prashant Bharti vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 9 SCC 293, it is argued that material relied upon by the petitioner in support of his plea for quashing the First Information Report is sound, reasonable and indubitably the factual assertion contained in the charge levelled against him.The factors like the age of girl, her education, her social status and likewise the social status of the boy has to be considered.The Court should closely scrutinize the evidence while taking into consideration the said factors.The respondent No.2 refused for marriage.This delay of lodging report cannot be considered in the present petiton under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.This Court has analyzed the evidence available on record.It is indicated that it was the petitioner who first initiated the relationship.He not only promised her to marry, but when she opposed that his family would not allow him to marry her, he told that she is to marry him and not with his family.She was assured of and on that petitioner will marry her.The petitioner also applied vermilion on her head, which is a traditional, customary symbolic marriage amongst Hindus.She was given to understand and belief that the petitioner is going to marry her.In such circumstances, the consent given by the complainant was with the belief that she is going to marry him.
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
64,208,464 |
1 54 04.12.2017 Aloke Court 28 C.R.M. 11796 of 2017 In Re : An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 23.11.2017 in connection with Sankrail P.S. Case No. 1033 of 2016 dated 14.12.2016 under Sections 147/148/149/186/295/332/333/353/427/435/436/379/506/307 of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of : Samsuddin Dewan Mr. Ashraf Ali Mr. Rafikul Islam Sardar ... for the Petitioners Allowed Mr. R. Nandy ... for the State Liberty to correct the cause title.Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail.Accordingly, we direct that the petitioner shall be released 2 on bail upon furnishing bond of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties of like amount, one of whom shall be local, to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah on condition that he shall not enter the jurisdiction of Sankrail P.S. without the express permission of the court and he shall provide the particulars of the address where he would presently reside to the investigating officer as well as the trial court and shall not commit similar offences in future and he shall appear before the trial court on every date of hearing and shall not intimidate witnesses or tamper with evidence in any manner whatsoever.In the event the petitioner fails to appear before the trial court, the trial court shall be at liberty to cancel his bail without further reference to this Court.The application for bail is, accordingly, allowed.Urgent Photostat Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied expeditiously after complying with all necessary legal formalities.(Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.) 3
|
['Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
64,211,370 |
This petition is filed by accused No.1 in C.C.No.176 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Padmanabapuram, Kanyakumari District to quash the proceedings pending against him.2.The second respondent / defacto complainant lodged a complaint against the petitioner and others before the Thuckalay Police Station on 03.10.2015 that the petitioner along with two others have cut the trees from his property and also taken away the trees from his land.This was informed to the complainant by his son-in-law and based on that information the complainant went to the place of occurrence.The accused abused him, caught hold of him, assaulted and also criminally intimidated him.It is the further case of the complainant that they have also snatched away a sum of Rs.5,000/- from his pocket.Based on this complaint, the first respondent Police registered a case against this petitioner and others in Crime No.872 of 2015 for the offence under Sections 342, 294(b), 323, 506(ii) IPC and under Section 379 (NP) of IPC.http://www.judis.nic.in 2/13 Crl.O.P(MD)No.5379 of 2017While taking cognizance of the final report, the learned Judicial Magistrate has also suo motu taken cognizance as against two other accused and issued summons to them.As against the cognizance taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate, the present criminal original petition has been filed by petitioner/accused No.14.The defacto complainant is none other than the father-in-law of the brother of the petitioner.The petitioner's father one Kannayyan is having three sons and one daughter.Therefore, the petitioner filed a suit for declaration and sought for a permanent injunction againsthttp://www.judis.nic.in 3/13 Crl.5.On 17.09.2015 the petitioner along with two others cut a jack fruit tree and three rubber trees from the said land and for which a complaint was lodged before the respondent Police and therefore, those cut trees were not removed from the place of occurrence.On 26.09.2015, the petitioner along with two others attempted to take away those cut trees from the land and on coming to know the same through his son-in-law, the respondent/defacto complainant went to the place of occurrence on 26.09.2015 at about 8.45 am and at that time the petitioner and others abused him with filthy words, assaulted him and also criminally intimidated him.They have also said to have snatched away a sum of Rs.5,000/- from his pocket.6.In support of this petition, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent/defacto complainant has nothing to do with the property in Survey No.399/5E. Moreover, even according to them, the occurrence is said to have taken place on 26.09.2015 when thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 4/13 Crl.The respondent/defacto complainant, who is no way connected with the property, has lodged a complaint, as if the petitioner trespassed into his land and cut trees from his land.However, by obtaining a certificate from a private hospital, this complaint has been foisted to coerce the petitioner in order to get the land in their favour.Apparently, the complaint is filed with an ulterior motive, to wreak vengeance and with a malicious intention to grab the property and therefore, this complaint is liable to be quashed.That apart, the said Kannayyan, owner of the property hashttp://www.judis.nic.in 5/13 Crl.10.Admittedly, the property belongs to one Kannayyan, the father of the petitioner.Only after this settlement made by Amala Bai in favour of the petitioner, at the instance of the other son Sam Raj, Kannayyan cancelled the settlementhttp://www.judis.nic.in 6/13 Crl.11.This occurrence is said to have taken place on 26.09.2015 on that day the petitioner/accused was attempting to take away the grown up trees from the disputed land, the respondent/defacto complainant objected to it, he was abused and assaulted.According to the complainant, these trees are said to have been cut on 17.09.2015 and on that day, this complaint is said to have been lodged by the respondent/complainant before the first respondent Police.But, there is no material to that effect.By referring this delay, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that this is a fit case to be quashed.O.P(MD)No.5379 of 2017 the learned Counsel for the respondent/complainant was admitted in the hospital as an inpatient and therefore, the complaint was lodged after seven days.He also referred the wound certificate issued in this case.13.The respondent/complainant has taken treatment in the Government Hospital at Padmanabapuram on 26.09.2015 at about 10.10am.The Medical Officer, who attended the respondent/complainant issued Accident Register that he was said to have assaulted by two known male persons with stick, hands at Paraikodu vilai.The Doctor while, recording the Accident Register has also mentioned it that the complainant was not aware of the exact location of the occurrence.He was not admitted as in patient by the Government Doctor at Padmanabapuram.While so, the respondent/complainant approached a private hospital namely, ISAAC Hospitals at Marthandam and obtained a certificate from one Dr.W.H.Isaac Sunder Sen, Ortho Specialist, that the defacto complainant sustained a contusion on the left temporal region (3X2X1Cm), a contusion on the neck (4X3X2CM) and a contusion on the chest (3X2X1CM).The said Doctor has alsohttp://www.judis.nic.in 8/13 Crl.14.The manner in which, the certificate was obtained by the respondent/defacto complainant from an Ortho Specialist at Marthandam, after taking treatment at Government Hospital at Padmanabapuram shows the manner in which, the wound certificate was obtained for the purpose of this complaint.The dispute is between the brothers.The respondent / defacto complainant is the father-in-law of the brother of the petitioner.But, the brother of this petitioner Samraj has not come forward to lodge a complaint.When the property was settled in the year 2007, there was no objection from his son Samraj.Only thereafter, at the instance of the other son Samraj, Kannayyan cancelled the settlement deed dated 14.08.2007 and settled them in favour of Samraj.The petitioner hashttp://www.judis.nic.in 9/13 Crl.The occurrence has taken place on 26.09.2015 and it is not in dispute that on the date of occurrence, the interim order was in force.When the competent Court has taken cognizance of the issue and also granted an order of interim injunction, the allegation of this complaint that the petitioner has taken away the trees from the land in dispute cannot be sustained.16.As rightly, pointed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, this respondent/complainant is no way connected with the disputed property and even the other brother Samraj has not filed any complaint.It appears that this complaint has been lodged to wreak vengeance with an ulterior motive to wreak vengeance for the civil suit filed by the petitioner before the Sub Court, Padmanabapuram.The manner in which, the wound certificate was obtained in this case itself shows the manner in which the complaint has been foisted.But the complaint was lodged only after seven days.There is no averment in the complaint about thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 10/13 Crl.The person, who makes the complaint of intimidation should have felt the intimidation.
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
64,238,014 |
10 Testimony of PW-6, prosecutrix is the most relevant piece of evidence.The victim was a student of Presentation Convent Sr.Sec. School and was studying in the 6th standard at the time when she had come into the witness box.The victim at that time as per her version under Section 164 of the Cr.1 The appellant is aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order of sentence dated 22.07.2002 & 31.07.2002 respectively wherein he has been convicted for the offence under Section 376 of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.40,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for 1 year.Nominal roll of the appellant has been called.It shows that as on the date when he had been granted bail, he had suffered incarceration for 5 years 8 months and 28 days.2 At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant has prayed for Crl.Appeal No.670/2002 Page 1 of 9 leniency in sentence and has submitted that in view of the proviso contained in Section 376 of the IPC, if there are adequate and special reasons, the Court can in its discretion reduce the sentence from the minimum prescribed.It is pointed out that in this case the victim even as per the radiological report was between 12-14 years; she was not 12 years of age and as such the minimum sentence even as per the Statute would be 7 years; the appellant now being a married man and living with his family, on a sympathetic consideration, he may not be ordered to be re-incarcerated and be sentenced for a period of 5 years 8 months and 28 days which he has already suffered.Appeal No.670/2002 Page 1 of 93 Needles to state, this plea has been opposed by the learned public prosecutor.4 Before answering this argument, it would be relevant to note the facts of the case.The father of the victim had died; she had a mother who was working as a beautician and she generally left the home at 09:30 AM.The victim and her mother were living on the first floor; the Crl.Appeal No.670/2002 Page 2 of 9 accused was their landlord and living on the ground floor.On the date of the incident, it was Saturday.At about 03:00 PM, he had invited the victim to watch TV with him; his wife was not present with him; his two year old daughter Aarti was present; as per the version of the prosecution, the appellant had first fingered the private part of the victim and thereupon, he committed rape upon her.Appeal No.670/2002 Page 2 of 9It was lodged on the same day.Dr. Sangeeta, (PW-1) had examined the victim on the following day i.e. 20.03.2000; her hymen was found torn; however no external injury was noted.Her vaginal smear and her underwear as also the underwear of the accused had been seized and sent by SI Mukesh Kumar (PW-13) to the CFSL.Apart from the underwear of the victim and the accused, the bed-sheet and pyjama of the accused had also been seized by the Investigating Officer vide memo Ex.PW-7/A. The CFSL report has been proved as Ex.P-X. This report had opined human semen on the bed-sheet as also on the pyjama of the accused; the underwear of the victim and the accused also contained human semen.This report remained unchallenged.Appeal No.670/2002 Page 3 of 97 It was on the basis of the aforenoted evidence collected by the prosecution that the accused was convicted and sentenced as aforenoted.8 On behalf of the appellant, on merits, it has been argued that the deposition of PW-6 is not in conformity with the version given in the rukka; submission being that both in the rukka as also in the statement of PW-6 on oath in Court, there is no evidence of penile penetration and in the absence of which ingredients of the offence under Section 376 of the IPC (unamended IPC) are not substantiated.It is pointed out that the victim had only stated that the accused had fingered her vagina which at best can be an offence under Section 354 of the IPC.9 Arguments have been refuted.It is pointed out that on no count does the impugned judgment call for any interference.PC was still in the 6th class.Pushpender Kumar (PW-11), the administrative representative of the Presentation Convent Crl.Appeal No.670/2002 Page 4 of 9 Sr.Sec. School has produced the admission slip wherein her date of birth is evidenced as 01.01.1989 meaning thereby that on the date of the offence, she would be around 11 years and 10 months.However, this date of birth of the victim was not proved on record; it was only an admission slip which had been proved.Thus during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer had obtained the X-ray plates of the victim which was examined by Dr. Rajnish Juneja (PW-10), the Radiologist of Hindu Rao Hospital and as per his opinion the victim was between 12-14 years of age; he had proved his report Ex.PW-10/A; X- ray plates had been proved as Ex.PW-10/B to Ex.PW-10/E. This evidence remained unrebutted.Appeal No.670/2002 Page 4 of 911 Thus this evidence which is the ossification report of the victim suggests that the victim was aged 12-14 years on the date of the incident and giving margin of two years in favour of the accused, the prosecutrix is held to be more than 12 years of age on the date of the incident.12 The testimony of the victim otherwise remained unrebutted.Her version on oath in Court (PW-6) is fully corroborative of the version given by her mother (PW-7) in the rukka pursuant to which the present FIR had been registered.PW-6 has on oath detailed and sequenced the Crl.Appeal No.670/2002 Page 5 of 9 incident in the manner in which it had occurred; the same sequence finds mention in the narration given by PW-7 which is a part of the rukka.13 PW-6 has on oath stated that on the fateful day i.e. 19.03.2000, she was living on the first floor along with her mother in house No. 42; Ranjeet Malik who is their landlord and residing on the ground floor being a Saturday had invited her to watch TV; PW-6 was alone at that time; her mother being a beautician had gone to work; the appellant came upstairs and asked her to watch a movie on the ground floor; she went to the ground floor.His two year old daughter was present there; her name is Aarti.Further testimony of PW-6 reads herein as under:-Appeal No.670/2002 Page 5 of 9"He made me lie down on the bed and started kissing me.He opened the button of my blouse.I was wearing skirt blouse at that time.Thereafter, he started pressing my breast.He removed my panty and put his finger in my vagina.Thereafter, he laid down on me.I fell plain (SIC) at the place of urinating and I do not know what he is inserting in my private part.Thereafter, he asked me to go inside and wash my vagina as well as panty.I washed my vagina but did not wash the panty.He asked me not to disclose this to my mother.He also offered me to give me Rs.10/- or Rs.20/- on each day on my not disclosing this to my mother.He gave me Rs.10/-.I left the money there and went to my house while weeping.My mother came back at 07:30 PM and I disclosed the entire incident to my mother.My mother took me to the police stn.My statement was recorded.My statement bears my signatures at point 'A'.My statement is Ex.PW-6/A. I was taken to the hospital for medical examination.My panty was taken by the doctor.I can identify my panty." Crl.PW-6 categorically stated that she felt pain at the place of urination and she dis not know what was being inserted in her private part.This was but natural because of the trauma being suffered by a young girl of a tender age years would obviously not know what exactly was happening with her.PW-6 has also stated that she had washed her vagina but she did not wash her panty.Appeal No.670/2002 Page 6 of 915 In her lengthy cross-examination, she had stuck to her stand.There was no suggestion given to her that she was deposing for any ulterior purpose; even before this Court, this argument has not been pressed.As noted supra, she had affirmed the narration given by her daughter.She had reiterated that her daughter was taken to Hindu Rao Hospital for medical examination and her panty was taken into possession.The medical evidence which has been proved Crl.Appeal No.670/2002 Page 7 of 9 in the testimony of PW-1 shows that the hymen of the victim was torn.On a specific query put to the doctor, she had stated that she cannot say as to what was the age of the tear of hymen as she does not have any particulars about that; in her cross-examination, PW-1 had stated that the victim was not cooperative for the vagina test as it was painful.She has further stated that in case of intercourse for the first time with a girl of the age of the victim by a fully grown person, she may or may not sustain injuries on her private parts.The medical evidence fully corroborates the version of the prosecution.Appeal No.670/2002 Page 7 of 917 The scientific evidence which is the report of the CFSL further advances the version of the prosecution.Not only was semen detected on the underwear of the victim as also on the underwear of the accused but also on the bed-sheet and pyjama of the accused.18 The trial Court returning a finding of rape by the appellant on the victim has been fully substantiated.In this background, the conviction of the appellant calls for no interference.19 However, on the question of sentence, the trial Court has sentenced the appellant to undergo RI for a period of 10 years.The trial Court has noted that the victim was between 12-14 years of age.The Crl.Appeal No.670/2002 Page 8 of 9 minimum sentence prescribed for a victim of rape of 12 years is 10 years but where the victim is more than 12 years, the minimum sentence prescribed is 7 years.The accused has undergone a sentence of 5 years 8 months and 28 days.He was present at the time of hearing of the appeal.He has no doubt committed a heinous offence of rape and has destroyed the trust which the victim had reposed upon him who was a father figure who had called her to his ground portion to watch a movie being her landlord and was almost the age of her father.Appeal No.670/2002 Page 8 of 920 In this background, this Court while maintaining the conviction of the appellant sentences him to undergo RI for 7 years.The fine of Rs.40,000/- which has been imposed upon him by the trial Court has since not been deposited.The sentence of fine remains unaltered; in default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo SI for a period of one year.The appellant is present in Court.He be taken into custody to serve the remaining sentence.Appeal No.670/2002 Page 9 of 9
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
642,400 |
The petitioner bad been requested to make a gold chur which of course would involve obtaining gold and working upon it to produce a chur.For this purpose, he was paid a sum of Rs. 308 and I imagine that the petitioner could have spent out of that sum immediately the sum required for the purchase of gold.In fact, the money cannot be said to have been entrusted to the petitioner.It was in fact & payment in advance for the chur which was to be made.That being so, the money become the money of the petitioner the moment it was paid to him and though the petitioner is guilty of dishonest and dishonourable conduct in not making the chur, he cannot be said to have misappropriated the money because it was paid to him and it became his.
|
['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
64,248,501 |
The applicant shall further abide by the conditions enumerated under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.C.C. as per rules.(ATUL SREEDHARAN) JUDGE PGThe application is under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C., for grant of anticipatory bail.The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 1202/2014 registered at Police Station Kotwali District Betul for offences punishable under Sections 454, 354- A, 376 and 506-II of IPC.Learned counsel for the State informs that the case-dairy is not available.Learned counsel for the State has prayed for interim protection till the next date of hearing.The facts of the case is that the applicant herein was initially proceeded against under Section 454 and 354-A of the IPC.Charge- sheet was filed for the same offence and cognizance were taken and charges have been framed under Sections 454 and 354-A of IPC.On 24-09-2014, an application for further investigation was moved by the Investigating Officer which was allowed by the learned trial Court and after further investigation filed supplementary charge-sheet on 17-11-2014 adding the offence under Sections 376 and 506-II of IPC against the applicant.The applicant who was on regular bail the offence under Sections 454 and 354-A of IPC has now been issued non- bailable warrant under Sections 376 and 506-II of IPC.Be that as it may, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am inclined to allow the instant application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C., in favour of the applicant and direct the police shall not arrest the applicant and in the event of his arrest the Arresting Officer to release him upon his arrest on his furnishing personal surety of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) and one surety to the said amount each to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer.
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
64,252,933 |
No. 19722 of 2017 This petition has been filed to call for the records pertaining to the case in Crime No. 83 of 2017, pending on the file of the respondent Police and to quash the same.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.Without any base, the respondent police registered a case in Crime No.83 of 2017 for the offences under Sections 147, 294(b), 323 and 306 IPC, as against the petitioner.Hence he prayed to quash the same.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the investigation is almost completed and the respondent police have only to file final report.
