id
int64 17
1.89B
| cases
stringlengths 8
539k
| labels
stringlengths 38
1.25k
| instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|
128,785,025 |
Shri Ashish Choubey, learned counsel for the objector.Heard on the question of admission.Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. No.9210/2018, an application under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of custodial sentence of appellant-Arjun.Appellant has been convicted for offence punishable under Section 354, 354-D, 323 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 2 years R.I., and a fine of Rs.2,000/- under Sections 354, 354-D each and sentenced with a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 323 of IPC, with usual default stipulation.Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant was on bail during the trial and did not misuse the liberty so granted to him.After conviction the sentence has already been suspended by the trial Court itself.It is further submitted that there are fair chances of success in the appeal and there is no possibility of early conclusion of this appeal, if the sentence is not suspended the present appeal filed by the appellant may turn infructuous.Under these circumstances, counsel prayed for suspension of remaining jail Digitally signed by Sumati Jagadeesan Date: 04/01/2019 17:00:25 Cr.A. No.9794/2018 2 sentence of appellant and grant of bail.Accordingly, I.A. No.9210/2018 is allowed and it is directed that on furnishing personal bond by the appellant in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, for his regular appearance before this Court, the execution of custodial part of the sentence imposed against the appellant shall remain suspended, till the final disposal of this appeal.The appellant, after being enlarged on bail, shall mark his presence before the Registry of this Court on 10/05/2019 and on all such subsequent dates, as may be fixed by the Registry in this regard.Certified copy as per Rules.(S. K. AWASTHI) JUDGE sumathi Digitally signed by Sumati Jagadeesan Date: 04/01/2019 17:00:25
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
128,785,856 |
Case diary is available with the learned P. L.This is first application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant, as he is under apprehension of his arrest in connection with Crime No.636/2020 registered at Police Station P. S. Kotwali, Damoh for the offence under Sections 294, 324, 326, 341, 506 & 34 of IPC.Allegation of the prosecution is that on 18.5.2020 at about 9.00 p. m. complainant Afroz and Shadab were on the way of their home then applicant Naseem Qureshi @ Babba and co-accused intercepted them and abused with filthy language.It is also alleged that at the same time co-accused Raja and Alluddin came there and caused injury to complainant by means of knife, by which he sustained injuries on mandible and left thigh while Shadab sustained injury in his right thigh.The complainant has lodged the report.On that basis above mentioned crime has been registered under Sections 294, 324, 341, 506 & 34 against the applicant and other co-accused persons.It is further submitted that the applicant is permanent residence of address mentioned in the application and there is no chance of his absconding.He is ready and willing to cooperate the investigation agency and furnish bail as per the order and abide with all conditions as may be imposed by the Court.On these grounds, learned counsel for the applicant prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State opposes the bail application.It is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rs. Thirty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer.The applicant shall abide by the conditions as enumerated under Section 438 (2) of Cr. P. C. The applicant shall remain present before the Investigation Officer as and when he is directed and so also appear before the trial Court.C. C. as per rules.(MOHD.FAHIM ANWAR) JUDGE kkc Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by KRISHAN KUMAR CHOUKSEY Date: 2020.10.06 17:14:20 IST
|
['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
128,790,349 |
A.No.1067 of 1998 and A7-R. Arumugam is the appellant in Crl.The conviction and sentence imposed on the accused are as follows;AccusedConvictionSentenceA4 to A8U/s.120 - B r/w. 420, 465, 471 of IPCTo undergo 2 years RI and a fine of Rs.1,000/- , in default to undergo 3 months SI.A5U/s.471 of IPCTo undergo RI for 2 years and a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo 3 months SIA8U/s.471 of IPCU/s.420 of IPCTo undergo RI for 2 years To undergo RI for 2 years and a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo 3 months SI.A7U/s.420 of IPC To undergo 2 years RI and a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo 3 months SI.A4- fine amount Rs.1000/-A5-fine amount Rs.2,000/-A6- fine amount Rs.1000/-A7-fine amount Rs.2000/-A8-fine amount Rs.2,000/-During the pendency of Crl.A.No.1067 of 1998, A5 died.No.1251 to Sl.No.3503 are marked as Ex.(ii) As soon as permit has been issued, the applicant's signature has been obtained in the application register.On random checking, of token No.3806/81, on 7.10.1981, it was issued for supply of cement in second instalment and the same is marked as Ex.In Ex.P.9, One P. Surbamaniam is the applicant and the plan found in Ex.P.9 was prepared by R. Subramaniam -A4, the signature and seal of the Municipality has been different.Then only he directed their Subordinates to place 114 files relating to the plan prepared by A4 .Then he sent the same to Coimbatore Municipality Town Planning Division to obtain a clarification that whether the plans prepared by R.Subramaniam are true and genuine? They replied that out of 114 files, except one file, the other 113 files were fabricated documents and Coimbatore Municipality has not granted any approval for construction of the building.On the basis of that, he prepared a report Ex.P.1 and submitted the same to District Collector, Coimbatore.(iii) As per 113 files, nearly 750 tonnes of cement permit has been granted on the basis of the files and fabricated documents.As per Ex.P.97 to P104, A1-Ahamed Sheriff/Tahsildar has issued cement permits and the plans are marked as Ex.P.W.3 perused Ex.P.9 to Ex.P.74 did not contain any seal and the signatures found in Ex.P.31 to P.39 are not belonged to the Commissioner, Coimbatore Corporation.The seals are different.P.9 to P.30, Ex.P.40, Ex.P.73, P.75, Ex.P.95 did not contain the signatures .(iv) On the basis of the report filed by PW3-Brahmanayagam, PW1 has appointed three officers viz., PW6 Dhamodaran, PW4 Surya Narayanan and PW5 Garudanandham and directed them to submit a report.Then he satisfied with that and prepared his report Ex.P.2 and he forwarded the same along with Ex.P.1 to Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption.PW3 also sent another report Ex.P.3 on 24.4.1982 and the same was also forwarded to Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department.(v) PW8-Srinivasan, while he was working as Additional Head Quarters Tahsildar during the period of 27.08.1980 to 30.6.1981, he deposed that A1/Balakrishnan was working as Junior Assistant, A2/Jagannathan was working as Assistant & A3/Ganapathy was working as Junior Assistant and the applications for issuance of cement permits were registered under Ex.P.6 register and he has also signed and initialled in Ex.P.111 to P114 and Ex.(vi) P.W.35-Periasamy, who is well acquaintance with the handwritings and signatures of Mr. T.T.V. Raman, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Cell, deposed that Mr.T.T.V.Raman has received Exs.He took the matter for investigation on 21.9.1982 and he met witness PW3-Brahmmanayagam and recorded his statement.On 22.9.1982, he made the house search of A4/R.Subramaniam in the presence of PW9/S.K. Arumugam and Rangasamy along with his Inspectors K.K.Muthusamy and Bhiman.After giving prior information of house search to learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore, he seized 12 rubber seals and 17 documents under the house search list Ex.P.117, the seized seals are marked as MO1 series.House search has been made in accordance with law and he examined the witnesses and recorded their statements.PW1 was examined by T.T.V. Raman and he recorded his statement.He examined Thiru.Since there was a suspicion in the seal of Coimbatore Municipality, Mr.T.T.V. Raman, sent his letter dated 7.4.1983 along with 163 files and that letter was marked as Ex.He examined other witnesses Jagannathan, Ganapathy and Jayaram and recorded their statements.On 9.4.1983, he examined T.K.Sivashanmugam and on 13.4.1983 he examined Palanivelu and on 14.4.1983 he examined T.V. Srinivasan and other relevant witnesses and recorded their statements.He examined PW4, 5 and 6 and obtained their reports Exs.P.106,107 and 108 .(viii) On 11.03.1986, he arrested and examined one Ramasamy and recorded his statement.He gave his requisition Ex.P.W.32-Kumaravel, is the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore, who forwarded the same to P.W.33-Ayyasamy, learned Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore, to record Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement.Then P.W.32 considered Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.10 and gave tender of pardon under Section 306 Cr.P.C. after following the procedure and the tender of pardon was marked as Ex.T.T.V.Raman also obtained specimen writings and signatures from approver/Ramasamy under Ex.P.342 and on 4.3.1986, he examined Arumugam-A7 and obtained his Tamil writing and the same was marked as Ex.P.343 series.On 24.3.1986, he examined Thyagarajan-A5 and obtained his writings and signature under Ex.P344 and likewise, he obtained specimen writings and signatures of the accused A4/R.Subramaniam under Ex.P345 & K.Nataraj under Ex.(ix) Then he gave a requisition to the concerned Magistrate to send the specimen signatures and writings with the disputed documents to Forensic Department for obtaining Expert's opinion.That letter is Ex.The letter sent from Coimbatore Tahsildar to Associate Engineering Company calling for the report pertaining to the particulars regarding supply of cement bags during the year 1981 to 1982 under Ex.P.915, for which, he received a reply under Ex.Then he examined other witnesses and recorded their statements.Likewise, he sent another letter to Jagathram Company, Mettupalayam, calling for the particulars regarding the supply of cement bags on 19.6.1985 under Ex.20.A4/R.Subramaniam, who is a Civil Engineer, prepared a plan.In his cross-examination, he stated that he obtained loan from Coimbatore Co-operative Society for constructing the house to the tune of Rs.30,000/- and then he made a construction.In his cross-examination, he fairly conceded that he has submitted a plan, which was drawn by A4/R.Subramaniam before the said Society for obtaining loan.He denied a suggestion which was posed to him that the plan contained his signature.23.P.W.16-Rajagopal, in his chief-examination, stated that he obtained loan for a sum of Rs.20,000/- for construction of his house.But he stated that he did not put his signature in that plan.In his cross-examination, he fairly conceded that he constructed the house in accordance with the plan.He obtained cement permit from Tahsildar after getting permission and then he made a construction.31.P.W.26-R.Subramaniam deposed that he approached A4/R.Subramaniam for preparing plan for construction of his house and the plan was marked as Ex.But he disputed the signature in that plan.He further deposed that he constructed his house in accordance with the approved plan.Since he was unable to mobilise funds from the Society, he purchased cement from the open market.Aggrieved against the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed on A4 to A7, they have preferred the present appeals jointly.Hence Crl.A.No.1067 of 1998 is dismissed as the charge levelled against him stands abated.Hence, a charge sheet has been filed under Sections 120-B r/w 420, 465, 471 of IPC and under Sections 5(1)(d) r/w.5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 against one Ahamed Sheriff, Balakrishnan - A1, Jagannathan A2 and Ganapathi - A3 and against A4 -R. Subramaniam, A5-P.Thyagarajan, A6-P. Subramaniam, A7-R. Arumugam and A8-R.Marudhachalam.The learned Special Judge, after following the procedure framed necessary charges.Since the accused pleaded not guilty, he examined 36 witnesses viz., PW1 to PW36 and marked the documents viz., Ex.P.1 to Ex.The case of the prosecution is that on the basis of the evidence let in by the prosecution witnesses is as follows:(i) B.Ahamed Sheriff, while he was working as Tahsildar, during the period from November 1980 to April 1981, issued cement permit to the tune of 607 tonnes by conspiring with other accused.Brammanayagam is the Special Tahsildar, issued a circular Ex.P.5 dated 16.12.1978 stating that how the cement permits to be issued to the consumers and if a consumer wants more than 20 bags of cement, he ought to have enclosed Engineer's certificate, Engineer's estimate and approved plan issued by the competent authority, then only the Tahsildar will issue a cement permit.The token register is marked as Ex.P.6 and in the application register, applications from Sl.After obtaining sanction from PW2/ Swaminathan for prosecuting the accused A1 to A3, sanction letter is marked as Ex.P.4 and T.T.V.Raman filed charge sheet.(xi) The learned Special Judge placed incriminating evidence against the accused, the accused denied the same.After framing charges, before trial, A1/Ahmed Sheriff was died.A1 to A3, who are the Government Servants were acquitted.A8 Marudhachalam and A5 Thyagarajan were died during the pendency of the appeal.Now the appeals have been filed by A4/ R. Subramanyam, A6/P. Subramanyam and A7/R. Arumugam.J.S.Mahalingam, learned Amicus curiae appearing for the appellant/A4 would submit that A4 has prepared a plan in favour of one Narayanan and few others.Whenever parties approached him, he used to prepare the plans and estimates.He further submitted that one T.T.V.Raman, who was working as D.S.P., initially registered an F.I.R., but he was not examined before the Court.It is further submitted that A1, who was an Assistant and A2 & A3, who are Junior Assistants and they all were working in Taluk Office, Coimbatore and they were acquitted from the charges levelled against them.He further submitted that the appellant/A4, who is neither a Government servant nor a public servant is found guilty for the charge levelled against him, but A4 ought to have acquitted from the charges levelled against him.But the appellant/A4 in section 313 Cr.P.C. questioning, he stated that he had not furnished his specimen signatures and writings, but only a letter with his signature was obtained from him.In the seizure list, official witnesses alone have attested the same.Furthermore, sanction has not been accorded within two months and it has been granted after 10 months without any fresh materials that too after change of Government.But after the death of investigating Officer Mr.T.T.V.Raman, D.S.P., the rest of investigation was carried out by the Inspector of Police without getting any prior sanction from the concerned Magistrate.Hence, the investigation itself is vitiated, since it has not been done by the competent person.The Special Court has erred in convicting the accused solely on the basis of expert's opinion.She further submitted that A7 is an innocent and his specimen signature was also not obtained for handwriting expert's opinion.The evidence of P.W.8 has proved that what is the procedure to be adopted as soon as they received the application for cement permit.But all the public servants, who are Assistants and Junior Assistants were acquitted.Even Ahmed Sherif, who was the Tahsildar, since died, the charges against him were abated.While considering the Latin Maxim, "Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus: A maxim meaning false in one thing, false in all", the Special Court ought to have accepted the entire evidence of P.W.10 as trustworthy or rejected entire evidence of P.W.10 as not trustworthy.24.P.W.17-Shanmugam, in his chief-examination, stated that he approached A4 for drawing plan.A4 prepared Ex.P300-plan and the same was approved by Corporation.But he stated that the signature in that plan was not belonged to him.He further stated that he had not obtained cement permit from Tahsildar and he had not constructed the house as per the plan under Ex.But in his cross-examination, he stated that since his plan has not been approved by Corporation, he was unable to obtain cement permit.He denied the suggestion which was posed to him that he obtained the plan for construction of larger extent, but he constructed only a small house.25.P.W.18-Devaraj deposed that he constructed a house and the plan prepared by A4/R.Subramaniam was marked as Ex.Velusamy deposed that A4 prepared a plan for construction of house.Initially, the Corporation did not give approval and later, he obtained permission and the plans were marked as Exs.But he stated that the signature in Ex.28.P.W.21-P.K.Ramasamy deposed that he approached A4/R.Subramaniam for preparing plan for construction of his house.Through him, no document has been marked.29.P.W.22-Muthusamy deposed that he approached A4/R.Subramaniam for preparing plan and the plan was marked as Ex.P304 and he made a construction by purchasing cement from the open market.He further deposed that his address was given in the plan, but he disputed the signature in the plan.30.P.W.25-Venkitasamy deposed that he approached A4/R.Subramaniam for preparing plan for construction of his house.He also obtained cement permit for 220 bags (i.e.) 11 tonnes from the Tahsildar Office, Coimbatore.He further deposed that the plan was marked as Ex.P309, but the signature in that plan is not belonged to him.In Ex.P310, it was reported that one Duraisamy put his signature.32.P.W.31-D.K.Sivashanmugam, who is none other than the brother-in-law of A4, in his evidence, he stated that the plan for construction of building in Ex.P15 and P43 contained his signatures and that signatures were marked as Exs.He further deposed that Exs.P15 and P43-plans are one and the same, as an approver he put his signature.In his cross-examination, he stated that A4/R.Subramaniam is a licensed building surveyor and he is a competent person to prepare the plan for construction of the building and therefore, no necessity to get an approval from other Engineer.33.Considering the evidence of alleged applicants viz., P.W.11 to P.W.13, P.W.16 to P.W.22, P.W.25 and P.W.26, it would show that they had approached A4 for preparing plan for construction of their house, but they denied the signature in the plan.Furthermore, they had deposed that they constructed the buildings by purchasing cement from the open market.Considering their evidence, A4/R.Subramaniam drew the plan as soon as the applicants approached him.It is not the duty of A4/appellant to verify that whether the applicants are the owners of the site and whether they are willing to obtain cement permit for construction of their buildings.As per the evidence of P.W.31, A4/appellant is a competent person to prepare the plan for approval and gave estimate for construction materials.In such circumstances, merely because the applicants/witnesses disputed that the plans did not contain their signatures, it will not mean that A4/R.Subramaniam put his signature.In his evidence, he stated that since he was dismissed from the Mill at Coimbatore in the year 1976, he is doing some work to help the mill workers to obtain provident fund loan, marriage loan, building loan and on that basis only, he received some income.P.W.10 never stated that the applicants viz., P.W.11, 14, 16 to 22, 25 and 26 were approached him for housing loan.35.P.W.6/Tahsildar, Coimbatore, was examined and he submitted Ex.P108-Report, in which, he stated that he inspected three houses, which was alleged to be constructed on the basis of cement permit issued to the applicants, but they are not residing there.Except this report, P.W.6 had not filed any supporting documents to show that those houses were not constructed by the applicants and they had not obtained cement permit.Furthermore, V.A.O. was not examined before the Court.36.It is pertinent to note that P.W.3, who was working as Tahsildar, Coimbatore, deposed that District Collector of Coimbatore issued Ex.P5-circular, which contains the procedures for issuing cement permit.He also deposed that what is the procedure to be adopted for obtaining cement permit.As per his evidence, Tahsildar is a competent person to verify the applications sought for cement permit and if he is having any doubt over the applications, he may very well reject the same.37.P.W.8-Srinivasan, who was the retired Deputy Tahsildar, in his cross-examination, fairly conceded that if the applications for cement permit have not contained any relevant documents, those applications have been returned and the applications, which are accepted alone have been registered in the Register for application.However, they were acquitted from the charges levelled against them.But he stated that he had not put his signature in that plan.In his cross-examination, he fairly conceded that he requested A4/R.Subramaniam to prepare three plans and according to that plans, he constructed his building.So considering the entire evidence, I am of the view, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that A4/R.Subramaniam conspiring with other accused, committed the offence by preparing forged documents and used them as genuine and with dishonest intention cheated the Government by obtaining cement permit in fair price and caused loss to the Government.39.P.W.32-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore, recorded the statements of P.W.10-Ramasamy, an approver, for giving tender of pardon under Section 306 Cr.P.C. and in his evidence, he stated that A4 has been known to him since 1976 onwards and if the workers want to obtain house loan, they approach A4 to prepare the plan for construction of house and thereafter, he approached concerned authority for obtaining loan.As already stated that witnesses/applicants had stated that they alone approached A4 for preparing plan for construction of their buildings.In such circumstances, I am of the view, the evidence of approver is not trustworthy and hence, it is not reliable.40.On perusal of Ex.P292, a requisition was given by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-corruption, for recording confession of P.W.10/Ramasamy, s/o Narayanasamy, under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and that has been forwarded to the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Coimbatore, for compliance.While perusing the statement of P.W.10 under Section 164 Cr.P.C. along with his deposition before the Court, it shows that the deposition of P.W.10 is an improved version of his statement.The Special Court has disbelieved the statement of the approver in respect of A1 to A3 alone and acquitted them.Therefore, I am of the view, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that A4/R.Subramaniam, who alleged to be drew the plan, conspiring with other accused, prepared the forged documents and used them as original documents and cheated the Government and caused loss to the Government, beyond reasonable doubt.Furthermore, there is no clinching and concrete evidence for convicting the accused for the offences under Sections 120B read with 420 IPC, 465 and 471 IPC.But as already stated that P.W.3 deposed the procedures to be adopted for granting of cement permit and the Tahsildar and A1 to A3 are the competent persons to reject the applications, which sought for cement permit, but they are not verified the same.But the charges against the Tahsildar was abated, since he was died and A1 to A3 were acquitted.Since the evidence of P.W.10/approver is rejected, there is no convincing and concrete evidence for convicting the accused.So the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the accused are guilty of the charges levelled against them.43.In fine, Criminal Appeals are allowed, setting aside the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 27.11.1998, made in Spl.C.C.No.1 of 1990, on the file of the Special Court-cum-I Additional District and Sessions Court-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Coimbatore.2.Deputy Superintendent of Police Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-corruption Coimbatore.3.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.Pre-delivery Judgment made in CRL.A.Nos.1067, 1069 & 1070 of 1998
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,285,457 |
JUDGMENT K.N. Seth, J.On 23-8-1971 at about noon time an incident took place in village Kanaili, Police Station Sarai Aqil district Allahabad, in which Ganesh Din lost his life and Surya Bali Singh, Daya Ram Singh and Gaya Prasad Singh received injuries.In Sessions Trial No. 91 of 1973 the appellants have been found guilty for committing the murder of Ganesh Din and causing injuries to Surya Bali Singh and others.For the murder of Ganesh Din, Sita Ram has been sentenced to imprisonment for life under Section 302, I.P.C. The remaining four appellants, namely, Din Bandhu, Lalji, Ram Naresh and Sarwan Kumar have been awarded the same sentence under Section 302/149, I.P.C. The appellants have further been convicted and sentenced to various terms of imprisonments for other offences committed in the incident.The sentences have been directed to run concurrently.While admitting the appeal this Court enlarged the appellants on bail.During the pendency of the appeal in this Court the original record was destroyed as a result of an accidental fire that broke out in the court below.When the appeal was put up for hearing, an attempt was made to reconstruct the record.Ample opportunity was allowed to the State as well as to the appellants but the record could not be reconstructed.The appeal has been pending in this Court for about six years.
|
['Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
128,546,938 |
P.W.1 Senthil is her elder brother.P.W.2 Venkatesan and P.W.4 Selvaraj are junior paternal uncle of Jayanthi.P.W.9 Murugan and P.W.10 Banumathi are relatives of Jayanthi.P.W.8 Revathi is residing four houses away from the house of Jayanthi.Accused No.2 Renganathan is the father of accused No.1 Shankar.P.W.1 Senthil took her to Rajah Muthiah Medical College and Hospital, Annamalainagar.P.W.14 Dr. G.Ramakrishnan examined her at 1.40 P.M. on 4.10.2009, and found 100% burns and admitted her in the hospital.P7 is the accident register extract issued by him.P.W.15 Dr. S.Kannappan certified the physical and mental fitness of Jayanthi to give statement.P9 and P10 are the certificates made by him in Ex.P11 proceedings.(b) P.W.18 Inspector Deivam received the intimation from the hospital at 4.15 P.M., and went there and recorded Ex.P13 statement given by Jayanthi, and on return to station, registered a case in Crime No.435/2009 under Sections 295(b), 323 and 307 IPC and prepared Ex.P14 First Information Report.At 9.30 P.M., he went to the occurrence place and prepared Ex.P2 observation mahazar, in the presence of P.W.5 Paramasivam and another.P15 is the rough sketch drawn by him.He examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and recorded their statements.On 5.10.2009, P.W.1 Senthil sent Ex.P16 letter, to the Investigation Officer and P.W.18 Inspector Deivam altered the case to one under Sections 294(b), 323 and 302 IPC and prepared Ex.P17 alteration report, and dispatched the same.He conducted inquest on the body of Jayanthi on 5.10.2009 between 10.30 A.M. and 12.00 Noon and prepared Ex.P18 inquest report.He examined further witnesses and recorded their statements."Burns 95% whole body except with some parts of external genitalia.INTERNAL EXAM: Thorax symmetrical, RIBS intact, Heart 100 ml of blood with clots present.Lungs pale, Hyoid bone intact.Stomach undigested rice particles about 200 ml present.Liver, Spleen & Kidney pale.Intestines distended with gas.Bladder empty, uterus empty.Pelvis normal.Skull normal, Membrane intact, Brain pale."She expressed opinion that death would have occurred 15 to 17 hours prior to postmortem due to 95% burns with excess fluid loss and hypovolemic shock.P12 is the postmortem certificate issued by her.(d) P.W.18 Inspector Deivam arrested accused No.1 Shankar and accused No.2 Renganathan at 3.30 P.M. on 5.10.2009, near Vaalakuttai Bus Stand and enquired them in the presence of P.W.6 Village Administrative Officer (VAO) Saminathan and Chinnathambi and accused No.1 Shankar gave confession statement, of which Ex.P3 is the admissible portion, and took them near Jayanthi's house and took and produced M.Os.1 to 3 and he recovered them in the presence of said witnesses.(Judgment of the Court was delivered by C.NAGAPPAN, J.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29.6.2011, made in Sessions Case No.62 of 2010, on the file of the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Perambalur.For the sake of convenience, the appellants, namely R.Shankar and P.Renganathan, in this judgment, will be referred to as accused Nos.1 and 2 respectively.2.Totally there were two accused in the above said Sessions Case, and both were convicted and sentenced as follows:ACCUSEDCONVICTIONSENTENCEA-1Section 302 IPCSentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, i/d to undergo 6 months RIA-2Section 302 r/w 34 IPCSentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, i/d to undergo 6 months RI3.The prosecution case is briefly stated thus:(a) P.W.3 Pandiyan is the husband of deceased Jayanthi.He sent requisition to the Judicial Magistrate for recording dying declaration and also sent intimation to the police.P.W.16 Mr.Eswaramoorthi, Judicial Magistrate No.II, Chidambaram, went to the hospital at 3.00 P.M., and recorded Ex.P11 dying declaration of Jayanthi.He sent the body for postmortem.(c) P.W.17 Dr. E.Suganthi conducted autopsy on the body of Jayanthi at 12.05 P.M. on 5.10.2009 in Government Kamaraj Hospital, Chidambaram and found the following:On 8.10.2009, he examined P.Ws.8 to 13 and recorded their statements.On 12.10.2009, he examined P.W.14 Dr. G.Ramakrishnan, P.W.15 Dr. S.Kannappan and P.W.17 Dr. E.Suganthi and recorded their statements.He completed the investigation on 6.11.2009, and filed the final report against the accused.4.In the trial of the case, the prosecution in order to sustain the charges framed against the accused, examined P.Ws.1 to 18 and marked Exs.5.Accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and they denied complicity.No witness was examined and no document was marked on their side.6.The trial Court found the accused guilty of the charges and sentenced them as stated earlier.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, they have preferred the present appeal.7.The prosecution case is that accused No.1 Shankar and accused No.2 Renganathan poured kerosene on Jayanthi and burnt her to death.Except P.W.5 Paramasivam and P.W.6 VAO Saminathan, who are attestors of observation mahazar and recovery mahazar respectively, and other official witnesses, all other prosecution witnesses, namely P.Ws.1 to 4 and 7 to 13 have turned hostile.P11 is the dying declaration made by Jayanthi to P.W.16 Judicial Magistrate Eswaramoorthi.P9 and P10 are certificates made by P.W.15 Dr. S.Kannappan in it certifying that Jayanthi was conscious and in a fit condition to give statement.In Ex.P11 dying declaration, Jayanthi has stated that accused No.1 Shankar was to return two sovereigns of jewel given to Jayanthi by her parents, and since it was demanded, both the accused went to her parental home and assaulted her brother and they came to her house and accused No.1 Shankar by saying that she has to die, poured kerosene on her and the public came and quenched the fire and also stated that her husband is a good person and if she is dead, it is only due to accused No.1 Shankar.P11 dying declaration, was recorded between 3.00 P.M. and 3.30 P.M. on 4.10.2009, by the Judicial Magistrate.8.On receiving the intimation from Rajah Muthiah Medical College and Hospital, Annamalainagar, about the admission of Jayanthi as inpatient, P.W.18 Inspector Deivam went there and recorded Ex.P13 statement, given by Jayanthi, in the presence of P.W.15 Dr. S.Kannappan.In Ex.P13 statement, Jayanthi has stated that after marriage, the members of the in-laws' family took two gold coins weighing two sovereigns, from Jayanthi promising to return, and they did not do so and accused No.1 Shankar promised to arrange for its return and he did not keep up his promise and four days prior to occurrence, she informed her brother and junior paternal uncle and they told her that they will have a talk on 4.10.2009, and when the matter was discussed between both the parties, a quarrel arose and on the occurrence day at 12.30 P.M., her husband Pandiyan had gone to Meensuruti and she was alone in the house and accused Nos.1 and 2 came there and cursed Jayanthi that she was responsible for the whole problem and so saying, they beat her with stick and poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze and ran away from the scene and the neighbours came and quenched the fire.P.W.15 Dr. S.Kannappan has also made an endorsement in Ex.P13 statement, that it was recorded in his presence as stated by Jayanthi.P13 statement, was recorded at 6.15 P.M., and a case came to be registered at 8.30 P.M. on the occurrence day.P7 accident register extract, shows that Jayanthi was brought to Rajah Muthiah Medical College and Hospital, Annamalainagar by her brother P.W.1 Senthil.His further testimony is that Jayanthi told him that at 12.00 Noon on the same day, she set fire on herself by pouring kerosene, in her house.In Ex.P7 accident register extract, also, the same version has been recorded.At the time when Jayanthi told the said version to the admission Doctor, she was accompanied only by her brother, namely P.W.1 Senthil, and neither her husband nor any other members of his family were present at that time.If any other person set her ablaze, naturally she could have informed the same to the admission Doctor as to how she came to suffer burn injuries.In such circumstances, her version before the admission Doctor as referred above, cannot be eschewed from consideration.11.There are contradictions and inconsistencies between Ex.P11 and Ex.P13 dying declarations, which came into existence after Ex.P7 document.The most glaring inconsistency is that Jayanthi in Ex.P11 dying declaration, has implicated only accused No.1 Shankar for having poured kerosene, whereas in Ex.P13 statement, the same overt act has been attributed to accused Nos.1 and 2 and further, it is stated that they set her ablaze.It is relevant to point out that both these dying declarations came into existence within a period of three hours, on the occurrence day itself.This cannot be merely termed as a contradiction and it goes to the root of the matter, thereby showing that Jayanthi had a tendency to implicate the accused.P7, and they being an after thought of the deceased Jayanthi giving rise to suspicion about its truthfulness, it is not safe to act on such dying declarations and not possible to convict the accused in the absence of any other corroboration.The trial Court has failed to appreciate the multiple dying declarations in proper perspective and its conclusion that the accused are guilty of the charges is erroneous and unsustainable in law and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants/accused No.1 and 2 by it, are liable to be set aside.15.In the result, this criminal appeal is allowed, and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2, namely R.Shankar and P.Renganathan respectively, by the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Perambalur, in S.C.No.62/2010 dated 29.6.2011, are set aside, and the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2, namely R.Shankar and P.Renganathan respectively, are acquitted of the charges.The fine amount if any paid, shall be refunded to them.The appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2, namely R.Shankar and P.Renganathan respectively, are directed to be released forthwith, unless their custody is required in connection with any other case.1)The Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Perambalur.2)The District and Sessions Judge Perambalur3)The District and Sessions Judge Ariyalur4)The Judicial Magistrate Jayamkondam5)The Chief Judicial Magistrate Perambalur6)The Inspector of Police Meensuruti Police Station Ariyalur District7)The Superintendent of Prisons Central Prison, Trichy.8)The District Collector Ariyalur District, Ariyalur.11)The Section Officer Criminal Section, High Court, Madras
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 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.
|
128,547,318 |
10 md.And In Re:-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. ) 2
|
['Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,285,527 |
The prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows:Ramfali Rai (PW.1) is the son of Badri Rai (hereinafterreferred to as the `deceased').There was a long standingdispute pending between the appellant's and the deceased'sfamily.Proceedings were initiated under Section 145 of theCode of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short `Cr.P.C.') andseveral suits were also filed.The dispute between the twofamilies was pending from the year 1952 and according to theprosecution, it is said to be the motive for the unfortunateoccurrence.2 On 28.6.1978, the deceased left for his field accompaniedby his servant Mantu Rai.Ramfali Rai (PW.1) stayed at homeand at about 9.00 a.m., he heard shouts, "Maro Maro" andcame out of the house and started running towards the northfrom where the shouts were emanating.Reaching somedistance, he found his father, Badri Rai, being chased by theaccused-appellant Bihari Rai and the other two accused.TulsiRai and Ghutru Rai, were also found at that place.AccusedBihari Rai, inflicted three blows - two on the head and one onthe hand of the deceased-Badri Rai, and the deceased felldown and the accused 2 and 3 also gave lathi blows andthereafter all the three accused left the place.Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.1. Leave granted.Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a DivisionBench of the Jharkhand High Court partially allowing the appeal of the appellant, while directing acquittal of co-accusedpersons.The High Court altered it to Section 304Part I IPC, and sentence of seven years was imposed.The occurrencewas witnessed by Ramfali Rai (PW.1), Horil Rai (PW.2), KuwaRai (PW.5), Gopi Rai (PW.6) and Jarman Rai (PW. 7).In themeantime, information was received at Jama Police Station bySudhir Kumar Sinha, Sub-Inspector, that some occurrencehad taken place in the village - Barudih.Investigation was taken up and the inquestwas conducted, which stands marked as Ext.2/2, duringwhich witnesses were examined.After the inquest, the bodywas sent to the hospital with a request to the Doctor toconduct autopsy.Dr. Upendra Prasaad Sinha (PW.9), CivilAssistant Surgeon, Sadar Hospital, Dumka, conducted post-mortem on the body of the deceased, Badri Rai, and he foundthe following injuries:(i) Incised wound 1" x =" x 1" on outer side of left arm;(ii) Incised wound 8" x 1" x 4" cutting the posterior left side of the scalp bone including the brain substance with a large haemorrhage (in the post mortem report the expression "haematoma" and not haemorrhage as has been deposed by the Doctor inside the brain substance;(iii) Incised wound 6" x 1" x 31/2" cutting the posterior right side of the scalp bone including the brain substance with a large haemorrhage (here also the expression in the post mortem report is haematoma) inside the brain substance;The doctor issued the post mortem certificate, Ext. 4,with his opinion that injuries (ii) and (iii) found on the bodyare sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause deathand that death must have occurred within 36 hours.After completion of investigation, the charge sheet wasfiled against the accused persons.The Trial Court placed reliance on the evidence of theeye-witnesses PWs.1, 2, 5, 6 and 7 and found the appellantand the co-accused persons guilty.In appeal, the High Courtfound that Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC applied andaccordingly directed conviction of the appellant in terms ofSection 304 Part-I IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous 5 imprisonment for seven years.However, the co-accusedpersons were acquitted.In appeal before the High Court, theprimary stand was that in the fardbeyan given by PW.1 thenames of PWs.2, 6 and 7 had not been given.Additionally, itwas submitted that having accepted that the occurrence tookplace in course of sudden quarrel, the trial Court should haveaccepted the plea relating to right of private defence.The High Court found that the evidence of PW.1 was tothe effect that on hearing the cries of his father he came out ofthe house, ran towards the place and found the appellantinflicting injuries on the deceased.It was therefore, possiblethat he could not have noticed the presence of PWs.2,6 and 7.However PW 6 has categorically stated about the presence ofall the eye witnesses.So far as the plea relating to right ofprivate defence is concerned, it is to be noted that no evidencein that regard was adduced.On the contrary, the High Courtreferred to the evidence of PWs.2,6 and 7 to the effect that 6 just before the occurrence the accused and the first deceasedhad quarreled and thereafter first accused inflicted blows withan axe, which he had in his hand, on the deceased.PW 1 wasnot present when the quarrel commenced and he came to thescene of occurrence on hearing the cries of his father and sawthe appellant inflicting blows on the deceased.In thatbackground Exception 4 to Section 300 was applied.To claim a right of privatedefence extending to voluntary causing of death, the accusedmust show that there were circumstances giving rise toreasonable grounds for apprehending that either death orgrievous hurt would be caused to him.The burden is on the 10 accused to show that he had a right of private defence whichextended to causing of death.Sections 100 and 101, IPCdefine the limit and extent of right of private defence.Sections 102 and 105, IPC deal with commencement andcontinuance of the right of private defence of body andproperty respectively.The right commences, as soon as areasonable apprehension of danger to the body arises from anattempt, or threat to commit the offence, although the offencemay not have been committed but not until that there is thatreasonable apprehension.The right lasts so long as thereasonable apprehension of the danger to the body continues.In Jai Dev v. State of Punjab (AIR 1963 SC 612), it wasobserved that as soon as the cause for reasonableapprehension disappears and the threat has either beendestroyed or has been put to route, there can be no occasionto exercise the right of private defence.No evidence much less cogent andcredible was adduced in this regard.The right of privatedefence as claimed by the accused persons have been rightlydiscarded.The High Court has referred to the evidence of PWs.2,6and 7 to conclude that just before the arrival of PW 1 at thescene of occurrence there was a quarrel between the deceasedand the accused.
|
['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,285,587 |
It is unfortunate that the trial court only took note of the earlier part of PW2s testimony and completely disregarded his latter statement in cross-examination to the effect that he did not see the incident himself.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?These appeals are directed against the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions case No. 128/96 CRL.By virtue of the impugned judgment, the appellants Aslam @ Pappu and Abdul Hakim @ Abdul Salim have been convicted for the offences under Sections 392/34 IPC and 302/34 IPC.By virtue of order of sentence dated 17.5.1997, both the appellants were sentenced under Section 302/34 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life each and to pay a fine of ` 2000/- each and in default of payment of the fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.Both the appellants were further sentenced under Section 392/34 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years each and to pay a fine of ` 2000/- each and in default whereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.The sentences were directed to run concurrently.CRL. A. Nos.286/97 & 377/97 Page 1 of 13We may point out at this stage itself that charges were framed against the present appellants as also one Abdul Salam @ Salam son of Pir Baksh.He was, however, acquitted by the trial court.It is the prosecution case that that there was another person by the name of Ashraf who was also involved in the alleged commission of crime but from the formal charge, it appears that Ashraf was declared to be a proclaimed offender.CRL. A. Nos.286/97 & 377/97 Page 2 of 13CRL. A. Nos.286/97 & 377/97 Page 2 of 13As per the charge dated 05.04.1995, it is alleged that the appellants, on 14.05.1992 at around 10:45 am, opposite shop No. 1/277, G.T. Road, Shahdara, falling in the area of police station Mansrover Park, along with co-accused Ashraf, in furtherance of their common intention, committed robbery of `60,000/- allegedly contained in a bag carried by Ram Chand and thus it is alleged that the appellants had committed an offence under Section 392/34 IPC.The further charge was that on the said date and place, at about 10:45 am, the appellants along with the co-accused Ashraf, in furtherance of their common intention, intentionally and knowingly, caused the death of Ram Chand and thus committed the offence under Section 302/34 IPC.The prosecution case is that Ram Chand was working as a manager with Rajdhani Petrol Pump.It was usual for him to go to the bank to deposit the money in the mornings.On 14.05.1992, Ram Chand, as usual, left Rajdhani Petrol Pump on his scooter bearing No.On that date PW1 Kulwinder Singh, who is the son-in- law of Ram Chand, had some work with Ram Chand and, therefore, had gone to Rajdhani Petrol Pump, Seelampur to meet him.He was told that Ram Chand had gone to Bank of India, G.T. Road to deposit some money.Thereupon, PW1 Kulwinder Singh is said to have taken a short-cut on his own scooter and arrived at the said Bank of India ahead of Ram Chand.Since Ram Chand had not yet arrived at the bank, PW1 CRL.A. Nos.286/97 & 377/97 Page 3 of 13 Kulwinder Singh is said to have gone inside the bank and waited for him.It is further the case of the prosecution that after some time there was a commotion outside the bank and PW1 Kulwinder Singh saw that his father-in-law Ram Chand was surrounded by three boys and that one of the boys threw some yellow powder on the eyes of Ram Chand and another boy took out a dagger and stabbed Ram Chand and the third snatched the bag which Ram Chand was carrying and all of them disappeared from the scene in a gali towards Ram Nagar railway line.It is also the case of the prosecution that PW1 saw the incident and that he could identify the assailants.As per the prosecution, PW2 Laxmi Narain, who was a passerby, also saw the incident on that day and he could identify the assailants.We may point out that PW 3 and PW 4 were also cited as eye witnesses but they turned completely hostile and the trial court disregarded their testimonies in toto.CRL. A. Nos.286/97 & 377/97 Page 3 of 13The present appellants were allegedly arrested on 06.05.1993 in connection with another set of FIRs being FIR Nos. 124/93 and 126/93 of the same police station which were for the offences under the Arms Act and Section 5 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act. It is apparent that after their arrest in those FIRs, the appellants made some disclosure statements which also related to the present case.Recovery of a rexine bag at the instance of the appellant Aslam @ Pappu is said to have been made pursuant to his disclosure CRL.A. Nos.286/97 & 377/97 Page 4 of 13 statement.Insofar as the other appellant, that is, Abdul Hakim @ Abdul Salim is concerned, no recovery whatsoever has been made from him or at his instance.CRL. A. Nos.286/97 & 377/97 Page 4 of 13The trial court, believing the testimonies of PW1 and a part of the testimony of PW2 and considering the recovery of the rexine bag, allegedly at the instance of Aslam @ Pappu, to be established, convicted the appellants while at the same time Abdul Salam, who was a co-accused, was acquitted.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the trial court fell into error.First of all, it was submitted that the identity of the assailants was not free from doubt.The learned counsel submitted that no test identification parade was conducted and it is for the first time in Court itself, when PW1, on 17.05.1995, is said to have identified the appellants.It was submitted by the learned counsel that it would be very difficult, if at all possible, for anyone to identify the assailants whom he saw in a fleeting moment after a time gap of three years and four years, respectively.It was further submitted that there were several contradictions in the testimonies of both PW1 and PW2 which would make it extremely unsafe for the Court to base a conviction on their testimonies.Apart from this, it was submitted that CRL.A. Nos.286/97 & 377/97 Page 5 of 13 there was no recovery, whatsoever, made from Abdul Hakim @ Abdul Salim and even the recovery allegedly made at the instance of Aslam @ Pappu was not established because the so-called rexine bag was not produced in the Court and was not identified by any of the witnesses in Court.CRL. A. Nos.286/97 & 377/97 Page 5 of 13The learned counsel for the State submitted that the testimonies of PW1 and PW2 clearly established the identity of the appellants and that, in particular, PW1 has narrated the incident exactly in the manner in which it took place.He also happened to be the son- in-law of Ram Chand and that it would not be difficult for him to remember the faces of the assailants of his father-in-law.It is apparent from the above that the entire case rests upon the factum of identification of the assailants of Ram Chand.If there is clear convincing evidence that the assailants have been correctly identified, then it will be very difficult for the appellants to avoid a CRL.A. Nos.286/97 & 377/97 Page 6 of 13 conviction.However, if the evidence on this aspect of the matter is shaky, the benefit would have to go to the appellants.CRL. A. Nos.286/97 & 377/97 Page 6 of 13PW1 Kulwinder Singh, who is the son-in-law of the deceased Ram Chand, first of all, stated that when he reached the petrol pump at Seelampur, he was informed that Ram Chand had gone to the bank, namely, UCO Bank, G. T. Road, Delhi.It is an admitted position that the incident took place near Bank of India, G.T. Road, Delhi.Therefore, this part of the testimony of PW1 Kulwinder Singh does not match with the actual incident.However, the learned trial court disregarded this discrepancy as a mere slip of tongue.PW1 Kulwinder Singh further stated that when he was inside the bank and was waiting for his father-in-law, after about 5 to 7 minutes, he heard noises of a quarrel outside but he was not allowed to go out of the bank gate as the same had been locked on account of the quarrel.He stated that he saw through the glass window that the deceased Ram Chand had been caught hold by "three persons".One of them was stabbing the deceased with a knife type article.He further stated that two of the above persons are present in Court and he pointed towards Abdul Hakim and Aslam.He then pointed towards Abdul Hakim and stated that he had stabbed his father-in-law with a knife type article.He further stated that the other two persons had caught CRL.A. Nos.286/97 & 377/97 Page 7 of 13 hold of the deceased Ram Chand and that Abdul Salim, who was also an accused, was not present at the spot at that time.He further stated that he did not know the amount of cash or the contents of the bag which the deceased had with him at the time he was attacked.CRL. A. Nos.286/97 & 377/97 Page 7 of 13Since PW1 Kulwinder Singh was partly resiling from his earlier statement, the learned APP had sought to cross-examine him.During his cross-examination, he categorically stated that he did not tell the police that he was waiting for the deceased in front of the bank.He also stated that he did not tell the police about the description of the two boys who had assaulted his father-in-law and that the bag contained ` 60,000/-.He also stated that he did not tell the police that he tried to rescue the deceased from the above persons and that the black boy stabbed the deceased in his left chest with a dagger resulting in bleeding injuries.He further stated that he told the police that the two boys snatched the cash bag of the deceased and ran in the gali towards Ram Nagar railway line.Further down in his cross- examination by the learned APP, he stated that Abdul Salam was the person who had thrown the yellow powder upon the deceased.Abdul Salim was standing at the eastern corner of the bank and it was Aslam who had snatched the bag from the deceased.He further stated that he did not identify Ashraf who had stabbed the deceased.A. Nos.286/97 & 377/97 Page 8 of 13CRL. A. Nos.286/97 & 377/97 Page 8 of 13We may also point out at this juncture that the bag, which is said to have been recovered at the instance of Aslam @ Pappu and which had been marked as Exhibit P-1 was sought to be produced before the court on that date itself but had not been produced.Further cross-examination of PW1 was deferred and on the next day, the learned APP stated that the bag in question had not been brought from Malkhana of police station Anand Vihar in case FIR No. 126/93 of police station Anand Vihar.When PW1 was further cross examined by the learned APP on another date, he stated that he could identify the bag, if shown to him.He stated that the words "Rajdhani Service Station" were inscribed, as per his memory, on the said bag.He further stated that in his examination-in-chief and previous statement he could not recollect the entire facts due to lapse of time.He also admitted that details regarding the facts of the incident had been forgotten by him to some extent when he was examined in court on the last date.CRL. A. Nos.286/97 & 377/97 Page 9 of 13CRL. A. Nos.286/97 & 377/97 Page 9 of 13In his cross-examination by the defence counsel, he stated that after parking the scooter his father-in-law Ram Chand had not entered the bank nor had he seen him entering the bank but he had heard a noise opposite the bank.He saw that a crowd had collected at the spot.When he reached the spot he found that the miscreants had gone from the spot after the incident.We find that this witness in his cross-examination stated that on the fateful day, he left his house at about 8 am on his two wheeler scooter, the number of which he did not remember.This has to be contrasted with the fact that he remembered the number of his father- in-laws scooter! From a complete reading of the testimony of PW1, we get the impression that he has a selective memory in respect of certain things and he has forgotten the rest.In fact, in his very first statement, he had stated that he did not remember the date, month or year in which his father-in-law Ram Chand had died.He stated that he died about three years ago.But, the very next statement made by him was that it was on 14.05.1992 at about 10:30 or 11 am, he had gone to meet the deceased at the petrol pump at Seelampur where he was working as a manager.It is somewhat surprising that at one point this witness stated that he did not know the date, month and year in which his father-in-law passed away and in the same breath in the very next sentence he mentions the date of 14.05.2992 as also the time.We have CRL.A. Nos.286/97 & 377/97 Page 10 of 13 also examined the photographs (Exhibit PW6/9 - PW6/16) of the place of occurrence, from which it is apparent that the place where the incident took place is adjacent to the Bank of India inside which PW1 Kulwinder Singh is said to have been at the time of the occurrence.From the photographs it is apparent that there were glass panes facing the road.One of the glass panes also had the logo of the Bank of India.There was also a notice board hanging on the iron grill which was outside the glass panes.Thereafter, there was an open space and then a wall of about three feet height and an iron gate of the same height.On the left portion, there were some electricity poles, which would have also obstructed the view.Ram Chand was attacked in the shop adjacent to the Bank of India and, therefore, we feel that it would be highly improbable for a person standing inside the bank to have been able to see with clarity through all these visual obstructions.Not only this, PW1 cannot be believed when he said that he even read as to what was written on the bag from that distance.Therefore, we cannot say with any degree of certainty that PW1 could have seen the assailants in the flurry of activity that took place and to have remembered their faces for over three years, when he allegedly identified them in Court.CRL. A. Nos.286/97 & 377/97 Page 10 of 13Insofar as PW2 Laxmi Narain is concerned, we find that he has not even named the bank and he has stated the place of occurrence to be a bank near Lal Kuan.He stated in his earlier part of his CRL.A. Nos.286/97 & 377/97 Page 11 of 13 testimony that Aslam and Abdul Hakim, who are present in Court, were quarrelling with an old man.However, this witness has not stated anything about anyone throwing yellow powder or anybody snatching a bag from that man.In the earlier part of his statement he stated that he saw this incident of quarrelling at a distance of about 7-8 paces.However, subsequently, in cross-examination, this witness has denied everything and he voluntarily stated that he did not see the incident himself.Consequently, PW2, in our opinion, cannot be regarded as an eye witness.Thus, we are left with the alleged recovery of the bag which bore the words rajdhani service station which were said to be in Hindi.However, since that bag has not been produced or identified by PW1, the prosecution cannot place any reliance on it.CRL. A. Nos.286/97 & 377/97 Page 11 of 13Thus, looking to the totality of the circumstances, we find that the prosecution has not been able to establish any recovery from either of the appellants.No test identification parade was conducted for identifying any of the appellants.The appellants were arrested after one year and that too in connection with some other case.The appellants CRL.A. Nos.286/97 & 377/97 Page 12 of 13 were said to have been identified in Court by PW1 and PW2 for the first time after a gap of three years and four years respectively.It is also clear that PW2 resiled from his earlier statement and ultimately stated in cross-examination that he did not see the incident himself.Insofar as PW1 Kulwinder Singh is concerned, we find that he suffers from selective recall and, therefore, his testimony cannot be treated as being of a stellar quality or of such a quality on which, alone, a conviction could be based.The prosecution needed to establish its case by providing some corroboration which it has failed to do.In these circumstances, we find that the case against the appellants is not beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, the benefit must go to the appellants.CRL. A. Nos.286/97 & 377/97 Page 12 of 13Consequently, the impugned judgment and order on sentence are set aside.The appeals stand disposed of.A copy of this judgment / order be sent to the Superintendent of the concerned jail for compliance.BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J MANMOHAN SINGH, J APRIL 01, 2011 HK/SR CRL.A. Nos.286/97 & 377/97 Page 13 of 13
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
128,563,713 |
He further submitted that the appellant was absent on 14.01.2017 and NBW was issued against the appellant and the same was executed on 01.03.2017 and now the appellant is in judicial custody.He also submitted that charges havebeen framed in this case, but trial is not yet to be commenced and NBW wasissued against the appellant for the first time.3.The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the due toviral fever, the appellant was unable to appear before the concerned Court on14.01.2017 and earlier the appellant was released on bail in this case.Accordingly, the Criminal appeal is allowed and theappellant is ordered to be enlarged on bail subject to the followingconditions:-[a] The appellant shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to thesatisfaction of the II Additional District and Sessions Court, Tirunelveli.[b]the appellant shall report before the concerned Sessions Court,daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders.[c]the appellant shall not tamper with evidence or witness eitherduring investigation or trial.[d]the appellant shall not abscond either during investigation ortrial.[e]On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learnedMagistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against theappellant in accordance with law, as if the conditions have been imposed andthe appellant released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himselfas laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala[(2005)AIR SCW 5560].ToThe Inspector of Police,Gangaikondan Police Station, Tirunelveli District.(Crime No.140 of 2012).
|
['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
128,564,041 |
Case diary is available.This is first application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
128,565,979 |
AB Court 28 C.R.M. 1203 of 2018 In Re : An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Khanakul P.S. Case No.458 of 2017 dated 29.11.2017 under Sections 498A/406 of the Indian Penal Code And In the matter of : Ranajit Samanta ...Petitioner.Mr. Suddhadev Adak ...for the Petitioner.Ms. Ratna Ghosh ...for the State.It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in the instant case.Learned lawyer appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail.Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest the petitioner shall be released on bail upon furnishing bond of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and also subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of 2 the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and on further condition that he shall meet the Investigating Officer of the case once in a week until further orders.The application for anticipatory 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.)