|
['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
46,300,179 |
VINOD GOEL, J.:This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 13th July, 2017 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dwarka Districts Courts, South West District, New Delhi (ASJ) in SC No.132/2015 arising out of FIR No.356/2012, P.S. Bindapur whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302/201 IPC and the order on sentence dated 29.07.2017 whereby the appellant was sentenced to undergo life Imprisonment along with a Crl.A.1105/2017 Page 1 of 25 fine of Rs.3,000/- u/s 302 IPC; and Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) for five years along with a fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence punishable u/s 201 IPC and in case of default of payment of fine, the appellant was to undergo RI for six months.Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.The Ld.ASJ recommended to DLSA for the payment of compensation to the legal heirs of deceased u/s 357A Cr.P.C.A.1105/2017 Page 1 of 25On 03.11.2012 at about 12.50 pm, information was provided by HC Sita Ram, PS Dabri (PW8) by telephone to PS Bindapur about foul smell coming from a room situated at the 1st Floor of the House No.A- 787, JJ Colony, Pankha Road, Delhi.A DD No.16A (PW8/K) was recorded and the same was assigned to Sub Inspector (SI) Ashok Kumar (PW15) who left for the spot along with Constable (Ct.) Kamal Chand (PW21).Upon reaching the spot, the room was found locked.In the meanwhile the crime team headed by the SHO Surender Kumar (PW22) and other senior police officials also arrived there.The lock was broken and on opening the door, a headless body was found lying below the bundle of clothes on the right side of the room.The body, as found, was in a white coloured vest and black & white striped underwear.The clothes of the deceased and other personal articles/belongings were recovered and seized.The dead body was sent to the mortuary of DDU Hospital for preservation through Ct.Sudhir (PW25).The rukka (Ex.PW26/B) was prepared and sent through Ct.Kamal Chand (PW21).An FIR No.356/2012 was Crl.A.1105/2017 Page 2 of 25 registered under Section 302/201 IPC.One plastic bottle and lock of the room were sealed with the seal of SD and were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW12/A. Blood sample and earth control were lifted on a gauze by Inspector Subhash (PW29) vide seizure memo (Ex.PW12/B).A blood stained mat, pillow and bed-sheet were also sealed in a pulanda and seized vide seizure memo (Ex.PW12/C).The appellant was arrested on 16.11.2012 vide arrest memo (Ex.PW12/D) at his native place i.e. Village Panchwati, District Gorakhpur (UP).He was interrogated.He made a disclosure statement (Ex.PW13/A).Pursuant to the disclosure statement, the appellant got recovered two mobile phones out of which one phone was of China make with the battery No. JAI-BL-3C and the other phone was of SAMSUNG, one purse containing two railway tickets and a card issued by the Gramin bank, one black colour bag which contained a photocopy of the passport of the deceased Nitin Kumar Singh, one jeans pant, one white colour shirt, one gray colour pant and a bag containing Rs.20,000/- in cash, all of which was in the denomination of Rs.500 each.All these articles were converted into pulanda and sealed with the seal of SD and taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW12/F.A.1105/2017 Page 2 of 25A.1105/2017 Page 3 of 25The Ld.ASJ framed the charges against the appellant under Section 302/201 IPC on 07.05.2013 to the effect that he had committed the murder of Nitin Kumar Singh prior to 03.11.2010 at an unknown time at House No.A-787, JJ Colony, Pankha Road, Delhi and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.He was also charged with the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC for causing certain evidence connected with the said offence to disappear with an intention to save himself.To bring home the guilt of the appellant, the prosecution examined 30 witnesses.The Ld.ASJ put the incriminatory evidence to the appellant u/s 313 Cr.P.C. While replying to the question whether he and the deceased were previously known to each other, the appellant replied "I never met with the deceased.However, I talked to him only once on mobile phone when my brother was leaving Delhi for Nigeria".He admitted that his brother Jagdish was sent to Nigeria by the deceased.He stated that he was not using any mobile phone in Delhi.He further stated that in his entire life, he had stayed in Delhi for only 3-4 days when he had come to see off his brother.He stated that he never got issued mobile No.82850-82350 and did not know if the mobile No.99589-60414 was issued in the name of the deceased at House No.21, Kotla village, New Delhi.Upon being asked if he had called the deceased thrice on his said mobile number on 31.10.2012 (as per CDRs Ex.A- 787, JJ Colony, Pankha Road, Delhi to the appellant, where the body of the deceased was found.He noticed that their testimonies are further corroborated by the depositions of Rajender Kumar, Cable Operator (PW1) and another tenant on the second floor of the said premises Bhupat Prasad (PW4).Rita Devi (PW3) has testified that she is owner of the said house and her jethani Sheela Devi (PW2) resides in the adjoining house.She identified the appellant to be the person who approached her for renting him a room about a year ago while she was with her jethani.She stated that the rent was agreed @ Rs.2200/- per month and the appellant informed her that he was working as a Raj Mistri and sought time of about 3-4 days to hand over his identity proof.It is elicited in her cross-examination that she is an illiterate person and did not inquire about the name and address of the appellant.The appellant assured them that he would be supplying his ID proof very shortly.The statement of Smt. Rita Devi (PW3) is corroborated by the statement of her jethani Smt. Sheela Devi (PW2).She also identified the appellant present in the Court to be the person who approached her devarani to rent him a room about a year ago.It has further come in her evidence that a room was agreed to be let out to the appellant @ Rs.2200/- per month.She stated that on the next day, the appellant occupied the room.On her asking, the appellant assured to provide his identity proof within 3-4 days.It has come in her cross-examination that they did not ask the name of the appellant while renting out the room.She stated that upon making inquiries, the appellant told them that he is from Gorakhpur and is presently residing at Bindapur.Like Smt. Rita Devi (PW3) even Sheela Devi (PW-2) has denied the suggestion that room was let out to the deceased and not to the appellant.She stated that the appellant brought cylinder, television, utensils and tools of raj mistri.She had seen the appellant 2-3 days after letting out the room.A.1105/2017 Page 7 of 25The Ld.The testimonies of Rita Devi (PW3) and Sheela Devi (PW2) are corroborated by the testimony of Rajender Kumar (PW1), who is working under the Cable Operator at Ishika Cable Network, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi.He identified the person whose photograph (Ex.PW1/A) was shown to him to have approached them, for installation of cable connection at the premises 786-787, 1st Floor JJ Colony, Uttam Nagar near bus stand, New Delhi.The testimonies of Rita Devi (PW3) and Sheela Devi (PW2) are further corroborated by the deposition of another tenant Bhupat Prasad (PW4) who has been in occupation of the 2nd Floor of the said property.PW4 deposed that he has been residing as a tenant on the second floor of the said House of Rita Devi (PW3) at a rent of Rs.1800/- per month for the last 7/8 years.He identified the appellant to be the person who started residing on the first floor of the said Crl.A.1105/2017 Page 8 of 25 property.In his cross-examination he denied that the appellant was neither the tenant of PW2 and PW3 nor occupied the said room.A.1105/2017 Page 8 of 25The Ld.He stated that from the next day, when he tried to call his son, he found the phone of his son to be switched off.Being worried, on 3.11.2012, he went to the house of the appellant where he met Crl.A.1105/2017 Page 11 of 25 Jagdish Sharma, the brother of the appellant, and upon inquiring the whereabouts of his son, he did not provide him any information and rather misbehaved with him.It is elicited in his cross-examination that his son had informed him about the appellant to be a very good cook.He denied the suggestion that the appellant was just formally introduced to the deceased being a native of the village.A.1105/2017 Page 11 of 25From the depositions of Nitin Dutta (PW6) and Amod Kumar Singh (PW7) the Ld.ASJ found that the appellant and the deceased were known to each other and they had stayed together in Delhi for quite some time.The CDR of the said mobile number of the appellant is Ex.PW10/C and of the deceased is Ex.PW11/C. Prior to that, a call was also made by the deceased on 05.06.2012 to another phone No.99562-61066 of the appellant, which was revealed by Nitin Dutta (PW6) and reflected in the CDR (Ex.PW11/C).These call records between the appellant and the deceased sufficiently corroborate the depositions of Nitin Dutta (PW6) and Amod Kumar Singh (PW7) that the deceased and the appellant were known to each other.A.1105/2017 Page 12 of 25LAST SEEN EVIDENCEIt is the case of the prosecution that on 31.10.2012 at about 7.35 pm the deceased was present at the place of the incident with the appellant.The Post-mortem report (Ex.PW16/A) opined the time of the death of the deceased as approximately 2 days on the date of recovery of the dead body.It is noticed by the Ld. ASJ from the testimony of Bhupat Prasad (PW4) that on 31.10.2012 at about 7.35 PM when he returned from his office he found a fair complexioned person conversing on his mobile phone at the place of the incident and the appellant was sitting beside him.In the cross-examination of PW4, it is revealed that he had seen the deceased twice in the same evening, though, he had disclosed to the police that he saw the deceased only once.He saw the deceased wearing shorts and under shirt (vest).He did not hear any scream or shout from the first floor on the night of 31.10.2012 but on the next day he found the room of the appellant to be locked.The Ld.ASJ found that the testimony of Bhupat Prasad (PW4) is corroborated by the technical evidence relating to the CDRs and mobile phone locations of the appellant and the deceased.Shishir Malhotra (PW10), Nodal Officer, Aircel Limited proved the Consumer Application Form (CAF) Ex.PW10/B, CDR (PW10/C) and Cell ID Chart Ex.PW10/D of the mobile phone of the appellant (82850-A.1105/2017 Page 13 of 2582350).Further, Vishal Gaurav (PW11), Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Ltd, proved the CAF (Ex.PW11/B) and CDR and Cell ID Chart (PW11/C) of the mobile phone of the deceased (99589-60414).The records have the necessary certification as required under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW10/E and Ex.PW11/A respectively.The Ld.It shows that the deceased Nitin Kumar called the accused at 9.27 am when he was at the IGI Airport and the appellant was at Pankha Road.At the time of second call at 9.55 am the deceased reached Uttam Nagar, whereas the recipient i.e. the appellant remained in the same area.The deceased made the third call to the appellant at 12.47 pm when both their locations were in East Delhi.At the time of 4th and 5th call made by the appellant to the deceased at 7.09 pm and 7.11 pm, both of them were in the same area i.e. Navada/Vipin Garden, Dwarka Mor.The record further reveals that the appellant made his last three calls at 20:43:30, 22:00:27 and 22:04:44 hours from the area in which place of incident is situated.The deceased Nitin Kumar made his last four calls to different numbers at 21:02:57, 21:37:24, 21:52:13 and 22:20:08 hours from the same area.A.1105/2017 Page 14 of 25 he was in Gorakhpur on 31.10.2012 or that he or the deceased did not call each other.He did not take any step to prove his plea of alibi by examining either his wife or the Doctor who treated his wife in the Hospital at Gorakhpur.In such a situation mere denial by the appellant of the usage of his mobile phone No.82850-82350 is not sufficient to rebut the case of the prosecution.Therefore, there is no illegality or perversity in the findings of the Ld. ASJ that the appellant and the deceased were not only known to each other but were also in regular touch with each other and on the fateful night they stayed together at the place of incident.A.1105/2017 Page 14 of 25The Ld.ASJ noticed from the depositions of HC Mahender (PW12), Constable Amarjeet Singh (PW13) and Insp.Subhash Chand (PW29) that on 16.11.2012 they reached village Jhangha, District Gorakhpur (UP) and then accompanied the local police to village Panchdevari and arrested the appellant from a place near his house vide arrest memo PW12/D. His personal search was conducted vide search memo Ex.PW12/E. Pursuant to the disclosure statement (PW13/A) the appellant got recovered his two mobile phones, one being a Chinese make and the other being a SAMSUNG make, one purse containing two railway tickets, a card issued by the gramin bank, one black colour bag which was found to contain one specs cover having the inscription of Sprint, one photocopy of the passport of the deceased (Nitin Kumar Singh) valid till 30.05.2016 issued from Patna Crl.A.1105/2017 Page 15 of 25 (Bihar), one jeans pant, one white colour t-shirt, one grey colour pant, one shirt bearing strips and Rs.20,000/- cash in the denomination of Rs.500/- each.These were converted into a pulanda and sealed with the seal of SD and taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW12/F. This recovery has been proved by the depositions of Subhash Chand (PW29), HC Mahender (PW12) and Ct.Amarjeet Singh (PW13).The prosecution has also examined the public witness to the recovery proceedings, Mintu (PW14), a relative of the appellant wherein he stated that no recovery was effected by the police.PW14 admitted that he was present at the house of the appellant at the time the appellant was arrested.PW14 also admitted that the seizure memo Ex.PW12/F and Ex.PW12/J bears his signature at point-X. The father of the deceased i.e. Amod Kumar Singh (PW7) has identified the sunglasses and the bag belonging to his son during the TIP proceedings Ex.PW7/C. In his deposition, PW7 has explained that his son visited his native place in May, 2012 and remained there for about 18/19 days and for that reason he could identify the articles during the TIP proceedings.The Trial Court observed that since the deceased had returned from the foreign country on the date of the incident itself, the recovery of cash amount of Rs.20,000/- from the appellant is quite probable.The Ld.ASJ believed the evidence of recovery of articles from the house of the appellant to have been recovered at his instance.From the testimony of PW4 and the CDRs, it is already established that on the fateful night of 31.10.2012 the deceased and the appellant were together at the place of incident and the dead body of the Crl.The Ld.ASJ found that as per the crime scene report (Ex.PW9/A), only a plastic bottle and a plastic bucket were found in the room apart from the body, and the bed sheet, pillow and mat put on it.The Ld.The whole structure of the neck exposed Crl.A.1105/2017 Page 17 of 25 as cut ends including bonny components and surface of the plane shows smearing of the blood admixed with putrefied secretions.The appellant has also admitted in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. that his brother Jagdish was sent to Nigeria by the deceased and he talked to the deceased on mobile phone when his brother was leaving Delhi for Nigeria.However, the Ld.A.1105/2017 Page 19 of 25In view of the circumstances, the Ld. ASJ found that it was the appellant who had killed the deceased by severing his head with a sharp object.It is also established from the deposition of Bhupat Prasad (PW4) that it was the deceased who was seen lastly at 7.30 pm on 31.10.2012 at the place of crime and his deposition is corroborated by the technical scientific evidence of Call Detail Records (Ex.PW10/C & Ex.PW11/C).Pursuant to the disclosure statement, the appellant got recovered the sunglasses and photocopy of his passport from his house.The headless body of the deceased was identified by his father (PW7) and Samrat Singh Mani (cousin).PW10/C and Crl.A.1105/2017 Page 4 of 25 Ex.PW11/C), the appellant replied "I had never used the said mobile".He stated that he was not present at the said premises in JJ Colony, Pankha Road after 7:15 pm on 31.10.2010 as at that time his wife was hospitalized in Gorakhpur and he was there to take care of her.He stated that since 28.10.2010 he had been present in Gorakhpur and was falsely implicated.A.1105/2017 Page 4 of 25The appellant examined DW1 ASI Dhanpat Sharma and DW2 Ct.Sanjay in his defence.He argued that the depositions of PW1 to PW4 to prove the tenancy of the appellant on the premises in question are not substantiated by any documentary evidence.He submitted that the testimony of PW2 and PW3 are unbelievable as they did not know the name of the appellant while renting him a room.He submitted that there are contradictions in the testimony of these four witnesses and no reliance can be placed upon their testimony.It is further argued that the last seen theory as put forth in the deposition of PW4 is not believable as his statement suffers from several improvements.Per contra, it is submitted by the Ld. APP for the State that the Trial Court has passed the impugned judgment and order on sentence after Crl.A.1105/2017 Page 5 of 25 due appreciation of evidence and there is no infirmity or illegality in the judgment.A.1105/2017 Page 5 of 25We have heard the Ld. counsel for the appellant and the Ld. APP for the State.TENANCY OF THE APPELLANTThe Ld.ASJ has relied upon the testimony of Rita Devi (PW3), corroborated by her jethani Sheela Devi (PW2), wherein she stated that she rented out the 1st Floor of the property bearing House No.A.1105/2017 Page 6 of 25She stated that on the next morning the appellant brought his articles like cylinder, television, utensils, etc. She noticed the appellant going for his work and sometimes returning after 2-3 days.She denied the suggestion that the room in question was let out to the deceased.ASJ noticed that the legal requirement of informing the police to verify the credentials of the tenant may not be known to PW3, who is an illiterate person belonging to the lower middle class of the society and more interested in renting out the property than getting the tenant verification done.He found the deposition of Rita Devi (PW3) and Sheela Devi (PW2) to be genuine to the extent that they were assured by the appellant that he will furnish his identity proof in a few days time.ASJ noticed that no documentary evidence like rent agreement/cable installation receipt, etc. were produced by the prosecution but found the oral testimonies of PW1 to PW4 inspiring confidence to prove that a room on the first floor of the said property was rented out by Rita Devi (PW3) to the appellant about 15 days prior to the incident in question.APPELLANT AND DECEASED KNOWN TO EACH OTHERIt is the case of the prosecution that the deceased and the appellant were known to each other and they had stayed together in Delhi for quite some time.To prove the relationship between the appellant and the deceased, the prosecution examined Nitin Dutta (PW6) and the father of the deceased, Amod Kumar Singh (PW7).Nitin Dutta (PW6) testified that he knew the deceased i.e. Nitin Kumar very closely since 2008 as they had joined Marina Trading LLC in Dubai on the same day.They were good friends and shared a room for 11 months while staying in Dubai.After leaving his job, Nitin Dutta (PW6) came back to India and after 7/8 months, the deceased came back to Delhi.He stated that the deceased started residing at Kotla village.He further stated that he went to Nigeria where the brother of the appellant namely Jagdish was also working as a Technician in the same company.He spent four months in Nigeria and then came back Crl.A.1105/2017 Page 9 of 25 to Moradabad.He testified that deceased continued to reside in the same house in Kotla and he was in regular touch with him over the phone.He testified that the appellant was like a servant to the deceased and resided with the deceased at Kotla village.He further stated that the appellant met him at Moradabad in October 2012 for some work of the deceased.It is elicited in his cross-examination that the brother of the appellant was also sent to Nigeria by the deceased.He stated that all the persons including Jagdish (brother of the appellant) who were sent to Nigeria by the deceased had some bitterness towards the deceased as they felt that the deceased had charged them money for their travel expenses despite the employer company bearing their travel expenses.A.1105/2017 Page 9 of 25In the cross-examination of PW6, the appellant did not dispute that PW6 met him at Moradabad in October 2012 or that they knew each other or the brother of the appellant was sent to Nigeria by the deceased or that deceased and appellant were known to each other and that the appellant was deputed by the deceased for some work at Moradabad.The appellant did not dispute that PW6 called him at Crl.The Honble Supreme Court in Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab, (2003) 1 SCC 240 held that whenever an accused had failed to cross-examine any witness on any part of his testimony, the same must be believed to be true unless proved otherwise.A.1105/2017 Page 10 of 25ASJ noticed that other articles of the appellant i.e. utensils, television and cylinder, etc. were removed and head of the dead body was destroyed and dead body was hidden in a planned manner only to avoid detection of the identity of the culprit and the victim.Since the appellant and the deceased were together on the fateful night of 31.10.2012 and the headless body of the deceased was found there on 03.11.2012 with the room locked, the onus was on the appellant to furnish an explanation u/s 106 of Evidence Act as to what happened there on the said night.It is rightly observed by the Ld. ASJ that it is not the case that any other person used to reside with the appellant in the said premise or any other person had come to that place on 31.10.2012 or till the recovery of the dead body.A.1105/2017 Page 15 of 25A.1105/2017 Page 16 of 25The post-mortem on the body of the deceased was conducted by Dr. B.N. Mishra (PW16) who proved the post mortem report Ex.PW16/A. He observed that the head was sharply cut completely from the body and missing from the trunk of the body at least at the level of 6th cervical vertebra.There were two-three incised wounds of size 3 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep to 2 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep present on the both palms, which were classified as defence injury.He found the cause of death to be "due to shock caused by decapitation of head by sharp edged weapons like heavy knife etc." He observed that all the injuries were ante mortem in nature and the manner of death was homicide.A.1105/2017 Page 17 of 25The headless body was identified by Sh.Amod Kumar Singh and Sh.Samrat Singh Mani (cousin).DNA examination conducted by FSL report Ex.PW30/A concluded Amod Kumar Singh (PW7) and Smt. Ahilya Devi to be the biological father and mother of the deceased respectively.(iv) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; andThe Ld.ASJ found that it was only the accused, who had the opportunity and the reason to destroy the evidence with the intention to save himself from being identified as the perpetrator of the crime and concluded that there remained no doubt that it is the appellant who destroyed the evidence after committing murder of deceased Nitin Kumar.A.1105/2017 Page 20 of 25After going through evidence we found that the letting out of the room on the 1st Floor of Property i.e. A-787 has been proved by the depositions of PW3 and PW2 and corroborated by PW1 (official of the Cable Operator) and by the deposition of Bhupat Prasad (PW4).It is also established from the depositions of Nitin Dutta (PW6) and Amod Kumar (PW7) that the deceased and the appellant were known to each other and they used to be in frequent conversation with each other.The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
|
['Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
463,140 |
Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.Seven accused, namely, Suraj Bhan (A-1), Balraj (A-2), RamNiwas (A-3), Rajender Singh (A-4), Dharambir (A-5), Sube Singh(A-6) and Sajjan Singh (A-7) were tried by Learned Additional 2Sessions Judge, Rohtak, in Sessions Case No. 119 of 2002 forcommitting the murder of Dinesh aged about 20 years.Dinesh, son of Dharambir (PW-1)complainant, had gone to Delhi for ascertaining the date of hisinterview for recruitment to the Police Force of DelhiGovernment, but till late night he did not return to his villageSundana, Tehsil Kalanaur, District Rohtak.On the followingday, i.e. 30.05.2002, at about 4.00 a.m. Randhir Singh (PW-10)elder brother of PW-11 told PW-1 that Dinesh was wrongfullyconfined in the house of appellant-Suraj Bhan (A-1).It wasJagbir (PW-9), a jeep driver, who disclosed this fact to PW-10.On coming to know the fact of confinement of his son by A-1, 4PW-1 alongwith his father Sube Singh (PW-11) and uncleRaghbir Singh rushed to the house of A-1, where they found theouter door of the house bolted from inside.They all heard theshrieks of Dinesh "maar diya, maar diya".Thereupon, theypeeped through the window and saw that all the appellantsincluding A-6 (since acquitted) had made Dinesh to lie down onthe floor of the room, his hands and legs were tied with a rope.In the electric bulb light and within their sight, A-1 inserted a"danda" (wooden stick) in the anus of Dinesh, who cried loudlyin pain.On seeing the occurrence, PW-1, PW-11 and RaghbirSingh raised an alarm and forcibly broke open the door of theroom.On seeing them, the appellants fled away and took"danda" and piece of rope with them.They attended Dinesh, buthe succumbed to his injuries at the spot.Motive behind the alleged occurrence was that about ayear prior to the incident in question, i.e. 28.04.2001, A-1 got acase registered against Dinesh under Section 376 IPC forcommitting sexual intercourse with his daughter.PW-1 requested his father Sube Singh (PW-11) and uncleRaghbir Singh to safe guard the dead body of Dinesh at theplace of occurrence and himself rushed to the Police Station forlodging a report.On the way, Om Parkash, ASI (PW-14) metPW-1 at the curve of Beri Road, where, he made statement(Ex.PA) at 9.00 a.m. narrating the entire incident.PW-14 thenmade his endorsement (Ex.PA-2) on the said report and sent thesame to the Police Station through Constable Krishan Kumar,on the basis of which formal FIR (Ex. PJ) was recorded by MHCMohinder Singh (PW-6) at 11.00 a.m. on the same day.TheSpecial Report thereof was sent to the Illaqa Judicial Magistratethrough Constable Udham Singh (PW-4), which was received athis residence at 2.35 p.m. at Rohtak.Thereafter, PW-14alongwith PW-1 rushed to the place of occurrence and got thedead body photographed from Gobind Ram, Photographer(PW-7).PW-14 prepared the inquest report (Ex. PM) and thensent the dead body for post mortem examination.From the spot,PW-14 lifted blood stained earth, pair of sport shoes (Exs.P11and P12) and jute rope (Ex.P13).They were taken intopossession vide recovery memos (Ex. PB to Ex. PD) and sealed in 6separate parcels.At the spot, rough site plan (Ex.PR) of theplace of occurrence was also prepared by the InvestigatingOfficer.On the same day, investigation of the case was takenover by Sub-Inspector Rohtas Singh (PW-12).He recorded thestatements of PW-1, Randhir, Zile Singh, Jagbir (PW-9), a jeepdriver, and other witnesses.Thereafter, PW-12 searched for theaccused in the village but they were found missing.The DeputySuperintendent of Police had also visited the place of occurrenceand verified the investigation of the case.Naresh Kumar,Constable (PW-3), took the dead body of deceased Dinesh to theHospital for post mortem examination.On 01.06.2002, A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-4 were producedbefore PW-12 by Zile Singh.After their arrest by theInvestigating Officer, A-1 during interrogation made disclosurestatement (Ex.PQ) to the effect that he had kept concealed"danda" and "rope" under an iron box in his house and inpursuance thereof, he got recovered "danda" (Ex. P-18) (brokeninto two pieces) and "rope" (Ex. P-19), which were taken intopossession vide recovery memo (Ex.PQ/4).The entire recovered 7articles were sealed and deposited with MHC of Police Station,Kalanaur.On 12.06.2003, Ajit Singh ASI (PW-13) made anapplication (Ex.PN) to Dr. Paramjeet (PW-8) for obtaining hisopinion whether recovered "danda" could cause fatal injury tothe deceased or not, and Doctor opined in the affirmative.Aftertaking his opinion Ex.PO, pieces of "danda" were resealed.This information was given to Randhir Singh by Jagbir (PW-9), a jeep driver.The outer door of the house of A-1 was found bolted from inside.They peeped through the window and noticed that Dinesh was made to lie facing his face towards the floor of the room.At that time, an electric bulb was burning inside the room.A-1 inserted "danda" in the anus of Dinesh in their presence and his hands and both legs were tied by a piece of rope.Dinesh was crying in pain.13They raised cry and in the process they broke open the doorand entered the room.A suggestion of the defence that on receiving telephonic information from Jagbir (DW-3) son-in-law of A-1, he alongwith his father PW- 11 and A-1 went to village Kohla in a hired jeep and brought his injured son in the said jeep and then they threshed Dinesh at bus stand of village Sundana and as a result whereof Dinesh died on 30.05.2002 at about 8.00 p.m., has been denied by him.He was cross- examined at length but nothing could be elicited from his statement which casts any doubt about the truthfulness of his testimony.Jagbir PW-9, the jeep driver, deposed that on 29.05.2002 at about 8.30 a.m. Ballu (A-2) alongwith four other persons, who were identified in the Court, came to his 15house and asked him to take them to village Kohla.Theyhired his jeep and he took them to village Kohla.This witness in the cross-examination has stated that village Kohla is at a distance of15-16 KMs from Gohana and Gohana is at a distance ofabout 25-30 KMs from Rohtak, whereas village Kohla is at adistance of about 60 KMs from village Sundana.He statedthat A-1 and son (Deceased) of PW-1 had met him at thehouse of the daughter of A-1 in village Kohla.A suggestion of the defence that Dinesh was assaulted by the people of village Kohla and as a result thereof, he could not walk properly has been denied by him.He also denied the suggestion that he had brought injured Dinesh in his jeep and left him at Sundana Bus Stand.A further suggestion that PW-1 and PW-11 grandfather of Dinesh, had accompanied him in the jeep while going to village Sundana, has been denied by him.20.Randhir Singh (PW-10) deposed that on 30.05.2002 at about 2.30 a.m. while he was sleeping in his house, Jagbir (PW-9) came there and disclosed that A-1 had confined Dinesh in his house.In the teeth of the evidence of eyewitnesses PWs 1 and 11, corroborated by the testimony of PW-9 and PW-10 discussed above, it is established beyond any shadow of doubt that in fact the occurrence had taken place at the given time in the 17house of A-1 where the dead body of Dinesh was found lyingby the Police which was sent to the Doctor for post mortemexamination.PW-1 immediately lodged complaint (Ex. PJ) ofthe incident to Om Prakash, ASI (PW-14) whomet him on the way leading to the Police Station.The namesof all the accused were specifically mentioned in the saidcomplaint.By judgment and order dated 06.02.2003, the LearnedTrial Judge convicted (A-1), (A-2), (A-3), (A-4), (A-5) and (A-7)under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian PenalCode and Section 342 read with Section 34 of the Indian PenalCode (for short `IPC') and sentenced each to undergoimprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each and indefault of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment forthree years and under Section 342/34 IPC, they were sentencedto undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six monthswith a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine,to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.All thesentences were, however, ordered to run concurrently.Out offine if realized, 90 per cent thereof was ordered to be paid to thelegal representatives of the deceased Dinesh.The Learned TrialJudge acquitted (A-6).The accused filed three sets of appeals before the High Courtof Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh.(A-1), (A-4) and (A-5) filedCriminal Appeal No. 194-DB of 2003 whereas Criminal Appeal 3No.207-DB of 2003 was filed by (A-2) and Criminal Appeal No.224-DB of 2003 was filed by (A-3) and (A-7).The High Court bya common judgment and order dated August 16, 2005 modifiedthe judgment of the Trial Court.It upheld the conviction andsentence of (A-1), (A-2), (A-3) and (A-4).It, however, acquitted(A-5) and (A-7).(A-1), (A-2), (A-3) and (A-4) have now approached this Courtin these appeals.These appeals were heard together and shallstand disposed of by this common judgment.Aftercompletion of the investigation and receipt of the post mortemreport and other material on record, charge sheet came to befiled against the accused.At the initial stage, A-1, A-2, A-3 andA-4 were challaned for commission of offences punishable underSections 342/302/34 IPC.Later on, vide order dated30.09.2002, A-5, A-6 and A-7 were also summoned underSection 319 Cr.P.C. All the accused persons pleaded not guiltyto the charges and claimed to be tried.The prosecution, in order to substantiate its case,examined as many as 14 witnesses, namely, Dharmabir(PW-1), who lodged the complaint (Ex.PA); Sumit Kumar,Draftsman (PW-2), prepared the scaled site plan (Ex.PE) of theplace of occurrence; Naresh Kumar, Constable (PW-3) placed his 8affidavit (Ex.-PF) on record regarding taking the dead body forpost mortem examination; Udam Singh, Constable (PW-4) filedhis affidavit (Ex.-PG) regarding taking the Special Report to theIllaqa Judicial Magistrate; Jagbir Singh Constable (PW-5), tookthe case property to Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban;Mohinder Singh, Head Constable (PW-6), recorded the formalFIR (Ex.-PJ); Gobind Ram, Photographer (PW-7), proved onrecord photographs (Exs. P-1 to P-5) and negatives thereof(Exs.P-6 to P-10); Dr. Paramjit (PW-8), conducted the postmortem and proved on record the post mortem report (Ex.PK);Jagbir Singh (PW-9) a Jeep Driver; Randhir Singh (PW-10), whoafter being informed by PW-9 regarding the fact of confinementof Dinesh at the house of Suraj Bhan (A-1) had disclosed thesaid fact to PW-1; Sube Singh (PW-11), an eye witness of theoccurrence; Rohtas Singh SI (PW-12), the Investigating Officer ofthis case; Ajit Singh ASI (PW-13) and Om Parkash ASI (PW-14),who had also completed the formal investigation of the case.The accused in their statements recorded under Section313 Cr.P.C denied the incriminating evidence appearing againstthem.They pleaded that they have been implicated in a false 9case and they claimed to be innocent.DW-3stated that on the evening of 25.09.2002 Dinesh hadmisbehaved with his wife at his Village Kohla.The trial court, on appraisal of the entire evidence onrecord, held A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, A-5 and A-7 guilty of the chargesand convicted them under Section 302/342 read with Section34 of Indian Penal Code.Being aggrieved, the accused filed three sets of separateappeals before the High Court.It, however, allowed theappeals of A-5 and A-7 and accordingly acquitted them.Feeling aggrieved thereby and dissatisfied with thejudgment of the High Court, the above-said appeals have beenfiled in this Court.Ms. Garima Prashad, learned counsel appearing on behalf ofthe appellants, contended that the evidence produced in thiscase is not sufficient and convincing to warrant the conviction ofthe appellants.She contended that the evidence of PW-1 andPW-11 could not be accepted as they are both interestedwitnesses related to the deceased.She next contended thatPW-1, PW-9 and PW-10 in their deposition have given aconcocted version which casts severe doubts about truthfulnessof the prosecution case.It was also argued that there is no reliable evidencebrought on record to prove that the appellants also sharedcommon intention to murder Dinesh and in the absence of suchevidence, the appellants could not be convicted for offencepunishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.Mr. Sandeep Chaturvedi, Advocate, appearing on behalf ofthe appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 615/2008, has adoptedand supported the arguments made by Ms. Garima Prashad,Advocate.In order to appreciate the aforesaid rival contentions of thelearned counsel for the parties, we have independentlyscrutinized the oral and documentary evidence appearing onrecord.18. PW-1, father of the deceased Dinesh, at the relevant time was serving in the Police Department.On 29.05.2002 he was on leave for a period of one month.He stated that his son Dinesh had applied for recruitment in the Police of Delhi Government.On 29.05.2002 Dinesh had gone to Delhi to confirm about the date of interview to be held for the post.He did not return to his house till late in the night.On 30.05.2002 at about 4.00 a.m., Randhir Singh, elder brother of his father Sube Singh (PW-11), came to his house and disclosed that Dinesh was wrongfully confined by A-1 in his house.All the accused ran away carrying"danda" and "rope" with them.As per his version, in spite oftheir best efforts, Dinesh could not be survived.He alsostated that about one year prior to the present incident, A-1got a false case registered against Dinesh under Section 376IPC in which his son was acquitted by the Court and as aresult thereof, A-1 was nursing a grudge against his son.Hetestified the contents of the repot (Ex.PA) lodged to the Police,on the basis of which FIR (Ex. PJ) came to be registered byPW-6 at the Police Station.This witness has corroborated theversion of PW-12, the Investigating Officer, in regard totaking into possession blood stained earth, a pair of sportsshoes belonging to deceased Dinesh and preparation of theparcels containing the seized articles affixed with seals.Heshowed his knowledge of ignorance about the marriage of thedaughter of A-1 with Jagbir (DW-3) son of Om Prakash,resident of village Kohlapur, District Sonipat.A suggestionthat on 29.05.2002 Dinesh had gone to village Kohlapur andthere he misbehaved with Poonam, as a result thereof he was 14 given beatings by the village people, has been emphatically denied by him.He has identified two pieces of "danda" (Exs.P-18 and P-19), which were used by A-1 in the commission of the crime.He categorically stated that there was sufficient electric bulb light inside the room when they saw accused persons giving beatings to Dinesh.They lefthim with his jeep on the village street.On hearing alarm, herushed to the place where he found son of PW-1 present.Allthe five accused persons then asked him to take the son ofPW-1 to village Sundana, but initially he refused to obligethem as he apprehended danger to the life of the son of PW-1, but later on from the village Kohla he took the son of PW-1alongwith A-1 and six more persons in the jeep and left themexcept Sube Singh (A-6) at bus stand of village Sudana.Hedisclosed this incident to Randhir Singh Subedar uncle ofPW-1 on the same night.The accused persons were not found present inthe village when the Investigating Officer visited the place ofoccurrence.A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-4 were produced beforeRohtas Singh S.I. (PW-12) by Zile Singh, who is the residentof the same village.Recovery of two pieces of "danda" (Exs.P-18 and P-19) and "rope" (Ex. PQ/3) taken into possession byPW-12 pursuant to the disclosure statement (Ex.PQ) made byA-1 during the course of interrogation, has been provedwhich were used by the appellants in the commission of theoffence.The ocular version of PW-1 and PW-11, theeyewitnesses, has been further corroborated by Dr. Paramjit,who found as many as 12 injuries on the dead body ofDinesh.Dr. Paramjit in his post mortem report (Ex.PK) hadnoticed the following injuries:i. There was bruise contusion about 6 x 2 cm present in left supra scapular area with blurred margins;There was contusion 2 x 1 cm on right shoulder with blurred margins.On dissection, extra vestation of blood into true skin and subcutaneous tissues with infiltration was present;There was bruise 2 x 2 cm on right elbow with discoloration of skin with blurred margins;Multiple bruises 5 x 5 cm present on both hands on dorsal aspect.Margin blurred with discoloration of skin present.On dissection, extra vestation of blood into skin and subcutaneous with infilteration.v. There was bruise 2 x 1 cm on left lower arm with margins blurred;Another bruise 1 x 1 cm on the left wrist joint below the above mentioned wound;A bruise 5 x 1 cm on the left side on interior abdominal wall with margin blurred and discoloration of skin;Bruise 3 x 2 cm on the left thigh with blurred margins;An lacerated wound 2 x 1 cm on the left leg with margins blurred and extra vestation blood into skin discoloration; 19x.A lacerated would 5 cm below the above mentioned wound;Bruise swelling on ankle joint (right) 2 x 2 cm with discoloration of skin;There was lacerations present around the anal opening at 3rd, 7th and 10th o clock position of size 2 cm, 1 cm, 3 cm respectively.Blood was coming out from anus.Anal opening was distorted and dilated.On dissection, blood was present in anal canal and rectum with rupture (through and through) of posterior lateral aspect of rectal wall with perforation of intestinal coils in the right side alongwith through and through laceration of right kidney with lacerations of right lob of liver, extending through and through of liver.Large amount of blood was present in peritoneal cavity.On dissection of skull, large scalpel haemotoma present with multiple laceration on brain with subdural haemotoma.Walls, ribs and cartilages externally healthy.On dissection, blood was present in plural cavity with haemothorax with laceration of right lung present in lower lobe just above the diapharam right dome of dipharam ruptured in posterior half.Left lung healthy.In heart both chambers were empty.Abdominal wall as described above.Peritorium haemoperitome present.Mouth pharnix and esophagus healthy, stomach and its contents was healthy.Small intestines and large intestines and liver already described.Spleen was healthy.Bladder was empty.Organ of generation was healthy.In the opinion of Dr. Paramjit, the cause of death of Dineshwas shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries to the vitalorgans which were ante-mortem in nature and sufficient tocause death in ordinary course of nature.On reappraisal and scrutiny of the evidence discussed hereinabove, we find no particular reason as to why the two eyewitnesses PW-1 and PW-11 should falsely depose against the appellants.It is difficult to believe that the relatives of deceased Dinesh would spare his real assailants and falsely involve other persons responsible for committing the offence.It is well settled that if the witness is related to the deceased, his evidence has to be accepted if found to be reliable and believable because he would inter alia be interested in ensuring that real culprits are punished.Dinesh was murdered on the intervening night of 29/30.05.2002 in the house of A-1 in village Sundana.The evidence of PWs 1 and 11 has been found to be satisfactory, reliable, consistent and creditable by the trial court as well as by the High Court.Both the witnesses have been cross-examined at length by the defence, but nothing tangible has been extracted from their evidence to create any shadow of doubt that they are not truthful witnesses.They have given reliable and consistent version of the crime and their evidence inspires confidence.On our examination of the judgment given by the trial court and confirmed by the High Court, we find that both the Courts have properly and rightly appreciated and re- appreciated the entire evidence on record and there is no infirmity or perversity in the findings recorded by the Courts below to interfere with the well-reasoned judgments.In that case, the evidence of twoeyewitnesses who were brother of the deceased with regardto participation of four other accused was found unreliableand in the peculiar facts and circumstances of that case, theconviction of those accused was held illegal by the SupremeCourt.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
46,317,402 |
Heard on the question of admission.Revision is admitted for hearing.Also heard on I.A. No.6193/2019, an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the applicant.T he revision has been preferred by the applicant against judgment dated 27.03.2019 passed by learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge Bijawar, District Chhatarpur in Criminal Appeal No.239/2017 whereby the learned Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal and affirm the judgment and conviction order dated 14.06.2017, passed in Criminal Case No.511/2015, passed by Presiding Judge, JMFC, Bijawar, District Chhatarpur (M.P.).Applicant stands convicted for offence punishable under Section 337of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo RI for 6 months with fine of Rs.300/-in default of payment of fine additional RI.for 1 month and under Section 338 of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo RI for 6 months with fine of Rs.300/-in default of payment of fine additional RI.for 1 month.He also submits that there are many contradictions, omissions and improvements in the version of the prosecution witnesses.He further submits that there is fair chance to succeed in the case.The final hearing of this revision will take time.If the applicant is not released on bail, purpose of filing this application will be frustrated.Therefore, the application filed on behalf of the applicant may be allowed and the period of his remaining jail sentence may be suspended and he may be released on bail.
|
['Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
463,194 |
The appellant is a senior lawyer of 25 years' standing in Indore and the complainant was acting as his junior.The complainant's father, Dinubhai, was the senior partner of a firm of Chartered Accountant, M/s. Dinubhai & Co., with its registered office in Bombay and a branch office in Indore.The Indore office was looked after by the second partner, M.C. Mehta.(Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 22-10-1971 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court (Indore Bench) in Crl.A. No. 292/70).R.L. Kohli, R.C. Kohli and A.G. Ratnaparkhi, for the appel- lant.It appears that the firm was dissolved on July 5, 1960, when Mehta ceased to be a partner and Dinubhai appointed the appellant as counsel and attorney for filing suits and for recovering dues from various parties.Dinub- hai filed a suit, being suit No. 13 of 1962, for recovery of Rs. 12,500/- in the court of the Third Additional District Judge, Indore, impleading M.C. Mehta and one Chandulal Shah as defendants in that suit.Although the suit was decreed, it appears there were two cross appeals against the decree in the High Court, one by Dinubhai and the other by Chandu- lal Shah.The appellant was appearing for Dinubhai in both the appeals.The entry on 22-9-1964 shows that the amount of Rs. 110/- is one of several items mentioned therein as expenses incurred in the appeal flied by Chandu- lal Shah against Dinubhai.So far as the items mentioned in Ex. P-1 on 21-4-1964 including the last item of Rs. 210/-, there is no mention whether the expenditure was actually incurred on that date.The complainant was not pulling on well with his father for some reason or other and also parted company with his senior, the appellant.He filed a complaint against the appellant on December 8, 1967, making allegations under sections 409, 468 and 474 IPC.The complainant examined himself and a clerk of the High Court to prove that no paper book charges were deposited on the dates mentioned in the ac- counts.On the other hand a sum of Rs. 26.50 was deposited as paper book charges on March 18, 1965, in the particular appeal.The appellant denied the charge and stated that there was a typing error in the accounts and the actual figures should have been Rs. 211/(and not Rs. 210/-) and Rs. 10/- (and not Rs. 110/-).When the appellant's attention had been drawn to these amounts he admitted these to be typing errors and asked for adjustment of the amount of Rs. 300/- towards his fees in the case of Kothari Book Depot.It is rather curious that a criminal complaint should have been lodged against the appellant nearly three years after the receipt of the accounts by the complainant.The trial court acquitted the accused (appellant herein) by observing as follows :--"To sum up, the prosecution has been launched after inordinate unexplained delay, there is no clear and conclusive evidence of the criminal intention and dishonest mental act of the accused, the real aggrieved person has not come with the complainant but has already sought the alternative remedy in Civil Court which is being already pursued.The question whether or not the adjustment made by the accused towards his fees was proper can more appropriately be decided by Civil Court.Accused having reasonable claim against the complainant for any equivalent sum of money, his user of the disputed sum for his own purpose will not amount to criminal breach of trust".The High Court, on the other hand, held that the charge was established against the accused and set aside the ac- quittal.The High Court held that the explanation of the accused did not appear to be true and, therefore, could not be accepted.It further held that it was clear that on the dates mentioned in the accounts no amounts were deposited as paper book charges in the High Court.The High Court con- cluded as follows :--"Consequently it cannot be doubted that the respondent, who as an agent of the com- plainant's father was entrusted with the amounts, showed false expenses and thereby kept the amounts with himself.In the face of these facts and also on the finding that the explanation given by the respondent cannot be accepted, the respondent cannot escape con- viction under section 409 I.P.C. as that was the only charge framed against him by the trying Magistrate".The statement of account (Ex. P.I ) as well as the correspondence between the appellant and the complainant's father, who was client, dearly show that there was mutual accounting and adjustment between them.The mere fact that certain amounts were in the hands of the appellant and the accounts submitted were incorrect would not lead to the inevitable conclusion that the appellant committed criminal breach of trust in respect of these items.The accused in his statement under section 342, Criminal Procedure Code, stated, inter alia, as follows :--The differ- ence of Rs. 300.00 which has occurred, has been adjusted against my fees in Kothari Book Depot's case at the instance of Suryakant.Suryakant used to remain present in the court on each date along with me.He knows every- thing.There is Gadbad of money between Suryakant and his father.Hence on the instigation of other people this false case has been launched.Suryakant had got typed the statement of account Ex. P-I from the register".On one side we have the solitary statement of the complainant.The trial court who had an opportunity to see the complainant giving evidence did not choose to rely on his version of the case and preferred to accept the explanation of the appellant.In this state of the evidence we fail to see how the High Court, in an appeal against acquittal, thought it possible to hold the charge as proved.While the complaint was filed on December 8, 1967, a few months earlier on May 16, 1967, a lawyer's notice was ad- dressed to the appellant on behalf of Dinubhai.We may extract the following passage from that letter:"My client has instructed me to call upon you to remit to him the balance of Rs. 1700/- lying with you (after deducting your fees of Rs. 3300/- from the amount of Rs. 5,000/- paid to you) within 24 hours of the receipt of this reply otherwise my client will not only place the matter before the Bar Council of M.P. but, if so advised, will also file a suit for its recovery against you at your cost and consequences which please note".We are clearly of opinion that there was no sufficient ground for the High Court to interfere with the acquittal in this case when the reasons given by the trial court were weighty and cogent and there was no compelling justification to take a contrary view.At the conclusion of the argument by Mr. Khan on behalf of the complainant pressing for conviction of the appellant, Mr. Panjwani,appearing on behalf of the State, fairly enough, did not think it proper to support the judgment of the High Court.In the result the appeal is allowed.
|
['Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
4,632,187 |
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.The concerned authority shall also 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 :- 10.7.2020 ssm
|
['Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
46,339,803 |
It is further directed that in the event of the arrest of the applicants in connection of aforesaid crime on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000- (Rs. fifty thousand) by each of the applicants alongwith one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer/Arresting Authority by the applicants, Harbal, Kashiram and Jayprakash shall be released on bail.The applicants shall cooperate in the investigation.Such release shall be subject to terms and conditions enumerated under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C.C c as per rules.(S.K. GANGELE) JUDGE bksLearned PL submits that he is under receipt of the case diary.On behalf of the applicants, this petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C for grant of anticipatory bail as they are under apprehension of their arrest in connection of Crime No. 18/16, registered at Police Station Kudila, district Tikamgarh for commission of offences punishable under Sections 452, 323, 294, 342, 506-B/34 of IPC.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that except offence under Section 452 of IPC all other offences which have been committed under other sections are bailable.The allegation against the applicants is that they entered the house of the complainant.
|
['Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 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.
|
43,861,037 |
The photocopy of said PoA is being taken on the record.M.C.No.3009/2015 Page 1 of 7By way of this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, petitioner seek quashing of FIR No.326/2013 registered at Police Station CR Park, New Delhi, for the offences punishable under Sections 500/506/509 of the IPC and the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom against him.During investigation, Section 354D of the IPC was also invoked against the petitioner.Charge sheet has already been filed, however, Crl.M.C.No.3009/2015 Page 1 of 7 charges are yet to be framed.Meanwhile, due to intervention of common friends and respectable members of society, respondent Nos.2 & 3 have settled their dispute with the petitioner as both the parties knew each other for the last more than ten years.Respondent No.2 has given the Power of Attorney to respondent No.3 to withdraw the present case against the petitioner.A copy of this order be given dasti to the learned counsel for the parties.SURESH KAIT (JUDGE) AUGUST 10, 2015 M Crl.M.C.No.3009/2015 Page 7 of 7
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
43,958,457 |
The petitioner in the criminal revision case figures as Accused No.2 in acase registered as Crime No.2 of 2011 on the file of the Inspector of Police,Economic Offences Wing-II, Dindigul.During the course of investigation, theinvestigating officer seized a vehicle (Ford Fiesta Car) bearing registrationNo.2.As the property was not attached by virtue of any of the provisions ofthe Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (In FinancialEstablishments) Act 1997 and it was presumably seized under section 102 ofCr.P.C., on the premise that the property answered the description of stolenproperty, the petitioner had to approach the court by way of a petition undersection 451 Cr.P.C seeking interim custody of the said vehicle.The saidpetition was taken on file as Crl.M.P.No.3204 of 2011 on the file of the SpecialCourt under the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (In FinancialEstablishments) Act cases, Madurai and the learned Special Judge, after hearing,passed an order dismissing the said petition stating that the vehicle wasordered to be confiscated by the Government and hence, the petition deserved tobe dismissed.The said order passed on 02.01.2012 is challenged in thiscriminal revision case.3.As this court was of the view that the criminal revision case could bedisposed of in the stage of admission itself, notice was given to therespondent.The respondent is now represented by the Additional PublicProsecutor.In the meanwhile, the records were also sent for from the courtbelow.The submissions made by Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, learned counsel for thepetitioner and Mrs.S.Prabha, learned Government Advocate (Criminal side)representing the respondent are heard.The materials available on record arealso perused.4.Admittedly, the Ford Fiesta Car bearing registration No.TN-64-A-0001stands registered in the name of the petitioner.A copy of the RegistrationCertificate is also available in the records submitted by the court below forthe perusal of this court.The said property, namely Ford Fiesta Car bearingregistration No.TN-64-A-0001 was seized by the police, presumably exercising thepower of the police under section 102 of Cr.P.C.5.Admittedly, it is not the property in respect of which an offence hasbeen committed.It is also an indisputable fact that this property is not oneused as a weapon of offence.On the other hand, this property seems to have beenseized only on the premise that this property was acquired using the depositscollected from the depositors of the Financial Establishment, which is said tohave committed default.Besides the offence under section 5 of the Tamil NaduProtection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act 1997, thepolice have also chosen to allege commission of other offences under the IndianPenal Code namely, offences under sections 406, 409 and 420 IPC.In view of thesame, we have to infer that the property was seized by the police as a property,which answered the description of stolen property.That is the reason why, theproperty on seizure by the police and on its production before the TNPID Court,it was remanded as a case property.Consequently, the revision petitionerapproached the court below for an order directing entrustment of interim custodyof the vehicle to the petitioner on the premise that he is having a preferentialright to have its interim custody.iii)The petitioner shall surrender the R.C. Book and the learned SpecialJudge, Special Court under TNPID Act Cases, Madurai is at liberty to return theR.C. Book for renewal of the registration or for getting the permit or forinsuring the vehicle.The RC can be obtained from the court by filing apetition and after the accomplishment of the purpose, the same should bereturned to the court.iv)the petitioner shall also file an affidavit of undertaking to theeffect that:c)no major alternation excepting the necessary repairs to make the vehicleroad worthy shall be made.v)The investigating agency can collect the records relating to theexpenses incurred for effecting such repairs, to be used during the trial of thecase.
|
['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
44,087,326 |
Heard learned counsel for the respondent no. 2; learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.Learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 submits that this revision has wrongly been listed in the category of infructuous cases.He submits that counter affidavit was filed far back on 16.12.2011 but the revisionist has not filed any rejoinder affidavit despite having sufficient time and opportunity.Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that, clearly, the revisionist is misusing the interim order of this Court whereby the further proceedings of concerned Criminal Case No. 1059 of 2007, relating to the occurrence of the year 2004, have been stayed.In view of the fact that the revisionist, who is an accused in the Sessions Trial concerned, has neither filed any rejoinder affidavit nor his counsel is appearing for arguing the case, despite the fact that this revision and its connected Session Trial have become critically old, it appears expedient in the interest of justice, to decide the revision on merits after perusing the available record.This revision has been filed against the order dated 30.5.2011 passed by the learned A.C.J.M. Bareilly in Criminal Case No. 1059 of 2007, under sections 452, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C, Police Station Kila, District Bareilly, whereby the discharge application moved by accused / revisionist under section 239 Cr.P.C has been rejected by the lower court.The lower court has refused to discharge the revisionist on the ground that there was sufficient prima facie evidence available on record to frame the charge against him.The accused cannot be permitted to produce documents to put forth his defence case for purpose of seeking discharge.In Soma Chakravarty v. State (through CBI); 2007 (2) SCC (Cri) 514, it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that at the time of framing of charges the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into, and the material brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage.The revision appears to have no force and it is liable to be dismissed.