|
['Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
128,567,576 |
This is fifth application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.Second application was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 03.11.2017 passed in MCRC No.10272/2017 and third application was dismissed by order dated 19.01.2018 passed in MCRC No.26143/2017, holding that merely because some witnesses have turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case, it cannot be a ground to grant bail to the applicant because some more prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined.The fourth application was dismissed on merits by order dated 16.3.2018 passed in M.Cr.It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that except Rajesh Suryavanshi and Ramnivas, all other witnesses 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC No.37486/2018 have either been examined or have been given up by the prosecution.The applicant is in jail from 7/6/2017 and the trial is likely to take sufficiently long time.Per contra, the application is opposed by the counsel for the State.It is submitted by the counsel for the State that the bail application of the applicant has already been dismissed by this Court on merits by detailed order dated 11/8/2017 passed in M.Cr.C. No.6978/2017 and order dated 16/3/2018 passed in M.Cr.Considering the submissions made by the counsel for the parties as well as the fact that two witnesses are yet to be examined, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of bail.The application is, accordingly, rejected.
|
['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B 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.
|
128,568,769 |
(Passed on 6th April, 2017) This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 378 of Cr.P.C by the State against the judgment dated 20.3.2010 passed by VIth Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Bhind in Sessions Trial No.140 of 2007 by which, the appellant has been acquitted of the charge under Section 304-A of IPC.Necessary facts for the disposal of the present appeal, in short are that on 22.5.2007 an FIR was lodged by Premsingh Kushwah alleging that he was travelling in a bus which was being driven by the respondent and because of rash and negligent driving of the respondent, the bus was turned up side down and the respondent ran away from the spot.Three passengers had expired on the spot itself and others have sustained injuries.The respondent abjured his guilt and pleaded not guilty.The prosecution examined Rambaran (PW1), Premsingh (PW2), Dr.Ravindra Chaudhary (PW3), Dinesh Singh (PW4), Premadevi (PW5), Matadin (PW6), Jaswant (PW7) Dr. J.S.Yadav (Pw8), Ramdulari (PW9) and Satnam Singh (PW10).In cross- examination also, he denied that the driver of the bus was driving the bus rashly and negligently.He further stated that he did not lodge Dehati Nalishi and Dehati 4 Cr.Naslishi did not contain his signatures.The police sent the vehicle for technical examination, prepared the spot map, send the dead bodies of the deceased persons for the Postmortem and injured persons were sent for medical treatment.The respondent was arrested and after recording statements of the witnesses and completing investigation, the police filed charge-sheet against the respondent for an offence under Section 304 of IPC.The trial court vide order dated 6.9.2007 framed charge under Section 304 Part 2 (Three counts) of IPC.The respondent did not examine any witness in his defence but took a specific stand that as steering wheel and brake of the vehicle had failed and therefore, the bus had turned up side down.Ravindra Chaudhary (PW3) had conducted postmortem of dead bodies of deceased Ajay S/o Kailash, Rinku S/o Shripal Jatav and Awadhesh S/o Rajendra Singh Gurjar.Various injuries were found on the bodies of the deceased.The Postmortem reports of Ajay is Ex.P/7, Postmortem Report of Rinku is Ex.P/10 and Postmortem Report of Awadhesh is Ex.Doctor J.S.Yadav (Pw8) has medically examined Sadhna W/o Anand Swaroop Shrivastava, Matadin S/o Asharam Dhobi, Dinesh Singh S/o Diwan Singh Rajput, Prema Devi W/o Yogendra Singh Rajput, Ramdulari W/o Rajendra Kushwah and Yashwant S/o Chironji.Several injuries were found on their bodies.MLC Reports of these injured are Ex.P/14 to Ex.P/19 respectively.Now, the only question for determination is that whether the respondent had committed the accident by 3 Cr.driving the vehicle rashly and negligently and whether the respondent was under the influence of alcohol at the time of accident or not?.3 Cr.So far as the allegation of consumption of alcohol is concerned, the trial court has given the finding that the police did not conduct medical examination of the respondent to ensure that whether, he was driving the vehicle in the influence of alcohol or not.However, it would be appropriate to mention here that the accident took place on 22.5.2007 whereas the respondent was arrested on 6.6.2007 and therefore, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution if they did not get the medical examination of the respondent done to ensure that whether he was under the influence of alcohol or not.Ramvaran (PW1) has stated that the driver of the bus was driving the bus at a high speed but no objection was raised either by this witness or any passenger and subsequently all of a sudden, the bus turned up side down.As this witness did not support the prosecution case in toto, therefore, he was declared hostile but in cross-examination, this witness stuck to his stand that he has never objected to the driver to drive the vehicle slowly.Premsingh (PW2) has stated that while bus was in between Barohi and Pidora, steering wheel got jammed and the driver was plying the bus at a slow speed.Some passengers had sustained injuries.He further stated that merg intimation Ex.P/4 did not contain his signatures.He further denied the signatures on second intimation filed Ex.4 Cr.Dinesh Singh (PW4) has stated that the bus was being driven at a high speed, therefore, it turned up side down.Most probably, the driver was under the influence of liquor.He further stated that he had advised the driver to drive the bus slowly.He identified the respondent in the court as a person who was driving the vehicle.This witness further stated that he had sustained injuries in the accident and three persons had died.In cross-examination, he admitted that the condition of the Bhind Gwalior Road is very bad and there is heavy traffic on the said road.He further admitted that no Test Identification Parade of the driver was got conducted by the police and he met with the respondent for the first time in the court itself.On earlier occasion i.e. 24.2.2009, he has come to the court and at at that time also, the respondent had met him.However, this witness could not say about the exact speed of the bus.Prema Devi (PW5) has stated that she had sustained injuries because of the accident.The bus was being driven at a high speed.However, she stated that she did not object the driver about speed of the bus.In cross-examination, she admitted that she did not know the speed at which, the bus was being driven.Matadeen (PW6) has also stated that the bus being driven at a high speed and near Barohi, the bus turned up side down.In the said accident, three persons had died and this witness has also sustained 5 Cr.5 Cr.Jaswant (PW7) has stated that because the steering of the vehicle got jammed, therefore, the bus turned up side down.This witness did not support the prosecution and was declared hostile and was cross- examined.However, nothing could be elicited from his cross-examination which may support the prosecution case.Ramdulari (Pw9) has also stated that she was travelling in the bus and on the way, all of a sudden, the bus turned up side down, as a result of which, she and her husband sustained injuries.She was declared hostile.Satnam Singh (PW10) had investigated the matter.Mere apprehension or suspicion expressed by a witness cannot be said to be a substantive piece of evidence and is not admissible as the witness cannot be placed in the category of expert within the meaning of Section 45 of the Evidence Act.
|
['Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,153,260 |
JUDGMENT S.M. Sikri, J.The only question which arises in this appeal by special leave is whether the appellant, Sheo Nath, should be convicted under Section 396, I.P.C., or Section 411, I.P.C., or Section 412, I.P.C. The facts as found by the High Court are these.A dacoity was committed at the shop of Ram Murat in Dhaneja village by 15 to 20 persons on August 19, 1966, at about 11.30 p.m. One dacoit, Ram Shankar, was armed with a gun while others carried spears, Gandasas and lathis.During the course of the dacoity Ram Murat was injured.One Pancham, who lived in a house not far from Ram Murat's shop, and two others came running on hearing the noise.Pancham was shot down with the gun by dacoit Ram Shankar.The dacoits then escaped with clothes, ornaments, cash, etc., looted from Ram Murat's shop.After the dacoits left Ram Murat dictated a report about the occurrence in which he named Ram Shankar Singh, Jaintri Prasad Singh, Nanhe Singh and Sulai accused as having been among the culprits and this report was sent to the Jalalpur police station, five miles away, where it was received and recorded at 6 a.m. next morning.On August 22, 1966, i.e., three days after the dacoity, the house of Sheo Nath, appellant, was searched and three lengths of cloth were recovered which were subsequently identified by Ram Murat and a tailor named Bismillah as having been stolen from Ram Murat's shop in the dacoity.The High Court, agreeing with the learned Sessions Judge, relied on the evidence of three eye-witnesses regarding the manner in which the occurrence took place and regarding the participation of the four named accused persons.Sheo Nath had not been named by the eye-witnesses or in the dying declaration of Pancham and no witness claimed to have identified him taking part in the dacoity.But, relying on the discovery of three lengths of cloth and their identification, the High Court convicted Sheo Nath under Section 396, I.P.C. The High Court observed :In the result the appeal is allowed and the appellant convicted under Section 411, I.P.C., instead of Section 396, I.P.C., and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years.
|
['Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
115,332,409 |
In record of the bank, there was no application for request for purchase of the foreign cheque Ex PW2/M [D10(2)] of US $ 18000 and any recommendation thereon and approval of any bank official.M.B. No.210/2015 in CRL.A. 131/2015 Page 5 of 107)(2)], A4 initialed at portion encircled X having recommended the same for purchase and it was sanctioned by A3 vide endorsement at portion B for purchase of said cheque.These request letters Ex PW2/K [part of D10( 6)] dated 0809/ 10/2009 and Ex PW2/L [part of D10( 6)] dated 09/10/2009 did not bear the proper recommendation but were bearing initials of A4 in the request and were sanctioned by A3 vide endorsement at portion encircled B on both these request letters.Afore elicited cheques (1) Ex PW2/C [part of D10( 6)] bearing number 168677 dated 24/09/2009 for Rs 25 lakhs ; (2) Ex. PW2/D [part of D10( 5)] bearing number 168678 dated 24/09/2009 for Rs 25 lakhs; (3) Ex. PW2/F [part of D10( 7)] bearing number 168676 dated 24/09/09 for Rs. 25,00,000/; (4) bearing number 168679 for Rs 33 lakhs; (5) bearing number 168680 for Rs 38 lakhs were issued by A2 as proprietor of M/s Jian Pharmaceuticals.A2 was also Director in A6 company as per Ex PW2/DA/A2 [D9( 3)], the Resolution dated 22/09/2009 preceded by Memorandum & Articles of Association of A6 [D9(2)].Ex PW2/DA/A2 [D9( 3)] also embodies the resolve that accounts of A6 were to be operated upon and cheques thereon be signed and all instructions regarding the accounts were to Crl.Elicited manner in which the worths of borrowers and guarantors were assessed by A4 in grant of (1) cash credit limit of Rs 25 lakhs vide proposal Ex PW1/P [D6( 1)]; (2) cash credit limit of Rs 20 lakhs and term loan of Rs 30 lakhs for purchase of computers vide proposal Ex PW1/B [D7( 1)]; sanction of said cash credit limits and term loan, as was done by A3, reflects the complicity of A3 and A4 borne out from conduct of these accused persons and deduced from the circumstances of the case, elicited above.As per practice, borrower was required to lodge application for discounting/ purchase of cheques and the same was required to be processed.A2 had the knowledge that the account of M/s Jian Pharmaceuticals bearing number 302001010033098 [as per statement Ex Crl.M.B. No.210/2015 in CRL.A. 131/2015 Page 8 of 10 PW6/F (part of D178)] at no point of time in year 2009 had any credit balance exceeding Rs 50,000/. Yet, cheques (1) Ex PW2/C; (2) Ex PW2/D; (3) Ex PW2/F; (4) bearing no. 168679 for Rs 33 lakhs; (5) bearing no. 168680 for Rs 38 lakhs; were issued by A2 and these all cheques were so presented by A1 for purchase before Bank of India, Malai Mandir Branch, New Delhi with or without applications and such purchase requests were acceded by A3 in complicity with A4".M.B. No.210/2015 in CRL.A. 131/2015 Page 6 of 10M.B. No.210/2015 in CRL.A. 131/2015 Page 7 of 10This application has been preferred to seek suspension of the sentence awarded to the appellant Ajit R. Kyal (A-2).The sentence awarded in relation to the appellant is as follows:"(i) Rigorous Imprisonment for one year for offence under Section 120B of IPC r/w Section 420 IPC r/w Section 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and fine of Rs.2 lakhs in default thereof he would undergo Simple Imprisonment for a further period of six months;(ii) Rigorous Imprisonment for four years for offence under Section 420 of IPC r/w Section 120B of IPC and fine of Rs.4 lakhs in default thereof he would undergo Simple Imprisonment for a further period of one year".By the said order, the Supreme Court dismissed the SLP.I may observe that in the two connected appeals, it has been directed that the hearing of the appeals be expedited.The connected appeals - along with which the present appeal would also have to be heard, have been directed to be listed for hearing in the first five cases in the category of Regular Matters in the week commencing on 18.05.2015 and, in the meantime, the Trial Court Record has been requisitioned through Special Messenger for scanning and preparation of the paper book.In view of the hearing of the said appeals being expedited, the appellant in the connected appeals have not pressed their applications for suspension of sentence in the meantime.However, their right to press for suspension of sentence has been preserved, if their appeals are not heard as scheduled.The said cheques had been issued from the account of M/s Jian Pharmaceuticals, of which the appellant was the proprietor, in favour of accused No.6 M/s Nexus Remedies Private Limited, of which Vivek Sinha (A-1) was the Managing Director and the appellant Crl.M.B. No.210/2015 in CRL.A. 131/2015 Page 2 of 10 (A-2) was a Director.According to the appellant, the said cheques had been issued by way of security and that they were blank when so issued.Cheque purchase application Ex PW2/E [D10( 3)] dated 24/09/2009 for purchase of two cheques along with the two cheques (1) Ex PW2/C [part of D10 (6)] and (2) Ex. PW2/D [part of D10( 5)]; both dated 24/09/2009, for Rs. 25 lakhs each; which both cheques were issued by A2; was submitted by A1 to Bank of Crl.M.B. No.210/2015 in CRL.A. 131/2015 Page 5 of 10 India.Also cheque Ex. PW2/F [part of D10( 7)] dated 24/09/09 bearing number 168676 of Rs. 25,00,000/issued by A2 as proprietor of Jian Pharmaceuticals in favour of A6 was submitted by A1 in Bank of India with application Ex PW2/G [D10( 7) (2)], dated 03/10/2009 of A1 as Director of A6 to purchase said cheque and on said application Ex PW2/G [D10(Fact remains that A2 did not enter upon in the witness box to be examined as his own defence witness on oath under Section 315 Cr.P.C in respect of any Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) entered into between A2 and A1 or the terms thereof; nor A2 examined any other witness of said MoU nor A2 served upon any notice under Section 91 Cr.P.C to A1 for production of said MoU, if it was in the custody of A1, as presented by A2; nor A2 moved any application in this Court seeking aid of Court under Section 91 Cr.A2 even did not lead any defence evidence to prove the fact of having given 6 cheques in blank as security to A1 at the time of entering of said MoU on date 10/08/2009, as was alleged by him in the course of his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. It is admitted case of A2 that the cheques in question (1) Ex PW2/C, (2) Ex PW2/D, (3) Ex PW2/F, (4) bearing no. 168679 for Rs 33 lakhs and (5) bearing no. 168680 for Rs 38 lakhs were bearing his signatures.No law provides that in case of any negotiable instrument entire body of said negotiable instrument has to be written by maker or drawer only.What is material is the signature of the drawer or maker and not the writing on instrument; hence, question of body writing of the negotiable instrument is almost of no significance.Nothing of Crl.M.B. No.210/2015 in CRL.A. 131/2015 Page 7 of 10 the sort was done by A2 on this count.Such defence of A2 accordingly falls flat on the ground since the report Ex DW5/A (colly) of private handwriting expert DW5 is of no help to A2 as it revolved around the writings of body parts of photographs of cheques Ex PW2/C, Ex PW2/D and Ex PW2/F on comparison with the alleged specimen writings of A2 and for which specimen writings A2 even did not enter into witness box to claim them to be belonging to him.Purchase requests were accepted by A3 and afore elicited cheques (1) Ex PW2/C; (2) Ex PW2/D; (3) Ex PW2/F; (4) bearing no. 168679 for Rs 33 lakhs; (5) bearing no. 168680 for Rs 38 lakhs; (6) Ex PW2/M and (7) cheque D11 (5), part of Ex PW2/N (colly); were all purchased by A3 beyond his discretionary power of Scale IV Officer for purchase of cheques upto Rs 6 lakhs, as per Clause 8 of Table1 (B) of Master Circular Ex PW7A/A (colly) (D168) and in purchase of said cheques, role of A4 is elicited, document wise, in preceding paragraphs.
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
115,332,634 |
Item No. 23And In the matter of: Bablu Karmakar Petitioner- versus -The Petitioner, apprehending arrest in connection with Ranaghat Police Station Case No.385 of 2013 dated 18.09.2013 under sections 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code, has applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioner and the learned Advocate for the State.We have seen the case diary and other relevant material.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J.) (Indrajit Chatterjee, J.)
|
['Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
115,335 |
(a) The spot of incident is situated in the hutment area of Mang Garodi Toli, Tharsa Road, Kanhan.The deceased and accused own the huts situated in that locality and they are adjoining each other.On 25.3.1992 at about 19-00 hours there was a quarrel between Vijay, who is the grand son of the deceased, and Bijesh- the son of the accused and consequently Bijesh had gone to his hut while weeping and narrated about his quarrel with Vijay.On hearing about the quarrel from his son the accused got enraged and he rushed at the hut of the deceased armed with a stick and questioned as to where is Vijay and also started abusing him and when the deceased asked him as to why he was abusing, the accused suddenly delivered a blow of stick on his head.(b) Kamlabai (P.W.3), who is the first wife of the deceased, came to his rescue.At that time the accused delivered a second blow which was warded off by Kamlabai by her hand and she sustained bleeding injury.The deceased had fallen down then and there in a pool of blood as he had sustained bleeding injury.Therefore Bijesh had gone to home and informed his father about the quarrel.JUDGMENT S.T. Kharche, J.This appeal takes an exception to the judgment and order of conviction dated 16.3.1996 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions trial No. 382 of 1992, whereby the appellant/accused has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 15 days.However, the appellant/accused has been acquitted of the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 324 of Indian Penal Code and the State did not prefer any appeal against the acquittal nor has preferred any appeal for enhancement of the sentence imposed on the accused for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of Indian Penal Code.He was immediately taken to Mayo Hospital, Nagpur, for the purpose of medical treatment and ultimately he succumbed to the injuries on 7.4.1992 at about 11-50 p.m.(c) Dr. Vinod (P.W.1) effected autopsy on the dead body of Maharu on 8.4.1992 in between 12-00 noon and 1-05 p.m. and found two injuries appearing on the head of the deceased.(d) On 26.3.1992 Kamlabai had gone to the police station Kanhan and lodged the first information report on the basis of which crime No. 54/92 for the offence punishable under Sections 324 was registered.Thereafter, on the death of Maharu, Section 302 of Indian Penal Code was Page 1503 added.On 26.3.1992 itself the investigating officer visited the spot of incident and drew spot panchanama.The accused was arrested on the same day and while he was in custody he had furnished an information in presence of panchas that the stick was concealed inside his hut and he was ready to point out the same.Accordingly this information was reduced into writing in the form of memorandum.Thereafter the accused led the police party and the panch witnesses to his hut and pointed out the stick which was discovered in consequence of the information vide discovery panchanama (Ex.40).P.S.I. Sukhdu (P.W.8) had seized the clothes of the deceased and had also forwarded the muddemal articles of this crime to chemical analyser for examination.On completion of investigation the charge-sheet against the accused was filed in the Court of J.M.F.C.(e) On committal of the case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge framed and explained the charge to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and thus the trial proceeded with.In order to bring home guilt at the doors of the accused, the prosecution has relied on direct as well as circumstantial evidence and also on the medical evidence.However, he did not examine any defence witness.Alternatively, it was contended by the accused that he has delivered a single blow on the head of the deceased and since the blow was due to provocation caused, the offence would be covered by Section 304 of Indian Penal Code.Mr. Thakur, learned Counsel, for the appellant contended that the spot of incident in this case has been changed by the prosecution witnesses.He contended that Kamlabai (P.W. 3), Shalu (P.W.4) and Vijay (P.W.5) admit to their cross-examination that the incident was seen by them after earning out of their houses but the examination-in-chief of these witnesses would show that the incident of assault occurred inside the hut.He pointed out that the height of the hut was about 3-4 feet and it was impossible for the accused to deliver a blow by the stick on the head of the deceased Inside the hut.He contended that the witnesses were referring to the platform which was situated In front of the hut of the accused and the deceased and therefore, the discrepancy brought on record would not be sufficient to brand these three eye witnesses as liars.On hearing this the accused got enraged and he armed with stick went to the hut of the deceased and started abusing him.When the deceased questioned him as to why he was abusing, the accused suddenly delivered stick blow on his head.The accused was about to deliver the second blow of the stick but it was warded off by Kamlabai and in that process she had sustained injury on her hand.The deceased had fallen down on the ground in a pool of blood and he was immediately taken to Mayo Hospital, Nagpur, for the purpose of medical treatment.It is also not in dispute that the deceased succumbed to the injuries in the hospital on 7.4.1994 at about 11-50 p.m.. Dr. Vinod effected autopsy on the dead body on 8.4.1992 in between 12-00 noon to 1-05 p.m. The evidence of Dr. Vinod would reveal that he found the following ante mortem injuries on the person of the deceased, which are described in col. No. 17 of the post mortem report -(i) 3" long vertical injury with scab formation behind the left ear.(ii).Left side of frontal bone showing depressed fracture; triangular area with sides each of 3 cm and apex pointing antly.The medical officer also found the Internal injuries -Fracture lines radiating to(i) right side frontal bone up to right sup.(ii) right temporal bone(iii) occipital bone in sagital plane(iv) separation of left temporal bone from frontal bone(v) Extradural hematoma in left temporo parietal and occipital region, size 8 x 4 cm and 9 x 6 cm resp.(vi) subdural hematoma all over the brain surface(vii) fracture anterior cranila fossa sagitally extending from orbital plate to sphernoid 5 cm long.Dr. Vinod opined that the injuries mentioned in col. No. 17 and 19 of the post mortem report are sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and sufficient force was applied while inflicting the above injuries and the cause of death was head injury.Dr. Vinod had also examined the weapon, i.e. true stick Article 9 which was shown to him and opined that this stick can cause the injuries described above.In the cross examination the doctor has admitted that except two injuries mentioned in col. No. 19 which are at Sr.(vi) and (vii), these two are also connected with the injury mentioned in col. No. 17, The medical officer reiterated in the cross-examination that if a great amount of force is used then the injuries mentioned in col. No. 17 can be caused.This medical evidence do corroborate the direct version of three witnesses, namely Kamla (P.W.3) Shalu (P.W.4) and Page 1506 Vijay (P.W.6), in material particulars and there is no reason as to why the testimony of these witnesses should be discarded.Moreover, this is a case wherein independent corroboration has also been brought on record through the testimony of Hema (P.W, 6), who is the next door neighbour of the deceased.Her evidence would clearly reveal that the incident occurred at about 7-00 p.m. and the accused, resides nearby the house of the deceased.Her evidence ' would further reveal that she saw the accused assaulting on the person of the deceased because at that time she was sitting in front of her house since she had delivered a child before seven days.There was a quarrel between Vijay and Bijesh and the accused had delivered a blow of stick on the head of the deceased in front of his hut.Blood was oozing from his mouth and the injured was carried to the hospital in an auto rickshaw.Perusal of the cross-examination of this witness would reveal that nothing has been brought on record to show that the prosecution witnesses have changed the spot of incident, which obviously was the place in front of the hut of the deceased.The contents of the spot panchanama would also indicate that the incident occurred in front of the hut of the deceased and the witnesses Kamla, Shalu and Vijay were not confronted with the contents of the spot panchanama, and therefore it is not possible to accept the submission of the learned Counsel for the accused that the prosecution witnesses have changed the spot of incident.In fact, the prosecution witnesses and the accused were living in small huts.One does not know what was the size of the hut.There is absolutely no reason as to why Hema (P.W.6) who is an independent witness would depose false against the accused.The incident positively occurred in front of the hut of the deceased.Admittedly none of the prosecution witnesses had an axe to grind against the accused and it is not the case of the accused that the prosecution witnesses nave deposed against him due to any prior inimical relations.The learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly appreciated the evidence of these four eye witnesses in proper perspective and the judgment is well reasoned and no different view is possible in the matter.The learned Additional Sessions Judge has held that the death of Maharu was the result of single blow delivered by the stick on the head and Maharu had survived for about 14 days in the hospital.When Maharu asked the accused.as to why he was abusing, he suddenly delivered the stick blow and to such a situation, the learned Additional.
|
['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,153,425 |
Petitioner claims to be a journalist and to have worked as Private Secretary from 1988 to 1990, to one Sri Shyam Sunder Singh Dhiraj (formerly Urban Development Minister of State of Bihar) and petitioner says that person was a "close confident and right hand man of" the 3rd respondent.Petitioner submits that he has association with some political leaders and that he also came into close contact with the 3rd respondent and he says that thus he had opportunity to "see the working" of the 3rd respondent from very close quarters after he became Secretary to Mr. Dhiraj.Petitioner alleges that not only did he come into contact with the 3rd respondent, but with the latter's son and daughter-in-law and other members of his family, including one grandson and grant daughter-in-law and five grant-daughters and their husbands.The broad allegation is that the 3rd respondent, who came from humble beginning had amassed a huge amount of wealth for himself and his family members, especially after 1979 when the 3rd respondent became treasurer of Congress party.The 3rd respondent became a member of the Lok Sabha in 1967 and thereafter a member of the Rajya Sabha in 1972 and has continuously been a Member of the Rajya Sabha.He became treasurer of the same party at the national level in 1979 till September, 1996 when he became President of the said party.It is stated that the petitioner "has personal knowledge" of a number of movable and immovable properties acquired by the 3rd respondent and his immediate family members.In para 5 of the writ petition, petitioner set out, vide sub- paras (a) to (f), a list of the said properties.JUDGMENT M. Jagannadha, Rao, C.J.The petitioner has filed this writ petition on 5-11-96 as a Public Interest case impleading the Central Bureau of Investigation, the Union of India and Sri Sita Ram Kesari, President of the Congress Party, as respondents 1 to 3 respectively.In para 6 he says that the 3rd respondent's son who has no work nor received any income "has also acquired a great deal of movable property" during the past few years.Prior to 1991, the 3rd respondent's son worked as Liason Officer, SKG Distillery on a meagre salary.A list of movable assets of the 3rd respondent's son are set out in para 6, sub-paras (a) to (d).Then, in para 7, petitioner has set out on sub-paras (a) to (c) the assets acquired by the 3rd respondent's grandson, who is also "unemployed".In para 8, petitioner refers to the 5 grant daughters of 3rd respondent, who were, married between 1983 to 1994, that their husbands had only modest means but they have all become "quite wealthy" some of them having assets worth "crores" of rupees.In sub- paras (a) to (c) certain details of the alleged assets of the grant son-in-law are set out.In para 9 petitioner has made an allegation that he had personally seen the 3rd respondents receiving huge sum of money in suit-cases at his Delhi residence from unidentified business while he was a Minister.Petitioner says he has "personally seen" huge bundles of currency notes in cloth bags being given by the 3rd respondent to several MLAs as "bribe, to vote in his favour for his Rajya Sabha Membership.It is then stated that the petitioner approached the CBI Director on 5-10-96 and he advised the petitioner to file a regular FIR "on which he promised to take action".The petitioner says he filed and affidavit on 7-10-96 and "handed over" the same to the Director, CBI.Four weeks passed by thereafter and "no tangible action has been taken by the CBI on the petitioner's complaint.The petitioner has repeatedly inquired from the CBI Office on the action taken on his complaint but he has not received any response about the same." The petitioner therefore says that "he has read to believe that the CBI and its Director are not going to proceed on this matter until they have political clearance from the Prime Minister because of the fact that the survival of the present Government had been on the support of the Congress party" headed by the 3rd respondent and therefore the petitioner is forced to move the Court.On that day, learned Additional Solicitor General of India Sri K. N. Bhat appearing for Union of India and also CBI contended that the petition was not maintainable, that norms must be laid down in such PIL matters.However, without prejudice to the said contentions, he submitted that a 'status report' will be filed as per the order dated 7-11-96 on 17- 12-96, as directed by us.Matter came up on 19-12-96, and on that day written submissions were filed by Sri K. N. Bhat regarding maintainability of the writ petition and the Status Report 1 was filed.Mr. G. L. Sanghi appeared for the 3rd respondent (though notice was not issued to 3rd respondent) and submitted that the petitioner was giving interviews in the media and damaging the reputation of the 3rd respondent and of his political party.The petitioner's counsel gave an undertaking that petitioner will not go to the media in connection with the subject matter of writ petition.The CBI asked 2 months time for filing a report.On 20- 1-97, Status Report II was filed and further time was sought by CBI for filing a final report.On 10-2-97, the 3rd "Status Report" was filed and arguments were heard on 12-2-97 and judgment reserved.We asked the petitioner's counsel as to when the petitioner went to CBI Office after 7-10-96 whom he met and who was the person who did not give him the response.If inaction on the part of the CBI was to be the sole cause of action for filing the writ petition, one would expect full details of the efforts made by the petitioner to move the CBI to be given.No registered notice was sent within reasonable time after 7-10-96 to say that action was not being taking by the CBI or that petitioner had gone to CBI office and met such and such person on various dates and the persons so asked did not give any response.On that day, the CBI asked for further time by 2 months.On that day, a status Report II was filed.We perused the same and adjourned the case to 10-2-97 to enable the CBI to file, what they told us, the final status Report.
|
['Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,153,447 |
Invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioners herein have come forward with this petition to call for the records in connection with the case in CC.No.855 of 2010 on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Coimbatore, and to quash the proceedings.The facts which are absolutely necessary for the disposal of this petition may be summarised briefly as follows;The petitioners being the accused in the case in CC.No.855 of 2010 on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Coimbatore are facing the charges under Section 209, 211 r/w 109 of IPC.The first petitioner is the wife of the second petitioner.The third petitioner is the father of the first petitioner.Petitioners 1 and 2 are running a petrol bunk under the name and style of M/s. Samyuktha Corporation and the third respondent being the father of the first respondent has been assisting them in their business.That on 05.07.2006, the petitioners 1 and 2 in the presence of the third petitioner had borrowed a sum of Rs.5lakhs from the respondent by way of a pay order bearing No.002179 drawn on Bank of India, R.S.Puram Branch, Coimbatore.Again on 11.07.2007 they had borrowed another sum of Rs.4,50,000/- from the respondent.Since the above said two cheques were bounced back, the respondent had filed two cases viz., CC.No.876 of 2007 before the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Coimbatore and CC.No.117 of 2008 before the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.VII, Coimbatore, to prosecute the petitioners 1 and 2 under Section 138 of Negotiable InstrumentsWhen the matter stood thus that on 27.03.2008 on the basis of a complaint lodged by the first petitioner herein a case in Crime No.291 of 2008 under Sections 147, 342, 506(ii) and 384 of IPC was registered against the respondent and 13 others.After thorough investigation the investigating officer came to a conclusion that the charges levelled against the respondent were false and untrue, and therefore, the investigating officer had referred the case as mistake of fact and the referred charge sheet was also sent to the Court.Since the case was referred as mistake of fact and the referred charge sheet to that effect was also filed before the competent Court of Law it is very clear that the first petitioner had preferred a false complaint knowing fully well that there was no just on lawful ground.Hence, the respondent had lodged a private complaint before the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Coimbatore under Section 195 (1)(b)(i) of Cr.P.C. with a prayer to prefer a complaint against the petitioners/accused 1 to 4 for the offences punishable under Sections 209, 211 r/w 109 of IPC.After receiving the complaint the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Coimbatore has taken cognisance of the offences under Sections 209, 211 r/w 109 IPC in CC.No.855 of 2010 on his file.Ultimately, the case was referred as mistake of fact and to that effect a referred charge sheet was also filed before the concerned Court of Law.Keeping in view of the findings given above, the case in CC.No.855 of 2010 on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate-II Coimbatore is quashed.T.MATHIVANAN,Jprm With this observation the petition is disposed of.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.II Coimbatore.
|
['Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 384 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 228 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 200 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
115,348,877 |
The case of the prosecution is as follows;(i) During the period 2006 and 2007, at Pondicherry and other places, A1 to A3 along with the split up case accused persons namely Danasu @ Danassou impersonated as B.Charles and J. Baskar, entered into criminal conspiracy and in furtherance of conspiracy P.Danusu @ Dannassou impersonated as B.Charles, furnished fake School Record Sheet purported to have been issued by K. Mannavan, Government Middle School, Karaikal and Puducherry Civil Supplies Ration card as genuine documents before the French Consulate DE France authorities and obtained Passport bearing No.07CV30181 by means of cheating.Baskar ( the split up case accused) and mother's name as Marie Stella Rene (A3) and date of Birth as 20.01.1989 and born at Kuttalam.But the fact is that his original date of birth is 27.12.1977, born at Condaretty Paleom, Puducherry, his original father being Patchiyappan (A) and mother's name is Rany.Further the split up case accused Baskar and A3 in their Ration card bearing No.001763 had shown only two children namely Ms.S.Sherly (Daughter), aged 7 years and Master Thanesh Cardzen (Son), aged three years and the name of split up case accused P.Danasu @ Danassou impersonated as B. Charles was found to have been inserted in the Ration card at a later point of time.(ii) In furtherance of the conspiracy, the split up case accused namely Baskar and A3 executed their Marriage Registration Deed on21.6.2006 at Oulgaret Municipality, Puducherry wherein they 3/18http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.R.C.No.1110 of 2018 & Crl.M.P.No.12993 of 2018 have willingly shown the split up case accused P.Danasu @ Danassou as B.Charles as their biological son knowing fully well that, he is not their real son and he is only the Biological son of A1/Patchiyappan.(iii) In furtherance of the conspiracy, A1 and A2 signed as witnesses in the Marriage deed executed between the Split up case accused Baskar and A3, knowing fully well that the split up case accused Danasu @ Danassou had impersonated as B.Charles and declared falsely as the son of A3 and her husband.Thus, A1 to A3 and split up case accused entered into criminal conspiracy and in furtherance of the same, submitted fake and forged documents as genuine, gave false statement on oath before the Registrar, Oulgaret, Municipality, Puducherry and indulged in cheating by impersonation and the split up case accused Danasu @ Danassou as Charles, obtained passport from French Consulate DE France, Puducherry.Therefore A1 to A3 appears to have committed the offences punishable u/s.120-B IPC and 419, 468, 471, 420 and 181 IPC r/w.34 IPC.4/18http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.R.C.No.1110 of 2018 & Crl.from 13.08.2018 to till date she is in confinement.The primordial contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner was not in India on 21.6.2006, when the marriage is said to have been registered.The petitioner has made no declaration.It is further submitted that the signature found in Ex.P.7-marriage 7/18http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.R.C.No.1110 of 2018 & Crl.M.P.No.12993 of 2018 certificate and other documents is not that of the petitioner as it is apparent by comparing the signature found in 313 question and and Ex.P.7 and other documents.It is apparent that the petitioner is not the signatory in Ex.7.Further the passport which is lying before the trial court namely Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pondicherry was summoned and the signature found in the passport was also verified in this regard.The further contention of the petitioner is that though the petitioner had a good case and points in her favour to show that the petitioner was not present on 21.06.2006 and registered her marriage.Further on evidence of the witnesses PW12 and 13 from the registration office, it is seen that they have not identified the petitioner as the person who appeared before them on 21.6.2006 and signed the marriage register in their presence.There is no evidence to show that the petitioner had submitted the documents before the authorities and none of the witnesses of Registration Department at Pondicherry and Nagapattinam and the school authorities from Karaikkal, the Assistant from the Tagore Arts 8/18http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.R.C.No.1110 of 2018 & Crl.M.P.No.12993 of 2018 College have spoken about the petitioner's presence in any of these places along with the other accused and further on the available evidence, it cannot be stated that the petitioner had shared any common intention in commission of the offence.He further submitted that while the accused was arrested , she was having four year old son.Further, she is a French citizen and her presence in France is important for the well being and welfare of her children.It is further submitted that from the evidence of PW12 and 13, it is clear that prior to the registration of marriage, documents have to be submitted for scrutiny, thereafter the parties to the marriage are has to appear before the registration authorities and oath would be administered.They should be physically present and read out the oath in the presence 10/18http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.R.C.No.1110 of 2018 & Crl.M.P.No.12993 of 2018 of the authorities and thereafter they have to sign the register and other documents.Only after proper scrutiny of documents submitted and verification of appearance of the parties, marriage would be registered.P.3-Ration card.The school certificate Ex.P.4 issued by Karaikal Government School and the evidence of PW4 and PW11 would prove the fact that the absconding accused had not studied in that school during the relevant period.The admission number mentioned in the record sheet in the name of the accused is 6820, but in the school original record sheet, it pertains to one Anthonisamy.12.PW6 and PW8 are father and mother in laws respectively of the absconding accused Danasu.They had categorically stated that Danasu is married and the marriage between Danasu and his daughter Chandikadevi was registered on 18.01.2013 and the marriage had taken place on 23.1.2013 at Mailam temple and the 12/18http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.R.C.No.1110 of 2018 & Crl.PW14, 15 and 17 are the witnesses for obtaining the signature of A1 and A2 in this case and PW16 is the hand writing expert.As regards this petitioner, these witnesses is of no consequence.PW9 is the Assistant from Home Department who verified the document submitted for French Passport and thereafter forwarded the same to French Consulate and in this case, on the request of CBI, he had collected the documents and forwarded to the same through Ex.17/18http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.R.C.No.1110 of 2018 & Crl.M.P.No.12993 of 2018 msr ToInspector of Police, CBI, SCB, Rajaji Bhavan, Besant Nagar, Chennai-90The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puducherry.R.C.No.1110 of 2018 & Crl.M.P.No.12993 of 2018 26.09.2019The petitioner has preferred the present Criminal Revision Petition to call for the entire records pertaining to Crl.Appeal No.18 of 2017, arising out of C.C.No.71 of 2015 in R.C.No.6(S)/2014, pending on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Puducherry and set aside the impugned judgment dated 13.08.2018 and acquit the petitioner.Further, in 2/18http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.R.C.No.1110 of 2018 & Crl.M.P.No.12993 of 2018 pursuance of the said conspiracy, the split up case accused Danusu impersonated as B.Charles created fake Date of Birth Certificate purported to have been issued by Deputy Tahsildar, Nagapattinam by mentioning his name as Charles , S/o.M.P.No.12993 of 2018(iv) On filing of charge sheet by the Inspector of Police, CBI/SCB, Chennai, the case was taken up for trial in C.C.No.71 of 2015 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry.The petitioner /A3 is charged for the offences under sections 120B, 419 r/w.34, 468 r/w.34, 471 r/w 34 IPC, 420 r/w.,IPC, 34 and 181 r/w.34 IPC.(v) Before the trial court the prosecution examined witnesses PW1 to PW18 and marked exhibits Ex.P.1 to Ex.On behalf of the defence side, neither a witness has been examined, nor a document has been produced.(vi) On appreciation of witnesses and documentary evidence, the trial court has convicted and sentenced the petitioner/A3 as below;u/s.181 IPC r/w.34 IPC pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo one month.The detention period already undergone by A3 from 2.4.2015 to 08.4.2015 in set off u/s.428 Cr.P.C.Against the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court, the petitioner/A3 preferred appeal in C.A.No.18 of 2017 before the II Additional Sessions Judge, Puducherry, who dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence of the trial court.Heard Mr.Venkatesh, V.S., learned counsel for the 6/18http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.R.C.No.1110 of 2018 & Crl.M.P.No.12993 of 2018 petitioner and Mr.K.Srinivasan, learned Special Public Prosecutor, CBI Cases for respondent.The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner is made as a scape goat in this case.The said Danasu is happily settled in France who is the main accused in this case.Despite the respondent knowing about the whereabouts of Danasu they have not taken any steps to secure him.Initially there were five accused in this case, out of which, two accused are still absconding.The petitioner who came to visit her ailing mother who was in death bed was arrested by the respondent on 1.4.2015 and she underwent incarceration from 2.4.2015 to 8.4.2015 initially during the period of investigation.From the date of dismissal of appeal ie.Despite, she had got valuable points in her favour.Hearing and disposal of revision would take time, hence, she had filed a petition for fixation of early date on the ground that she is under confinement.Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the trial court as well as the lower appellate court without properly appreciating the evidence, had wrongly convicted and sentenced the petitioner and prayed for clemency and 9/18http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.R.C.No.1110 of 2018 & Crl.M.P.No.12993 of 2018 confined his appeal with regard to sentence alone.The learned Special Public Prosecutor, CBI Cases submitted that in this case, the petitioner along with four others had created forged documents and they have participated with each other in a well orchestrated manner by active participation by all the accused and committed the offence.The petitioner knowing that she is not the biological mother of absconding accused Danasu had parted with documents such as Family card, family particulars with the other accused connived in creation of school certificate, birth certificate knowing that these documents are false, and she along with the other accused had appeared before the Registration authorities and registered her marriage on 21.6.2006 with false particulars.The petitioner has not produced any other document even during investigation, trial, or before the lower appellate court any such document to prove the said statement and it is the petitioner's duty to prove this fact, once she pleads alibi.In this case, the petitioner has not proved so.Further on the available materials, the trial court and the lower appellate court, on appreciation of the evidence had rightly convicted and sentenced the petitioner.The evidence of PW1-Anbazhagan, Assistant in the Mannadipet Commune Panchayat and PW2 – Clerk, Tagore Arts 11/18http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.R.C.No.1110 of 2018 & Crl.M.P.No.12993 of 2018 College would go to show that the absconding accused date of birth is 27.12.77 and not 20.11.1989 as projected.PW3 the Tahsildar of Civil Supplies was examined and in his evidence, he had stated that the Family Card bearing No.099273 pertains to A1 namely Pachiyappan 's family, in which the name of Danasu is available.In the family card of the petitioner bearing No.001763, only two children have been shown which has to be seen from Ex.PW18 is the Investigating Officer, who had registered the case, conducted investigation, seized the documents, sent the documents for Forensic study and thereafter filed charge sheet.Both the trial Court and the lower appellate Court, on proper analysis of the evidence and documents had rightly convicted the 13/18http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.R.C.No.1110 of 2018 & Crl.M.P.No.12993 of 2018 petitioner.16.Using forged documents while registering the marriage included Danasu as her son and she has three children though she had only two children.Danasu's name had been entered in the marriage certificate using the forged documents, made public authorities to issue public document, using the same, the said Danasu applied for French Passport and also obtained the passport from French Consulate DE France authorities, Pondicherry.This court finds that the petitioner had been convicted mainly on the charges of conspiracy and with the aid of section 34 IPC along with offence of forgery of documents and for using forged documents.The lower appellate court had rightly convicted and sentenced the petitioner as stated above.He would further 14/18http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.R.C.No.1110 of 2018 & Crl.M.P.No.12993 of 2018 submit that she is a French citizen and her family is settled in France and she is having two children.Further she is a heart patient and she is regularly visiting the Doctor in prison.In this regard, he prayed for clemency while imposing sentence on her.Considering the submission of learned counsel for petitioner, this Court considering the fact that the petitioner being a lady, a French citizen, her children are in France, she is a heart patient and also the petitioner is in confinement for 78 days as on date, taking a lenient view in this regard, this court without going into the merits of the case feels that it would be appropriate that the period of incarceration already undergone by the petitioner so far would be sufficient with regard to sentence.It is also seen that the occurrence pertaining to the case is of the year 2006 and it is 13 years since now.The petitioner has not come into any adverse notice of the law enforcing authorities, which fact is also considered for reducing the sentence.At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits 15/18http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.R.C.No.1110 of 2018 & Crl.Her French Passport was produced by the investigating officer before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pondicherry in the above case and the passport is now under the custody of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pondicherry.Passport has not been marked as Exhibit and it is not relied on document.Further the petitioner being a French citizen after her release she has to go back to France to join her children who are longing for her, for which passport is necessary which is now under the custody of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pondicherry has to be handed over to the petitioner.The passport of the petitioner is not subject matter of this case and its genuineness is not questioned.In view of the same, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pondicherry is directed to hand over the passport of the petitioner to her on filing appropriate memo.In fine, the conviction passed by the courts below against the petitioner is confirmed and treat the period of 78 days undergone by the accused as an appropriate sentence in the 16/18http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.R.C.No.1110 of 2018 & Crl.M.P.No.12993 of 2018 particular circumstances of the case.23.This Criminal Revision is disposed of with the following modification:However, the sentence of imprisonment against the petitioner/accused shall be treated as already undergone.”ii)The Chief Judicial magistrate, Pondicherry is directed to hand over the passport of the petitioner to her on filing appropriate memo.Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitioner is closed.26.09.2019 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No msr M. NIRMAL KUMAR, J.2.The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pondicherry.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
128,927,795 |
The brief facts of the case, as stated by the prosecution are as under:"The victim P aged about 15 years left her house for school at about 7 am, on 31.08.2010.However, she did not return back till late evening.Her family made efforts to search for her, but when there was no clue about the victim, the matter was reported to the police vide DD no. 57-B i.e Ex.PW-22/A, which was assigned to SI Mohd. Imtiaz for inquiry.SI Mohd. Imtiaz made efforts to contact complainant Satbir, but he was not found available.At about2.35 am, on 1.09.2010, complainant Satbir went to the police station himself and made Crl.LP 430/2015 Page 1 of 15 complaint about missing of victim P. he expressed his suspicion on accused Ramesh for having enticed and kidnapped his daughter and prayed that necessary action be taken against him.SI Mohd. Imtiaz got registered a case u/s 363 IPC on the basis of the complaint made by Sh.Satbir and when further investigations of the case was assigned to him, pursuant to registration of the FIR, he commenced searched for the victim P as well as accused Ramesh.During the course of investigations, IO SI Imtiaz came to know that accused Ramesh and his jijaDharmender had taken the victim to their village at bulandshahar, UP.The IO conveyed this information to the complainant Satbir and after obtaining necessary permission, went to Bulandshahar, UP along with complainant Satbir and his own staff comprising of Ct.Vinod, Ct.Birisingh and Lady Ct.meenakshi and recovered the victim as well as accused Ramesh from jhuggie of accused Dharmender.On inquiry, victim p told the IO that on 31.08.2010, when she left her house for school, accused Ramesh @ Ravi met her on the way and started talking to her, due to which, she got late for school and was not permitted to enter inside the gate of the school by the guard.Thereafter, accused Ramesh 2 Ravi, took the victim R to the house of his sister, where his jijaDharmender as well as accused Ramesh @ Ravi, scared the victim and prevented her from going home by telling her that in case, she returned back to her home, she would be scolded by her family member.They instead took her to their village and after reaching there, victim came to know that she had been taken to the house of accused Dharmender in village.The victim r further stated that accused Dharmender left her and accused Ramesh at the said house and went away from there after taking some money from accused Ramesh and thereafter, accused Ramesh committed rape upon her.At night, when victim and accused Ramesh were about to leave the village, they were stopped by villagers from leaving Crl.LP 430/2015 Page 2 of 15 the village and thereafter, the police officials from Delhi came and recovered the victim and saved her from the clutches of accused Ramesh @ Ravi.LP 430/2015 Page 1 of 15She got late for school and the Chowkidar did not allow her to enter the school.On asking of Ravi, she Crl.LP 430/2015 Page 6 of 15 accompanied him to the house of his sister who was residing in Mangolpuri.They went on foot.She further stated that sister and Jija of accused were present in the house.The present leave to appeal has been preferred by the State under Section 378(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure against the impugned judgment dated 17.01.2015 whereby the accused persons were acquitted for the offences under Sections 363/366/376/120B of the Indian Penal Code.LP 430/2015 Page 2 of 15The IO brought the victim P as well as accused Ramesh to Delhi on the night of 01/02.09.2010 and sent them for medical examination and also seized the exhibits taken from them by the concerned doctor.On 02.09.2010, the IO produced the victim before ld.M.M and got her statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C and on the basis of the said statement, added Section 366 and 376 IPC in the case.Further investigations of the case were thereafter, assigned to ASI Nirmala, who got the exhibits of the case sent to FSL Rohini.During the course of investigations, IO also made inquiry from the villagers, where accused Ramesh had taken the victim P, and was told by them that they had stopped accused Ramesh and victim p from leaving the village apprehending that some untoward incidents may occur with them due to late night hours.However, they had gone to inform the police, but before the local police could come, officials from Delhi Police reached their village.After completion of investigations, charge sheet was prepared and filed before the court of ld. M.M. Subsequently, the FSL result was also obtained and filed by the IO.In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined as many as 22 witnesses.Statement of accused persons was recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure wherein they reiterated their innocence.Accused Ramesh @ Ravi took the plea that he was having an affair with the prosecutrix.He belonged to a different caste, the parents of Crl.LP 430/2015 Page 3 of 15 the prosecutrix were against the said relation and thus falsely implicated him in the instant case.Accused Dharmender took the defence that rather he had informed the father of the victim regarding the whereabouts of the victim and when the father of the prosecutrix reached there, hot words were exchanged and hence he has been falsely implicated in the present case.No defence evidence has been led by the accused persons.LP 430/2015 Page 3 of 15On appreciating the evidence on record and the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial Court vide impugned judgment held that the prosecution miserably failed to prove that accused Ramesh @ Ravi kidnapped the victim and has raped upon her and accused Dharmender helped or conspired with accused Ramesh @ Ravi in the alleged kidnapping.Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State contends that the impugned judgment is contrary to the settled position of law and thus is not sustainable; that the Trial Court disregarded and failed to take into account the relevant material on record and has based its findings on mere conjectures and surmises; that Trial Court erred in recording the finding that the victim was major at the time of occurrence ignoring the testimonies of PW8 and PW14; that the trial court has failed to take into consideration the settled law that the statement of the prosecutrix alone can be the basis of convicting the accused for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and would not require any corroboration; that the statement of the prosecutrix was consistent and trustworthy and thus the trial court erred in acquitting the respondent.LP 430/2015 Page 4 of 15Aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the present appeal has been preferred.S. Dahiya, Vice Principal of the school who deposed that on 01.04.2008, the victim was admitted in school in 6th Standard on the basis of School Leaving Certificate Ex.PW17/B and mark sheet Ex.To further strengthen the age of the victim, the prosecution examined PW8, clerk of MCD who stated that as per the available record, the date of birth of the victim was 12.10.1995 and the relevant entry of her date of birth was recorded on the basis of order Ex.PW8/A passed by SDM and Birth Report Form Ex.PW8/B submitted by the mother of the victim.It is pertinent to note herein that prosecution failed to bring on record the record from the first school attended by the victim.Perusal of the record shows that entry made on 23.07.2009 in the record of MCD was subsequent to the admission of the victim in 6th standard.The above is the entire evidence about the age of the victim.Insofar as the oral evidence relating to the age of the victim comprising of the Crl.LP 430/2015 Page 5 of 15In view of the above, it shall not be unsafe to conclude that the inference drawn by the learned trial court that the prosecutrix was above the age of 18 years at the time of occurrence is borne out from the evidence adduced by the prosecution and no fault can be found with such finding.Kidnapping of the victimAccording to the victim in her statement Ex.PW7/X recorded by the police, she was enticed by accused Ramesh and on being threatening she accompanied him to the house of accused Dharmender in a village.The relevant part of her statement is as under :Question : Aap Ghar Se Kab Nikli?Answer : Mein Ghar Se Samay 4:00 Baje Nikali.Question : App Ghar Se Kis Ke Saath Veh Kiski Marzi Se Gayi?Answer : Mein Ghar Se Ramesh Ke Saath Nikli Veh Apni Marzi Se Nahi Gayi.Mujhe Behla Fusla Ke Chali Gayi.Question : Kya Ramesh Aapko Jabardasti Se Lekar Gaya? Answer : Ramesh Mujhe Jabardasti Se Lekar Gaya.In her statement recorded under Section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the victim stated that on 31.08.2010 when she was going to school, accused Ravi, a resident of same locality met her on the way and started talking to her.Thereafter, both accused persons enticed her and took her to a village in a bus.LP 430/2015 Page 6 of 15The victim was examined as PW7 before Court and on oath reiterated the facts as stated by her in her statement recorded under Section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure.She further added that accused Ramesh enticed her and took her to the house of his sister in Mangolpuri where both accused persons enticed her to go to their native place in UP.When they reached there, accused Dharmender took some money from accused Ramesh and went away and thereafter accused Ramesh did Galat Kaam with her on two occasions on that night despite refusal.During cross examination the victim deposed that:"Accused Ramesh took me to the house of his sister at Mangolpuri on foot.On the way to Mangolpuri, public persons were coming and going on the road when accused was taking me to the house of his sister.The accused was holding my hand and I was literally being dragged by him.I did not raise any alarm about the said conduct of accused Ramesh.Since it was noon time, nobody was present in the gali where the house of sister of accused Ramesh was situated.I did not raise any alarm when accused Ramesh took me into the house of his sister."She travelled Crl.LP 430/2015 Page 7 of 15 with him in a bus.She had many occasions to raise alarm but she kept mum.There was no mark of external injury on her person.She was held to be a consenting party.LP 430/2015 Page 7 of 15In the instant case, the Medico Legal Examination report Ex.PW3/A of the victim shows that the victim did not suffer any internal or external injury or abrasion on any part of her body.In her examination under Section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure as well as deposition before Court, the victim did not mention that the accused persons were carrying any weapon.So, the story projected by the victim that she was enticed and forcibly taken away by the accused persons totally collapses.Thus, all the aforesaid circumstances, mentioned above, establish that the version of the prosecutrix that she was forcibly taken away and compelled to accompany accused Ramesh @ Ravi is highly improbable.Her behaviour of not complaining to anybody at any of the stages after being allegedly abducted would be wholly unnatural.Contradiction in the testimonies of the witnessesThe main question involved for consideration in this leave petition is whether the testimony of prosecutrix is trustworthy, credible and worthy of reliance in order to convict the respondents herein? It is true that conviction in a case of rape can be based on the solitary testimony of the prosecutrix provided the same inspires confidence and appears to be absolutely trustworthy, unblemished and should be of sterling quality.In order to test the veracity of the deposition of prosecutrix, it needs to be discussed thread bare.LP 430/2015 Page 8 of 15In the instant case, the victim in her statement Ex.PW7/X recorded by the police stated that on 31st August at about 4:00 she left her house as she was enticed by accused Ramesh.She further stated that accused Ramesh threatened her and enticed her on the pretext of marrying her.Accused Ramesh took her to the village of her Jija where he committed 'Galat Kaam' with her.When this witness appeared before this Court as PW7, deposed that "On 31.08.2010, I was going to my school at 7:00 am.On the way, I met accused Ramesh and he started talking to me.xxxxxx I know accused Ramesh as he is residing in same locality where I am residing with my parents.As accused Ramesh was talking to me, I got late for school.I required (sic) Chowkidar Uncle of the school to let me in but he refused stating that the entry time was over.Then accused enticed me and took me to the house of his sister at Mangolpuri.I do not know the name of his sister.At house of his sister, accused and his Jija Dharmender (accused) (witness has correctly identified the accused Dharmender through the design in the wooden partition) told me that if I returned home then I would be scolded by my parents and they thus enticed me to go with them to their native village in UP.I do not remember name of the said village.When we reached said village, accused Dharmender took some money from accused Ramesh and went away.Thereafter, accused Ramesh did Galat Kaam with me on two occasions on that night despite my refusal.I was scared.Accused Ramesh and I tried to leave village at night but the villagers stopped us from leaving due to late hours.One friend of Dharmender met us and took us to his house from where I was recovered by the police.xxxxx I and accused Ramesh @ Ravi were brought to PS from where I was further taken for my medical examination to a hospital.I do not remember name of said hospital.My Crl.LP 430/2015 Page 9 of 15 clothes i.e. my school uniform was seized by the doctor, who examined me.Thereafter I went home."LP 430/2015 Page 9 of 15On the next date of hearing PW7 deposed that :" My clothes were taken by the doctor, who examined me in the hospital.On the last date of hearing, I had stated that I was wearing my school uniform at the time of my medical examination but now I remember that I was wearing a suit at that time and the same was seized by the doctor.During cross examination PW7, the victim admitted that the accused Ramesh was studying with her in same school and he was residing in the same colony.She further admitted that she left for her school in school uniform when accused took her with him.She further admitted that public persons were present when accused took her to the house of his sister and also when both accused persons took her to the village in a bus but she never raised an alarm.The prosecutrix has deposed that she was taken from one place to the other and remained at various houses for almost two months.The only explanation given by her is that she was threatened by the accused persons.It is not in her testimony that she was confined to one place.In fact, it has been borne out from the material on record that she had travelled from place to place and she was ravished number of times.Under these circumstances, the medical evidence gains significance, for the examining doctor has categorically deposed that there are no injuries on the private parts.Consequently, leave to appeal stands dismissed.