|
['Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
441,783 |
Appellant has been convicted under Section 376, 506-I of IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years with fine of Rs.100/- and rigorous imprisonment for six months, for the respective offences, by the impugned judgment.Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.According to prosecution, on 13.10.94 about 6/7 'O'clock in the evening at village Karkoti when prosecutrix, a member of Scheduled Caste aged about fourteen years, had gone to latrine on the outskirt of the village and was coming back, appellant caught hold of her, took her near the bank of the lake and fell her under a tree; when prosecutrix tried to scream, appellant took out a knife, gagged her mouth and committed forcible sexual intercourse with her.Prosecutrix began weeping under pain and seeing blood on her private part, appellant then threatened to kill her and asked her to go to her house and also intimidated her not to disclose the incident to anyone.Prosecutrix came back to her house, but out of fear and bashfulness she did not disclose the incident to anyone.However, when she developed pain in her abdomen, she narrated the whole incident to her mother on 6.11.94 and thereafter, went to Police Station to lodge the FIR.On the basis of her report, an offence was registered against the appellant and was investigated.The underwear of the prosecutrix worn at the time of incident produced at the Police Station was seized from her.Prosecutrix was sent for medical examination.On being arrested, appellant was also sent for medical examination.The vaginal slide of the prosecutrix and seminal slide of the appellant 2 collected during their medical examination were sent for forensic examination.After due investigation, appellant was prosecuted under Section 376, 506-II of IPC and 3(1)(xi) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred as 'Act') and was put to trial.Appellant abjured the guilt and pleaded false implication due to enmity.Learned Sessions Judge, after trial and upon appreciation of the evidence adduced in the case, acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act, but found him guilty for commission of offences under Section 376 and 506-I of IPC and sentenced him as aforesaid, by the impugned judgment, which has been challenged in this appeal.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial court erroneously convicted the appellant on the basis of sole testimony of the prosecutrix, despite negative medical evidence and delayed FIR.Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the trial court failed to consider that the prosecutrix did not disclose the incident to anyone for nearly twenty five days and there was no satisfactory explanation for undue delay of twenty five days in lodging the FIR.According to learned counsel for the appellant, though the trial court came to a finding that the age of the prosecutrix was more than sixteen years, yet it failed to consider that the prosecutrix was a consenting party and even as per the medical report, she was habitual to sexual intercourse.Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the trial court failed to consider that the appellant was falsely implicated and the FIR was lodged at the instance of Sarpanch due to party rivalry in the village.Learned counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, justified and supported the conviction of the appellant.Perused the evidence on record.Prosecutrix (P.W-3) deposed in her evidence that at the relevant time about 6 or 7 'O'clock in the evening, she had gone to answer the call of nature near the lake and when she was returning back, appellant came from the backside, gagged her mouth and took her under a tree, fell her on the ground and pulled her underwear, sat on her, inserted his male organ into her private part and committed sexual intercourse with her.According to prosecutrix (P.W-3), appellant had gagged her mouth, so she could not 3 scream and tried to kick him, but appellant did not leave her and when she began weeping, appellant took out a knife and threatened her not to disclose the incident to her parents.9. Prosecutrix (P.W-3) further deposed that out of fear and bashfulness, she did not divulge the incident to her parents, but when she developed abdominal pain and vomiting, then on inquiry by her mother she narrated the whole incident to her mother.Her mother then went to sarpanch of the village, who advised to report the matter with the Police, then prosecutrix lodged the report (Ex.P-3) with the Police.Prosecutrix (P.W-3) also testified her signatures on the FIR (Ex.P-3).Mahatlal (P.W-4), the father of the prosecutrix also corroborated this fact that on being informed of the incident of rape with his daughter from his wife after fifteen-twenty days, they went to Sarpanch of the village and apprised him of the incident, thereafter prosecutrix lodged the report with the Police.Shiv Prasad (P.W-5), the village Kotwar also corroborated this fact that he had gone to Police station with the Prosecutrix and she had lodged the report with the Police.Prosecutrix (P.W-3) was cross-examined in extenso.However, despite cross-examination, nothing has been elicited in her evidence so as to discredit her version that when she was coming back after answering the call of nature, appellant caught hold of her, gagged her mouth and fell her on the ground and committed sexual intercourse with her.Her evidence unequivocally reveals that appellant had intimidated her, therefore, she did not disclose the incident to her parents out of fear and bashfulness.Although it has come in her evidence that it was the time of immersion of 'Durgaji' and there were lights around the place of occurrence and there was human traffic, but she categorically stated in para 9 of her deposition that she did not narrate the incident to anyone on the spot, as nobody was present there at that time.Though it was a time of 'Naudurga', but sexual offences are committed by the offenders besieging an opportunity when the victim is found or seen lonely.Therefore, there are no reasons to doubt that when the prosecutrix was returning back alone in the evening, appellant caught hold of her, took her under the tree, fell her on the ground and committed sexual intercourse.The manner in which the appellant committed sexual intercourse with the 4 prosecutrix, as narrated by her, per se indicates that she was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse.The mere fact that prosecutrix (P.W-3) did not disclose the incident for a pretty long time to her mother, does not cast any doubt or suspicion over her testimony.Prosecutrix (P.W-3), who was a teenager, categorically deposed in her evidence that appellant had threatened and intimidated her and also had shown a knife alarming her not to disclose the incident to anybody.The aforesaid explanation given by the prosecutrix appears to be reasonable and satisfactory.It is not unnatural for a young girl to have been frightened and shocked by such an act and threats given by the appellant.The incident, as narrated by the prosecutrix (P.W-3), finds substantial corroboration from the FIR (Ex.P-3) lodged by her with the Police.Although prosecutrix (P.W-3) was confronted with the FIR (Ex.P-3) and her Police Statement (Ex.P-5) as to the omission of certain facts stated by her in her evidence, but the omissions are not vital and material and nothing substantial has been brought forth so as to disbelieve her version that appellant committed rape with her.More so, it has been clearly mentioned in the FIR (Ex.P-3) lodged by the victim girl (P.W-3) that she did not disclose the incident to her parents out of fear and bashfulness and when she developed pain in her abdomen, she narrated the whole incident to her mother a day prior to the lodging of the FIR.The fact that the prosecutrix was working with the Sarpanch of the village or her mother had gone to Sarpanch and informed him of the incident before lodging of the report, cannot be a ground to reject or suspect the testimony of the prosecutrix (P.W-3).It is not uncommon with the rustic villagers first to inform such incidents to the village Sarpanch before going to the Police.The suggestion made in her cross-examination that one Baijnath, the brother of appellant had contested the election against the village Sarpanch and there was party rivalry, is far fetched suggestion for false implication of the appellant and does not appeal to reason.Had it been a case of false implication at the instance of Sarpanch due to party rivalry, the report would have been lodged against the brother of the appellant, who contested the election and not against the appellant.Thus the plea of her being consenting party to the incident, does not appeal to reason, nor any such suggestions or facts are brought forth in her evidence so as to infer that the prosecutrix was a consenting party.
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
44,277,742 |
The Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Madurai.The Inspector of Police, C-2, Subramaniyapuram Police Station, Palanganatham, Madurai City.This petition has been filed, seeking to quash the order dated16.06.2015 passed by the Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Madurai, in and by which,the Magistrate has refused to remand the 1st respondent / A1 and further lethim go scotfree on the same day itself.In consequence of the same, the 4th respondent arrested the 1staccused Karuppiah and produced him before the Judicial Magistrate No.IV,Madurai.The Magistrate, vide Order dated 16.06.2015, impugned herein,instead of remanding him into custody, allowed to go free on the same day,but observing that the mising document as per the version of the accused wasonly the sale deed under dispute, not the Power Deed.P.C.. Aggrieved by the said action, thepetitioner is before this Court, seeking the above relief.3. Heard the counsel on either side and perused the material documentsavailable on record.It is seen from the First Information Report that the petitioner,who is in the real estate business, bought the house plot No.4 comprised inR.S.No.403/5 and R.S.No.403/6, Madakkulam Village, Palanganatham, Madurai Corporation Limit, from the 1st accused for a total sale consideration ofRs.20,00,000/- along with Power of Attorney and Sale Certificate.Pursuant tothe same, it is clear that the petitioner is empowerd to alienate the same,but, however, the 1st accused has subsequently cancelled the Power unilaterally and then executed a Gift Deed in respect of the same property infavour of the 2nd and 3rd accused on 30.07.2014 with an intention to createencumbrance on the property.It is seen that when the petition for anticipatory bail filedby the 1st accused in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.441 of 2015 came up for hearing, thisCourt, on 30.01.2015, observed thus:"9.However, on causal comparison of the alleged signature of thepetitioner in the receipt dated 11.04.2012 with the signature in otheradmitted documents, like Power of Attorney dated 11.04.2012 and the gift deeddated 30.07.2014, this Court does not find any great differences."This Court further went on to add that only to cover up this aspect,the petitioner / 1st accused has given a false complaint before the AnnaNagar Police Station that original documents were lost and thereby declinedto grant anticipatory bail to the 1st accused.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and theimpugned order dated 16.06.2015 is set aside.The Judicial Magistrate No.IV,Madurai is directed to act on the issue in the manner known to law, bearingin mind the mandates of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure asexpeditiously as possible.
|
['Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
44,318,146 |
th (Passed on this day of May, 2016) THIS petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code (in brief "Code") has been preferred for quashing the FIR registered at Crime No. 24/2011, under Sections 420,465,466,471 and 474 of the IPC at Police Station Madhav Nagar, Ujjain.[2] Brief facts giving rise to this petition are that respondent No.9/complainant has lodged a written complaint against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner Dr. Sunanda Bharadwaj (Yadav) is posted as lecturer in Vikram University Ujjain got prepared forged caste certificate of backward class and file the same in various departments.Matter was enquired by SDM, Ujjain, during investigation it was found that the aforesaid caste certificate has not been issued by the Govt. or any other Department.Hence, he prayed for taking the action against petitioner.On the basis of this complaint Crime No. 24/2011 has been registered under Sections 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 472, 473, 474, 475, 488 and 120-B of the IPC at Police Station Madhav Nagar, Ujjain against petitioner.Being aggrieved with this the petitioner has preferred this petition.[3] Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not taken any benefit of the reservation provided for backward classes on the basis of the caste certificate.A State Level Caste Scruitiny Committee has enquired into the matter and found that petitioner has not utilised the caste certificate.She has applied for unreserved category.It is further stated that only State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee has power to declare the social status and verify the validity of the certificate.Police has no jurisdiction to investigate the matter.Respondent Nos. 6 to 8 with the connivance of respondent No.9 has malafidely registered the complaint against petitioner.[Reliance has been placed in the matter of Sharda Nimje Vs.As per the report submitted by the SDM to Collector vide letter No. 783/steno/2010 Ujjain dated 23/02/2010, it has been reported that the aforesaid certificate has not been issued from the office of additional Tehsildar.The report of the Tehsildar has also been filed wherein it has been mentioned that the certificate has not been issued from his office.From the copy of the report submitted by High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee it appears that the finding has been recorded as under:-"fu"d"kZ %& MkW- lquUnk Hkkj}kt dysDVj mTtSu }kjk lfefr ds le{k izLrqr dFku o nLrkostksa ls Li"V gksrk gS fd MkW- lquUnk Hkkj}kt }kjk =qfVo'k vius ifr ds vk/kkj ij ;kno fiNM+k oxZ dk izek.ki= izkIr fd;k FkkA bl izek.ki= dk mi;ksx muds }kjk dgha Hkh ugha fd;k x;k gSA""[5] From the aforesaid, it is crystal clear that petitioner has procured the backward caste certificate.As noticed above, certificate of backward class has not been issued by Additional Tehsildar.[7] From perusal of Annexure A/15 it appears that vide order dated 30/10/2015 charges under Section 420,465,466,467. 469,471, 474 ,201 of the IPC has been framed against the petitioner.[8] In R. Kalyani Vs.After due investigation chargesheet has been filed and charges has also been framed.
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
44,356 |
It was also alleged that 6 tonnes of paper could have been utilised in preparation of question papers and the answer books.The main allegation was that the respondent No. 1 in conspiracy with respondents 2 and 3 gave out that all the question papers leaked and further gave out that they had to be re-printed and finally showed that the remaining quantity of 9 tonnes of paper was used in re-printing question papers and answer books.The value of the paper was assessed at Rs. 45,000/-.ORDER M.W. Deo, J.This Criminal Revision is directed against the order dated 8-5-1986 passed by the Special Judge, Indore in Criminal Case No. 2 of 1985 by which the respondent No. 1 was discharged of offences under Section 409 of Indian Penal Code, Section 5(l)(c), 5(l)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120B, Indian Penal Code.By the said order respondents 2 and 3 were also discharged of the offences under Section 496, Indian Penal Code, Section 5(l)(c), Section 5(l)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120B, Indian Penal Code.The facts are stated lucidly in full detail in the impugned order of discharge.The material facts out of them may be stated thus.In the year 1980-81 the annual examination of April 1981 was to be conducted of the premiddle standard by Director of Public Education, Bhopal according to rules.The respondent No. 1, under the rules, was incharge of the examinations of Indore Division in the capacity of the Divisional Education Superintendent.For the aforesaid examination, looking to the number of examinees, it was assessed that 15 tonnes of paper would be required and accordingly allotment of that quantity was made to accused/respondent No. 1 from Amlai Paper Mills at Government rates.The question papers and the answer books were to be got printed from accused/respondents 2 and 3 under an order given by respondent No. 1 to them.The learned Special Judge considered the facts that a letter dated 1-3-1981 was written by Shri Sohanlal Gupta, the secretary of the Examinations saying that the paper had leaked, that the second paper was moderated, that the second paper was sent for re-printing and was re-printed by respondents 2 and 3 as per terms of the contract and that there arc reports dated 14-4-1981 of Chartered Accountant Bhatia and of 15-1-1981 of Chartered Accountant Mahajan and Maheshwari and Company stating that the accounts actually showed that the papers were re-printed a second time.The learned counsel appearing for the State firstly contended that it did not belong to the special court to consider this entire material by application of judicial mind like evaluating evidence as at the stage of trial because this was merely a stage of consideration of charge under Sections 239 and 240, Criminal Procedure Code.
|
['Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
44,427,921 |
Narsinghpur (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 186, 294, 353, 332, 333, 427, 325, 341,323 and 506 of the IPC & 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of ST/SC (Prevention of Atrocities)In total this is second appeal filed by the appellant and earlier appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed as withdrawn with vide order dated 10/4/2019 passed in Cr.As per prosecution case, on 05/12/2018 at about 10:37 pm on the information that some persons were assaulting dumper driver of a truck in front of Sardar Lodhi's farmhouse, Constable/complainant Chetan Singh, Virendra and Narayan reached on the spot, where he saw that 8-10 persons were assaulting dumper driver, when they tried to rescue dumper driver, appellant and co-accused Indrajeet Singh Thakur assaulted complainant Chetan Singh, Virendra and Narayan by sticks, due to which they sustained injury.In the incident, appellant and co-accused persons also caused damage Digitally signed by MONIKA CHOURASIA Date: 21/05/2019 10:15:21 2 CRA-4205-2019 to the vehicle (dial 100).Case diary perused and arguments heard.This first criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (1) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 against the order dated 8/5/2019 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Narsinghpur in B.A.No.36/2019; whereby learned Special Judge rejected the bail application filed by appellant Sardar Singh Thakur, under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. to get bail in Crime No.406/2018 registered at Police Station Tendukheda, Distt.On that, Police registered Crime No.406/2018 at P.S. Tendukheda, Distt.Narsinghpur (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 186, 294, 353, 332, 333, 427, 325, 341,323 and 506 of the IPC & 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of ST/SC (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and invested the matter.On that, appellant filed an application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail before the trial Court, which was rejected.Being aggrieved by the impugned order, appellant filed this Criminal Appeal.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this matter.Co-accused Indrajeet Singh Thakur has been granted bail vide order date 10/4/2019 passed in Cr.Police has falsely implicated the applicant in the crime.Charge sheet has been filed and conclusion of trial will take time, hence it is prayed that the appellant be released on bail.On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the prayer and submitted that the appellant assaulted Police personnels and in the incident Constable Chetan Singh sustained grievous injuries, so he should not be released on bail.It is directed that appellant Sardar Singh Thakur be released on bail upon his furnishing 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 Trial Court.This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following Digitally signed by MONIKA CHOURASIA Date: 21/05/2019 10:15:21 3 CRA-4205-2019 conditions by the appellant :-The appellant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;The appellant will cooperate in the trial;The appellant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused;The appellant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; andThe appellant will not leave India without previsous permission of the trial Court.Accordingly, appeal is disposed of.C.C. as per rules.(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) JUDGE m/-Digitally signed by MONIKA CHOURASIA Date: 21/05/2019 10:15:21
|
['Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
46,195,439 |
The petitions are contested by the respondents.CRL.REV.P.182/2012 & connected matter.Page 1 of 13on the basis of report on the warrants procured by the Investigating Agency.The proclamation required the petitioners to appear on 14.07.2011 at 10.00 a.m.Present petitions have been preferred by the petitioners under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to challenge the legality and correctness of an order dated 26.03.2012 of learned Special Judge, CBI by which charges under CRL.REV.P.182/2012 & connected matter.Page 1 of 13 Section 120B read with Section 174A IPC and Section 174A IPC were framed against them.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file.It is not in dispute that the petitioners along with others are facing trial in a case registered vide FIR bearing RC No.DAI/2010/A/044 registered under Sections 120B/420 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act.Admittedly, FIR was lodged on 29.11.2010 on the basis of 'source information'.The petitioners were arrayed as accused No.7 and 8 respectively.By an order dated 23.05.2011, learned Special Judge took cognizance of the aforesaid offences.On 14.07.2011, the petitioners did not appear personally due to pendency of anticipatory bail before this Court.It is averred that on 21.07.2011 the learned Special Judge without cogent reasons rejected the 'undertaking' furnished by the petitioners despite pendency of anticipatory bail petition.After recording statement of the process server regarding execution of the process under CRL.REV.P.182/2012 & connected matter.Page 2 of 13 Section 82 Cr.P.C., the Trial Court issued order of attachment of immovable properties.CRL.REV.P.182/2012 & connected matter.Page 2 of 13The petitioners approached this Court for quashing of the process issued under Section 82 Cr.P.C. vide Crl.M.C.2136/2011 and also moved bail applications No. 885/2011 and 882/2011 respectively for anticipatory bail.Undisputedly, the petitioners surrendered on 16.08.2011 before the learned Special Judge and were sent to judicial custody.On 18.08.2011, the petitioners were remanded to police custody for five days.Subsequently, they were lodged to judicial custody.On 08.11.2011, CBI filed supplementary charge-sheet under Section 174A read with Section 120B IPC in the main case i.e. CC No.22/11 and the impugned charge was framed therein.Learned counsel for the petitioners urged that the CBI Court had no jurisdiction to issue process under Sections 82/83 Cr.P.C. as they had put appearance before the Trial Court through counsel and had furnished the required 'undertaking'.Page 3 of 13 pending consideration before this Court; they could not have been deprived of their fundamental right to seek legal remedies.There was no intentional default on behalf of the petitioners to put appearance before the Trial Court and it was due to sufficient and valid reasons.CRL.REV.P.182/2012 & connected matter.Page 3 of 13Applications moved before the Trial Court for seeking personal exemption through counsel were declined.Reliance has been placed on the authorities 'State of Gujarat & Ors vs. Dilipbhai Nathjibhai Patel & Anr.', AIR 1998 SC 1429; 'M/s.CRL.REV.P.182/2012 & connected matter.Page 4 of 13Learned Standing Counsel controverting the contentions urged that the petitioners had deliberately avoided to appear before the Investigating Agency and were rightly declared Proclaimed Offender by following due process.Since the petitioners were declared Proclaimed Offender, prima facie, they are liable to be convicted for committing offence under Section 174A IPC.Finally, the Investigating Agency was forced to move the CBI Court to get Non-Bailable Warrants against them to procure their presence.Even issuance of Non-Bailable Warrants had no impact upon the petitioners and they avoided their appearance in person.Instead of putting personal appearance, their counsel put appearance and prayed for five or six working days to put appearance after the disposal of their anticipatory bail applications.The undertakings furnished on 15.07.2011 by the petitioners show that they were very much available but opted not to appear before the Court.Furnishing the undertakings to appear after five or six days of the disposal of the anticipatory bail applications was not due compliance of the directions to appear personally before the Court.It is relevant to note that even after dismissal of their anticipatory bail applications, the petitioners CRL.REV.P.182/2012 & connected matter.Page 5 of 13 avoided to appear.CRL.REV.P.182/2012 & connected matter.Page 5 of 13It is a matter of record that the petitioners had filed Crl.M.C.2136/2011 to quash the process issued under Section 82 Cr.P.C. By a detailed order dated 02.08.2011 the said petition was dismissed.This Court observed that the Trial Court was within its jurisdiction to proclaim them as absconders under Section 82 Cr.P.C. after their non-appearance pursuant to the issuance of Non-Bailable Warrants.The petitioners cannot be permitted to re-agitate all these issues.These orders were challenged by the petitioners by filing SLP (Crl.) Nos.5991/2011 and 5989/2011 (Annexure 'P-9') respectively.Arguments regarding due procedure before declaring the petitioners 'proclaimed offenders' and whether the petitioners were prevented by compelling circumstances and CRL.REV.P.182/2012 & connected matter.Page 12 of 13 there was no intentional default in non-appearance are all subject matter of trial.CRL.REV.P.182/2012 & connected matter.Page 13 of 13CRL.REV.P.182/2012 & connected matter.Page 13 of 13
|
['Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
46,203,927 |