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,289,324 |
ORDER S. Ashok Kumar, J.This petition has been filed under Section 482 to quash the charge against the petitioners pending in C.C.No.18 of 2003 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-III, Coimbatore.The brief facts of the case are as follows: The respondent police filed charge sheet against the petitioners alleging that with the common intention of committing offences of forgery of valuable securities and using them as genuine they filed the same before the Deputy Registrar of Chits, Coimbatore in ARC No.309 to 314 of 2001 and thus A1 committed an offence under section 467 IPC r/w 471 IPC and A2 to A4 under section 467 r/w 471 and 34 IPC.The final report filed by the respondent has been taken on file as C.C.18 of 2003 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-III , Coimbatore.
|
['Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 190 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,289,339 |
But we must hasten to add that since the defence has been able to successfully challenge the bona fides of the police investigation, it has detracted materially from the reliability of the other evidence led by the prosecution also.The case as put forward by the prosecution was that PW 1 went to Narasaraopet from the scene of the occurrence.He contacted PW 13 to draft the report ad dressed to the Circle Inspector of Police.PW 1 was projected by the prosecution as an eye-witness who is the nephew of the deceased and had accompanied the deceased when the latter went to realise debts from the villagers.1. Nine accused persons, Punati Ramulu, Nalamala Ramakotayya, Lam Koteswararao, Kancheti Yellamandayya, Nellori Venkateswarlu, Poonati Ramedass, Popuri Govindu, Popuri Ramulu and Cherukuri Danumayya, were tried for offences under Sections 148 and 302 read with 149, I.P.C. by the learned Sessions Judge for the occurrence which took place on 28-3-1991 at about 7.00 or 8.00 a.m. at village Pamidipadu in which one Krishna Rao had been murdered.After recording the evidence of various witnesses including PW 1 to PW 4, the learned Sessions Judge convicted Punati Ramulu (A-1), Nalamala Ramakotayya (A- 2), Lam Koteswararao (A-3) and Poonati Ramedass (A-6), Popuri Govindu (A-7) and Popuri Ramulu (A-8) for an offence under Section 148, I.P.C. and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years.They were also convicted for the offence under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A-4, A-5 and A-9, whose names were not disclosed at the trial as to be present at the time of occurrence by PW 1 to PW 4, were given the benefit of the doubt and acquitted.The convicts A-1 to A-3 and A-6 to A-8 filed an appeal in the High Court against their conviction and sentence.The High Court after appraisal of the evidence and bestowing its deep consideration accepted the appeal filed by the convicts and acquitted A-1 to A-3 and A-6 to A-8 of both the offences.The appeal filed by the State against the acquittal of A-4, A-5 and A-9 was dismissed.Consequently all the accused who had initially been sent up for trial stood acquitted.The State filed two Special Leave Petitions in this Court.On 29-4-1985 leave was granted to file the appeal against the acquittal of A-1 to A-3 and A-6 to A-8 who had been acquitted by the High Court, but the Special Leave Petition against the dismissal of the State appeal challenging the acquittal of A-4, A-5 and A-9 was dismissed.It appears that S.L.P. (Cri.) No. 714/84 was also filed by the complainant against the , acquittal of A-1 to A-3 and A-6 to A-8 but the same was dismissed as withdrawn since leave had been granted to the State against the judgment acquitting the aforesaid six accused.Criminal Misc.Petition No. 32/89 under Section 482, Cr.P.C was also filed by the wife of the deceased to be impleaded as a party and to be granted an opportunity at the time of hearing.Vide order dated 5-1-89 the said application was also dismissed.We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and examined the record with their assistance.Thanks to the tainted investigation, the murder of Krishna Rao goes unpunished.On reaching the police station at Narasaraopet he was informed by the constable on duty that the Circle Inspector, PW 22, had already received information about the occurrence and had left for the village.The police constable at the police station refused to record the complaint presented by PW 1 on the ground that the said police station had no territorial jurisdiction over the place of crime.It was certainly a dereliction of duty on the part of the constable because any lack of territorial jurisdiction could not have prevented the constable from recording information about the cognizable offence and forwarding the same to the police station having jurisdiction over the area in which the crime was said to have been committed.According to the evidence of PW 22, Circle Inspector, he had received information of the incident from police constable No. 1278, who was on 'bandobast' duty.On receiving the.information of the occurrence, PW 22 left for the village of occurrence and started the investigation in the case.Before proceeding to the village to take up the investigation, it is conceded by PW 22 in his evidence, that he made no entry in the daily diary or record in the general diary about the information that had been given to him by constable 1278, who was the first person to give information to him on the basis of which he had proceeded to the spot and taken up the investigation in hand.In our opinion, the complaint, Ex. P-1, could not be treated as the F.I.R. in the case as it certainly would be a statement made during the investigation of a case and hit by Section 162, Cr.P.C. As a matter of fact the High Court recorded a categorical finding to the effect that Ex. P-1 had not been prepared at Narasaraopet and that it had "been brought into existence at Pamidipadu itself, after due deliberation".Once we find that the investigating officer has deliberately failed to record the first information report on receipt of the information of a cognizable offence of the nature, as in this case, and had prepared the first information report after reaching the spot after due deliberations, consultations and discussion, the conclusion becomes inescapable that the investigation is tainted and it would, therefore, be unsafe to rely upon such a tainted investigation, as one would not know where the police officer would have stooped to fabricate evidence and create false clues.Though we agree that mere relationship of the witnesses PW 3 and PW 4, the children of the deceased or of PW 1 and PW 2 who are also related to the deceased, by itself is not enough to discard their testimony and that the relationship or the partisan nature of the evidence only puts the Court on its guard to scrutinise the evidence more carefully, we find that in this case when the bona fides of the investigation has been successfully assailed, it would not be safe to rely upon the testimony of these witnesses either in the absence of strong corroborative evidence of a clinching nature, which is found wanting in this case.Keeping in view these circumstances and being of the opinion that the findings recorded by the High Court while acquitting A-1 to A-3 and A-6 to A-8 are borne out by the evidence and are otherwise also reasonable and sound, we do not find any justification to interfere with the order of acquittal.
|
['Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,289,344 |
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by584N.P. SINGH, J. The appellant along with Radhey Shayam andMunni Lal, was put on trial for an offence under Section 302read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, for having committedthe murder of Gokaran Prasad on 24.11.1975 at about 5.00P.M.It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased alongwith his brother, Parbhu Dayal PW- 1, on 24.11.1975, had oneto the Court of Tehsildar at Sitapur to attend their case,which had been fixed for hearing.The case was, however,postponed.In the evening they were returning to village.On Sitapur Lucknow Road.at about 5.00 P.M. the threeaccused persons, all armed with Bankas, emerged from thefield of Rani Saheba and ran towards to deceased.PW- 1started shouting for help.The deceased fell down on thebrick stack.It is said that the appellant Ram Asreypressed down the deceased, while Radhey Shyam and Munni Lalgave the blows with Bankas.Inrespect of the motive for the commission of the offence.itis said that two years prior to the occurrence aforesaid,accused Radhey Shyam had erected a wall in front of thehouse of the deceased, who resisted and did not allow thewall to be constructed.From the Judgment and Order dated 17.5.1984 of the AllahabadHigh Court in Criminal Appeal No. 564 of 1977.R.L. Kohli, and C.P. Lal for the Appellant.S.P. Pandey and A.S. Pundir for the Respondent.For that Radhey Shyam wasprosecuted and because of that he bore a grudge against thedeceased.The First Information Report was lodged by PW- 1 at about6.45 P.M., in which he gave the details of the occurrenceand named PW-5 and PW-6 as the eyewitnesses of theoccurrence.The Investigating Officer visited the spot,made the inquest and sent the body for post mortem, whichwas held the next day.Incised wound 7 cms.x. 1 cm.x bone deep on the right side of head 6 cms.above the right eye-brow.Lacerated wound 4 cms.x. 1.5 cms.x scalp deep in the mid-line of head 6 cms.above the root of nose.Lacerated wound 4 cms.x 1.5 cms.x bone deep on the left side of head 3 cms.above left eye-brow.Lacerated wound 4.5 cms.x 1 cm.x bone deep on the outer part of left eye-brow extending down on the outer side of the outer angle.of left eye and below its level.Incised wound 8 cms.x 3 cms.x scalp deep on the back of head ,on the left side of middle line 5 cms.behind the left ear.Incised wound 11 cms.x 3 cms.x vertebrae bone deep 4 cms.below the right ear and 2.5 cms.below left angle of left lower jaw at the level of the body of third cervical vertebrae, underneath of injury oecsophagus.Thyroid cartilage and neck vessels of both the sides out.Incised wound 2.5 cms.x.5 cm.x muscle deep over the front of 1st Pharyanx region of right thumb.Incised wound 9 cms.x 2 cms.x muscle deep over the palmar aspect of left hand starting from the web of left thumb and index finger going inner and upper side towards the wrist."According to the doctor, who held the post mortemexamination, the incised wound might have been caused byweapon like Banka.He, however, pointed out that Banka hada sharp edge on one side and blunt on the other.He stated "Injury No. 2, 3, 4 might be caused by some blunt weapon.Injury No. 4 might be caused by some blunt side of the banka.As in my opinion blunt part of the banka is about 1 cm.in width, injury No. 2 and 3 might be caused by sharp fall on the heap of Bajri.Injury No. 2 and 3 might be caused by blunt part of bank a if its width was 1.4 cms."In cross-examination he states "Injuries No. 2, 3 and 4 are likely to be caused by lathi.The injury No. 2 is likely to occur if heavy weight weapon is struck with considerable force.The injury No. 3 might occur by fall on the Bajri.If anyone fall with face side in addition to injury Nos. 2 and 3 other abrasions are likely to occur on the face."Again, in cross-examination about injuries Nos. 2, 3 and 4,he has stated that they are likely to be caused with lathiportion.The Trial Court on consideration of the evidence came to theconclusion that prosecution had failed to prove the casebeyond reasonable doubt.On that finding the accusedpersons were acquitted.The State Government filed an appeal against the judgment ofacquittal.During the pendency of the appeal, the mainaccused Radhey Shyam died.The High Court, however, afterreferring to the different facts and circumstances of thecase, recorded a finding that the charge levelled againstthe two accused persons, namely, the appellant and MunniLal, had been proved beyond reasonable doubt.On thatfinding the High Court convicted the appellant along withMunni Lal, for an offence under Section 302 read withSection 34 of the Penal Code and sentenced each of them toundergo rigorous imprisonment for life.This appeal, under Section 379 of the Criminal Procedure('ode, has been filed on behalf of Ram Asrey, the appellant.PW-5 and PW-6 because of the inherentimprobabilities in their deposition and lack of consistencyand there was no occasion for the High Court while hearingthe appeal against acquittal to reverse the finding recordedabout their credibility.It was also pointed out that sofar Jaoannath, PW-5, is concerned, he has been disbelievednot only by the Trial Court but even by the High Courtsaying that he has changed his statement from stage tostage, to make it consistent with the statement of PW- 1.The High Court has observed in respect of PW-5 "We may, therefore, exclude his testimony from consideration, not so much because he might not have been present at the spot but because there are elements in his testimony which make it unsafe to place reliatice on it having been once disbelieved by the Trial Court.That is the true angle in which the evidence must be considered by this Court when dealing with an appeal against acquittal."It was urged that the same approach should have been adoptedin respect of Narain PW-6, who claimed to have accompaniedPW-5, PW-6, has stated that he had clone that day to themarket of khairabad to get Salim Mistry for repairing hisChakki, but Salim Mistry was not available and when he wasreturning to village he met PW-5 in the market of Khairabadand both of them started for their village.He has further stated that at about 5 P.M. he saw thedeceased and PW- Ion Sitapur-Lucknow Road.Then he claimedto have seen the accused persons coming out from the fieldof Rani Saheba.According to him, this appellant held downthe deceased, while the other two accused persons RadheyShyam and Munni Lal struck the deceased with Bankas andcaused his death.The High Court has observed that if thetestimony of PW-6 is examined in the light of surroundingcircumstances, then it is consistent with the version of PW-1 and, as such, the evidence of PW- 1 receives adequatecorroboration.The High Court has rightly pointed out thatPW-6 was not connected with the prosecution party in anymanner and there was no reason for him to depose falsely,claiming to be an eye-witness of the occurrence.On behalf of the appellant, it was said about PW- 1 that onhis own statement, he lodged the First Information Report,on the basis of a report written by Lallu Ram PW-8 at thespot, which he took to Police Station Khairabad.Thisaspect of the matter has been dealt with in the judgmentunder appeal.That merelybecause PW- 1 lodged the First Information Report on basisof a report prepared by PW-8, by itself shall not affect theprosecution version.The matter would have been different.if the accused persons had shown some oblique motive on thepart of PW-8, who is said to have prepared the report.Theoccurrence took place at about 5.00 P.M. and the Firstlnformation Report was lodged at 6.45 P.M. with in twohours, the police station being at the distance of fourmiles from the place of occurrence.In the FirstInformation Report the same version of the occurrence wasdisclosed, which has been stated in Court.Apart fromnaming himself, PW-1 also named PW-5 and PW-6 as eye-witnesses of the occurrence.The Investigating Officerreached the place of occurrence at 9.00 P.M. the sameevening.In such a situation there does not appear to beany scope for concoction of a false case to implicate theaccused persons leaving out the real culprits.PW-1 beingthe brother of the deceased, his going to the Court ofTehsildar at Sitapur and returning to village with thedeceased is most natural.His evidence cannot be rejectedmerely on the ground that he happened to be the brother ofthe victim.It has been repeatedly pointed out by thisCourt that near relations will be the last persons to leaveout the real culprits and to implicate those who have notparticipated in the crime.Taking all facts andcircumstances into consideration.we are of the view thatprosecution has been able to prove the case as disclosed inthe First Information Report against the accused persons andthere is no reason to reject the same.The next question which has to be examined is as to whetherso far the588appellant is concerned who, according to the prosecutioncase itself, has not given any Banka blow to the victim, butis said to have pressed down the deceased, before the othertwo accused persons Radhey Shyam and Munni Lal had given theblows, should have been held guilty for an offence underSection 302 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code.It waspointed out that the appellant was a school student andthere was no reason on his part to share the commonintention of committing the murder of the victim.In thisconnection, reference was made to the injuries found on theperson of the victim during the post mortem examination.Itwas pointed out that the injuries were not consistent withthe prosecution case that the other two accused personscaused those injuries with Bankas.About injuries Nos. 2, 3and 4 the Doctor, who held the post mortem examination, hasclearly stated that they must have been caused by some bluntweapon.In respect of injury No. 4, he has said that itmight have been caused by the blunt side of the Banka.Thisitself shows that amongst the two participants in tileoccurrence.They had different intentions.One out of thetwo assailants i.e. Radhey Shyam and Munni Lal had used theback side of the Banka.If one of the two assailants hadused the back side of the Banka, then from this conduct itcan be reasonably inferred that such assailant had not theintention to cause the death of the victim, otherwise therewas no reason to use the back side of the Banka, instead ofsharp side which in normal course could have caused thedeath of the victim.However, so far the present appeal isconcerned, we are not concerned with either of the two otheraccused persons.But this circumstance can be taken intoconsideration for judging the role played by the appellant.According, to us, by merely pressing down the victim beforethe other two accused persons assaulted him, it cannot beheld that appellant had shared the common intention ofcausing the death of the victim.In the facts and circum-stances of the case, of course, it has to be held that heshared only the common intention of culpable homicide notamounting to murder.He can be attributed with theintention that the injuries, which were being caused by theother two accused persons, were likely to cause the death ofthe victim.Accordingly, we set aside the conviction of the appellantunder Section 302 read with Section 34, as well as hissentence to imprisonment for life.He is convicted underSection 304, Part 1, read with Section 34 of the Penal Codeand sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for tenyears.The appeal is accordingly allowed in part to theextent indicated above.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
12,894,147 |
We have heard Sri Gopal Swarup Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Dr. Akhilesh Kumar Sharma, Sri Daya Shankar Mishra, learned Advocate for the applicant and Sri K.P. Singh, and S.K.Pandey learned Advocates for the complainant respondent and Si Ajit Rai, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and have perused the record.As per the prosecution case, accused Ram Karan Arya, a sitting MLA committed the murder of the victim Shambhu Saran Pal by firing a shot upon him from a double barrel gun from a close distance on 23rd November, 1994 at around 12:00 PM when his Jeep was hit from the rear by another vehicle belonging to Shambhu Sharan Pal, who was proceeding to attend political meeting of Jagdambika Pal, a political leader of Congress Party.As per the FIR version, the applicant Ram Karan Arya came from behind and stopped the deceased's vehicle and thereafter the armed men of accused Ram Karan Arya surrounded his jeep.The accused Ram Karan Arya started shouting at him as to how could he hit his Jeep from behind.This lead to exchange of arguments and following this, accused Ram Karan Yadav took his double barrel gun from his shadow Ram Ujagir and fired upon the victim which hit on his neck.Resultantly, he fell down.Immediately he was rushed to the hospital where he was declared dead.Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.Order on Bail Application (Delivered by Hon'ble Ajit Kumar, J.)This is an application seeking bail in criminal appeal no. 2071 of 2017 arising out of the judgment and order dated 10.4.2017 passed by Sessions Judge, Basti convicting the accused applicant under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him for rigorous life imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs. 20,000/-.Learned counsel for the applicant inspite of service of counter affidavit on 10.5.2017 has chosen not to file any rejoinder affidavit and has proceeded to argue the matter.The police submitted a charge-sheet and the case was committed to sessions on 29.5.1995 and was registered as sessions trial no. 91 of 1995 on 31.5.1995 in respect of applicant, Ram Karan Arya, Ram Ujagir, Om Prakash and Usman @ Yusuf.In respect of trial number 91 of 1995, Jaibaksh Pal, informant was examined as PW-1, Parmeshwar Pal, Satywan, Om Prakash, Dr. S.S. Dwivedi and head-constable Kapil Dev, Vishwanath Tiwari, S.I. Srikant Singh, Inspector BrijMohan and Inspector Pawan Kumar have been examined as PW.2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 and 10 respectively.P.W.-8 Srikant Singh prepared inquest report (Exchibit-6) and also collected blood stains, soil and concrete mixed Charkol from the place of incident and prepared Fard (Exhibit-13) and site plan (Exhibit-14), whereas PW-1- Inspector, Pawan Kumar recovered the licensed double barrel gun of the applicant on the pointing out of an informer.He prepared the site plan of recovery and recovery memo (exhibit 19 and 20) and sent the double barrel gun for the ballistic examination.Autopsy was conducted by Dr. G.C.Singh and Dr. S.S.Dwivedi, Medical Officers of District Hospital, Basti.According to post mortem report inter alia fire arm wound of entry 6 x 5 cm.Chest cavity deep on the right side of the neck was found.Blackening and Tattooing was also found around the injury on the neck.Ballistic Expert report dated 23.2.1995 (Exhibit-22) was also produced by the prosecution before the Court.The trial court after examining all the witnesses in sessions trial no. 91 of 1995, also examined all the witnesses afresh in sessions trial no. 38 of 2009, who were common in both trials.We find a reference in this regard in para 50 of the impugned judgment.In so far as sessions trial no. 91 of 1995 is concerned, the Trial Court has observed that all the prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution case and are consistent in their testimonies with respect to the date, time and place of incident.The postmortem report and the ballistic expert opinion are supportive of the prosecution case.The court below after appreciating the entire evidence including material evidence has held the accused applicant guilty of the offence under Section 302 IPC but has acquitted him in other sections.However, the trial court has acquitted all the other accused persons in sessions trial nos. 91 of 1995 and 38 of 2009 respectively.While arguing the bail application of convict learned counsel for the applicant have raised the following arguments:a. Once the trial court has examined the witnesses separately in the two Sessions Trials (supra) and it conducted two trials separately, there was no occasion for the trial court to have decided both the trials by one common judgment, as such, the trial court has committed a material illegality and manifest error of law resulting in flagrant miscarriage of justice;b. Though the other accused persons having been acquitted under Section 147, 148,149,302,504,506 IPC in the same case crime numbers however the applicant has been convicted.There was no occasion to hold him guilty and thus he was equally entitled for benefit of doubt;d. Though, large number of people had gathered when the heated arguments were exchanged between the two sides followed by the alleged incident, still no independent witness was produced;e. The omission to refer to the first information report and also not annexing the copy thereof while sending the dead body for the post mortem indicates that there was no first information report in existence and so it was ante-timed.It is also corroborated from the fact that said report which is required to be sent to CJM under Section 157 of the Cr.P.C. was marked "seen" by the CJM only on 29.11.1994 which clearly shows that there was an inordinate delay in sending the FIR to the higher authorities and as such, it creates doubt about the lodging of the FIR at 1.10 PM on 23.11.1994;f. even as per the evidence available on record it could at the most be a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder falling under exception IV of Section 300 IPC and therefore it was a case for conviction and sentence under Section 304 IPC and not 302 IPC;g. The applicant is entitled for the benefit of doubt as no question was put to him under Section 313 of Cr.P.C with regard to recovery of barrel gun along-with live and empty cartridges; and h. The convict has been through out on bail during trial and has never abused bail nor has been involved in any criminal case except the present one.So looking to his over all conduct, the applicant is entitled to bail.Per contra the learned AGA Sri Ajit Ray on behalf of the State and Sri K.P. Singh, Advocate opposing bail application argued:We shall state the reasons briefly.Firstly, the two trials arise out of the same case crime No. 857 of 1994 relating to one and the same incident.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
128,945,500 |
OP.No.1891 of 2020The second respondent has filed a counter stating that one Niranjani has lodged a complaint before the Deputy Commissioner, Women and Child Protection Wing, Thousand Light, and the same was received by the second respondent through proper channel on 21.01.2020 at 22.15 hrs and FIR has been registered in Cr.This petition has been filed to direct the respondents not to harass the petitioners.The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the first petitioner is the wife of the second petitioner.He further submitted that the second petitioner is the President of All India Hindu Maha Sabha.He further submitted that the second petitioner has moved anticipatory bail application in Crl.MP.No.818 of 2020 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai and in that petition, the learned Sessions Judge, taking into consideration the submissions made by both the parties has granted anticipatory bail to the second petitioner.But, immediately thereafter the said Niranjani has lodged another false complaint and based on the same, the second respondent is harassing the petitioners.2/5http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.No.3 of 2020 under Sections 506(1) IPC, 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act 2002 and 67 IT Act 2000 against the second petitioner herein and others.She further stated that already one FIR has been registered in Cr.No.1 of 20 under Sections 294(b), 354(A), 506(i), 509 r/w 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act 2002 and both the FIRs are under investigation.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that since the second FIR has been registered against the second petitioner only, for investigation purpose, the second petitioner alone was called, but the petitioners were not subjected to any harassment.3/5http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.OP.No.1891 of 2020 P.RAJAMANICKAM.J., drlConsidering the fact that the second FIR has been registered against the second petitioner in Cr.No.3 of 2020 and only for investigation purpose he was called, the said act cannot be termed as harassment.This petition is liable to be dismissed.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
128,950,716 |
This is third bail application u/S 439 of Cr.P.C filed by the applicants for grant of bail.Earlier two bail applications were dismissed on merits vide orders dated 22.11.2019 and 26.12.2019 passed in M.Cr.C Nos. 43386/2019 and M.Cr.C No. 53178/2019 respectively.The applicant has been arrested on 13.09.2019 by Police Station Matabasaiya District Morena in connection with Crime No.108/2019 registered in relation to the offence punishable u/Ss. 302, 323, 294 and 506/34 of IPC.The allegation against the present applicant is that he has caught hold of the deceased and thrown him on the floor and thereafter, other co-accused persons have inflicted injury to the deceased.He prays for rejection of bail application.Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the case diary.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
128,958,532 |
Heard on I.A.No. 8826/2016, an application for suspension of sentence on behalf of appellant No.5- Ajuddibai.The appellant No.5 been convicted of offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 and Section 148 of IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.250/ and rigorous imprisonment for one year respectively.Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellant No.5 was on bail during trial and she did not misuse the liberty granted to her.In a complaint (Ex.P/10) made by Ranveer Singh @ Lakhiya (PW2) soon after the incident, in which it was mentioned that she assaulted the deceased- Kallu @ Sukhveer with a sickle, however, Dr. Purushottam Bunkar (PW12) in the post mortem Ex.P/33, did not find any injury caused by the sickle.Thereafter, Ranveer Singh @ Lakhiya improved the story in his statement that the appellant No.1- Ajuddibai exhorted the other accused persons whereas no such wordings were present in the complaint Ex.By mere presence, no one can be convicted with the help of Section 34 or 149 of IPC for an offence which was not committed personally by the accused.Under these circumstances, the appellant No.5 prays for bail and suspension of execution of jail sentence on the ground of parity.Learned Panel Lawyer opposes the application.If appellant No.5 Ajuddibai furnishes a bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) along with one surety bond to the satisfaction of trial Court that she shall appear before the Registry of this Court first on 30/11/2016 and on subsequent dates given by the office for her appearance till disposal of the present appeal then appellant- No.5 Ajuddibai shall be released on bail and execution of her jail sentence is suspended till disposal of this appeal.Certified copy as per rules.