http://www.judis.nic.in 2/39 W.P.(MD) No.7331 of 2020(iii) Accordingly, a College called 'Pasumpon Muthuramalinga Thevar College' / the fourth respondent herein, was founded by the said Society at Usilampatti, under the auspices of “Kallar Kalvi Kazhagam”.From its inception, the said College had been in the forefront to cater the needs of College Level Education, by offering various courses to the needy and poor people in the locality and region.(iv) The “Kallar Kalvi Kazhagam”, in its bye-laws or Memorandum of Association and Rules and Regulations, inter alia provides for the Constitution of Managing Committee, under Clause 23 which reads thus:-Constitution of Managing Committee:The immediate control and Management of the Association and its institutions shall vest in a Managing Committee consisting of sixteen members duly elected by the members of the Association once in three years.The Committee shall constitute one President, one Secretary, one Treasurer and thirteen members.”Here in the case in hand, the Educational Agency is nothing but “Kallar Kalvi Kazhagam” which is a juridic body, as it is a Society registered under the Society Registration Act. If that is the Educational Agency, since it is a large body consisting of several members, in order to take up the day to day affairs of the Management of the Educational Agency (i.e.) Society, the bye-law provides under Clause 23 as referred to above, the Constitution of a Managing Committee.The Managing Committee, consisting of 16 persons, duly elected by the members of the Association once in three years; they are one President, one Secretary, one Treasurer and 13 members.If we look at the issue from this angle, especially, in the context of the provisions of the Act and the Rules, as well as the bye-laws referred to above, certainly there must be a Managing Committee of the Educational Agency, that is the Society and thereafter, there should have been a Committee, which is nothing but a College Committee, that should have been constituted by the said Educational Agency through the Managing Committee, where the members as contemplated under Rule 8 should form part of the Committee, where, if at all the fifth respondent is nominated as Secretary of the College Committee, within the meaning of Rule 8 and Rule 9, certainly, such nomination can be construed as a nomination made under the provisions of the Rule.Under Rule 9, it is specified that, the Educational Agency shall nominate one of its representatives as Secretary of the Committee.http://www.judis.nic.in 23/39 W.P.(MD) No.7331 of 2020Be that as it may, now let us see the veracity of the charges framed against the fifth respondent and others before the concerned criminal Court.The charge sheet inter alia provides for various serious allegations against the fifth respondent and others, for example, one or two charges are extracted hereunder:“During the course of the same transaction and in pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy, the Accused 2, by using his right of appointment as Selection Committee Member, by illegal way, after demanded and accepted the illegal gratification of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs) for himself and Accused 1, 3, 4 and 5, on 16.11.2016 at City Union Bank, Usilampatti Branch, appointed Tr.S.P.Gowtham, S/o.Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.http://www.judis.nic.in 37/39 W.P.(MD) No.7331 of 2020 To:1) The Secretary to Government, Department of Collegiate Education, St.George Fort, Chennai 600 0092) The Director of Collegiate Education, EVK Sampath Maligai, College Road, Chennai 600 0063) The Joint Director of Collegiate Education, EVK Sampath Maligai, College Road, Chennai 600 006http://www.judis.nic.in 38/39 W.P.(MD) No.7331 of 2020 R.SURESH KUMAR, J.sts Order made in W.P.(MD)No.7331 of 2020 Dated:(ii) One of the main object of the Society is to start and manage Educational Institutions at all levels, including Arts and Science College at Usilampatti and other places in Tamil Nadu.(v) The term of office of such Managing Committee under Clause 24 of the bye-laws is for three years.For the period between 2015 and 2018, a new Managing Committee was elected and they had been in the helm of affairs for the administration of “Kallar Kalvi Kazhagam” as well as the fourth respondent College.http://www.judis.nic.in 3/39 W.P.(MD) No.7331 of 2020(vi) The fourth respondent College is an approved College and it comes under the control of the Director of Collegiate Education (i.e.) the second respondent, as well as the Joint Director of Collegiate Education (i.e.) the third respondent.While so, the fifth respondent, who had been elected as a Secretary of the Managing Committee for the period from 2015 and 2018 had been in the helm of affairs as a Secretary of the College Committee also.During the said three years period of the erstwhile Committee, where the fifth respondent was the Secretary, there had been wild allegations against some of the Committee members, mainly against the fifth respondent and the College Principal that there had been large scale of misappropriation of funds or misuse of their position in making appointments of non-teaching staff sanctioned for the fourth respondent College.While disposing the said two Public Interest Litigation petitions, a Division Bench of this Court by its order dated 20.12.2017, issued a direction to the following extent:-Be that as it may, in view of the fact that the W.P.(MD)Nos.13026 of 2017 and W.P.(MD)No.13461 of 2017 filed by the respective Petitioners are held to be maintainable by this Court and also this Court, taking note of the fact that a case in Crime No.2 of 2017 was registered against the concerned, under various sections of Indian Penal Code and relevant provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; that the investigation in a criminal case is pending and also the Fourth Respondent/College is an aided one; that the Second Respondent/Director of Collegiate Education in W.P.(MD)No.13026 of 2017, although granted permission to fill up vacant sanctioned posts to the College subject to the conditions enumerated therein; that the College is the authority dealing with the selection process of the teaching staff of the College;that the Second Respondent/Director of Collegiate Education, Chennai or the Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Madurai is the competent authority to accord appointment approval to the teaching staff by taking into account the factors like sanctioned strength, Rule of Reservation, Educational Qualifications and other selection criteria and besides the above, the College is to adhere to the relevant ingredients of Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976 and Rules framed thereunder while selecting thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 5/39 W.P.(MD) No.7331 of 2020 candidates for the teaching posts, in furtherance of substantial cause of justice and to secure the ends of justice, directs the Second Respondent/Director of Collegiate Education, Chennai in W.P.(MD)No.13026 of 2017 (The Third Respondent in W.P.(MD)No.13461 of 2017) and the Fourth Respondent/Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Madurai in W.P.(MD)No.13461 of 2017, to look into the issue of impugned advertisement relating to the appointments of Assistant Professor and Principal published in the vernacular daily, dated 06.07.2017 and to pass appropriate orders by issuing necessary directions to the concerned Respondents, and if there is substance to conduct an enquiry, to proceed further strictly in accordance with Law and under the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976 and the Rules framed there under, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.While passing necessary orders, the Second Respondent/Director of Collegiate Education, Chennai in W.P.(MD)No.13026 of 2017 (The Third Respondent in W.P.(MD)No.13461 of 2017) and the Fourth Respondent/Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Madurai in W.P.(MD)No.13461 of 2017, shall take into account of the pending criminal case registered in Crime No.2 of 2017 under various sections of Indian Penal Code and relevant sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the concerned, because of the simple reason that the Posumpon Muthuramalinga Thevar College (Fourth Respondent in W.P. (MD)No.13461 of 2017) is an 100% aided College.If for any reason, the Second Respondent/Director of Collegiate Education, Chennai in W.P.(MD)No.13026 of 2017 (The Third Respondent in W.P.(MD)No.13461 of 2017) and the Fourth Respondent/Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Madurai in W.P.(MD)No.13461 of 2017, comes to the conclusion that if any enquiry needs to be conducted in respect of the affairs of the Sixth Respondent/Society, pertaining to the Fourth Respondent/College in W.P.(MD)No.13461 of 2017, concerning the alleged mismanagement, misappropriation as well as the activities of the Board (dehors the report sent by the District Registrar through letter No.3045/A2/2017, dated 22.09.2017), inhttp://www.judis.nic.in 6/39 W.P.(MD) No.7331 of 2020 this regard, necessary directions/orders shall be passed, within the time adumbrated by this Court.With the aforesaid Direction(s) and Observation(s), these Writ Petitions stand disposed of.No costs.Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.”(x) However, it seems that, pursuant to the directions issued by the Division Bench, as stated above, no enquiry had been conducted or no proof or documents whatsoever, has been filed by the official respondents, especially the respondents 1 and 2, as to whether such an enquiry was conducted or whether they have decided that such enquiry was not necessitated.Pursuant to the said charge sheet laid before the concerned Court, it is submittedhttp://www.judis.nic.in 7/39 W.P.(MD) No.7331 of 2020 by the learned counsel appearing for the parties that trial already has commenced and it is on.(xii) When that being the position, the three-year term, as per the bye-laws, of the erstwhile Managing Committee of the “Kallar Kalvi Kazhagam”, came to an end in 2018 and thereafter, for the next term of three years, in order to elect the new Managing Committee, when steps were taken, there had been litigations filed before this Court and ultimately, this Court had appointed a former Judge of this Court as an Administrator to conduct elections and subsequently, when he was discharged, by order, dated 13.09.2019, yet another former Judge of this Court was appointed as Administrator vide order, dated 18.10.2019 and he was directed to conduct the elections to elect the Managing Committee of the “Kallar Kalvi Kazhagam” (i.e.) Society.Accordingly, a notification for election to elect the President, Secretary, Treasurer and 13 Executive Committee members of the Society was issued and the Administrator fixed 01.03.2020 as the date for conducting elections.Accordingly, election was conducted, where the Managing Committee consisting of the aforesaid office bearers were elected.(xiii) The fifth respondent, who contested in the election for the post of Secretary, also won the elections and accordingly, the Administrator has declared his election as Secretary and a certificate to that effect was also issued, so that, he can be the Secretary for the next three years in the Managing Committee of the Society.http://www.judis.nic.in 8/39 W.P.(MD) No.7331 of 2020(xiv) By virtue of the said election having been conducted, where the fifth respondent was elected as the Secretary of the “Kallar Kalvi Kazhagam”, he, in turn, sought to be nominated or elected as the Secretary of the College Committee.The content of the said order dated 17.06.2020 reads thus:“jdpahh; fy;Yhhpfs; xG';fhw;W tpjpfs; 1976?d; 9?k; tpjpapd; fPH; cs;s Jiz tpjpfs; 2?d; fPH;/ crpyk;gl;o.gRk;bghd; Kj;Juhkyp';fj; njth; fy;Y}hp brayuhf jpU/gp/ghz;oad; vd;ghh; 03/03/2020 Kjy; 02/03/2021 tiu Xuhz;L fhyk; bray;gl kJiu kz;ly fy;Yhhpf; fy;tp ,iz ,af;Fehpd; ghpe;Jiuapd; mog;gilapy; mDkjp mspj;J Miz tH';fyhfpwJ/ xg;gk;-?fy;Yhhpf; fy;tp ,af;Feh; (K/T/bgh)”http://www.judis.nic.in 9/39 W.P.(MD) No.7331 of 2020Challenging the said order of the second respondent, dated 17.06.2020 this writ petition has been filed with the aforesaid prayer by the petitioner.Accordingly, there shall be an order of interim stay.Notice to the respondents 4 and 5, returnable in four weeks.Pursuant to the said interim order passed by this Court dated 06.07.2020, felt aggrieved over the same, the fifth respondent has filed W.M.P.(MD) No.7369 of 2020 seeking to vacate the said interim order.That is how, this writ petition as well as the writ miscellaneous petition for vacating the interim order have come up before this Court for consideration.Today, the learned senior counsel appearing for both the writ petitioner and the fifth respondent since made their respective submissions on the main writ petition itself, it was heard finally and is decided through this order.Provides that it shall be open to the educational agency to nominate the Principal as Secretary of the Committee.(2) The term of office of the Secretary shall, ordinarily, be three years.However, he/ she shall be eligible for re-nomination for subsequent terms.If the educational agency intends to change the Secretary within the period of three years, it shall do so only with the prior approval of the Director.(3) The Secretary shall function for and on behalf of the committee and educational agency.(4) The Secretary shall act according to the resolutions passed at the meeting of the Committee.(5) The Secretary shall not interfere in the internal administration of the college such as admission, examination, promotion of student and other academic matters as also the administration of the special fee funds, which shall be made the exclusive responsibility of the Principal.(6) The Secretary shall be responsible for the maintenance of proper and accurate accounts and the administration of college funds except special fee funds.”On reading these aforesaid provisions, the following position emerges.Section 11 of the Act speaks about the College Committee.The term College Committee is defined at Section 2(2) which reads thus:“(2) 'college committee', in relation to a private college, means the college committee referred to in Section 11.”http://www.judis.nic.in 20/39 W.P.(MD) No.7331 of 2020 But at the same time, under the Rules, the word 'committee' has been defined in Rule 2(c) which reads thus:-“Committee means the College Committee.”During the course of the same transaction and in pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy, the Accused 2, by using his right of appointment as Selection Committee Member, by illegal way, after demanded and accepted the illegal gratification of Rs.2.30,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Thirty Thousand) for himself and accused 1, 3, 4 and 5 on 16.11.2016 at Canara Bank, Usilampatti Branch, in the form of Demand Draft in favour of Muthoot Finance, appointed Tr.During the course of the same transaction, during September 2016, the Accused-1 demanded Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs) from Tr.Chinnan, one of the Board of Directors of Kallar Kalvi Kalagam, for appointing his son Tr.Tamizh Kumaran and thereby the A-1 had committed offence punishable under Section 7 and 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.” The aforesaid extraction of the charge sheet are only few, among various charges like this, which have been made against the fifth respondent and others.When that order was challenged, that was upheld by a learned Judge of this Court against which intra Court appeal was filed.Isaac Mohanlal, learned senior counsel appearing for the fifth respondent has vehemently contended that, the said order of the Writ Court has been modified by the Division Bench and the Secretary was permitted to continue as the Secretary, therefore, the same cannot be taken as a precedent by this Court.But the fact remains that, the Division Bench in W.A.(MD) No.64 of 2018 dated 05.03.2018 in paragraph nos.5 & 7 has stated the following:-When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that on mere filing of FIR it cannot be presumed that the law is set in motion and only if the charge sheet in a criminal prosecution is filed, it can be deemed that the law is set in motion and therefore, prior to that merely on filing of FIR, no view can be taken to pass any penal orders on account of some alleged misconduct.With such modification in the order passed by the learned Single Judge, we dispose of the writ appeal.No costs.The connected miscellaneous petition is closed.”Therefore, he was permitted to continue as a Secretary, however with a rider that, he shall not deal with the matters of financial consequence.http://www.judis.nic.in 27/39 W.P.(MD) No.7331 of 2020However, insofar as the appointment of the Secretary within the meaning of Rule 9 read with Rule 8 of the Rules are concerned, this Court has given its exhaustive discussion in this regard where since there has been no proof to show thathttp://www.judis.nic.in 31/39 W.P.(MD) No.7331 of 2020 Rule 9 was invoked by the Educational Agency and the fifth respondent was duly appointed as a Secretary of the College Committee, representing the College Committee duly constituted under Section 11 of the Act and under Rule 8 of the Rules.Moreover, this Court have not taken any view to dislodge the Managing Committee under Bye-law 23 elected on behalf of the Educational Agency pursuant to the said elections.The entire Managing Committee, which includes the fifth respondent as a Secretary, on behalf of the Educational Agency, within the meaning of Bye-law 23, can very well function.The official respondents can approve such nomination as an interim arrangement / Adhoc Secretary.If the fifth respondent is not permitted to continue as Secretary, by keeping the impugned order in abeyance for some time, as indicated above, some alternative arrangement also have to be made.In this regard, this Court feels that, the Educational Agency may be requested by the second and third respondents to nominate any other representative of them, against whom, no such charge should have been made orhttp://www.judis.nic.in 35/39 W.P.(MD) No.7331 of 2020 pending before any forum and if such a representative is nominated or suggested by the Educational Agency, the second respondent can approve the functioning of such representative as an interim Secretary by way of stop gap arrangement.In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the discussions made above, this Court is inclined to pass the following order in this writ petition:-(i) the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in K:/K:/vz;/10649/$p2/2020, dated 17.06.2020, shall be kept in abeyance till the criminal case, in Crime No.1 of 2018 on the file of the Special Court for Trial of Prevention of Corruption cases, Madurai, is completed and judgment is delivered;(ii) Once the fifth respondent has come out with acquittal from the said criminal case, there could be no impediment for the official respondents to permit him to continue to hold the office of the Secretary of the fourth respondent College;(iii) Till such time, the second and third respondents shall seek the nominee of the Educational Agency to be nominated as a Secretary of the fourth respondent College for the time being and if such a nominee is sponsored by the Educational Agency, who can be permitted to act as a Secretary, as an interim arrangement, till, either the fifth respondent candidature is cleared, as set out above or till the term of the present Managing Committee holds the office;With these directions, the Writ Petition is ordered accordingly.However, there shall be no order as to costs.The interim order of stay granted in W.M.P.(MD) No.6780 of 2020 dated 06.07.2020 is made absolute to the extent indicated above.Consequently, W.M.P.(MD) No.7369 of 2020 to vacate the interim order stands dismissed.W.M.P.(MD) No.6778 of 2020 is closed.
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
462,166 |
Hence the appeal.The prosecution case may be stated as follows :- The first appellant who is residing with his family at No. 5, III Street, Wallace Garden is running a Convention Centre in the 8th Floor at Jawar Plaza, Nungampakkam High Road.The business which was a prosperous one previously has dwindled at the time of the occurrence.PW 1 Moses was employed as a Peon by the first appellant to attend in the office as well as his residence.P.W.1 Moses used to keep the Office open.On 1-6-1990 when he came to the house of the first appellant as usual at 8.10 a.m. the outer gate of the house was found closed.There was no response in spite of his knocking.Since, it was time for opening the Office.Moses scaled over the gate went inside and pressed the calling bell.The first appellant opened the front door.Moses found him bleeding all over the body.On enquiry by Moses as to what is the matter, the first appellant had advised him not to touch anything and go away and closed the door.At that time the first appellant was wearing only a towel in his waist and nothing else.Moses went to the house of Catering Manager Verma who was residing at Nandhanam in an auto rickshaw and learnt that he had already left the Office.When he returned to the house of the first appellant in the same Auto rickshaw, he found the Office Manager D. Costa viz., P.W. 2 standing near the gate.Moses conveyed the information given to him by the first appellant.P.W. 2 D. Costa who was employed under the first appellant on a salary of Rs. 1,600/- per month, has come to the house of the first appellant on 1-6-1990 at 9.30 a.m. and while he was waiting there, he found P.W. 1 coming there.On being informed by P.W. 1 that the first appellant answered the calling bell and at that time there was bleeding all over the body of the first appellant and the first appellant had advised him to go away, he advised P.W. 1 to inform the Police by phone.The Police and P.W. 1 went inside, by scaling over the gate and by break opening the front door.Moses had found the first appellant lying down with a jatti on his body with bleeding injuries all over his body.On enquiry as to why he had done like that.JUDGMENT Govardhan, J.Both the appellants herein stood charged under S. 302 read with S. 34 of Indian Penal Code of having committed murder of their daughters by name Pichu and Pushi aged 5 years each and son by name Tittu aged 3 year on the night of 1-6-1990 by administering poison to them with the intention of committing their murder.The first appellant was also charged under S. 309 of Indian Penal Code of having attempted to commit suicide by inflicting knife injuries all over his body.The second appellant was also charged under S. 309 of Indian Penal Code of having attempted to commit suicide by immolating herself after pouring kerosene over her body.The learned Sessions Judge found both the appellants guilty under the charges of S. 302 read with S. 34 of Indian Penal Code.(3 counts) and under S. 302 of Indian Penal Code, convicted them thereunder and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment under S. 302 read with S. 34 of Indian Penal Code.The learned Judge found them each guilty unders S. 309, I.P.C. convicted and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and directed them to undergo the aforesaid imprisonment to run concurrently.Moses accompanied the Police inside the house, while D. Costa (P.W. 2) stood outside the gate.Moses found the three children of appellants lying dead on the cot and the second appellant lying beneath the cot fully wrapped with a bed sheet and there were bloodstains on her.Moses has informed by the first appellant, that he could not bear the strain of debts, he is unable to pay the salary and rent and that the cheques issued by him have bounced and therefore they have decided to die wholesale.According to Moses, the first appellant had further informed him that the children were administered sleeping pills mixed with milk and the second appellant had poured oil and immolated herself and that with the intention of dying, he also cut himself on his hands and legs after getting heavily drunk.According to P.W. 2, after the Police opened the outer gate, he went inside and found the three children dead on the cot and the first appellant lying unconscious in the adjacent room.He has also stated that the appellants were removed to the hospital by Ambulance.P.W. 10 the Police Head Constable attached to the Control Room, has informed the message which he received at 9.45 a.m. on 1-6-1990 through phone, to the writer of the Thousand Lights Police Station.P.W. 13 the Inspector of Police attached to Thousand Lights Police Station on receipt of information from the Control Room at about 10.00 a.m. on 1-6-1990, visited the scene of occurrence at about 10.10 a.m. and went inside by break opening the door since it was found locked.P.W. 13 found three children lying dead on the bed in the first floor and the second appellant lying under the cot with burn injuries and the first appellant with cut injuries on his hands, neck, leg, etc. P.W. 13 has recorded the statement given by P.W. 1 under Ex. P. 1 and sent the two appellants to the hospital for treatment.After registering the case against the appellants at 11 a.m. in Crime No. 313 of 1990 P.W. 13 has prepared the express first information report under Ex. P. 27 and despatched the same to the officers.Thereafter, P.W. 13 seized the material objects viz. M.Os.1 to 28 in the room where the second appellant was found lying.In the presence of witnesses, P.W. 13 then conducted inquest on the three dead bodies and prepared the inquest report under Exs.He had also examined the witnesses who were present during inquest.6.On 1-6-1990, at about 10.30 a.m. when he was in the Emergency Ward, P.W. 4 Dr. Keba Paulraj examined the first appellant who was brought to the Hospital by Ambulance and found him in a conscious stage.According to P.W. 4, the first appellant wanted water to drink, but did not answer his questions.P.W. 4 would also say that the second appellant was also brought along with the first appellant and after examining both of them he had admitted them as in-patients.P.W. 4 would say that the second appellant was also conscious, but, did not answer his questions.P.W. 4 has found burn injuries as well as cut injuries on the second appellant.In the wound certificate issued by him under Ex. P. 4, he found the following injuries on the first appellant.Lacerated cuts base of neck x 2 both horizontal (a) 1" long (b) 3" long extending up to anterior border of left sterno clavicle mastoid.2. 2 Parallel cuts 1" x 3/4" over dorsal aspect of 1 Metacarpal right hand.3. 3 x parallel 1/2" cuts over dorsum right hand.4. 3 x parallel centre cut near ulnar 3/4" cuts over left wrist.5. 1" cut base of left thumb dorsal aspect.6. 1-1/4" cut below little finger left dorsum.Two shallow cuts over dorsum left foot.So also, in the wound certificate issued by him under Ex. P. 5, he has noted the following injuries found on the second appellant.Burns to face, chest, both upper limbs, front of both thighs and left scapular area @45%.- @ 1-1/2% shallow horizontal cut right side of neck.- 4 parallel cuts @ 1/2" each over dorsum of left hand.- 2 parallel cuts over dorsal aspect of I Left (Proximal) metacarpal.- 2 parallel cuts over dorsal aspect right metacarpal I @ 1" long.- 1 cut dorsum right hand over II Metacarpal.- 1 cut 1/2" dorsum right hand over IV Metacarpal.- 3/4" long shallow cut below left medial maleolus.P.W. 5 who gave treatment to the first appellant from 1-6-1990 to 24-6-1990 has issued a certificate under Ex. P. 6 for the injuries found on the first appellant and according to him all the injuries were simple in nature.P.W. 6 who gave treatment to the second appellant from 1-6-1990 to 16-8-1990 has given a certificate under Ex. P. 7 and according to him, the injuries found on the second appellant are grievous in nature.In pursuance of the requisitions given by the Inspector, P.W. 1 XX Metropolitan Magistrate Egmore, visited the Appollo Hospital at 6.15 p.m. and met the appellants along with Dr. Raman.She (P.W. 11) met the second appellant first.P.W. 13 has given a requisition under Ex. P. 17 to the Professor of Forensic Medicine, Madras Medical College, Madras to conduct the post-mortem on the dead body of the three children.In pursuance of the said requisition under Ex. P. 17, P.W. 12 conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of the three children at 1.30 p.m. 2.30 p.m. and 3.30 p.m. respectively.The following injuries were found on the body of Pitchu.Abrasions 0.5 x 0.5 cms.on inner aspect of left knee.A circular well defined complete ligature mark 0.75 cms.in width seen on front of neck at the level of thyroid cartilage 4 cms.below the right mastoid process and 4 cms.below the left mastoid process and on the back of neck it completely encircles the neck and is 2 cms.above the 7th cervical spine.On dissection the underlying tissues are normal and there is no injury to the Hyoid Bone or thyroid cartilage.Signs of decomposition; Greenish discolouration seen on the skin on front of abdomen.Heart : All chambers contained clotted blood.Lungs : Markedly congested and oedematous, stomach contained 10 c.c. of brown fluid.Bladder Empty.Uterus empty.All other internal organs were found congested.Ex. P. 18 is the post-mortem report of Pitchu.Ex. P. 19 is the report of the Chemical Examiner.According to P.W. 12 the deceased Pitchu would appear to have died of diazepam poisoning.Ex. P. 20 is her final report.The following injuries were found on the body of Pushi by P.W. 12 :-Abrasion 4 x 3 cms.on outer aspect of upper part of right leg.A well defined circular complete ligature mark 0.5 cms.in width seen below the level of thyroid cartilage and it is 8 cms.below the right mastoid and 6 cms.below the left mastoid and on the back of neck there are 2 horizontal ligature mark 2 cms.apart from each other, the lower ligature mark is 1.5 cms., above the 7th cervical spine.On dissection the tissues underneath the ligature mark were found normal and there is injury to the Hyoid bone and thyroid cartilage.Signs of decomposition; Greenish discolouration seen on front of abdomen.Heart : All chambers contained clotted blood.Lungs : Markedly congested and oedematous.Stomach : Contained 20 cc of fluid with pieces of mango and egg.All other internal organs were found congested.Ex. P. 21 is the post-mortem report.According to P.W. 12, the child Pushi would also appear to have died of diazepam poisoning.The following injuries were found on the body of Tittu by P.W. 12 :-A well defined complete circular ligature mark 0.5 cms.in width seen on front of neck below the level of thyroid cartilage 6 cms.below the right mastoid 5.5 cms.below the left mastoid and at the back of neck two incomplete ligature mark are seen at a distance of 3 cms.away from each other.The ligature marks on the back of neck end in the midline.The lower ligature mark is 2 cms.above the 7th Cervical spine.On dissection the tissues under-neath the ligature mark were found normal and there is no injury to the Hyoid Bone or the thyroid cartilage.Heart : All chambers contained clotted blood.Lungs : Congested and oedomatous.Stomach contained 50 cc of thick yellow fluid with particles like egg.Bladder : Empty.All other internal organs were found congested.Ex. P.24 is the post-mortem report.Ex. P.25 is the Chemical Examiner's report and Ex. P.26 is the final report.the child Tittu would appear to have died of diazepam poisoning.She has stated that the diazipa poison is in the sleeping pills.She has also stated that the three children would appear to have died 36 hours prior to post-mortem.Accordingly, P.W. 9 the Assistant Treasurer of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, he has sent the material objects handed over by P.W. 13 for examination by Chemical Analyst along with a covering letter of the Magistrate under Ex. P-9. Ex. P-10 to P-13 are the reports of the Analyst.The first appellant has stated before the learned Sessions Judge when questioned with regard to the circumstances appearing against him under S.313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that he returned home after attending a dinner with his friends and slept in the house and regained consciousness only two or three days latter.As regards the other circumstances, appearing against him, he has pleaded ignorance.When the second appellant was questioned by the learned Sessions Judge under S.313 of Code of Criminal Procedure with regard to the circumstances appearing against her, she has stated that at about 11 p.m., on that date, on seeing the conditions of the children, she became unconscious and does not know what happened and that she was unconscious for two or three days.The appellants have not examined any witness in support of their contention.The learned Sessions Judge on a consideration of the materials placed before him, has convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforesaid.The learned Senior Advocate Mr. N. T. Vanamamalai appearing for the appellants has argued that the prosecution has not made out any case against the appellants for Convicting them u/S. 30 and 209 of the Indian Penal Code and yet the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the appellants under the above sections relying upon the extra-judicial confession said to have been given by the first appellant to P.W. 1 and the same has to be set aside on several grounds.According to the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, the complaint under Ex. P-1 would not have been given by P.W. 1 in the time and manner alleged, that the prosecution has failed to explain the delay in first information report, that the prosecution has not established the motive for the occurrence and finally the conviction and sentence cannot be appreciated in view of the failure of the trial Court Judge to put the circumstances appearing against the appellants to the appellants to enable them to give an explanation during the questioning under S. 