|
['Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,289,594 |
D-5 is the wife of D-1 and D-4 is their daughter.D-2 is the younger brother of D-1 while D-3 is the brother of D-4. A-1 to A-3 are brothers.The case of the prosecution is that at 7.15a.m.on 30.8.2000, when all the deceased along with P.W.s 1 to 3 and a few others went to the village of the accused to unite A-3 and his wife D-4, all the accused sharing the common intention, fatally attacked the five persons, out of whom four died on the spot while one died in the hospital, a few days later.In the course of the same transaction, they also made an attempt on the life of P.W.2 and he luckily survived.To substantiate the charge, the prosecution examined three witnesses as eye-witnesses to the occurrence, out of whom, P.W.2 is an injured eye-witness.Let us summarise in short here under the oral evidence of P.W.1:"D-1 is his brother-in-law; all the accused are known to him and they reside at Thalaikattupuram; Maheswari - D-4 is the daughter of D-1; about three years prior to the occurrence, marriage between A-3 and Maheswari took place; they were living together for about 7 or 8 months and even during that time, the spouses were quarrelling; this made D-4 leave her matrimonial abode and take shelter under her father; D-1, with a view to bring peace between the spouses, asked P.W.5 to mediate; P.W.5 told D-1 to send his daughter; however, D-1 insisted that unless A-3 comes, he will not send his daughter; P.W.5 is the junior paternal uncle of the accused; the witness along with P.W.5 went to Thalaikattupuram to ask A-3 to come to D-1's house and take his wife with him; On the way, A-3 was seen in the bus-stand and when he was asked to come and take his wife, he refused stating that they can send his wife on their own; this was informed to D-1; a few days later, D-4 was sent in the company of P.W.2 and D-5 to Thalaikattupuram; later, one Muthiah of Sadanandapuram died; A-3's sister had been given in marriage to Muthiah's son; therefore, A-3 was asked to come for condolence; P.W.2 went to inform A-3 about that; A-3 told P.W.2 that he will not come and signing in a white paper told P.W.2 to take Maheswari with him; P.W.2 refused to take D-4 and returned to the village; D-1 and D-5, four days later, went to Thalaikattupuram and at that time, D-4 informed them that she cannot live any more at Thalaikattupuram as she was subjected to cruelty and harassment; D-1 and D-5 informed D-4 that they will bring elderly people from their village and try to settle her life with her husband and even after that, if A-3 is not coming around, then a complaint can be given at the Ettayapuram Police Station; on the morning of 30.8.2000(the date of occurrence), all the five deceased along with a few more left in a van driven by P.W.4 to Thalaikattupuram; totally 13 people travelled in that van; they had coffee around 7 or 7.15a.m.at Kovilpatti and then reached Thalaikattupuram where the vehicle was parked south of the house of A-1; the witness went to get P.W.5 and P.W.5 accordingly accompanied him; they were conversing among themselves as to how the problem between A-3 and D-4 could be solved; when the witness and P.W.5 went inside the house of A-1 with A-3, A-1 and A-2 were standing outside the house.When the witness and P.W.5 were talking with A-3, they heard somebody shouting "stab, cut"; immediately, A-3 took an Aruval with him and ran out of the house; this made the witness also to come out and see what was happening; at that time, D-1 was found running towards north chased by A-1 and A-2. A-1 and A-2 were also armed with weapons; A-3 also followed them with the weapon in his hand; north of A-1's house, near the ration shop, D-1 was indiscriminately attacked by A-2, A-3, A-1 and A-3 again; P.W.2 stating that his brother is being cut, tried to save him; A-1 attacked P.W.2 on his right hand; at that time, D-2 intervened stating that his brother had been cut; A-1 did not spare him and cut him on his back with the weapon; D-3, who was also nearby was also attacked by A-1, A-3 and A-2; D-3 died on the spot; Maheswari-D-4 came running stating that her brother had been cut; she was cut by A-3 followed by A-1 and A-2 on various parts of her body; she also died on the spot; frightened D-5 ran for safety and she was stabbed by A-1 followed A-3, A-2 and again by A-1; she also died on the spot; all the accused ran away with the weapons in their hands for safety; he saw P.W.2 and Gurusamy, since deceased (D-2) with injuries.Gurusamy could not walk; he was carried by him, P.W.3 and others and brought to the main road; on seeing the occurrence, P.W.4, who was driving the van in which the witnesses and the deceased came, took his vehicle and drove it away; a bus from Vilathikulam towards Ettayapuram came in which Gurusamy, since deceased, and P.W.2 were taken to the Police Station; P.W.19, the Sub-Inspector of Police was there before whom P.W.1 narrated the incident; then injured P.W.2 and Gurusamy were sent to the hospital and then P.W.19 took a complaint from P.W.1; he wrote down the complaint to the narration of P.W.1 in which P.W.1 signed; Ex-P1 is the said complaint.In the spot itself, Muthusamy - D-1, Sundaramoorthy - D-3, Maheswari - D-4 and Guruvathai - D-5 died and their bodies were lying in the same place; M.O.s 1 to 3 are the weapons of offence used by the accused."Besides, P.W.2 had also given evidence as to how he came to sustain injuries and at whose hands.He would state that all of them alighted near the house of A-1 and within 10 minutes thereafter, he heard a distress cry that somebody is being cut and he immediately left the place in his van.P.W.19 is the Sub-Inspector of Police in the investigating Police Station.At 8.30a.m.on 30.8.2000, P.W.1 appeared before him and gave an oral complaint, which he reduced into writing.He had taken his signature in it and he registered it as Ex-P1 in Crime No. 154/2000 for offences under Sections 302 and 307 I.P.C. He prepared Ex-P15, the printed First Information Report.He sent the material records to the Court as well as to the higher officials.P.W.20 is the Investigating Officer, who took up investigation immediately on collecting the material records at about 9.30a.m.He reached the scene of occurrence where he found the dead body of Muthusamy (D-1) lying on the road.In the presence of P.W.9 and another, he prepared the Observation Mahazar - Ex-P16 for that place and Ex-P36-the rough sketch.By examining P.W.1 and others and in the presence of panchayatars, between 10.15a.m.and 11.15a.m., he conducted inquest over the dead body of Muthusamy (D-1).Ex-P37 is the Inquest Report.He sent the dead body through a police constable for postmortem.At 11.30a.m.on the same day, in the presence of witnesses, he recovered bloodstained earth and sample earth and a broken stick from the place where the body of Muthusamy was lying on the ground.He also noticed that the dead bodies of Sundaramoorthy, Maheswari and Guruvathai were lying on the same road separated by a short distance.In the presence of the same witnesses, he prepared Ex-P18, the Observation Mahazar and Ex-P38, the rough sketch in respect of the place where the three bodies referred to above were found lying.In the presence of the same witnesses, he conducted inquest between 12.30p.m. and 1.45p.m.on that day on the dead body of D-3 and prepared Ex-P39, the Inquest Report.Then, he sent the dead body through a police constable for postmortem.Over the dead body of D-4, he conducted inquest between 1.45p.m.and 3.10p.m.in the presence of the same witnesses and panchayatars and prepared Ex-P40, the Inquest Report.Then, he sent the dead body for postmortem through a police constable.In the presence of the same witnesses and panchayatars, he conducted inquest between 3.30p.m.and 4.30p.m.on the same day over the dead body of D-5 and prepared Ex-P41, the Inquest Report.Then, he sent that dead body also for postmortem through a police constable.After postmortem, he removed M.O.s 14 to 19 from the dead body and handed over the same to the Investigating Officer.P.W.14 is the police constable, who was present throughout postmortem done on D-3 and after postmortem, he removed M.O.s 20 to 23 from the dead body and handed over the same to the Investigating Officer.Likewise, P.W.15 is the constable, who was present throughout the postmortem on D-4 and after postmortem, he removed M.O.s 24 to 32 from the dead body and handed over the same to the Investigating Officer.P.W.16 is the last of the four police constables, who was present throughout the postmortem done on D-5 and after postmortem, he removed M.O.s 33 to 40 from the dead body and handed over the same to the Investigating Officer.Brain Normal.Thorax: Heart empty.Lungs pale.Abdomen Stomach empty other internal organs pale.Death would have occurred 5 - 7 hours prior to Post-mortem.Skull: Brain Normal.Thorax: Heart Chambers empty.Lungs pale.Laceration in left lung upper lobs left lung collapsed.Abdomen: Stomach empty, other internal organs pale.P.M. concluded at 3.20p.m.Death could have occurred 6-8 hours prior to P.M.Abdomen: Stomach empty.Other internal organs pale.Thorax: Heart chambers empty.Lungs pale Abdomen Stomach empty.Other internal organs pale.P.M. concluded at 5.55p.m.P.W.20 continued the investigation further by examining witnesses and recording their statements.From the place where the dead body of D-3 was lying, he recovered bloodstained earth and sample earth under a mahazar attested by witnesses.Likewise, bloodstained earth and sample earth were also recovered from the place where the dead bodies of Maheswari and Guruvathai were lying in the presence of witnesses under mahazars.He examined P.W.19 and recorded his statement.He handed over further investigation in this case as per the orders of his superior to P.W.21, another Inspector of Police.P.W.21 continued the investigation further in this case.Pursuant to the above referred to confession statements, under Exs-P43, P44 and P45, M.O.s 1, 2 & 3 came to be recovered respectively.The accused were then surrendered before the Court.JUDGMENT R. Balasubramanian, J.The appellants in the appeal stand convicted in S.C. No. 514/2001 on the file of the Additional Court of Sessions, Tuticorin, for offences under Section 302 r/w Section 34 I.P.C. (5 counts) and Section 307 r/w Section 34 I.P.C. For the offence of murder, each one of them stands sentenced to be hanged till their death and for the other offence, each one of them stands sentenced to undergo 7 years RI.Since both the proceedings arise out of one sessions case, we are inclined to dispose of the same by this common judgment.Heard the learned counsel on either side.P.W.6 is the doctor, who did postmortem on the respective dead bodies of D-1, D-3, D-4 and D-5 on receipt of Exs-P2, P4, P6 and P8 requisitions brought by the respective police constables.During postmortem on the body of D-1, she found various symptoms as noted in Ex-P3, the postmortem report.The Doctor is of the opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of the cumulative effect of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries sustained.Injury No. 4 is fatal in nature.The symptoms as noted by the doctor are as follows:A cut injury right side of face about 4cm x 3 cm x 3cms.cutting muscle underneath.A cut injury just below injury No. 1 over right mandibular region about 12 cm x 5 cm x 5 cm lacerating the muscles and fracturing the bone underneath.A cut injury 2 cms above injury No. 1 starting from right maxillary region extending to the nose and cutting it in middle about 9 cm x 4 cm x 3 cms lacerating the muscles and fracturing the bones underneath.A cut injury right side of neck about 15 cm x 8 cm x 9 cm severing the muscles, blood vessels, nerves and cervical vertebral with spinal cord at c4 level.A cut injury is behind right ear about 10 cm x 3 cm upto bone depth fracturing it.A cut injury over left elbow, Totally severing the joint bones muscles on lateral aspect, blood vessels and nerves leaving.Skin and muscles on medial aspect.A cut injury over dorsal aspect of right wrist about 3 cm x 2 cm x 1 cm.A cut injury 1" below injury No. 7 over right hand about 6 cm x 3 cm x 3 cm severing the tendons and fracturing the bones underneath.Skull : Fracture of right temporal bone.Opinion as to cause of death:The deceased would appear to have died of the cumulative effect of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries sustained.Fatal injury - Injury No. 4"During postmortem on the body of D-3, the doctor found various symptoms as noted by her in Ex-P5, the postmortem report.According to the doctor, the deceased would appear to have died of the cumulative effect of shock and haemorrhage due to three injuries sustained and injury No. 1 is fatal in nature.The symptoms noted by her are as follows:"Injuries:A cut injury right side of neck about 18 cms x 12 cm x 10 cm severing blood vessels, muscles nerves and vertebral with spinal cord at c4 level.A cut injury over right mandibular region about 10 cm x 5 cm x 4 cm fracturing the bone underneath.A cut injury over right ear pinna about 4 cm x 1 cm.A cut injury over anterior aspect of left shoulder about 6 cm x 4 cm x 3 cm.A cut injury over left mammary region 2 cms below left collar bone about 9 cm x 5 cm upto bone depth fracturing 2nd 3rd and 4th ribs.A cut injury middle of right forearm fracturing both bones and severing muscles, blood vessels and nerves - leaving tag of a cut torn 4 cm in width.A cut injury (torn) about 12 cm x 6 cms upto bone depth lacerating the tendons and fracturing the bone underneath.The little ring and middle finger lacerated.A cut injury 4 cm below left elbow fracture both bones severing muscles, blood vessels nerves - leaving a tag of skin with muscle about 3 cms width and 2 cms in thickness on medial aspect.A cut injury left little finger about 3 cm x 2 cm bone depth fracturing it.A cut injury right side of lower abdomen about 3 cm x 2 cm x 1cm.A cut injury left side of lower abdomen about 6 cm x 2 cm peritoneal cavity opened.Small intestines protruding through it.A cut injury over right knee about 6 cm x 4 cm x 3 cm.Opinion as to cause of death:The deceased would appear to have died of the cumulative effect of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries sustained.Fatal injury : Injury No. 1"On the dead body of D-4, the doctor found various symptoms as noted by him in Ex-P7, the postmortem certificate.The doctor is of the opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of cumulative effect of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries sustained and injury No. 1 is fatal.The following are the symptoms noted by the doctor on the dead body of D-4:"Injuries:A cut injury left side of chest - below the breast - starting from mid clavicular line - extending on to the back of chest about 30 cm x 10 cm.Opening the chest wall - collapsing the left lung and fracturing 6th to 8th ribs there.A cut injury left side of face about 7 cm x 5 cm upto bone depth fracturing maxillary bone.A cut injury left shoulder on poster aspect about 3 cm x 2 cm x 2 cms.A cut injury just below injury No. 3 about 3 cm x 2 cm x 2 cms.A cut injury over right palm near the finger roots about 5 cm x 3 cm bone depth fracturing them (medial three).A cut injury 2 cm above injury No. 6 about 7 cm x 5 cm x 1 cm.A cut injury 3 cm below injury No. 6 about 4 cm x 2 cm x 1 cm.Skull: Normal.Brain Normal.Thorax: Fracture of ribs (Torn) on left side left lung collapsed.Both lungs pale.Heart chambers empty.There was a cut injury anterior wall of left side about 3 cm x 1 cm.Opening the cavity.P.M. concluded at 4.40p.m.Death would have occurred 8-10 hours prior to Post-mortem.Opinion as to cause of death:The deceased would appear to have died of the cumulative effect of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries sustained.Fatal injury : Injury No. 1."On the dead body of D-5, the doctor found various symptoms as noted in Ex-P9, the postmortem certificate.According to the doctor, the deceased would appear to have died of the cumulative effect of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries sustained and injury No. 1 is fatal.The symptoms as noted in Ex-P9 are as follows:"Injuries:A cut injury over neck at c4 level cutting vertebral C4 level with spinal cord, all major blood vessels and nerves vessels of neck - leaving a tag of skin about 5 cms in width interiorly connecting the head to the body (length 32 cms - depth 12 cms.)A cut injury 1 cm below right ear about 7 cm x 3 cm x 3cms.A cut injury over right collar bone about 6 cm x 3 cm x 2 cm fracturing the bone.A cut injury - middle of forehead about 2 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm.A cut injury over right wrist about 4 cm x 3 cm x 2 cm.Skull: Normal, Brain normal.Death would have occurred 9-11 hrs prior P.M.Opinion as to cause of death:The deceased would appear to have died of the cumulative effect of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries sustained.Fatal injury : Injury No. 1"He examined Gurusamy (D-2) and Lakshmanan (P.W.2)in the hospital on 10.9.2000 and recorded their statements.He came to know that all the accused have surrendered in Court and accordingly, he moved an application before the Court seeking police custody of all the three accused.Each one of the accused gave a voluntary confession statement, the admissible portions of which are Ex-P13, Ex-P14 and Ex-P15 respectively.He conducted inquest over the dead body of Gurusamy in the hospital in the presence of panchayatars and witnesses and prepared Ex-P46, the Inquest Report.He sent a requisition for postmortem to be conducted on the dead body of Gurusamy.P.W.7 is the doctor, who did postmortem on the dead body of Gurusamy on receipt of Ex-P11 requisition.During postmortem, he found various symptoms on the dead body as noted in Ex-P12, the postmortem certificate.The Doctor is of the opinion that the deceased would appear to have died on account of cut injury on the right side of back.The symptoms noted by the doctor are as follows:"Injuries noted:Sutured wound (sutures both ends) (surgical procedure, ICD), 4 x 1 1/2 cm x viscera depth close to the right nipple.Vertically oblique (Sutured and sutures removed) cut injury, 10 cm long x lung deep, on the middle of right side of back.On dissection it is lung deep.The cut injury has entered the thoracic cavity right side through the space between 4th and 5th ribs on the right side (back).Fourth rib on the right side cut in its back (course of cut injury).This injury cuts the base of right lung which is found collapsed.Right thoracic cavity contains 250 ml of purulent material.Right side of diaphragm and upper part of right lobe of liver found lacerated 10 x 5 x 4 cm.Peritoneal cavity contains 300 ml of seropurulent fluid.Abrasion 4 x 1 cm right forearm.He sent the case properties to the Court with a requisition to subject the same for chemical examination.P.W.10 is the Magisterial Clerk, who speaks about the receipt of the case properties and the requisition Ex-P22 given by the Investigating Officer to subject the same for chemical examination.Along with the Court's letter Ex-P23, the case properties were sent to the laboratory and Exs-P24 and P25 are the Chemical Examiner's Report and the Serologist's Report respectively.The accused were also involved in a case of single murder in Crime No. 308/94 and in a case of double murder in Crime No. 139/98. A-1 and A-2 in the present case were the accused in Crime No. 308/94 while A-3 and another were the accused in Crime No. 139/98, which is a double murder crime.After completing all the other legal formalities, P.W.21 filed the final report in Court against the accused for offences under Section 302 and Section 307 r/w Section 34When the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on the basis of the incriminating materials made available against each one of them, they denied each and every circumstance put up against them as false and contrary to facts.A-1 would state that he had been implicated in a false case and that about 20 persons came and attacked him.A-1 would state that A-2 and A-3 had gone out for work and on hearing some noise, he came out and he was attacked by the villagers. A-2 and A-3 would state that they had gone out for work and they have been falsely implicated in this case.They examined one witness on their side as D.W.1 besides marking three exhibits as Exs-D-1 to D-3. D.W.1 in his evidence would state that he was not in the village on the date of occurrence and he came back only on the next day morning and nobody informed him as to how the occurrence took place.Ex-D1 is the application filed by the Investigating Officer while the accused were surrendered before the Court after expiry of police custody.Exs-D2 and D3 are the house tax receipts, both standing in the name of one Arjunan.Ex-D1 would show that when the Court questioned the accused at the time of their surrender, each one of them had stated that their signatures were taken in a blank white sheet under threat.The occurrence had taken place in a sudden quarrel.There is evidence to show, namely P.W.s 2 and 3, that A-1 was assaulted on the head and therefore, the prosecution witnesses and the deceased are the aggressors.The mere fact that all the witnesses and the deceased have gone to the village of the accused itself would show that they have gone there with a pre-plan to attack.Mr. I. Subramanian, learned senior counsel as State Public Prosecutor, while replying to the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants, would submit that in this case, the accused have admittedly surrendered before the Court on 14.9.2000 and at that time, none of them including A-1 had complained to the Magistrate that all or any of them came to be attacked by any one of the witnesses or the deceased.In any event, there is no medical evidence before the Court, either from a Government doctor or a private doctor, to show that A-1 had sustained any injury at all in the course of the same transaction.There is also no oral evidence on the side of the defence that he came to sustain the injuries as argued before this Court now.Even assuming for a minute without conceding that A-1 came to be attacked by P.W.2, yet, there is no justification whatsoever, for killing so many on the prosecution side namely five, out of whom, two are women.There is no room at all, according to the learned State Public Prosecutor, to disbelieve P.W.s 1 to 3 and by taking us through the entire evidence, it is submitted by the State Public Prosecutor that the evidence of each one of the witnesses stands fully corroborated by the evidence of other witnesses and it would be impossible for this Court to disbelieve any of them.As far as the sentence imposed namely death sentence, the learned State Public Prosecutor, invited our attention to the earlier involvements of the accused as referred to in the evidence of P.W.21 and by bringing to our notice the other circumstances available namely, the manner in which innocent people were killed for no justifiable reason and the brutal manner in which each one came to be attacked, submitted that the conduct of the accused definitely warrants extreme punishment of death.On instructions from the Police Officer in Court, the State Public Prosecutor would submit that the acquittal of the respective accused in the earlier referred to crime numbers was on the basis of the witnesses turning hostile and they turned hostile due to the threat given by the respective accused in the earlier cases.Having regard to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned State Public Prosecutor, we perused the entire materials on record with utmost care and caution.Maheswari, since deceased was given in marriage to A-3 about 7 or 8 months prior to the occurrence and it appears all was not well in that married life.As usual, the elders tried to pacify her and in fact, pacified her and sent her to live with A-3 in her matrimonial abode.Even then, nothing was moving right as far as poor Maheswari was concerned and it has come out on record that A-3 was a constant and consistent source of problem for Maheswari to lead a peaceful life.Once or twice, Maheswari had come home and informed her father Muthusamy, since deceased.Rightly, in our opinion, both told their daughter to stay a few more days there and assured her that they would come back with the elders in the village and sort out the problem failing which, as a last resort, a complaint could be lodged with the Police.All of them reached Kovilpatti around 7 or 7.15a.m.Others were stationary during that time.When P.W.s 1 and 5 were coming back towards the house of A-1, during that walk, they were discussing as to and in what way the matter could be resolved.It may be true that P.W.5 turned hostile.Nonetheless, the presence of D-1, D-2, D-3 and D-5 along with the witnesses are spoken to by P.W.4, the driver, who drove the van in which the prosecution party and the four deceased referred to above travelled on that fateful day from their village to Thalaikattupuram.Therefore, we hold on the evidence of P.W.4 coupled with the oral evidence of P.W.s 1 to 3 that the prosecution had definitely established that the witnesses namely, P.W.s 1 to 3 along with D-1, D-2, D-3 and D-5 were in the scene of occurrence village.When P.W.s 1 and 5 were talking inside the house of A-1 with A-3 (probably, the conversation might have been as to how best the problem between A-3 and his wife Maheswari (D4) could be solved), a commotion appears to have arisen outside the house and P.W.1 heard somebody shouting from outside the house "stab, cut".This made A-3 to take up an Aruval from his house and run out.His evidence is that all the time, when P.W.s 1, 5, and A-3 were talking inside the house, A-1 and A-2 were outside the house armed with weapons.Therefore, it is clear that A-1 and A-2 were prepared for the attack, if such an eventuality arose.As referred to in the earlier portion of the judgment when we were narrating the facts, D-1 was chased by A-1 and A-2 and a little later by A-3 and all of them indiscriminately attacked him resulting in his instantaneous death.Then, P.W.2, who is the younger brother of D-1 intervened and he was also attacked.D-2 is none else than another brother of D-1 and as is natural, on seeing his brother being attacked, he also stepped in and he was also fatally attacked by all the three accused indiscriminately.However, he survived in that place only to meet his end after a few days in the hospital.Thereafter, the fatal attack on D-4 came to take place, once again by all the accused indiscriminately cutting her and this made D-3, who is the brother of D-4 to intervene to help her and the mindset of the accused at that time did not allow them to spare even D-3 and he was also attacked fatally by each one of them indiscriminately resulting in his instantaneous death.To complete the cruel act, they attacked D-5, who was running for safety and she also died on the spot.The scene of occurrence cannot be disputed at all since the Observation Mahazar and the recovery of bloodstained earth and sample earth coupled with the Chemical Examiner's Report and the Serologist's Report establish that the occurrence had in fact, taken place just near the house of A-1 as spoken to by the witnesses.The medical evidence in the form of P.W.6, who did postmortem on D-1, D-3, D-4 and D-5 coupled with the postmortem reports namely, Exs-P3, P5, P7 and P9 and the medical evidence of P.W.7, who did postmortem on the dead body of D-2 coupled with Ex-P12, the postmortem report leaves no room at all to doubt that the cause of death is due to homicidal violence.Looking from any angle, we have no material in the evidence of P.W.s 1 to 3, which would enable us to doubt their evidence either in toto or in part.In other words, the evidence of P.W.s 1 to 3 is complete on all aspects regarding the occurrence proper resulting in the death of five and resulting in P.W.2 receiving grievous injuries.The fact that the accused armed with deadly weapons chased the unfortunate victims and attacked them indiscriminately besides causing various injuries on P.W.2 including two grievous injuries would show beyond the pale of controversy that the only intention in their mind was to eliminate the entire family for no justifiable cause and therefore, there cannot be any difficulty at all in holding that all the accused had shared the common intention to kill each one of the unfortunate victims in this case.The manner in which P.W.2 also came to be attacked by the accused bristles with the sharing of the common intention in their mind.
|
['Section 307 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.
|
128,961,162 |
It has further been submitted that in the loan account, he had regularly deposited EMI of Rs.26,000/- per month.Hon'ble Sheo Kumar Singh-I,J.(Delivered by Hon'ble Sheo Kumar Singh-I, J.)Aggrieved by the judgement and award dated 28.01.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.16, Lucknow in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.55/2008, the first appeal from order under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed by the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation on the ground that the learned Tribunal has not considered the matter of rash and negligent driving of the another vehicle and fixed the responsibility to pay the amount to the appellant without considering the contribution of negligence of another vehicle.By filing the second appeal, the claimants have agitated that while computing compensation for loss of life of the deceased, relevant documents and settled principles for computing the amount of compensation has not been considered by the learned Tribunal.The contribution of vehicle through which the deceased was travelling or driving was wrongly calculated against the settled norms and annual income has not been properly evaluated by the learned Tribunal.Both the appeals arise out of the same judgement and awad passed in the same claim petition in the similar facts.Thus, both the appeals are being decided by a common order.The contents of the claim petition reveals that on 21.11.2007, the deceased Praveen Pratap was going to attend marriage ceremony of his friend's sister with Tata Indica car No.UP32CB/1399 and when they reached near town area of Kunda in district Pratapgarh, the offending roadways vehicle coming from Lucknow to Allahabad side driving rashly and negligently collided with the car causing injuries to the deceased and later on death on the spot.The deceased Praveen Pratap was a mechanical engineer and doing business of auto parts and service center of maruti car.The deceased was also having two auto mobile firms namely M/s Prabhu Motors and M/s Pratap Car Care Service Centre, took two loans from the Bank to the tune of Rs.30,00,000/- and Rs.7,50,000/- for doing business.He was an income tax payee for the financial year 2006-07 and gross income as shown in ITR is Rs.4,03,347/-.After providing opportunity of hearing, recording statement of witnesses and perusal of the record, the learned Tribunal had framed four issues to the effect that as to whether on the date and time as narrated in the petition, the offending vehicle bus no.UP32CN/1120 driven by the driver rashly and negligently collided with the vehicle UP32CB/1399 causing injuries and death of Praveen Pratap, the deceased, as to whether there is any contributory negligence on part of the driver of the Indica car, and as to whether the petition was bad for non joinder of necessary parties.In the petition M/s Tata Motors and New India Insurance Company have been made party.The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of both the vehicles and after applying the principles of contributory negligence, 75% fault was found on part of the driver of the UPSRTC and 25% fault was found to the driver of Indica car.Learned counsel for the UPSRTC has submitted that the percentage should be 50% because both the vehicles were driven rashly and negligently and the learned Tribunal has wrongly fixed the responsibility of UPSRTC as 75%.Both these acts presuppose an abnormal conduct.near village Barai, Police Station Kunda, District Pratapgar.Both the vehicles are coming from the opposite direction.In reply thereof, learned counsel for the claimants has submitted that the deceased was a mechanical engineer and previously he was employed as Assistant Manager but later on resigned from the service and started his own business by taking two heavy loans one amounting to Rs.30,00,000/-, and second Rs.7,50,000/-.It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for the claimants that he after resigning from the post of Assistant Manager of the TELCO, Lucknow, started auto mobile business and was dealing auto parts and accessories, machinery business.He was having two auto mobile firms and service centre of maruti car.ii.(a) Gross income for 8 months w.e.f. 01.04.2007 to 21.11.2007, before his death in financial year 2007-08 = Rs.3,37,331/-, (b) Calculating for 12 months =Income as shown in the balance sheet prepared by Chartered Accountant = Rs.7,61,523/-.Repayment of loan shown in the account statement of Allahabad Bank = Rs.26,000/-If we analyze all these source of income then minimum monthly income should not be calculated less than Rs.26,000/- per month as EMI paid to the Bank against the loan and other expenditure, which were required to do the business and family expenditure.If we assess the minimum expenditure with the EMI and the assessment filed in the ITR in the financial year 2006-07, it is nearly Rs.4,03,347/-.Though the learned counsel for the claimant has submitted that the amount for financial year 2007-08 should be taken into consideration.In reply thereof, learned counsel for the UPSRTC has submitted that this should not be taken into account because the deceased died on 21.11.2007 and his ITR was filed by another person father/chartered accountant and from 4 lakh plus, it has been enhanced upto Rs.7,61,523/-.This Court is of the view that gross income as shown in the financial year 2006-07 i.e. Rs.4,03,347/- is a reasonable amount which was filed during life tenure of the deceased.Thus calculation for award of compensation should be on the basis of ITR for the financial year 2006-07, which comes about Rs.4,03,347/-.Age of the deceased was about 38 years at the time of incident and the M-15 multiplier will be applicable.We have considered the respective arguments.Although, the legal jurisprudence developed in the country in last five decades is somewhat precedent-centric, the judgments which have bearing on socioeconomic conditions of the citizens and issues relating to compensation payable to the victims of motor accidents, those who are deprived of their land and similar matters needs to be frequently revisited keeping in view the fast-changing societal values, the effect of globalisation on the economy of the nation and their impact on the life of the people."Consequently, it has been held at Paragraphs 14 to 18, as follows:We find it extremely difficult to fathom any rationale for the observation made in paragraph 24 of the judgment in Sarla Verma's case that where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary without provision for annual increment, etc., the Courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death and a departure from this rule should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances.In our view, it will be nave to say that the wages or total emoluments/income of a person who is self-employed or who is employed on a fixed salary without provision for annual increment, etc., would remain the same throughout his life.The rise in the cost of living affects everyone across the board.It does not make any distinction between rich and poor.(iv).... (v)... (vi)..(vii) The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier.(viii) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively.The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years."On the principles as mentioned above, both the appeals deserve to be partly allowed and the claimants are entitled for the following compensation:i. Annual income of the deceased = 4,03,347 ii.1/3rd standard deduction = -1,34,449 iii.Annual income for calculation ( i - ii x 15) = 2,68,898x15 = 40,33,470 iv.Enhancement @ 40% (below 40 years) = +16,13,388 v. Total (iii + iv ) = 56,46,858 vi.Loss of estate (in light of Pranay Sethi's case) = 15,000 vii.Loss of consortium = 40,000 viii.Funeral expenses =Total award payable to the claimants =On applying the principles of contributory negligence of 50% i.e. Rs.28,58,429/- is payable by the New India Insurance Company Limited being insurance company of the Tata Motors and 50% of the award shall be payable by the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation.Rest of the terms and conditions with regard to the distribution of amount and rate of interest will be the same as directed by the learned Tribunal.Accordingly, both the appeals are partly allowed and disposed of accordingly.No order as to costs.Statutory amount deposited before this Court shall be remitted to the tribunal concerned within three weeks from today for adjustment and disbursement to the claimants in accordance with the award.Order Date :-4.12.2017 Anupam S/-
|
['Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
128,976,241 |
Arguing further, he would submit that when the detenu was arrested pursuant to the registration of a criminal case in Cr.4.In support of his submission, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied on an unreported order of this Court dated 07.06.2019 made in H.C.P.(MD) No.26 of 2019 in the matter of Natarajan v. State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by The Principal Secretary to Government and two others, in which one of us (B.PUGALENDHI, J) was a party.The relevant portion of the order runs thus:Accordingly, on this sole ground, the detention order is liable to fall.9.Resultantly, this petition stands allowed and the impugned detention order stands quashed.Consequently, the detenu, Ajithkumar, S/o.4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.7/8http://www.judis.nic.in H.C.P.(MD)No.1202 of 2019 T.RAJA, J.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,289,764 |
Respondent Prempal Uike was Extra Departmental Branch Post-Master at Gillore Branch Post-Office.One Gokulprasad (PW-2) had a savings account in that post office.The respondent had duly accounted for that amount in the accounts of his post-office.Thereafter, Gokulprasad had on 21-4-80, 5-5-1980, 9-5-1980, 26-5-1980, 3-6-80 and 14-6-1980 deposited sums of Rs. 225/-, 300/-, 300/-, 68/-400/ - and 1035/ - respectively.In other words, Gokulprasad had between 21-4-1980 to 14-6-1980 deposited from time to time a total sum of Rs. 2328/-.The prosecution case was that the respondent Prempal Uike during that period had not accounted for the said gross sum of Rs. 2328/- and hence he had committed the offence of criminal breach of trust punishable Under Section 409, I.P.C.The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nasrullahganj, Shri S. N. Khatki who tried the case, recorded acquittal of the respondent.Aggrieved there by the State has come up in appeal.The learned Magistrate acquitted the respondent on two contradictory grounds.The first ground taken by the learned Magistrate was that since the respondent had deposited the entire sum alleged to have been defalcated with interest, before the filing of the challan, no offence was committed.The implication was that if the deposit had been made after the filing of the challan, that would have made a difference.The second ground taken by the learned Magistrate may be disposed of first.The learned Magistrate did not choose to disbelieve, and rightly so, the direct evidence of depositor Gokulprasad (P.W. 2) that he had paid to the respondent the various sums totalling Rs. 2328/-.Gokulprasad further deposed that the respondent had on each occasion made an entry of deposit in his passbook and had also initialled and affixed the seal of the post office.This -was sufficient evidence of the deposits having been made with the respondents.Coming to the second ground, there was prosecution evidence to show that after the depositor had on 27-6-1980 made a complaint to Superintendent Post-offices Sehore against the respondent, the letter on 9-7-1980, 17-7-1980, 1-8-1980, 16-10-1980 and 21-9-1981 had deposited with the postal department Rs. 1500/-, 300/-, 150/-, 269/- and 29.35/ - respectively, that is to say a total sum of Rs. 2248.35/-.The learned Magistrate in his judgment has reasoned that because the respondent had deposited the entire defalcated sum with interest even before the filing of the challan, there was no dishonesty on his part and hence he could not be said to have committed the offence of criminal breach of trust, It is implied in the reasoning that the matter would have been different if the respondent had deposited the money after the filing of the challan.If certain offence had been committed, it could matter a little whether the deposit was made by the accused before the filing of the challan of after its filing.He deposited it bit by bit on five dates spread over an interval of 14 months.In all these cases light sentences were imposed on the accused committing temporary defalcation.The respondent has moreover lost his job in the wake of the present misdemeanour.
|
['Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
128,978,334 |
Durvesh Singh (PW.3), during the Trial, has supported the statement given by him before the police on 03.09.2006 (Ex.PW.3/A) and has testified to the fact that on the day of the occurrence, all three appellants (Ram Kumar Pathak, Shobran Pal and Ramesh Pal) assaulted him by means of hockey sticks and dandas.He has deposed that at the relevant time he was an employee of Jagdamba Gas Agency at Keshav Pur Depot, where the appellant Ramesh Pal also worked as supplier of gas cylinder to the customers.Ramesh Pal was harbouring a grudge that perhaps because of PW.3, he was removed from the service of Jagdamba Gas Agency.The appellant Ramesh Pal had threatened PW.3 of dire consequences in the past.He has further alleged that sometime prior to the occurrence i.e. on 24.08.2006, appellant Shobran Pal along with 2-3 other persons had surrounded him in front of Subzi Mandi, Keshav Pur, but PW.3 could anyhow save himself from being assaulted.On 03.09.2006, as has been stated by PW.3, while he was coming back from his shop and proceeding Crl.A. Nos.285/2011, 513/2011 & 897/2011 Page 3 of 17 towards his home, he met one person near the crossing of Vikas Nagar at around 08:20 p.m. who requested him to give lift till the hospital/nursing home as he was hit by a moving vehicle.PW.3 thereafter took the aforesaid person on his vehicle and proceeded for the nursing home.No sooner had he reached some distance, he noticed that the appellants, variously armed with hockey sticks and dandas, were standing on a vacant plot.The appellants Shobran Pal and Ram Kumar were having hockey sticks in their hands whereas Ramesh Pal was carrying a danda.PW.3 was assaulted by all three appellants.While warding off the attack, he received injuries on his hand leading to fractures.He was mercilessly assaulted on his legs which were also fractured.PW.3, thereafter, fell down on the ground.His brother, Anil Kumar, (PW.4), came to the spot and took him to DDU Hospital.At the hospital, his statement was recorded.He remained in the hospital for about 1 months and had to undergo surgery of both his hands.Anil Kumar, (PW.4) has deposed that on 03.09.2006 at about 08:40 p.m., he was informed that one person was lying injured on the road.Sensing foul, PW.4 reached the spot and identified that his brother was lying unconscious on the road.He took his brother to DDU Hospital and also informed the police about the occurrence.A. Nos.285/2011, 513/2011 & 897/2011 Page 4 of 179. Dr.Nishu Dhawan, (PW.2), CMO, DDU Hospital, Hari Nagar, has affirmed that on 03.09.2006 at about 10:00 p.m., Durvesh Singh (PW.3) was brought to DDU casualty with alleged history of assault.The MLC (Ex.PW.2/A) was stated to have been prepared by Dr. Aarti Soni who had signed the MLC.The injured was referred to the Orthopaedic Ward where one Dr. Dheeraj examined him.The signature of Dr.PW.2/A).Dheeraj had given an opinion as per the MLC; X-ray report regarding the fracture of right tibia bone, as grievous injury.Nishu Dhawan (PW.2) has further testified to the fact that Dr. Aarti Soni and Dr. Dheeraj had left the services of the hospital and at the time of trial, their whereabouts were not known.All the appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Ram Kumar Pathak, (appellant in Criminal Appeal No.285/2011), Shobran Pal and Ramesh Pal (appellants in Criminal Appeal no.897/2011) have challenged the judgment and order of conviction dated 11.02.2011 and 15.02.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (North-West-04), Rohini, Delhi, in Sessions case no.75/2009, arising out of FIR No.807/2006 (PS Uttam Nagar), whereby they have been convicted under Sections 308/34 of the IPC and have been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for four years, fine of Rs.7,000/- and in default of payment of fine, a further Simple Imprisonment of 7 months, with the benefit of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Cr.P.C.) accruing to them.Durvesh Singh (appellant in Criminal Appeal No.513/2011), has on the other hand, challenged the judgment on the ground that from the evidence adduced during the course of trial, the accused persons ought to have been convicted under Section 307/34 of the IPC and not under Section 308/34 of the IPC.Durvesh Singh has also questioned the adequacy of the sentence imposed upon the accused persons.The appellants have questioned the correctness of the impugned judgment and order of conviction on the ground that the Trial Court has thrown to the winds the accepted canons of appreciating evidence Crl.A. Nos.285/2011, 513/2011 & 897/2011 Page 2 of 17 and has completely ignored serious contradictions in the statements of the witnesses which tantamounts to a total departure from the prosecution version.The impugned judgment has been assailed on further grounds namely; (i) non-examination of any independent witness to the occurrence; (ii) completely shutting out the evidence of two witnesses offered on behalf of the defence; and (iii) also the fact that the injury report was not proved by the Doctor who wrote the report and thus there being no material to suggest that Durvesh Singh (PW.3) was injured in the occurrence and in the manner in which the appellants are alleged to have assaulted him.A. Nos.285/2011, 513/2011 & 897/2011 Page 2 of 17Dheeraj is also appended on the MLC (Ex.PW.2 identified their signature and handwriting on the MLC (Ex.PW.2/A) as she had seen them signing and writing while they were in the services of the hospital.Thus, from the deposition of PW.3 & PW.4, it is apparent and fully established that appellants (Ram Kumar Pathak, Shobran Pal and Ramesh Pal) assaulted PW.3 by means of hockey sticks and dandas which led to grievous injuries on his person.PW.3 has correctly identified the appellants in the dock.The motive for assaulting PW.3 has also been clearly stated by the aforesaid witnesses.As deposed by PW.3 an attempt on his life was made earlier also but with the Crl.A. Nos.285/2011, 513/2011 & 897/2011 Page 5 of 17 timely arrival of the police, the accused persons fled from the place of occurrence.A. Nos.285/2011, 513/2011 & 897/2011 Page 5 of 17Rajender Singh (PW.5) has testified to the fact that he received DD No.43A and after coming to know of some person indulging in assault, he along with Sanwar Mal (PW.10) reached S-Block, Near Vikas Valley Public School, Vikas Nagar, Delhi.It was learnt at that place that the injured had been removed to DDU Hospital.The aforesaid witness and PW.10 went to the hospital where the MLC of PW.3 was obtained and his statement was recorded.On the basis of the statement recorded by PW.5, a Rukka was prepared and PW.5 went to the police station to get the FIR registered.On that day, appellants Shobran Pal and Ramesh Pal had surrendered before the Court.When they were on police remand, on the showing of appellant Shobran Pal, one hockey stick was recovered from his house and the same was seized vide memo Ex.PW.6/G. At the instance of appellant Ramesh Pal, one danda (Ex.P-1) was recovered, which also was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW.6/H.The truthfulness of the statement made by PW.3 stands further established by the deposition of Uma Shankar (PW.7) who worked as Manager in Jagdamba Sai Gas Agency.A. Nos.285/2011, 513/2011 & 897/2011 Page 6 of 17While deposing before the Court during Trial, he has recounted the information received by him vide DD No.43A, leading him to go to the spot and then to the hospital where the recorded the statement of PW.3, which formed the basis of the FIR against the appellants.Appellant Ram Kumar Pathak had not been apprehended and PW.10 got processes issued under Sections 82/83 of the Cr.P.C. However, later, PW.10 learnt that Ram Kumar Pathak had surrendered before the Court.Appellant Ram Kumar Pathaks disclosure statement (Ex.PW.10/E) was recorded by him.During the course of investigation, PW.10 has asserted that, he collected the documents regarding employment of appellant Ramesh Pal and PW.3 from Jagdamba Sai Gas Agency.PW.10 also collected the MLC and X-ray report of PW.3 and after investigation, submitted chargesheet against the appellants.Any discussion on the issue whether any case was made out under Section 307 or 308 of the IPC would not be complete unless the X-ray report of PW.3 is referred to.Shefali (PW.9), Medical Officer, DDU Hospital, has identified the handwriting and signature of Dr.Dr. Anil Sarin, at the time of trial, was not in the services of the hospital and his whereabouts were not known.However, PW.9 identified the handwriting and signatures of Dr.Anil Sarin.The X-ray report which Crl.A. Nos.285/2011, 513/2011 & 897/2011 Page 7 of 17 is Ex.PW.9/A reveals that there was a fracture of the right tibia and fracture of both the forearms.No fracture was seen in the thigh region.A. Nos.285/2011, 513/2011 & 897/2011 Page 7 of 17Thus, there does not appear to be any doubt that the assault perpetrated on PW.3 by appellants, led to serious/grievous injuries on his person.Since a leg and both the arms were fractured, it can safely be presumed that the appellants committed an act which if consummated, would have made them liable for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.In the absence of any injury on any vital part of the body of PW.3, his assertion that an attempt was made by the appellants to assault him on his head and vital portions of his body, cannot be accepted to be true.There were three assailants and the injured (PW.3) who was all alone to fend for himself.If at all there was any intention of the appellants to have killed PW.3, they would not have stopped short of only assaulting the injured on his legs and hands.Not a single injury on the head of PW.3 makes it difficult to believe that the appellants intended to kill the deceased as there was no supervening circumstance which could have stopped the appellants from executing their intentions.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
128,983,896 |
It was not once but twice.MANMOHAN, J:(Oral) CRL.M.A. 36994/2019 Keeping in view the averments in the application, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.Accordingly, present application stands disposed of.Present appeal has been filed by the appellant-prosecutrix challenging the judgment and order dated 31st May, 2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (SFTC), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in Session Case No.122/2018 arising out of FIR No.400/2017 under Section 376(2)(n)/ CRL.A.1117/2019 Page 1 of 8 313/506 IPC registered with Police Station Krishna Nagar, whereby the respondent-accused had been acquitted of all charges.A.1117/2019 Page 1 of 8The relevant portion of the trial court judgement is reproduced herein below:-For the reasons best known to her the Investigating Officer has not brought any witness or independent evidence about the divorce of the prosecutrix from her (previous) husband.Thus, the only evidence on this aspect is the oral testimony of the prosecutrix.Her evidence on this aspect is clear as she has stated that she has no proof of her divorce.The factum of her husband (previous or otherwise) visiting her home to pay money to children does not in any way affect her marital status as the children biologically belong to him too.However, there is no independent evidence of the divorce of the proseutrix with her husband except her own self-serving statement.Her statement is not un-equivocal or consistent.She has also stated that it was decided that she and her husband Gxxxu shall live separately from each other.This kind of divorce, without recording any Memorandum of divorce or execution of any other document does not inspire confidence as to the veracity of the statement of the prosecutrix.It is not the case of the Prosecution that independent witness of the same were not available or dead or could not be brought before the Court for certain legally admissible reason.Hence on this count, an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against the Prosecution on the dictum that the evidence which could be produced and not produced would have been unfavourable to the person withholding it.A.1117/2019 Page 2 of 8xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx36. PW-1 sated in her cross examination that she came to know in the year 2012 that the accused was married and was having three children.She denied the suggestion that the accused never told her that he had divorced his wife.She also denied the suggestion that the accused never made any promise of marriage to her.She further denied the suggestion that the relatives of the accused had visited her house to advise her that she should remain away from the accused since neither she nor the accused had been divorced from their (respective) spouses and it was a sin as per their religion.Further in her cross examination PW1 stated that accused and Gxxxu had fight with each other also because of her relation with accused.She also stated that Gxxxu caught her red- handed sleeping with the accused and therefore, there was a fight between the accused and Gxxxu.This goes to show that the said person still held the prosecutrix as his wife which belies the divorce plea of the prosecutrix xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxIn her cross examination by accused she stated that that she had stated to the police in her complaint Ex. PW1/A that she became pregnant from the accused four times.On this aspect she was confronted with Ex. PW1/A. In her cross examination by the accused she denied the suggestion that sine she have never become pregnant from the accused and for this reason, she did not mention this fact in her complaint Ex. PW1/A. She denied the suggestion that accused Wasim never provided her the medicine to terminate the pregnancy.It appears from the evidence that the prosecutrix herself was a party in terminating her pregnancy at various occasion by her own admissions.xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxThe prosecutrix, by accepting the promise to marry as propounded by the accused, was going to take a very significant and milestone decision of her life.Her circumstances was peculiar, she had five (or six) children to look after and their welfare would have been very dear to her CRL.If she had chosen to throw caution to the winds, then she must be prepared to bear the storm.In so many words she has not stated as to what prompted her to take the words of the accused that he was bachelor or divorcee at face value.With five or six children to look after she cannot be expected to be so nave.Though she may be illiterate, but one does not learn the life skills be going to school.Even an illiterate person has developed many life skills from the good and bad experience in life.Thus the prosecutrix cannot take any shelter under the plea of being taken for a ride by the accused.A.1117/2019 Page 3 of 8If the accused was insisting on such demands, she should have suspected his intentions rather than flowing with the tide.Thus there are indications from the meaningful reading of the statement of PW1 that the sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix by the accused was not a forced one or against her will and consent.Ostensibly it was out of mutual choice and consensual.The prosecutrix going to meet the accused in Jail also goes to speak against her.This goes to show that there was something more than what she had pressed into service to meet the eyes.A.1117/2019 Page 4 of 8PW1 has stated that she had been medically examined at SDN Hospital vide MLC Ex.PW1/B which bears her thumb impression at point A. However, she had refused her internal medical examination.Also, the submissions by appellant-prosecutrix in her testimony that she had sexual relations with the respondent-accused for five years before lodging of the complaint on 22nd July, 2017, she got four pregnancies terminated namely in 2012, 2013, 2015 and 2017, the respondent-accused was her employee and that she knew since 2012 that the respondent-accused was married and had three children, proves beyond doubt that the alleged CRL.MANMOHAN, J SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J OCTOBER 22, 2019 rn/js CRL.