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure and when all these matters are considered, the appellants would have to be acquitted.A specific contention was urged that the first appellant could not have made an extra-judicial confession to P.W. 1 for the first information report preferred after the alleged extra-judicial confession was made on its mention of the same.The learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Sriramulu on the other hand would contend that none of the defects said to be present in the prosecution case are really defects in order to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants.He particularly urged, that Ex. P-1 would certainly reveal the extra-judicial confession aspect.Now, let us consider the rival contentions.The first and foremost contention of the counsel appearing for the appellants is that Ex. P-1 the complaint could not have been given by P.W. 1 in the time and manner alleged and the delay in giving the complaint would justify an inference that it has been prepared after the deliberation subsequent to the arrival of the Investigating Officer to the scene of occurrence.It can safely be held that the complaint given by P.W. 1 has been reduced to writing between 10.10 a.m. and 11.00 a.m. The First Information Report has been registered by P.W. 13 in Crime No. 313/90 at 11.00 a.m. Both the complaint under Ex. P-1 and the express first information report under Ex. P-27 have been received by the Magistrate at 2 p.m. on the same date.In the meanwhile, P.W. 13 had gone to the scene of occurrence, took up investigation and sent for the Ambulance and sent the appellants to Appollo Hospital for the treatment.Therefore, it cannot be stated that there was any time available for him for deliberation.The fact that the complaint as well as the express first information report have been received by the concerned Magistrate at 2 p.m. on the same date would show that the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that Ex. P-1 would not have been given by P.W. 1 in time and manner alleged is not a tenable one.According to the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, in Ex. P-1. Moses has stated that when he pressed the calling bell, the first appellant opened the door and on seeing him, the first appellant advised him not to save him and go away and whereas in his evidence.The statement of P.W. 1 in Court and his version in Ex. P-1 cannot be considered as a vital contradiction with regard to what has been stated by the first appellant to him.The fact remains that when the door was opened by the first appellant, he was found bleeding all over the body and he had advised to Moses to go away from the scene of occurrence.Therefore, the minor difference between his version in Ex. P-1 his evidence as P.W. 1 cannot be considered as a major contradiction to disbelieve the evidence of P.W. 1 since human memory cannot be so perfect after a lapse of such a long time.Therefore, the evidence of P.W. 1 cannot be disbelieved on this ground.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would also argue that in Ex. P-1, Moses has stated that he learnt that his boss and his wife have murdered the children by strangulating and by administering poison and that the post-mortem has been conducted on the body of the three children only the next day and it is not known as to how Moses has learnt that his boss has strangulated the children even when he gave a complaint under Ex. P-1 and that gives room for suspicion.It is to be noted that Moses had seen the children lying dead on the cot when he went inside the house along with the Investigating Officr.The Investigating Officer has noted the same and in the observation mahazar prepared by him.He has specifically stated that ligature mark is seen on the neck of the three children.This observation by the Inspector in the observation mahazar would reveal that the ligature mark on the neck of the three children were visible even for a naked eye.We cannot overlook the evidence of P.W. 1 had accompanied him, inside the house.about the statement of the first appellant to him with regard to any strained circumstances.Therefore, the failure of Moses to mention in, Ex. P-1 as to what regarding his financial strain and return of cheques cannot be a ground to disbelieves the evidence of P.W. 1, P.W. 13 has examined P.W. 7 the Proprietor of the portion which the first appellant has taken on lease to conduct his business in Jawar Plaza.P.W. 2 the Office Manager would say in his evidence that the business of the first appellant was a competitive one and it was moderate at the time of the occurrence.Appeal dismissed.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
46,219,614 |
Heard on I.A. No.4213/2014, which is an application under section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.The appellant has been convicted under section 394 of I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for 5 years with fine of Rs.500/-, with default stipulation.Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there is no direct and indirect evidence against the appellant regarding the alleged offence.He is in jail since long.He has no criminal past.The appeal would take considerable time for its final disposal, hence jail sentence of appellant be suspended and he be released on bail.Learned counsel for the State has opposed the application.Remaining jail sentence of appellant Bhuru @ Bhundara is hereby suspended and it is directed that subject to depositing the fine amount and furnishing the personal bond in a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court concerned, the appellant shall be released on bail with further direction to appear before the registry of this Court firstly on 27.10.2014, and also on such other dates as may be fixed by the registry in this regard during the pendency of this appeal.List the case for final hearing in due course.Certified copy as per rules.(Subhash Kakade) Judge psm Criminal Revision No.592/2014 17.04.2014 Shri J.A. Shah, Advocate for the applicants.Shri Yadvendra Dwivedi, P.L. for the State.Heard on admission.Call for the records of both the courts below.Also heard on I.A. No.6108/2014, an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the applicants.The applicants have been convicted under section 325/34 of I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for 1 year with fine of Rs.500/- each, with default stipulation.Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the applicants were on bail during trial and have never misused the liberty of bail.The revision would take considerable time for its final disposal, hence jail sentence of applicants be suspended and they be released on bail.Learned counsel for the State has opposed the application.On due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that if applicants furnish a solvent surety in the sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rs. Twenty Thousand only) each and execute a personal bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court concerned, the execution of the sentence of imprisonment passed against them shall remain suspended and they shall be released on bail.Applicants shall now appear before the Registry of this Court firstly on 27.10.2014 and also on such other dates as may be fixed by the registry in this regard during the pendency of this revision.List the case for final hearing in due course.Certified copy today.(Subhash Kakade) Judge psm Criminal Revision No.573/2014 17.04.2014 Shri Ashok Kumar Koshta, Advocate for the applicant.Shri Yadvendra Dwivedi, P.L. for the State.Heard on I.A. No.5900/2014, an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the applicant.The applicant has been convicted under section 379 of I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for 1 year with fine of Rs.2000/-, with default stipulation.Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant was on bail during trial and he has never misused the liberty of bail.The revision would take considerable time for its final disposal, hence jail sentence of applicant be suspended and he be released on bail.Learned counsel for the State has opposed the application.On due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that if applicant furnishes a solvent surety in the sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rs. Twenty Thousand only) and executes a personal bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court concerned, the execution of the sentence of imprisonment passed against him shall remain suspended and he shall be released on bail.Applicant shall now appear before the Registry of this Court firstly on 27.10.2014 and also on such other dates as may be fixed by the registry in this regard during the pendency of this revision.List the case for final hearing in due course.Certified copy as per rules.(Subhash Kakade) Judge psm M.Cr.C. No.3801/2014 17.04.2014 Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate for the applicants.Shri Umesh Pandey, Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Heard finally.The applicants have an apprehension of their arrest in connection with Crime No.59/2014, registered at Police Station Bargi, District Jabalpur for offence punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 469, 470 of Indian Penal Code.Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the applicants have not committed any offence and have been implicated falsely.Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposes the application.Consequently, their application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed.It is directed that in the event of arrest, present applicants shall be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) each with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Police Officer.The applicants Smt. Pratibha Parte and C.P. Soni shall make themselves available for interrogation by a Police Officer as and when required.They shall further abide by the other conditions enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of Cr.P.C.Certified copy as per rules.(Subhash Kakade) Judge psm Criminal Appeal No.1102/2014 17.04.2014 Shri Pushpendra Dubey, Advocate for the appellant.Shri R.K. Kesharwani, P.L. for the respondent/State.Call for the record.Also heard on I.A. No.7390/2014, which is an application under section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.The appellant has been convicted under section 327 of I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for 3 years with fine of Rs.10,000/-, with default stipulation.Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant was on bail during trial and has never misused the liberty.It is further submitted that the appellant has also been released on bail even after conviction though for a limited period.He has already deposited the fine amount.The appeal would take considerable time for its final disposal, hence jail sentence of appellant be suspended and he be released on bail.Learned counsel for the State has opposed the application.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the short term of sentence awarded to the appellant, I am of the considered view that it is a fit case for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail to the appellant, therefore, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I.A. No.7390/2014 is allowed.Remaining jail sentence of appellant is hereby suspended and it is directed that subject to depositing the fine amount and furnishing the personal bond in a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rs. Twenty Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court concerned, the appellant shall be released on bail with further direction to appear before the registry of this Court firstly on 27.10.2014, and also on such other dates as may be fixed by the registry in this regard during the pendency of this appeal.List the case for final hearing in due course.Certified copy as per rules.(Subhash Kakade) Judge psm Criminal Appeal No.1096/2014 17.04.2014 Ms. Versha Kothari, Advocate for the appellant.Shri R.K. Kesharwani, P.L. for the respondent/State.Call for the record.Also heard on I.A. No.7362/2014, which is an application under section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.The appellant has been convicted under section 325 of I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for 1 year with fine of Rs.10,000/- , with default stipulation.Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant was on bail during trial and has never misused the liberty.It is further submitted that the appellant has also been released on bail even after conviction though for a limited period.He has already deposited the fine amount.The appeal would take considerable time for its final disposal, hence jail sentence of appellant be suspended and he be released on bail.Learned counsel for the State has opposed the application.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the short term of sentence awarded to the appellant, I am of the considered view that it is a fit case for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail to the appellant, therefore, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I.A. No.7362/2014 is allowed.Remaining jail sentence of appellant is hereby suspended and it is directed that subject to depositing the fine amount and furnishing the personal bond in a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rs. Twenty Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court concerned, the appellant shall be released on bail with further direction to appear before the registry of this Court firstly on 27.10.2014, and also on such other dates as may be fixed by the registry in this regard during the pendency of this appeal.List the case for final hearing in due course.Certified copy as per rules.(Subhash Kakade) Judge psm Criminal Appeal No.1093/2014 17.04.2014 Shri Vijay Kumar Pandey, Advocate for the appellant.Shri R.K. Kesharwani, P.L. for the respondent/State.Call for the record.Also heard on I.A. No.7330/2014, which is an application under section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.The appellant has been convicted under sections 354 and 457 of I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for 2 years with fine of Rs.2000/- and R.I. for 2 years with fine of Rs.2000/-, with default stipulation.Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant was on bail during trial and has never misused the liberty.It is further submitted that the appellant has also been released on bail even after conviction though for a limited period.He has already deposited the fine amount.The appeal would take considerable time for its final disposal, hence jail sentence of appellant be suspended and he be released on bail.Learned counsel for the State has opposed the application.Remaining jail sentence of appellant is hereby suspended and it is directed that subject to depositing the fine amount and furnishing the personal bond in a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rs. Twenty Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court concerned, the appellant shall be released on bail with further direction to appear before the registry of this Court firstly on 27.10.2014, and also on such other dates as may be fixed by the registry in this regard during the pendency of this appeal.List the case for final hearing in due course.Certified copy as per rules.(Subhash Kakade) Judge psm Criminal Appeal No.1078/2014 17.04.2014 Ms. Gayatri Ladhiya, Advocate for the appellants.Shri R.K. Kesharwani, P.L. for the respondent/State.Call for the record.The appellants No.2 and 3 have been convicted under sections 326/34, 323/34 and 323/34 of I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for 5 years with fine of Rs.10,000/-, R.I. for 3 months with fine of Rs.1000/- and R.I. for 3 months with fine of Rs.1000/-, each respectively, with default stipulation.Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the appellants were on bail during trial and have never misused the liberty.Learned counsel further submitted that the appellants are the bread earner in their family.The appeal would take considerable time for its final disposal, hence jail sentence of appellants be suspended and they be released on bail.Learned counsel for the State has opposed the application.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that it is a fit case for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail to the appellant No.2 Arvindra Dubey and appellant no.3 Shivam Dubey, therefore, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I.A. No.7227/2014 is allowed.Remaining jail sentence of appellant No.2 Arvindra Dubey and appellant no.3 Shivam Dubey is hereby suspended and it is directed that subject to depositing the fine amount and furnishing the personal bond in a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rs. Twenty Thousand only) each with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court concerned, the appellants No.2 and 3 shall be released on bail with further direction to appear before the registry of this Court firstly on 27.10.2014, and also on such other dates as may be fixed by the registry in this regard during the pendency of this appeal.List the case for final hearing in due course.Certified copy as per rules.(Subhash Kakade) Judge psm Criminal Appeal No.1062/2014 17.04.2014 Shri G.P. Singh, Advocate for the appellant.Shri R.K. Kesharwani, P.L. for the respondent/State.Call for the record.Also heard on I.A. No.7091/2014, which is an application under section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.The appellant has been convicted under section 376 of I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for 7 years with fine of Rs.250/-, with default stipulation.Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant was on bail during trial and has never misused the liberty.Learned counsel further submitted that the appellant is only bread earner in the family.He has already deposited the fine amount.The appeal would take considerable time for its final disposal, hence jail sentence of appellant be suspended and he be released on bail.Learned counsel for the State has opposed the application.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that it is a fit case for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail to the appellant, therefore, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I.A. No.7091/2014 is allowed.Remaining jail sentence of appellant is hereby suspended and it is directed that subject to depositing the fine amount and furnishing the personal bond in a sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rs. Thirty Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court concerned, the appellant shall be released on bail with further direction to appear before the registry of this Court firstly on 27.10.2014, and also on such other dates as may be fixed by the registry in this regard during the pendency of this appeal.List the case for final hearing in due course.Certified copy as per rules.(Subhash Kakade) Judge psm Criminal Appeal No.942/2014 M.Cr.C. No.5232/2014 15.04.2014 Shri Abdhesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate for the applicant.Shri Yadvendra Dwivedi, P.L. for the respondent No.2/State.Heard on admission.Case diary is not available but there is sufficient material on record.Heard finally.The applicant has an apprehension of his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No.80/2014 by police of Police Station Sarai, District Singrouli for offence punishable under section 376 of Indian Penal Code.As per prosecution case, on 12.10.2013 the applicant has forcibly taken the complainant in his motorcycle and committed rape with her without her consent.Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has not committed any offence and has been implicated falsely due to enmity.It is submitted that initially a report was made for offence under section 354 of I.P.C. but during the complaint case No.80/2014 the prosecutrix stated that she was raped by the applicant, thereafter offence has been converted under section 376 of I.P.C.Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposes the application.Keeping in view the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I am of the view that this is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.Consequently, his application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed.It is directed that in the event of arrest, present applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Police Officer.The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a Police Officer as and when required.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.(Subhash Kakade) Judge psm M.Cr.C. No.5103/2014 15.04.2014 Shri Arubendra Singh Parihar, Advocate for the applicant.Shri Yadvendra Dwivedi, P.L. for the State.Heard on admission.Case diary is available.Heard finally.The applicant has an apprehension of his arrest in connection with Crime No.37/2013, registered at Police Station Badera, District Satna (M.P.) for offence punishable under sections 25(1)B of Arms Act and section 3/5 of Explosive Substance Act.As per prosecution case, on 20.03.2013 the police has recovered 94 pig killar bomb and 1/2 kg Potash in the house of applicant and other co-accused persons.Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the challan has been filed.It is further submitted that nothing has been seized from the possession of the applicant.Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposes the application.Keeping in view the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I am of the view that this is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.Consequently, his application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed.It is directed that in the event of arrest, present applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Police Officer.The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a Police Officer as and when required.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.(Subhash Kakade) Judge psm M.Cr.C. No.4132/2014 15.04.2014 Smt. Sangeeta Sharma, Advocate for the applicant.Shri Yadvendra Dwivedi, P.L. for the State.Heard on admission.Case diary is not available.Heard finally.The applicant has an apprehension of his arrest in connection with Crime No.240/2005, registered at Police Station Gourjhamar, District Sagar (M.P.) for offence punishable under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324 and 307 of Indian Penal Code.As per prosecution applicant along with 13 others have been tried in S.T. No.164/2006 before the Sessions Court, Sagar and as per judgment dated 22.12.2006 all of them have been acquitted but in the case of applicant it is alleged that for the aforesaid offences since beginning he is absconding, therefore, he is liable to be tried for the same incident.Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the complainant along with others has filed affidavit stating that complainant has no objection in releasing the applicant.It is also submitted that applicant was not present on the spot at the time of incident.Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposes the application.Keeping in view the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I am of the view that this is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.Consequently, his application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed.It is directed that in the event of arrest, present applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Police Officer.The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a Police Officer as and when required.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.(Subhash Kakade) Judge psm Criminal Appeal No.1026/2014 09.04.2014 Shri V.C. Rai, Advocate for the appellant.Shri Vijay Kumar Pandey, P.L. for the State.Call for the record.Also heard on I.A. No.6854/2014, which is an application under section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.The appellant has been convicted under sections 456 and 354 of I.P.C. and section 7 read with section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and sentenced to R.I. for 1 year with fine of Rs.1000/-, R.I. for 3 years and R.I. for 3 years with fine of Rs.1000/- respectively, with default stipulation.Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is in jail since the date of his arrest and has already served the jail sentence of more than 9 months.He has already deposited the fine amount.The appeal would take considerable time for its final disposal, hence jail sentence of appellant be suspended and he be released on bail.Learned counsel for the State has opposed the application.Remaining jail sentence of appellant is hereby suspended and it is directed that subject to depositing the fine amount and furnishing the personal bond in a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rs. Twenty Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court concerned, the appellant shall be released on bail with further direction to appear before the registry of this Court firstly on 08.10.2014, and also on such other dates as may be fixed by the registry in this regard during the pendency of this appeal.List the case for final hearing in due course.Certified copy today.(Subhash Kakade) Judge psm Criminal Appeal No.942/2014 09.04.2014 Shri Sushil Tiwari, Advocate for the appellant.Shri Vijay Kumar Pandey, P.L. for the State.Call for the record.Also heard on I.A. No.6224/2014, which is an application under section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.The appellant has been convicted under section 354 of I.P.C. and section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and sentenced to R.I. for 1 year with fine of Rs.500/- and R.I. for 1 year with fine of Rs.500/- respectively, with default stipulation.Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant was on bail during trial and he has never misused the liberty of bail.Learned counsel further submitted that there are various contradictions and omissions in the statement of prosecution witnesses.The appeal would take considerable time for its final disposal, hence jail sentence of appellant be suspended and he be released on bail.Learned counsel for the State has opposed the application.Remaining jail sentence of appellant is hereby suspended and it is directed that subject to depositing the fine amount and furnishing the personal bond in a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rs. Twenty Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court concerned, the appellant shall be released on bail with further direction to appear before the registry of this Court firstly on 09.10.2014, and also on such other dates as may be fixed by the registry in this regard during the pendency of this appeal.List the case for final hearing in due course.Certified copy today.(Subhash Kakade) Judge psm Criminal Revision No.612/2014 09.04.2014 Shri Pushpendra Kumar Dubey, Advocate for the applicant.Shri Vijay Kumar Pandey, P.L. for the State.Heard on admission.The revision seems to be arguable, hence admitted for final hearing.Call for the record of the courts below.Also heard on I.A. No.6343/2014, an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the applicant.The applicant has been convicted under section 392 of I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for 2 years with fine of Rs.500/-, with default stipulation.Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant was on bail during trial and he has never misused the liberty of bail.The revision would take considerable time for its final disposal, hence jail sentence of applicant be suspended and he be released on bail.Learned counsel for the State has opposed the application.On due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that if applicant Goverdhan @ Godu furnishes a solvent surety in the sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rs. Twenty Thousand only) and executes a personal bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court concerned, the execution of the sentence of imprisonment passed against him shall remain suspended and he shall be released on bail.Applicant shall now appear before the Registry of this Court firstly on 09.10.2014 and also on such other dates as may be fixed by the registry in this regard during the pendency of this revision.List the case for final hearing in due course.Certified copy today.(Subhash Kakade) Judge psm Criminal Appeal No.558/2014 09.04.2014 Shri B.R. Vijaywar, Advocate for the appellant.Shri Vijay Kumar Pandey, P.L. for the State.Heard on I.A. No.3807/2014, which is an application under section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.The appellant has been convicted under sections 363, 366 and 363 of I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for 5 years with fine of Rs.5000/-, R.I. for 5 years with fine of Rs.5000/- and R.I. for 5 years with fine of Rs.5000/- respectively, with default stipulation.Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant was on bail during trial and he has never misused the liberty of bail.It is submitted that the prosecutrix went for labour work at Hyderabad on their own and the appellant had not taken them forcefully or against their will.Learned counsel further submitted that there are various contradictions and omissions in the statement of prosecution witnesses.The appeal would take considerable time for its final disposal, hence jail sentence of appellant be suspended and he be released on bail.Learned counsel for the State has opposed the application.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence available on record, I am of the view that it is a fit case for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant, therefore, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I.A. No.3807/2014 is allowed.Remaining jail sentence of appellant is hereby suspended and it is directed that subject to depositing the fine amount and furnishing the personal bond in a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rs. Twenty Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court concerned, the appellant shall be released on bail with further direction to appear before the registry of this Court firstly on 09.10.2014, and also on such other dates as may be fixed by the registry in this regard during the pendency of this appeal.List the case for final hearing in due course.Certified copy today.(Subhash Kakade) Judge psm Criminal Appeal No.493/2014 09.04.2014 Shri Chandra Mohan Parnami, Advocate for the appellants.Shri Vijay Kumar Pandey, P.L. for the State.Heard on I.A. No.4513/2014, which is an application under section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail to the appellants.At the outset, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that he is not pressing the bail application I.A. No.4513/2014 so far as it relates to appellant No.1 Prem Korku.Accordingly, I.A. No.4513/2014 in respect of appellant No.1 Prem Korku is hereby dismissed as not pressed.The appellant No.2 Poonam has been convicted under sections 363, 366 and 376 of I.P.C. and has been sentenced to R.I. for 3 years with fine of Rs.1000/-, R.I. for 5 years with fine of Rs.3000/- and R.I. for 10 years with fine of Rs.5000/- respectively, with default stipulation.Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that there are various contradictions and omissions in the statement of prosecution witnesses.The appeal would take considerable time for its final disposal, hence jail sentence of appellant No.2 Poonam be suspended and he be released on bail.Learned counsel for the State has opposed the application.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence available on record, I am of the view that it is a fit case for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant No.2 Poonam s/o Sukhlal Korku, therefore, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I.A. No.4513/2014 is allowed.Remaining jail sentence of appellant No.2 Poonam is hereby suspended and it is directed that subject to depositing the fine amount and furnishing the personal bond in a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court concerned, the appellant No.2 Poonam shall be released on bail with further direction to appear before the registry of this Court firstly on 08.10.2014, and also on such other dates as may be fixed by the registry in this regard during the pendency of this appeal.List the case for final hearing in due course.Certified copy today.(Subhash Kakade) Judge psm Criminal Appeal No.1819/2013 09.04.2014 Shri Anoop Saxena, Advocate for the appellant.Shri Vijay Kumar Pandey, P.L. for the State.Heard on I.A. No.2237/2014, which is an application under section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.The appellant has been convicted under section 376 of I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for 10 years with fine of Rs.10,000/-, with default stipulation.Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there is undue delay in lodging the F.I.R. and for which no explanation has been given.It is further submitted that the doctor who conducted M.L.C. did not find any injury and did not give any definite opinion regarding the rape.Learned counsel further submitted that there are various contradictions and omissions in the statement of prosecution witnesses.The appeal would take considerable time for its final disposal, hence jail sentence of appellant be suspended and he be released on bail.Learned counsel for the State has opposed the application.Remaining jail sentence of appellant is hereby suspended and it is directed that subject to depositing the fine amount and furnishing the personal bond in a sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rs. Thirty Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court concerned, the appellant shall be released on bail with further direction to appear before the registry of this Court firstly on 08.10.2014, and also on such other dates as may be fixed by the registry in this regard during the pendency of this appeal.List the case for final hearing in due course.Certified copy today.(Subhash Kakade) Judge psm M.Cr.C. No.13249/2013 05.04.2013 Shri Shailesh Tiwari, Advocate for the applicants.Shri V.K. Pandey, P.L. for the respondents/State.This petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the applicants for quashing of F.I.R. dated 07.10.2012 registered as Crime No.288/2012 for the offence under sections 294, 506, 323/34 of I.P.C. at Police Station, Maharajpur, District Mandla (M.P.).The facts of the case in short are that on complainant Dr. Kherul Haque Naskar lodged a written report on 04.10.2012 at about 9:30 a.m. to the effect that applicants along with his companions and employees are digging plinth by the side of the house of complainant and are keeping woods near the wall of his house.On asking not to do the same the applicants threatened to kill the complainant and his family members.On this report the F.I.R. was registered against the applicants under sections 294, 506/34 of I.P.C. as Crime No.288/2012 at police station Maharajpur, District Mandla.After completion of the investigation the charge sheet was filed on 23.10.2012 in which offence under section 323 of I.P.C. has been added.It is also submitted that the subsequent report dated 6.10.2012 is false, fabricated and imaginary.On the aforesaid grounds it is submitted that the F.I.R. be quashed and the applicants be discharged from the aforesaid charges.C. No.3604/2014 03.04.2014 Ms. Jyoti Shivhare, Advocate for the applicants.Heard on admission.Issue notice to the respondent on payment of P.F. within seven days by ordinary as well as registered A/D mode.List after four weeks.(Subhash Kakade) Judge psm M.Cr.C. No.3406/2014 03.04.2014 None present for the applicant.Shri Manoj Kushwaha, Advocate for the respondent.List in the next week.(Subhash Kakade) Judge psm Cr.R. No.434/2014 03.04.2014 Shri Brahmanand Pathak, Advocate for the applicant.Shri R.K. Kesharwani, P.L. for the respondent No.1/ State.Case diary be made available on the next date of hearing positively.(Subhash Kakade) Judge psm Cr.A. No.218/2014 03.04.2014 Shri R.B. Gautam, Advocate for the appellant.Shri R.K. Kesharwani, P.L. for the State.As prayed for by the learned counsel for the appellant, list after two weeks.(Subhash Kakade) Judge psm M.Cr.C. No.13614/2013 03.04.2014 Shri D.K. Melani, Advocate for the applicant.Shri R.K. Kesharwani, P.L. for the State.Issue fresh notice to the respondent on payment of process fee within seven days by ordinary as well as registered A/D mode.(Subhash Kakade) Judge psm M.Cr.C. No.4894/2013 03.04.2014 Shri K.L. Gupta, Advocate for the applicant.Shri R.K. Kesharwani, P.L. for the State.As prayed for by the learned counsel for the appellant, list after a week.(Subhash Kakade) Judge psm Cr.A. No.2029/2013 03.04.2014 Shri D.K. Melani, Advocate for the appellant.Shri R.K. Kesharwani, P.L. for the State.(Subhash Kakade) Judge psm Cr.A. No.1223/2013 03.04.2014 Shri Gurpreet Singh, Advocate for the appellant.Shri R.K. Kesharwani, P.L. for the State.Learned counsel for the appellant seeks for a week's time to cure the default.Prayer is allowed.List after a week.(Subhash Kakade) Judge psm Cr.R. No.1108/2013 03.04.2014 None present for the applicants.Shri R.K. Kesharwani, P.L. for the State.In compliance of order dated 06.02.2014 report dated 15.02.2014 has been received from the office of Superintendent, Central Jail, Sagar.In view of the aforesaid, this criminal revision is dismissed as abated in respect of applicant No.1 Manish.So far as applicant no.2 Jamna Jatav is concerned, office is directed to get information from the Central Jail, Sagar as to whether applicant no.2 Jamna Jatav is in custody or not.Report be submitted within two weeks.Also issue production warrant of the applicant no.2 Jamna Jatav so that the Superintendent of Central Jail, Sagar may produce the applicant no.2 Jamna Jatav before this Court on the next date of hearing.(Subhash Kakade) Judge psm Cr.A. No.927/2013 03.04.2014 Shri Shailendra Singh, Advocate for the appellant.Shri R.K. Kesharwani, P.L. for the State.List the case on 09.05.2014 for personal appearance of the appellant.(Subhash Kakade) Judge psm Cr.A. No.911/2013 03.04.2014 Ms. Durgesh Nandini, Advocate for the appellant.Shri R.K. Kesharwani, P.L. for the State.List the case on 09.05.2014 for personal appearance of the appellant.(Subhash Kakade) Judge psm Cr.A. No.874/2013 03.04.2014 None present for the appellant.Shri R.K. Kesharwani, P.L. for the State.This appeal is filed by the appellant from the Jail.Because previously appointed counsel is not present, in these circumstances, an Advocate be appointed through Legal Aid.Office is directed to take necessary steps in this regard.(Subhash Kakade) Judge psm Criminal Appeal No.1045/2007 26.04.2014 Applicant Sharda Prasad Kumhar with Shri Vijit Sahu, Advocate.Complainant/injured Lala Bhaiya with Shri R.L. Shukla, Panel Lawyer.Order passed separately, signed and dated.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
462,204 |
JUDGMENT Thomas, J.1. Leave granted.Is it necessary, in such a situation, that the Sessions Court should transfer the former case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate for trial as envisaged in Section 228(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code').This is the core issue which has come up to the fore in these appeals.For understanding the question better it is necessary to have a short resume of the facts.An encounter took place on the night of 18.2.1996, at a particular place near Bhitar Bazar, Sagar, Madhya Pradesh, in which firearms and other weapons were used and persons were injured.The details of the incident are not relevant and hence skipped.Two rival versions reached the police station regarding the above incident and two First Information Reports were registered upon those rival versions by the officer-in-charge of the police station.FIR No.92 of 1996 was registered against 24 persons arrayed in it as accused (for convenience this can be referred to as 'the first case') and FIR No.93 of 1996 was registered against six persons (this can be referred to as 'the second case' for convenience).Both cases were investigated together by the police and ultimately challans were laid in both cases alleging offences under Section 307 read with Section 149 besides some other offences of the Indian Penal Code in both the cases.The Magistrate before whom the challans were filed completed the inquiry proceedings and committed both cases to the Sessions Court for trial.Thus far the two cases flocked together side by side.Thereafter he transferred the second case for trial to the Chief Judicial Magistrate as provided in Section 228(1) of the Code.The accused in the first case moved the High Court in revision contending that no offence under Section 307 IPC is made out against them and further contended that the court should have included the offence under Section 307 IPC also in the charge framed in the second case.A Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the revision petition by order dated 30.6.2000, in which the learned Judge observed, inter alia, thus:In the meanwhile, the State of Madhya Pradesh moved the High Court in revision challenging the order by which the Session Court declined to frame charge under Section 307 IPC as against the accused in the second case.The said revision petition was separately dealt with by the High Court and the same learned Single Judge dismissed the said revision on the same day by a separate order.He made the following reasoning:
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 228 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
462,325 |
1. Does a Petitioner-third party who is a total stranger to the prosecution culminating in the conviction of the accused have any 'locus standi' to challenge the conviction and the sentence awarded to the convicts in a petition brought under Article 32 of the Constitution? If the answer to this poser is in the negative this petition must fail on that preliminary ground.Before we proceed to answer the same it would be advantageous to notice a few facts.The assassins of General Vaidya were charge-sheeted under Sections 120B, 302, 307, 465, 468, 471 and 212, I.P.C. read with sections 3 and 4 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act, 1985, (hereinafter referred to as 'the TADA Act') and Section 10 of the Passport Act. Five persons besides the absconding accused were put up for trial before the Designated Court, Pune.The State preferred an appeal insofar as the order of acquittal was concerned but the accused Nos. 1 and 5 did not prefer any appeal against their conviction.An advocate, Shri Harinder Singh Chowdhary, filed a criminal revision application before the High Court of Delhi for quashing the F.I.R. and the letter rotator on certain grounds.
|
['Section 384 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
46,246,219 |
13 md.C.R.A.N. 3332 of 2018 in C.R.M. No. 10187 of 2018 Re:- An application for restoration an/or recalling.Ms. Devi Priya Mitra, Advocate .. for the petitioner Mr. Santanu Chatterjee, Advocate .. for the State Sufficient grounds have been made out as to why the petitioner were not represented on November 20, 2018 when C.R.M. 10187 of 2018 was dismissed for default.The order dated November 20, 2018 is recalled and C.R.M. 10187of 2018 of 2018 is restored to the file.C.R.A.N. 3332 of 2018 is allowed as above.In the matter of:-An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 15th November, 2018 in connection with Raiganj Woman Police Station vide First Information Case No.76 of 2018 dated 14.08.2018 for the offence punishable under Sections 341/323/354 of the Indian Penal Code.In the matter of:-Sahil Hussain ... Petitioner C.R.M. 10187of 2018 is taken up for immediate consideration.1 2 The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in connection with Raiganj Woman Police Station vide First Information Case No.76 of 2018 dated 14.08.2018 for the offence punishable under Sections 341/323/354 of the Indian Penal Code.The petitioner says that a platonic relationship between the two friends was needlessly misread by the de facto complainant and a complaint was lodged.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioner subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Suvra Ghosh, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J.) 3
|
['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
46,246,514 |
8 Perused the papers.The said Shriram Shikshan Prasarak Mandal is stated to be an educational institution running colleges and schools.There are about 4 schools run by the said institution and about 800 students studying in the said schools/colleges.The respondent No. 2 was working in one of the said schools as a teacher and was appointed in the year 2003 in the said institution as a teacher.TUESDAY, 9th APRIL 2019 ORAL ORDER :::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2020 00:54:51 :::respective counsel.By consent, appeal is taken up for final disposal forthwith.3 At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant seeks leave to amend prayer clause (a).Leave granted.Amendment be carried out forthwith.4 By this appeal, the appellant seeks quashing and setting aside of the impugned order dated 9th October 2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Special Judge), Satara, below Exhibit 1 in Criminal Bail Application No. 803/2018 and seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with C.R. No. 230/2018 registered with the Shirwal Police Station, District Satara.5 Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the respondent No. 2 had falsely implicated the appellant in the said case, as he had given his consent for being a Committee Member, whichSQ Pathan 2/9 ::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2020 00:54:51 ::: apeal.1278.18.3.doc was constituted for conducting the inquiry as against the respondent No. 2 for her conduct.He submitted that the two eye-witnesses i.e. Vijaya Dilip Nikam and Laxman Ananda Sawant, to the alleged incident, have supported the respondent No.2, as they too had an axe to grind against the appellant.He further submitted that the alleged two eye-witnesses could never have been there at the spot nor within the hearing range, and as such, the alleged act cannot be said to be in public view.::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2020 00:54:51 :::6 Learned A.P.P opposes the appeal.He submits that a perusal of the FIR shows that the offence as alleged is clearly madeSQ Pathan 3/9 ::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2020 00:54:51 ::: apeal.1278.18.3.doc out as against the appellant.He further submits that charge-sheet has been filed as against the appellant.::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2020 00:54:51 :::7 Mr. Chavan, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 supports the learned A.P.P. He submits that a written complaint was sent by respondent No. 2 to the Shirwal Police Station alleging misappropriation of her salary by the appellant, pursuant to which, the appellant accosted her on 26th September 2018, twisted her arm with a sexual intent, threatened her and abused her in the name of her caste.By the said show-cause notice, respondent No. 2 was called upon to show cause why action should not be taken against her for her behaviour.The respondent No. 2 denied the allegations and replied to the said show-cause notice.The Authority, not being convinced with the reply of the respondent No.2, set-up a Committee to inquire into the said complaint.Out of the three-member committee, the appellant was one of the committee member.It appears that on 25th September 2018, the respondent No. 2 sent a written complaint to the Shirwal Police Station alleging misappropriation of her salary by the appellant.The said complaint is on page 183 of the petition.The alleged incident is stated to have taken place on 26 th September 2018 at about 5:00 p.m, when the respondent No. 2 was on her way from school.According to the respondent No.2, when she was near the Datta Mandir and was walking towards the ST stand, the appellant came on a two-wheeler, stopped near her, twisted her arm, as a result of which, she felt that her modesty was outraged and thereafter he uttered some objectionable words with regard to her caste.She has stated that the appellant questioned her as to why she had lodged the complaint with the police and threatened her with respect to her job and thereafter, went away from the said spot.Pursuant to the said incident, respondent No. 2 lodged an FIR which was registered vide C.R. No. 230/2018 with the Shirwal Police Station, District Satara, for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 504, 506, 325A of the Indian Penal Code or under Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(y)(s) 3(2)(VA) ofSQ Pathan 6/9 ::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2020 00:54:51 ::: apeal.1278.18.3.doc the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2020 00:54:51 :::::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2020 00:54:51 :::::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2020 00:54:51 :::9 Prima facie, in the facts, it is doubtful, whether the act of twisting of arm with sexual intent and threatening can go together.10 Learned counsel for the appellant has placed on record why the witness-Laxman Sawant has falsely given his statement against the appellant.According to the learned counsel, Laxman Sawant's wife was terminated from the appellant's School and that though she had approached all the forums including the High Court against the order of termination from school, she had failed in getting any order in her favour.According to the learned counsel for the appellant, as far as witness Vijaya Nikam is concerned, there was a dispute over the road and land between her and the appellant's Society.Prima facie, whether Vijaya Naik was in a range to hear theSQ Pathan 7/9 ::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2020 00:54:51 ::: apeal.1278.18.3.doc conversation, is a matter, which will be decided and considered by the trial Court.No other witness's statement has been recorded.11 Considering the peculiar facts of the case and the dispute between the parties, the appeal deserves to be allowed.Hence, the following order :::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2020 00:54:51 :::(i) The appeal is allowed;(ii) The impugned order dated 9th October 2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Special Judge), Satara, below Exhibit 1 in Criminal Bail Application No. 803/2018,, is hereby quashed and set-aside;(iii) In the event of arrest, in connection with C.R. No. 230/2018 registered with the Shirwal Police Station, District Satara, the appellant be enlarged on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount;::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2020 00:54:51 :::respondent No. 2 or any other person concerned with the case.12 Appeal is disposed of on the aforesaid terms.
|
['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
128,762,541 |
(24/09/2015)This criminal revision under Section 397 read with section 401 of the Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the applicant/complainant Nilofer Khan is directed against the order dated 21.01.2013 passed by the Court of 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in Criminal Revision No.844/2012, whereby the order dated 01.09.2012 passed by the Court of JMFC, Bhopal directing registration of complaint against the respondent/accused her Ex-husband Mohammad Yusuf Khan under Section 420 of the IPC, was set aside.The facts necessary for disposal of this criminal revision may briefly be stated thus: applicant Nilofer Khan filed a private complaint on 28.03.2012 against her Ex-husband Mohammad Yusuf Khan under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. for offences under Sections 419, 420 and 506 of the IPC.It was alleged in the aforesaid private complaint that the respondent/accused approached the family members of the applicant/complainant with a proposal for marriage and disclosed that he has done his doctorate and is in Government Service.He represented that his age was 45 years.From the appearance of the accused also, it could not be said that he was making a false statement regarding his age.On the basis of aforesaid facts, complainant consented to marry and their marriage was performed on 23.12.2012 as per Muslim rites.In the marriage deed (Nikaahnama), accused recorded his age as 45 years.However, when the complainant went to live with the accused at Indore, she learnt from his certificates regarding his educational qualifications etc. that his age was more than 60 years.As such, the accused had defrauded the complainant by making aforesaid false representation with regard to his age and had obtained consent from the complainant for marriage.The complainant was mentally hurt by the discovery and felt that her future was dark.At the time of the marriage, age of the complainant was only 35 years.It has further been submitted in the private complaint that on 11.12.2011, the complainant confronted the accused with the information as to his age but the accused responded by bluntly telling her that since the marriage had been performed, there was nothing she could do about it.When the complainant told the accused that she would complain to her family members, the accused got enraged and abused and beat up the complainant.The dispute between the parties continued and she was beaten up on multiple occasions.Ultimately on 16.10.2011, the accused turned the complainant out of her matrimonial home.The following night, the accused visited the complainants parental home and abused her family members.He threatened and manhandled the complainant.Subsequently, on 28.3.2012, this private complaint was filed.The order dated 01.09.2012 passed by the learned Magistrate was challenged before Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision No.844/2012, which was allowed by impugned order dated 21.01.2013 and as a result, order dated 01.09.2012 registering private complaint under Section 420 of the IPC was set aside.Revisional Court inter alia held that there were glaring discrepancies between the private complaint and the statements made by the complainant under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C.; as such, the complaint could not be taken at its face value.
|
['Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
12,876,336 |
Heard on admission.The appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 324 (two counts) of IPC sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years along with fine of Rs.5,000/- respectively, with default stipulation respectively.Being aggrieved by that conviction and sentence, the appellant has filed this appeal.After perusal of the statement of witnesses as well as judgment, this appeal is having an arguable point, hence, it is admitted for final hearing.The appellant has never misused the liberty granted to him.The appeal would take considerable time to dispose of finally; therefore, it is prayed that jail sentence of the appellant be suspended.Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State opposes the bail application and prays for dismissal of this application.List the matter for final hearing in due course.Certified copy as per rules.(Vishnu Pratap Singh Chauhan) Judge pnm Digitally signed by POONAM LONDHE Date: 2019.04.16 12:24:45 +05'30'
|
['Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
128,765,481 |
Mr. Rajeev Patil, Senior Advocate i/by Mr. Hasan Patelfor the Applicant.Mrs. Sharmila Kaushik, APP for the Respondent-State.PSI Mr. Dipesh C. Kini, Bhiwandi Police Station present.CORAM : SANDEEP K. SHINDE J.DATE : 18 th FEBRUARY, 2020P.C. :::: Uploaded on - 20/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2020 11:03:01 :::On 5th February, 2019, based on secretinformation, residential premises of the applicant wasraided and searched whereupon the followingincriminating articles were found;1] 190 bottles each containing 100 ml rexus activecough syrup worth around 22,000/-;2] 30 stripes of alko-laplrazolam tablets worthRs.810/- ;3] one mobile phone with dual SIM cards and about 10more mobiles.On being asked about any documentation/licence forthe possession of the said medicine in a huge quantity,the applicant could not produce any valid documents tothat efect.Chemical analysis of the contents of theShivgan 2/14 ::: Uploaded on - 20/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2020 11:03:01 ::: BA-3095-2019.odtcough syrup disclosed that it contained CodeinePhosphate I.P. 10 MG and Chlorpheniramine Maleate IP4 MG in each 5 ML contents of cough syrup.Thus, ineach bottle of cough syrup of 100 ML, 200 MGCodeine was found and detected.::: Uploaded on - 20/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2020 11:03:01 :::The learned counsel for the applicantsubmitted that the small quantity in relation to Codeine(Non-proprietary name) is 10 gms and commercialquantity is 1 kg and, therefore, the total quantity ofCodeine in all 190 bottles was less than the commercialquantity prescibed under the NDPS Act. It is furthersubmitted that the medicine Rexus active cough syrupis a Scheduled Drug and in view of the Notifcationdated 14th November, 1985 issued by the CentralGovernment under the NDPS Act, it declared thatcertain preparations are exempted from the purview of'Manufactured Drugs' provided, the preparationcontained in the narcotic drug was limited to the extentShivgan 3/14 ::: Uploaded on - 20/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2020 11:03:01 ::: BA-3095-2019.odtpermitted under the notifcation.It is further submittedin respect of Codeine under Entry No.35 of the saidnotifcation which reads as under "Methyl morphine (commonly known as 'Codeine') and Ethyl morphine and their salts (including Dionine), all dilutions and preparations, except those which are compounded with one or more other ingredients and containing not more than 100 milligrammes of the drug/per dosage unit and with a concentration of not more than 2.5 percent in undivided preparations and which have been established in therapeutic practice."::: Uploaded on - 20/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2020 11:03:01 :::Therefore, it is his submission that since the said coughsyrup preparation containing Codeine falls below theprescribed quantity under the said Notifcation referredto above, it shall, therefore, fall under Schedule 'H' ofthe Drugs & Cosmetics Rules and shall only begoverned by the said Rules.Inshort, it is submitted that the recovery of Rexus ActiveCough Syrup bottles, even though it contained CodeinePhosphate and Chlorpheniramine Maleate beingcovered at Sr.::: Uploaded on - 20/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2020 11:03:01 :::Application has been opposed by the Stateby fling afdavit-in-reply of Dipesh Chandrakant Kini,Police Sub-Inspector, Bhiwandi City Police Station andreliance was placed on Entry No.(35) of the NotifcationS.O.826(E) dated 14th November, 1985 which has beenreferred to above.It is submitted that this said notifcation hasbeen issued in exercise of the powers under Section2(xi)(b) of the NDPS Act, 1985 by the CentralGovernment declaring certain narcotic substances andShivgan 5/14 ::: Uploaded on - 20/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2020 11:03:01 ::: BA-3095-2019.odtpreparations to be 'Manufactured Drugs' vide entry atSr.No.35 which itself permits use of codeine in themanufacture of drugs, however, upto 100 mg perdosage unit and with a concentration of not more than2.5% in undivided preparation along with it beingestablished in therapeutic practise.It is not the caseof the Respondent/State that bottles recovered fromthe possession of the applicant violated permissiblelimit as stipulated in Notifcation dated 14 th November,1985 but the violation was in respect of the secondcondition under the twin conditions namely::: Uploaded on - 20/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2020 11:03:01 :::(i) That contents should not be more than 100 MG ofCodeine per dose unit and with a concentration of notmore than 2.5% in undivided preparation AND(ii) it should established for therapeutic practice.In support of this contention, the learned APPShivgan 6/14 ::: Uploaded on - 20/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2020 11:03:01 ::: BA-3095-2019.odthas strongly relied upon the judgment of the ApexCourt in Mohammed Shahabuddin and Ors.::: Uploaded on - 20/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2020 11:03:01 :::In the case in hand, admittedly, Rexus ActiveCough Syrup is a pharmaceutical product coveredunder the relevant provisions of the Drugs andCosmetics Act and Rules wherein Rule 65 prescribesthe conditions of licences to sell such cough syrups inopen market.It may be stated that earlier, in terms of Rule97 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rule, 1945, which dealswith labeling of medicines, this drug could be sold inretail market, only on the prescription of registeredmedical practitioners which is also mentioned in theSchedule 'H' of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules.Later,when the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules were amendedby notifcation dated 30th August, 2013, Schedule 'H1'Shivgan 7/14 ::: Uploaded on - 20/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2020 11:03:01 ::: BA-3095-2019.odtwas introduced wherein the present drug i.e., Codeinewas shifted to at Sr.::: Uploaded on - 20/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2020 11:03:01 :::Schedule 'H1" drugs were mainly allocated torestrict selling of antibiotics through over the counter (OTC)sales, after it was noted that any number of these drugscould be brought from pharmacies across India without anylimitations.Having found irrational prescription ofantibiotics and other drugs by doctors and chemists, theGovernment of India via gazette notifcation, dated 30 thAugust, 2013 prescribed Schedule 'H1' Drugs whichincluded certain habit-forming drugs like psychotropicdrugs.(emphasis supplied).Therefore, correspondingamendments were made wherein, Rule 97 Clause (f) wasadded, which reads as under "97(f) if it contains a drug substance specifed in Schedule H1 and comes within the purview of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985) be labeled with symbol Nrx,Shivgan 8/14 ::: Uploaded on - 20/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2020 11:03:01 ::: BA-3095-2019.odt which shall be in red and conspicuously displayed on the left top corner of the label and shall also be labeled with the following words in legible black coloured font size in completely red rectangular box;::: Uploaded on - 20/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2020 11:03:01 :::_______________________________________________________Therefore, if the medicine contains a drugsubstance specifed in Schedule 'H1' and comes withinpurview of Narcotic Drugs and PsychotropicSubstances Act , 1985, the necessary compliance withRule 97(f) also becomes mandatory in nature.This rule itselfplace the word 'Caution' which is to signify that it isdangerous to take this medicine except in accordancewith medical advice and not to be sold in retail withoutprescription of registered medical practitioner.::: Uploaded on - 20/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2020 11:03:01 :::In the case in hand, a substantial stock ofShivgan10/14 ::: Uploaded on - 20/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2020 11:03:01 ::: BA-3095-2019.odt190 bottles, each containing 100 ml Rexus ActiveCough Syrup in all containing 38 gms codeine wasfound in possession of the applicant, without any validlicense/document, contrary to notifcation bearing S. O.826(F) dated 14.11.1985 under NDPS Act andtherefore, holding/possessing such stock of the drugslisted in 'H1' Schedule of the Drugs and Cosmetics Actread with Section 8 of the NDPS Act was found to beprohibited.::: Uploaded on - 20/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2020 11:03:01 :::Now, so far as the Notifcation dated 14thNovember, 1985 issued in exercise of the powersunder Section 2(xi)(b) of the NDPS Act is concerned, itis to be held that twin conditions have beenenumerated therein which are required to be satisfedas has been explained above.Notably, in the presentcase, it was found that stock of Rexus active coughsyrup was not for therapeutic practice since there wasno valid license/document to support the possession ofShivgan11/14 ::: Uploaded on - 20/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2020 11:03:01 ::: BA-3095-2019.odtthe medicines in such huge quantity.The submission of the Learned Counsel for the Appellants was that the content of the codeine phosphate in each 100 ml.Bottle if related to the permissible dosage, namely, 5 ml.would only result in less than 10 mg.As rightly held by the High Court, the said contention should have satisfed the twin conditions, namely, that the contents of the narcotic substance should not be more than 100 mg.Of Codeine, per dose unit and with a condition, namely, that it should be only for therapeutic practice.Therapeutic practice as per dictionary meaning means 'contributing to cure of disease'.In other words, the Assessment of codeine content on dosage basis can only be made only when the cough syrup is defnitely kept or transported which is exclusively meant for its usage for curing a disease and as an action of remedial agent."::: Uploaded on - 20/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2020 11:03:01 :::In the cited case, on secret information,police had intercepted a truck, whereupon the search,347 cartons, each carton containing 100 bottles of 100Shivgan12/14 ::: Uploaded on - 20/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2020 11:03:01 ::: BA-3095-2019.odtml of Phensedyl cough syrup were found.Therefore, in my view, since theapplicant failed to comply with the specifc conditionunder the above referred Notifcation for claimingexemption in order to seek bail, for the reasonsShivgan13/14 ::: Uploaded on - 20/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2020 11:03:01 ::: BA-3095-2019.odtmentioned hereinabove, no case is made out forreleasing the applicant on bail.::: Uploaded on - 20/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2020 11:03:01 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2020 11:03:01 :::It is made clear that observations madehereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opiniononly for the purpose of refusal of bail and the same shallnot in any way infuence the trial in other proceedings.(SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J.)Shivgan14/14 ::: Uploaded on - 20/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2020 11:03:01 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2020 11:03:01 :::
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
128,765,880 |
Prosecution case, in brief, is that in the night intervening 8th and 9th of July 2010, at about 12, as the prosecutrix turned after urinating outside her house, respondent caught her from behind and after tying her mouth with a piece of cloth, dragged her inside a school situated in front of her house through its broken window, subjected her to rape and threatened to kill her in case she disclosed the incident to anyone.After commission of the offence, when the respondent was getting dressed, she removed the cloth from her mouth and screamed, hearing which her family members reached at the spot and the respondent fled through the window.Respondent had subjected her to sexual assault four months back also.Report of the incident was lodged by her on 9/7/2010 at Police Station Badwara.After investigation, respondent was apprehended and charge-sheet was filed.Prosecutrix (PW3) had admitted that she was subjected to sexual assault by the respondent, prior to this incident also.She deposed that she was impregnated by the respondent, but had not disclosed this fact to any of her family members due to the threats given by the respondent.Dr. Uma Nigam (PW10), on examination of the prosecutrix, did not find any external injury on her body, which was un-natural as, according to the prosecution, she had been dragged to the spot by the respondent.The doctor also opined that the prosecutrix was habitual to sexual intercourse.In paragraph 16 of her cross-examination, she deposed that there was inimical relationship between her family and that of the respondent in view of the fact that uncle of respondent had murdered her uncle.In the aforesaid premises, the trial Court found that the prosecutrix was a consenting party and the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.Taking into consideration the reasons assigned on the face of evidence on record establishing the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the view taken by the learned trial Court was apparently a possible view.
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
128,769,803 |
Heard learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that initially the F.I.R. of the alleged incident has been lodged under Section 354 (A), 452, 504 I.P.C. In F.I.R. no allegation of rape has been made against the applicant.The victim in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has stated that applicant tried to commit rape upon her but thereafter in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. the victim has made false allegation of rape against the applicant.The victim is married lady having four children.The medical report also does not corroborate the prosecution version.The applicant has not committed the alleged offence.False allegation has been made against him.Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.Having given my thoughtful consideration to the submission of the learned counsel for the parties, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case for bail.Order Date :- 17.3.2016 Jitendra
|
['Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,287,803 |
JUDGMENT P.V. Kakade, J.All these appeals can be conveniently disposed of by this common judgment as they arise out of a common judgment and order dated 19.3.1998 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raigad-Alibag in Sessions case No. 133 of 1996 and Sessions Case No. 67 of 1997, which was cross case, adjudicated simultaneously.In Sessions Case No. 133 of 1996 in all 18 accused persons were involved, out of which Accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 18 were convicted for offences punishable under Sections 147 and 148 of I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer R.I. for three months.Accused Nos. 1, 3, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 18 were convicted for offences punishable under Section 452 r/w 149 of IPC and were sentenced to suffer R.I. for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer R.I. for three months.Accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 18 were convicted for offences punishable under Section 302 r/w 149 of IPC and were sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to suffer R.I. for three months.Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were convicted for offences under Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act and were sentenced to suffer R.I. for three months.Accused No. 2 Sharad who was convicted for offence punishable under Section 307 of I.P.C. for attempting to cause death of witness Damayanti and was sentenced to suffer R.I. for five years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer R.I. for three months.Accused No. 2 was also convicted for offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC for attempting to cause death of witness Arjun and was sentenced to suffer R.I. for five years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer R.I. for three months.The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.Accused No. 17 was acquitted of all the charges.The facts giving rise to the said cases, in nutshell, are thus -The accused persons, deceased Kisan Shankar Penkar, injured Damayanti and injured Laxman and other prosecution witnesses are resident of village Pargaon.On account of election of Surpancha for the Grampanchayat of Pargaon, there was dispute between the group of accused person and in the group of prosecution witnesses.There was insistance on the part of accused Shankar Mhatre against family of deceased Shankar Penkar that said family should support his group.It is the case of prosecution that 3/4 days prior to the incident, there was a quarrel between the family of deceased and the accused, as son of deceased Kisan had occupied a seat in the S.T. Bus near the daughter of accused Shankar.Attempts were made to pacify both the groups and to settle the dispute.However, Accused Shankar and others were not agreeable for the settlement of dispute and that accused person had declared their intention to kill the deceased Kisan.In the evening of earlier day, attempt for settling dispute was made by the deceased Kisan and his family members.The dispute was not settled, deceased Kisan, feared in his mind for his life and therefore, he had gone to the residence of one Gajanan Mhatre, and stayed there over night.In the morning of 6.5.1995 at about 6.30 a.m. all accused persons with weapons like stick, sword and gun went to the house of deceased Kisan.All of them forcibly entered into the house of Kisan and were giving shouts declaring their intention to cause death of Kisan.In the course of the said events, accused persons caused damage to the articles in the house of the deceased.The family members of the deceased ran away from the residence with the fear of possible assault on them.Thereafter the accused persons with weapons in their hands went to the spot in front of the house of the accused No. 4 Haribhau.At that time deceased Kisan was proceeding by the side of road and was in front of house of Narayan Patil.Thereupon deceased Kisan had made attempt to stand on the ground.By that time on hearing sound of firing, Damayanti and Arjun were proceeding towards the place of incident to ascertain as to what had happened.Thereupon, accused No. 2 Sharad fired his gun towards deceased Kisan.In the said firing injuries were caused to witnesses Damayanti and Arjun.The said incident was witnessed by prosecution witnesses namely, Namdeo and Sadashiv, who were standing in front of their respective houses.Witness Namdeo and others rushed towards Kisan, who was lying on the ground with injuries.Thereupon, accused persons proceeded by the road and they were pelting stones on the houses of prosecution witnesses resulting into damage to their houses.Deceased Kisan was then shifted to Panvel in Auto Rickshaw and also the injured Damyanti and Arjun were shifted to Panvel in auto rickshaw.All of them were admitted in the hospital.Kisan was declared dead.Thereupon Namdeo went to Panvel Police Station and recorded a complaint.On the basis of which crime was registered against the accused persons.The investigation was commenced during the course of which statements of witnesses were recorded.Spot panchanama and inquest panchanama was made.Clothes of the deceased and injured were seized.Sword was seized from the accused Vishwanath.Ballistic Expert for report.In due course, post mortem notes and ballistic report were received and are part of the record.In Sessions Case No. 67 of 1997, which is a cross case, in all eight accused persons were charged for offences punishable under Sections 149, 336 r/w Section 149, 452 r/w 149 of IPC along with Sections 147, 427 r/w 149 of IPC.However, accused Nos. 4, 5, 7 and 8 from the said sessions case only were acquitted for offences under Section 147, 427 r/w 149 of IPC and were sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer R.I. for three months.The said accused were also sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer R.I. for three months for offences punishable under Section 427 r/w 149 of IPC.All substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.It may be noted that Criminal Appeal No. 443 of 1998 arises out of cross complaint i.e. Sessions Case No. 67 of 1997 and therefore, the said appeal shall be taken up for consideration subsequently i.e. after earlier four appeals are dealt with.However, it may be noted that earlier four appeals as well as cross appeal arise out of same cause of incident.Accused Chitaman gave shout by saying that "FOUND HIM, AND SHOOT HIM".(GHAVALA RE YALA GOLYA GHALA).Deceased Kisan received pellet injuries and fill on the ground.After completion of the investigation the charge sheet was sent to the court of law.The learned Magistrate committed the case to the court of Sessions.The learned Sessions Judge framed the charge against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302 r/w 149, 307 r/w 149, 336 r/w 149, 337 r/w 149, 341 r/w 149, 452 r/w 149, 506(2) r/w 149 and 120(b) of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act. All accused pleaded not guilty to the said charges.The prosecution led its evidence at length.On which basis the learned Trial Judge came to the conclusion that the accused persons were guilty of commission of impugned offences and proceeded to convict and sentence them in aforesaid manner.Hence the appeal.We heard Mr. Mundargi, Mr. Hudalikar on behalf of the Appellants and Ms.Kejariwal on behalf of the State at length.We have also persued the entire evidence on record.As can be seen from the entire record it is the case involving direct evidence and the eye witness account is quite graphic to show the involvement of some of the accused persons in the said incident.P.W.2 Namdeo, P.W.3 Sadashiv, P.W.4 Damayanti, P.W.7 Arjun and P.W. 5 Dropadi along with the evidence of P.W. 6 Meena wd/o of deceased Kisan, whose evidence was relied upon by the prosecution to bring home the guilt.It is to be noted that after the incident which occurred at about 6.30 to 6.45 a.m. on 6.5.1995, P.W.2 Namdeo filed police complaint (Ex.49) at Panvel Police Station at 10.00 a.m. wherein he has given the details of background of the assault and has proceeded to describe the assault made on behalf of the accused in details.According to the version of the FIR, accused Nos. 1 and 2 were armed with Guns whereas Accused Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 18 and other persons were armed with sticks, spears and swords came upto the house of Haribhau.At that time deceased Kisan was going towards his home.Accused No. 18 shouted loudly that Kisan was found and therefore, he should be shot and thereupon accused No. 1 fired his gun on Kisan, Kisan injured and fell to the ground due to bullet injury shouting loudly that he had died and Shankar had betrayed him.At that time accused No. 2 also fired his gun, due to which witnesses Arjun and Damayanti, who were present nearby, were injured.The commotion occurred, in which course the accused persons ran away pelting stones on the homes of group of witnesses.The complainant rushed to fallen Kisan and with the help of others he along with other injured were taken to Municipal Hospital, where Kisan was declared dead.The other injured were also given medical treatment.This is the crux of complainant Namdeo's evidence.It is to be noted that in the course of testimony, complainant has named 18 accused persons, but his FIR implicates only eight accused persons stating that those eight were along with other 10 to 12 persons.The evidence of the complainant is duly supported by P.W. 3 Sadashiv, who has stated that his house is located near the house of the complainant.There are tow parts of house and he resides in back side of house and his brother Narayan resides in front portion.House of Haribhau is located near the house of Narayan and the place of incident is in front of house of Haribhau.He has further admitted in the cross examination that the road leading from tank proceeds from the southern side of house of complainant and it further proceeds from the southern side of Haribhau's house.This version of Sadashiv's evidence gives support to the version of complainant-Namdeo, and therefore, there is no doubt whatsoever that Namdeo as well as the witness Sadashiv were in position to see the incident as stated by them in their testimonies.According to this witness, on the day of the incident at about 6.30 to 6.45 a.m. he saw Shankar Penkar and Kisan Penkar proceeding towards the side of their houses from the tank side.Kisan was ahead by 20 to 25 paces of his father Shankar.At that time Shankar Mhatre was standing at the corner of the house of Haribhau.He was holding gun in his hand.By the side of Shankar, Accused No. 2 was also standing holding gun in his hand, Accused No. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 18 were also standing at the side of Accused Nos. 1 and 2 and when Kisan came in front of the platform, accused No.1 fired gun on him.In the said firing Kisan fell on the ground.Accused No. 2 also fired his gun, at which time Damayanti wife of his brother came there followed by Arjun Patil.In the firing of accused No. 2 they sustained injuries Complainant Namdeo was also standing in his courtyard.Therefore it is quite clear that complainant as well as this witness have actually seen the incident and assault made by the accused persons at the relevant time and place.Witness Sadashiv has stated that accused No. 1 was standing in the corner of house of Haribhau with the gun in his hand and accused No. 2 was standing by side of accused No. 1 having gun in his hand.Accused Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 18 were standing by their sides.The witness has also given further account of incident of fire opened by Accused No. 1 on Kisan and subsequent fire opened by Accused No. 2 causing injuries to witnesses Damayanti and Arjun.Such version of this witness is also giving due corroboration to the version of complainant about the formation of unlawful assembly with an object to cause death of Kisan.Evidence of P.W. 4 and P.W. 7 who are injured witnesses also supports to the complainant's counts regarding assault on Kisan by accused persons.The medical evidence on record duly corroborated by Post mortem notes vide Exh.73 categorically shows that Kisan died due to pellet injuries and death was homicidal death.It is also established that death of Kisan was an intentional act with knowledge to the said accused persons of causing such injuries to Kisan so as to cause his death.Therefore, we have no doubt whatsoever that Accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 18 are guilty of offences punishable under Section 302 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code.In this regard we must remember that Section 149 is not confined to offences committed in the actual prosecution of the common object of an unlawful assembly, and applies equally to offences committed by any one of its members which are such as the members knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object.If use of violence is implicit in the object of an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons, and in the course of an attack by that assembly upon persons employed in their lawful avocations murder is actually committed, then every member of that assembly is guilty under Section 149 read with Section 302 even though the common object could not be placed as high as murder.In the present case the accused persons were aware of the fact that at least accused No. 1 was armed with deadly weapon i.e. rifle and therefore, they had a definite knowledge that common object of their assembly was to kill deceased Kisan.In view of this position we hold that Accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 18 are guilty of offence under Section 302 r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code and the learned trial judge has rightly convicted them for the impugned offence.Accused No. 2 is charged for offence under Section 307 read with Section 149 of IPC for attempt to cause murder of witnesses Damayanti as well as Arjun.According to the prosecution case, he was also carrying gun and fired his gun on Kisan but as a result of his firing both the said witnesses who were injured and therefore, the charge.According to the defence, as appears from the cross examination, only one gun is produced on record and other gun is neither seized from accused No. 2 nor it is produced by prosecution or it is seized during the course of investigation.Therefore, it was submitted on behalf of the appellants that only one gun was used by accused No. 1 and there is no second gun involved.This submission finds support from the relevant panchanama of seizure of pellets as well as ballistic expert report.It is to be noted that as per panchanama Exh.84 two empty cartridges were seized from the house of accused Shankar.These cartridges were sent to C.A. for analysis.With this opinion in the C.A. report, it is established from the record that these two empty cartridges were not used for firing by the gun which was allegedly recovered through accused No.1 as used in the incident.Be as it may, the fact remains that second gun was not located throughout the investigation and therefore, as a matter of abundant precaution, it must be held that witnesses Damayanti and Arjun were injured due to the pellets fired by Accused No. 1 himself, especially in view of the Ballistic Expert Report.Therefore in our considered view, charge for offence under Section 307 against the accused No. 2 cannot stand.Similar is the position with regard to incident of causing damage and forcible entry in the house of the deceased by the accused persons, though witnesses including P.W. 5 Meena, has stated about the damage to the property in the house.It is an admitted position that Investigating Officer P.W.10 has admitted that he has not seized the damaged property in the course of investigation.It is true that in the course of spot panchnama Exh.59 broken pieces of glass of windows, latch of the door were found inside the house and scattered around the spot.In a case where a large crowd had collected, all of whom were not shown to be sharing a common object of the unlawful assembly, a stray assault by any one accused on any particular witness could not be said to be an assault in prosecution of the common object of an unlawful assembly, so that the remaining accused could be imputed the knowledge that such an offence was likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly.Whenever in uneventful rural society, something unusual occurred, more so, where the local community was faction ridden and a fight occurred amongst factions, a good number of people appeared on the seen no with a view to participate in the occurrence but as curious spectators.In such an event mere presence in the lawful assembly should not be treated as leading to the conclusion that the person concerned was present in the lawful assembly as a member of the unlawful assembly.In the present case before us, that there is some evidence regarding factual damage to the property of the witnesses, it is not possible to separate grain from the chaff, in order to pin-point the accused persons to be the persons, who caused the said damage.In other words, the persons, who were found unlawfully assembled are found to be part of the large crowd gathered at the said time and place and therefore it would not be possible to arraign all of them only because they are of the rival group.Therefore, as we have seen earlier the prosecution evidence is found to be sufficient to bring home the guilt against the accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 18 for offence under Section 302 r/w 149 of IPC and therefore they are liable to be punished for the same.Similarly accused No. 1 would be guilty of offence under Section 21(1)(a) of the Arms Act, though accused No. 2 will have to be acquitted from the charge punishable under the Arms Act. Similarly the other accused persons cannot be held guilty separately for offences under Sections 147, 148, 152, 307 r/w 149 of IPC and entitled to be acquitted of the same charges.We heard the learned Counsel for the appellant in the said appeal.It is apparent from the record that most of the accused persons involved therein are the witnesses in the cross case.P.W.1 Gunabai is the complainant, who has stated that no 6.5.1995 in the morning she went to the house for milking buffalos, at which time the accused persons, armed with deadly weapon, attacked on their houses and caused damage to the property for which reason she filed a Police Complaint at Panvel Police Station at 7.00 p.m. in the evening.Persual of the entire evidence in this case is unable to inspire confidence and it is sufficient to show that the accused persons in this case cannot be held guilty for the offences punishable under Section 147, 427 r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code and therefore, we are of considered view, that all the accused persons in this case are entitled to be acquitted and therefore, the appeal is to be allowed.For the reasons recorded above we hereby dispose of all the appeals by this common judgment.Criminal Appeal Nos. 439 of 1998, Criminal Appeal No. 440 of 1998, Criminal Appeal No. 557 of 1998 and Criminal Appeal No. 558 of 1998 are partly allowed.Accused Nos.1, Shankar, Accused No. 2 Sadashiv, Accused No. 3 Vishwanath, Accused No. 4 Haribhau, Accused No. 5 Hemant, Accused No. 6 Sanjay, Accused No. 7 Jayant and Accused No. 18 Chintaman are liable to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code and the order passed in that regard by the learned trial judge stands confirmed.All accused persons are however, acquitted of the offences on the charge under Section 147, 148, 452 r/w 149, 307 of I.P.C. and order of conviction and sentence passed against them under these counts stands set aside.At this stage the learned counsel for the Appellants submitted that Accused No. 3 Bishwanath, Accused No. 4 Haribhau, Accused No. 5 Hemant, Accused No. 6 Sanjay, Accused No. 7 Jayant and Accused No. 18 are on bail while Accused No. 1 Shankar and Accused No. 2 Sadashiv are in jail.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 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.