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,289,852 |
JUDGMENT Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.By way of this revision petition, the petitioner is challenging the order and judgment dated 19.9.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge whereby the petitioner's appeal against the order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate against the petitioner has been dismissed.The petitioner was convicted by the learned trial court under Section 279 read with Section 304-A IPC and was sentenced to nine months Simple Imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000/-.The facts in brief are that on 29.6.1992, the petitioner who was a Head Constable serving with the Delhi Police, was directed to go to the Police Headquarters at ITO from Police Station Kashmiri Gate to convey a message from the Communications Wing at Police Station Kashmiri Gate for the Police Headquarters at ITO.He is said to have been accompanied by another Head Constable.On 29.6.1992 itself at about 6. 00 p.m., one Hans Kumar was returning from his office on his scooter bearing Registration No. HNE-3892 and his friend Atma Ram (since deceased) was sitting on the pillion seat of the said scooter.When the scooter was under the railway bridge on the Ring Road going towards Jamuna Bazar, the said mini truck driven by the petitioner is reported to have come from the opposite direction, crossed over the road divider and hit the scooter on the rear.It is the case of the prosecution that thereafter, the driver of the said government vehicle (mini truck) attempted to steer it back onto the road running from Jamna Bazar towards Rajghat.While doing so, the said mini truck hit an electric pole and came to a halt.The Mechanical Inspection Report revealed that the front right wheel of the said mini truck was damaged in such a way that the wheels were jammed and the vehicle had to come to a stop.When the said Government mini truck hit the scooter, the said Atma Ram sustained injuries.The Police Control Room (PCR) van was called and Atma Ram was taken to Jai Prakash Narain Hospital.Subsequently, the said Atma Ram passed away having succumbed to the injuries received due to the impact.As the petitioner was found driving the said mini truck bearing Registration No. DDL-6462, he was convicted of offences under Section 279 read with Section 304-A IPC for having driven the vehicle rashly or negligently.Earlier by an order dated 25.0.2001 a learned Single Judge of this Court had dismissed this Revision Petition.The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order of dismissal filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court.Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner herein urged that the Criminal Revision Petition had been dismissed by the High Court by virtue of the order dated 25.9.2001 which was a non-speaking order.The Trial Court did not employ the principle of res ipsa loquitur at all.Although, in the Trial Court's judgment, it is observed that it was for the petitioner to explain as to what caused the vehicle to ascend the central verge and onto the lane on which the scooter was proceeding from Rajghat towards Jamuna Bazar.But, the Mechanical Inspection Report Ext. PW-1/A did not show that the engine belt had broken.The Trial Court further observed that from the statement of PW-1 (Hans Kumar), it stood proved that the mini truck ascended the midverge.The Trial Court examined the photographs and came to the conclusion that the petitioner could not control his vehicle and this was due only because of rash and negligent driving of this vehicle.He held that the accused failed to take care of the probable danger to human life while driving the vehicle.He concluded that the prosecution had fully established its case against the accused for commission of offences under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC.I have also examined the statement of PW1 who has clearly stated in examination-in-chief as follows:- On 29.6.1992 I had started from connaught Place on my scooter No. HNE-3892 at about 6.00 p.m. I was coming from the side of Rajghat towards Jamna Bazar side.As I crossed under the Rly.Pul and Alwyn Nissan DDL-6462 came from the side of Jamna Bazar and crossed the divider and came to our side.The said vehicle hit our scooter and tried to go back the way it had come.Shri Atma Ram was sitting behind me on the two wheeler scooter at that time.The right side of the Alwyn Nissan had perhaps hit the scooter when half of the scooter had already passed.The said PW1 (Hans Kumar), in his cross-examination confirmed the incident in the following words:-I had seen the Allwyn Nissan Vehicle jumping the divider with my own eyes and coming in my lane and immediately thereafter he hit my scooter.
|
['Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
128,996,413 |
The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Madurai City.This petition has been filed seeking to quash the case registered inCrime No.32 of 2013 on the file of the 1st respondent herein.Theantecedents of the accused have also to be taken into consideration beforeaccepting the memo of compromise and the accused, by means of compromise, cannot try to escape from the clutches of law.?Even though the case is registered for offences stated supra, someof which are non compoundable offences and the parties cannot be allowed tocompound the offences by way of compromise / out of Court settlement,considering the nature of allegations and pursuant to the amicable settlementbetween the parties, there is no scope for the case ending in conviction;that there is nopossibility of the defacto complainant giving evidence against the accusedpersons; that the witnesses would also become hostile; that the continuationof the present criminal case will be an abuse of the process of Court andthat it would not be in the ends of justice.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and theentire proceedings in Crime No.32 of 2013 dated 19.06.2013 on the file of the1st respondent police in respect of the petitioner / sole accused are herebyquashed.
|
['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
112,108,196 |
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record.He has been falsely implicated.This was the reason behind, which lead bitter quarrel between husband and wife and the son has taken the extreme step by committing suicide.During investigation there is nothing on record to establish that there was any abetment or goading on the part of the applicant.Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the legal submissions as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.Let the applicant Prahlad, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT.IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL.IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) RECORDING OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. IF IN THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT ABSENCE OF THE APPLICANT IS DELIBERATE OR WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THEN IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT SUCH DEFAULT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PROCEED AGAINST THE HIM/HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
|
['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
112,111,987 |
The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;The applicant will cooperate in the trial;Charge-sheet has been filed and trial will take time to conclude.This order shall remain effective till the end of the trial but in case of bail jump and breach of any of the pre-condition of bail, it shall become ineffective and cancelled without reference to this Bench.Certified Copy on payment of usual charges.(AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) JUDGE navin Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAGDEVE Date: 29/01/2020 03:07:27
|
['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,121,173 |
Appeal No. 99/79 is preferred by one Kedar Nath who stands convicted Under Section 201 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo three years' rigorous imprisonment whereas Criminal Appeal No. 100/79 is preferred by one Baijnath who stands convicted Under Section 302 I.P.C. and also Under Section 201 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and three years' respectively.These two appeals arise out of a common judgment.According to the prosecution, the deceased in this case used to sell out piece cloths by carrying them on his cycle.On the date of the occurrence, he went to the market for selling the cut-pieces of cloth but he did not return.A search was also not fruitful.Therefore, on 15-5-73 his brother made a complaint before the police.Thereafter on a tip off, a constable (PW 1) attached to the concerned Police Station made in entry in the first information report.The investigation proceeded on the strength of the report given by PW 24 and on the basis of information of PW 1 who is said to have obtained that information from an undisclosed informant.The case of prosecution is that on the information given by this Baijnath the deed body was recovered which was in a highly de-composed and beyond identification.Some cloth pieces were also seized pursuant to the statement given by this Baijnath along with some parts of the cycle.The appellant Baijnath was a license, owning a gun.His gun was seized and sent for examination to the ballistic expert (PW 23) to examine whether the flattered lead pellets recovered from near the dead body could have been fired by the gun of Baijnath.PW 23 opined that the said pellets could have been fired from the gun of Baijnath.Appellant, Kedar Nath was arrested on 31-5-73 and in pursuance of his statement, certain cloths, said to have been carried by the deceased were recovered.The trial Court found the appellant Baijnath guilty of the offence under Sections 302 and 201, I.P.C. and convicted him as afore mentioned which conviction and sentence were confirmed by the High Court.The trial Court further convicted Kedar Nath under Section 201, I.P.C. and sentenced him.The High Court upheld the conviction of Kedar Nath also.We heard both the learned Counsel appearing for both the , parties and also persued the records.There cannot be any dispute that this occurrence was not witnessed by any witness.Though the earlier report was given by PW 24 even on 13-5-73, it seems that no investigation proceeded on the basis of that information given by PW 24, but the investigation was started only on the basis of the tip off from an unindisclosed informant.Though there is no specific evidence as to the cause of death the prosecution proceeded on the presumption from to recovery of an empty cartridge seized from the side of the dead body that the deceased should have been murdered by shooting.Apart from this conjecture there is no evidence how the deceased met his end.We think that it will not be worthwhile to convict these two appellants under Section 411, I.P.C. at the length of time, that too in the absence of any charge, though the appellant may not be prejudiced by such a conviction as the evidence, appearing on the records, puts them on notice.However, the conviction under Section 201 now remains to be considered.On consideration of the entire materials on record, we are of the view that the conviction under Section 201 is not liable to be interfered with.The result, the conviction of both the appellants under Section 201 is confirmed.8.The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
|
['Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
112,118,341 |
1. Rule.Rule made returnable forthwith.By consent heard both sides for final disposal.::: Uploaded on - 30/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 00:56:30 :::Application is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India and also under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for relief of quashing of first information report No. 676 dated 27.11.2017 registered in CIDCO police station, Aurangabad, for the offences punishable under section 354-D, 354-A(1), 323, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code.Both sides are heard.Rule made absolute in those terms.Criminal application is disposed of.::: Uploaded on - 30/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 00:56:30 :::
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
112,120,404 |
Heard on point of admission.The appeal is admitted for final hearing.Requisition the record of the Lower Court.Heard on I.A. No.3092/2015, which is an application under section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of appellants Yogesh s/o Gangadhar Barwe & Mahesh s/o Gangadhar Barwe.The present appellants suffered the jail sentence as follows :Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that, during the trial the appellants did not misused the liberty granted to them.Therefore, after going through the impugned judgment and taking all the facts and circumstances of the case into consideration, without commenting on merit of the case, the application is allowed.The remaining portion of the jail sentence is suspended.It is directed that on production of personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lakh Only) each and one solvent surety of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the trial Court and also on payment of fine, the appellant shall be released on bail for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 8th of September and thereafter, on each subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry of this Court in this behalf.List for final hearing as per the scheme formulated.as per rules.( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE Adarsh
|
['Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
112,123,178 |
This is the second bail application under Sections 439 of Cr.P.C. for offence under Sections 307, 201-A, 147, 148 and 149 of IPC and under Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act,1959 in connection with Crime No. 818/2016 registered at Police Station Govindpur District Bhopal.The first application was dismissed as withdrawn on 03-03-2017 passed in M.Cr.At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicant has placed before me the order dated 17-08-2017 passed in M.Cr.C No. 6558/17 by which the co-accused was granted the benefit of bail on account of delay caused by the witnesses in the conduct of trial.Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and on the grounds of parity, I am inclined to allow the instant application and direct that the applicant herein to be enlarged on bail upon his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- ( Rupees Fifty Thousand ) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.C.C as per rules.(ATUL SREEDHARAN) JUDGE PG
|
['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
112,126,386 |
And In Re:- Mafiza Bibi.... Petitioner (In jail) Mr.Suman Saha ... for the petitioner.Amita Gaur ... for the State.Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the parties.Accordingly, this application for bail stands rejected.(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Ashis Kumar Chakraborty, J.) 2
|
['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
112,127,235 |
(Delivered on 15th day of May, 2015) The appellant has preferred the present appeal against the judgment dated 9.3.1998 passed by the Special Judge under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act in Special Case No.63/97, whereby each of the appellant has been convicted of offence under Sections 376(2) and 506-II of the IPC and sentenced to ten years R.I. with fine of Rs.2,000/- and one year R.I. with fine of Rs.500/-.In lieu of payment of fine, the default sentence was also imposed.2. Facts of the case in short are that in the midnight of 11th & 12th January, 1997, the prosecutrix (PW-1) was 2 Criminal Appeal No.627/1998 sleeping in her hut situated in the field of her husband at village Tumra (Police Station Chargawan, District Jabalpur).At about 12:00 O'clock in the night, the appellants entered in the hut of the prosecutrix.Initially, the appellant Kok Singh removed her clothes and committed rape upon her.Thereafter, the appellants Chunna @ Jhalkan Singh and Hari Singh @ Sarda Pradesh had also committed rape upon the prosecutrix one by one.They have threatened the prosecutrix and therefore, she could not shout at the time of incident.On the next day in the morning, she stated about the incident to her sister-in-law Laxmi Bai (PW-2).Her husband Tulai @ Tularam was out of station, who came back in the evening of Sunday and thereafter, the FIR Ex.The prosecutrix was sent for her medico legal examination to the Elgin Hospital, Jabalpur.Dr. Chakraverty also procured two slides of vaginal swab of the prosecutrix and provided them to the concerned constable after their sealing.After due investigation, the charge sheet was filed before the Special Court.The appellant abjured his guilt.He took a plea that 3 Criminal Appeal No.627/1998 the prosecutrix and her husband were working at the field of the appellant Kok Singh, who gave an advance of Rs.2,000/- to them.After working for six months, they suddenly left the job, whereas a sum of Rs.900/- and some wheat was to be recovered from the husband of the prosecutrix.When the appellant Kok Singh demanded to repay the advance given by him and wheat given to the prosecutrix and her husband, a false case has been lodged against the appellant.In defence, Chandan Singh (DW-1), Genda Bai (DW-2), Horilal (DW-3), Pohop Singh (DW-4) and Basori (DW-5) were examined.In the present case, the prosecutrix (PW-1) has stated before the trial Court that she and her husband had earlier worked in the fields of the appellant Kok Singh prior to the incident.The Special Judge after considering the evidence adduced by the parties, acquitted the appellants from the charge of offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act but convicted them for the offence under Sections 376(2) and 506 part-II of the IPC and sentenced as mentioned above.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.When she was sleeping in her hut, the 4 Criminal Appeal No.627/1998 appellants went inside the hut.Her grandmother was also sleeping alongwith the prosecutrix.The appellant Kok Singh lifted the prosecutrix from cot and made her lie down on the floor and thereafter, he committed rape upon her.Thereafter, the appellants Chunna @ Jhalkan Singh and Hari Singh @ Sarda Pradesh had committed rape upon her one by one.Due to threat given by the appellants, she could not cry at the time of incident.On the next day morning, when her sister-in-law Laxmi Bai came to that hut, the prosecutrix informed her about the incident.On the Sunday evening, her husband came back and the prosecutrix narrated the story to him and thereafter, on the next day, the prosecutrix and her husband went to the police station, Chargawan and lodged the FIR Ex.FIR Ex.P/1 was duly proved by Sub- inspector Anant Bharve (PW-5).No external or internal injury was found on person of the prosecutrix.However, she had prepared two slides of vaginal swab of the prosecutrix and handed over to the concerned constable after their sealing.The medical report Ex.P/13 given by Dr. M. Chakraverty is not positive.It would be apparent that the prosecutrix was a married woman and 5 Criminal Appeal No.627/1998 if she did not resist then, no indication of violence could be found in the medico legal examination of the prosecutrix and therefore, if the medical report is negative then, it makes no adverse inference against the prosecutrix.The slides of vaginal swab were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory by the letter Ex.However, till the disposal of the case, no report of Forensic Science Laboratory was filed before the trial Court and therefore, the prosecution could not prove that any semen particle was found in the vaginal swab of the prosecutrix.It is also to be mentioned that the vaginal swab was taken after two days and therefore, the possibility cannot be ruled out that after two days, nothing could be found in the vaginal swab of a married woman.It is a settled view of the Hon'ble Apex Court that no medical corroboration etc. is required to believe the testimony of the prosecutrix.Her sole testimony can be accepted without any corroboration, if her testimony is acceptable.Under these circumstances, looking to the factual position of the present case, the evidence of the prosecutrix and witness Laxmi Bai (PW-2) alongwith the FIR Ex.P/1 remains against the appellants.Laxmi Bai (PW-2) is sister-in-law of the prosecutrix.She has accepted that the 6 Criminal Appeal No.627/1998 prosecutrix informed her about the incident on the next morning but she did not say that as to why the steps were not taken by her husband after getting the information.Horilal (DW-3) husband of the witness Laxmi Bai was examined as defence witness, who has stated that the prosecutrix had informed him about the incident and he denied that he gave any statement to the police.In his case diary statement, he told that the appellant Kok Singh was in habit to have relations with the prosecutrix, however he was given up by the prosecution.However, the prosecutrix herself did not say that she informed her brother-in-law Horilal directly about the incident and therefore, looking to the testimony of Horilal, it appears that his evidence is hearsay evidence, which is not acceptable.It was Horilal and his wife Laxmi Bai to take steps soon after the incident, after knowing about the incident.The prosecutrix had lodged FIR with the delay of at least one day with the pretext that her husband was out of station.According to her, her husband was out of station for past three days and when he came back in the evening on Sunday, she had informed him about the incident and on the next morning, they went to lodge the FIR Ex.In this 7 Criminal Appeal No.627/1998 context, Basori (DW-5) was examined who was operating a shop of grocery in the village.He went before the Court alongwith his credit account book and stated that on 11.1.1997, the prosecutrix and her husband took some jaggery, matchbox etc. on credit and therefore, on 11.1.1997, Tulai husband of the prosecutrix was very much available in the village.The evidence of Basori washes the version of the prosecutrix that her husband went out for three days.Hence, the testimony of the prosecutrix was to be confirmed by Tulai @ Tularam that he went out side of village three days prior to the incident.It was for him to state that where he had gone and what was the purpose of his visit.If Tulai was present in the village on the date of incident then, there was no possibility with the prosecutrix to stay all alone in the hut and alleged rape could not be committed upon her.Also, if her husband was available on 11.1.1007 and he did not go anywhere then, the reason for delay in lodging the FIR appears to be doubtful.The 8 Criminal Appeal No.627/1998 prosecution has given up Tularam @ Tulai and therefore, he could not be examined before the Special Court.Hence, an adverse inference is to be drawn against him that the testimony of Basori (DW-5) is acceptable and Tulai @ Tularam was not absent from his house.Therefore, a doubt is created that in his presence, no rape could be caused by anyone with the prosecutrix and FIR was lodged with the delay of one day for which no suitable explanation is given by the prosecutrix.The possibility cannot be ruled out that being a sister-in-law Laxmi Bai (PW-2) of the prosecutrix and her husband Horilal (DW-3) would have stated in favour of the prosecutrix.If the statement of the prosecutrix is examined then, she has refused that a sum of Rs.2,000/- was given by the appellant Kok Singh to her husband as advance.However, she has accepted that she was working in the fields of the appellant Kok Singh earlier to the incident.She has also accepted that she resided in the hut given by the appellant Kok Singh in his field for six months and in those six months, neither Kok Singh nor any other appellant had tried to commit rape with the prosecutrix or teased her.The prosecutrix has not specified the time when she left the hut 9 Criminal Appeal No.627/1998 of Kok Singh and when she had started residing in the hut situated at her husband's field.She has accepted that near her field, nobody has constructed any hut and no agriculturist was residing in the hut of the field.Laxmi Bai has stated that she has a hut in the field of her husband but for security purpose, nobody was sleeping in that hut and she was residing in the house situated at urban area of village Tumra.After considering the evidence given by Laxmi Bai, there was no reason with the prosecutrix to have resided in the lonely hut, specially in absence of her husband.She could shift herself to the house of Laxmi Bai when, her husband was out of station.The prosecutrix could not state about any reason as to why she shifted from the hut given the appellant Kok Singh.In para 12, she has accepted that her husband had gone to Jalon three days prior to the incident and her children went with her mother and grandmother was present in the hut but her grandmother could not hear anything and also she was blind.It is strange that the prosecutrix had two children and she was residing with her husband and suddenly her husband goes out of village, who was found present in the village by Basori on the day of 10 Criminal Appeal No.627/1998 incident and as to why he went out of that hut on that night when incident was caused, it is not a coincidence that children of the prosecutrix were taken by her mother.Also Tulai, husband of the prosecutrix did not dare to appear as a witness to state that he was out of village on the day of incident.It is also strange that when the prosecutrix was residing in hut of the appellant Kok Singh and the prosecutrix and her husband were not chucked off by the appellant Kok Singh then, suddenly they left the hut of Kok Singh and started residing in the field of her husband.The prosecutrix has also accepted that after leaving the job of the appellant Kok Singh, she was not doing any work.Learned counsel for the appellant gave some suggestion of enmity to the prosecutrix and she did not accept any allegation.The prosecutrix was asked that when the hut was situated at lonely place then, what was the source of light available in the hut then, she has stated that one lamp was burning and she could see the appellants in the light of lamp.But, such fact was not mentioned in the FIR and it was not informed by her in examination-in-chief.After considering the entire conduct of the prosecutrix, it appears 11 Criminal Appeal No.627/1998 that no reason has been shown by the prosecutrix to leave the job given by the appellant Kok Singh.The appellant Kok Singh and other appellant did not try to commit cohabitation or eve teasing with the prosecutrix in those six months, when she resided in the hut provided by the appellant Kok Singh.The FIR has been lodged with the delay of at least one day, whereas husband of the prosecutrix was found at the same village on the date of incident, whereas the prosecutrix had stated that her husband went to Jalon three days prior to the incident.Under theses circumstances, it would be proper to examine as to why the prosecutrix did not sustain any injury, whereas there was an allegation that three persons had committed rape upon her by one by one.The prosecutrix has 12 Criminal Appeal No.627/1998 stated that she was sleeping on a cot and thereafter, the appellant Kok Singh lifted her and dropped her on the earth.The hut was not a regular house and therefore, surface of the floor must be uneven.When three persons had committed rape one by one then, certainly some abrasions etc. would have been caused on the back and buttocks of the prosecutrix due to odd surface.But Dr. M. Chakraverty (PW-6) did not find any injury to the prosecutrix on her back and buttocks.It is not stated by the prosecutrix that the appellants had any weapon with them to threat the prosecutrix.She did not state that any threat was given to her soon before the alleged rape.Thus, no possible resistance is shown by the prosecutrix, when the appellants were committing the offence of rape.However, no symptom of resistance was found by Dr. M. Chakraverty on the person of the prosecutrix at the time of her medico legal examination.The prosecutrix and her husband left the job of the appellant Kok Singh without showing any reason and therefore, the possibility cannot be ruled out that the advance given by the appellant Kok Singh to the husband of the prosecutrix was to be refunded.Husband of the prosecutrix was available in the village on that day and his false absence was shown by the prosecutrix.If her husband was present in the village then, at the time of incident, he must be present in the hut then, the appellants could not commit any gang rape upon 14 Criminal Appeal No.627/1998 her.FIR was lodged with the delay of at least one day and explanation given for that delay is found to be false.After considering improbability of statement of the prosecutrix, possibility cannot be ruled out that, to implicate the appellant Kok Singh and his relatives, a story of gang rape was cooked and to make it acceptable, a false fact was shown that her husband and children were not with the prosecutrix, when alleged incident took place.Hence, in the light of the aforesaid judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court , the conviction of the appellants for the offences under Sections 376(2) and 506 Part-II of the IPC cannot be sustained.On the basis of aforesaid discussion, the present appeal filed by the appellants is hereby allowed.Their conviction as well as sentence passed for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2) and 506 Part-II of the IPC are hereby set aside.The appellants are acquitted from all the charges appended against them.They would be entitled to get the fine amount back, if they have deposited the same 15 Criminal Appeal No.627/1998 before the trial Court.(N.K. GUPTA) JUDGE 15.05.2015 pnkj
|
['Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
112,129,151 |
Shri Gourav Laad, learned counsel for the surety.Heard on I.A. No.8795/2016, which is second application under Section 397 r/w 389(1) Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of applicant - Kundansingh s/o Umraosingh.The applicant suffered conviction and sentence as under:-In compliance of non-bailable warrant issued by this Court, he was arrested and sent under custody.Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposes the application.After going through the record, this application (I.A. No.8795/2016) is allowed on condition of deposition of entire amount of personal bond i.e. Rs.15,000/-.Subject to this condition and on furnishing fresh personal bond of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty Five Thousand Rupees) and a solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, and on depositing the fine amount, the remaining portion of the jail sentence of the applicant shall be suspended and he be released on bail for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 28/06/2017 and thereafter on all subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry in this behalf.Also heard learned counsel for the surety.According to him, the surety was not knowing that the applicant was not marking his presence before Registry of this Court, and therefore, immediately when he came to know that the applicant was not marking his presence, he searched for him and came to know that the applicant was arrested in execution of warrant issued by this Court.After taking into consideration the explanation given by learned counsel for the surety, I find that that he was not careful enough to take care that the present applicant is marking his presence before the Court, and therefore, it is directed that he will deposit 50% of amount of surety i.e. Rs.7,500/- before the Trial Court.The bail papers be sent to Trial Court for necessary action.List for final hearing in due course.Certified copy as per rules.(Alok Verma)
|
['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
112,130,040 |
Heard Mr. S.G.Mukherjee, learned Public Prosecutor, High Court, Calcutta.The ground taken in this revisional application by the petitioner in substance is that the investigation was not completed within the statutory period as prescribed under Section 167(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, hence, the impugned order dated 14.08.2002 taking cognizance of the alleged offence was liable to be quashed.It would appear that the learned Magistrate, Sealdah extended time for final report under the provision of Section 167(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The petition was filed on behalf of the accused no. 1, Ratan Dutta that the charge sheet was not filed within the statutory period.Date was fixed for hearing.Learned Magistrate after having considered the provision so noted in Section 167(5)(iii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure the investigation was concluded within the period of three years but relaxation has been given only when a special reason has been shown by the Investigating Officer to the Magistrate for its satisfaction for confirmation of the investigation beyond the period as provided under the law.3 Learned Magistrate has come to the conclusion that the extension of time as per the prayer of the Investigating Officer was given and renewed for completion of the investigation and to submit final report.(Shivakant Prasad, J.)
|
['Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
112,142,063 |
The prosecution case in short compass is that the first informant Shri Vijay Shirsath resident of Warkhed Tq.Newasa, on 14-10-2018 approached to the Police of Newasa Police Station, District Ahmednagar and lodged the report that there was temple of Goddess "Mahalaxmi" in the village and his father Ashru Shirsath was Joint Secretary whereas appellant-accused Kadubal Gore was Secretary of the Temple.The father of the first informant cast aspersion about misappropriation and illegality in the affairs of the trust of temple.Therefore, he filed complaint to the Newasa Police Station against members of Board of Trustees of the temple.It has been alleged that on 13-07- 2018 the appellant and his clerk Ashok Mane, both without any resolution of the Trust or any permission from Charity Commissioner attempted to sale the brass articles of the trust to the merchant, namely, Kumbhakarna in weekly bazar of village Nimgaon.The first informant took out the photographs in his cell phone while selling the brass articles belongs to the trust by the::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2019 05:19:05 ::: 3 16-CriAl-789-18-I appellant.JUDGMENT :-1. Heard.The present appeal is taken up for final hearing on merit with the consent of both sides.This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 26-10-2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Newasa, in Criminal Misc.Application (Bail) No. 264 of 2018::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2019 05:19:05 ::: 2 16-CriAl-789-18-I rebuffing the relief of pre-arrest bail of the appellant in Crime No. I-661 of 2018 registered at Newasa Police Station under section section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "Act of 1989" for the sake or brevity).::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2019 05:19:05 :::Thereafter, he had filed the complaint to the Police against appellant and Shri.Mane, Clerk of the trust.According to prosecution, on 28-08-2018 in the morning at about 11.00 a.m. wife Sangita of the first informant and neighbour Sangita Kamble had been to collect fire wood near canal.Meanwhile, guests arrived at the house of first informant, and therefore, he had been to call the wife Sangita near the canal.While returning to home with wife, first informant was passing from the road in front of residence of appellant-Kadubal Govind Gore.After seeing the first informant, the appellant taking umbrage of police complaint reprimanded him that for what reason he had taken the photographs and filed complaint against him.He hurled the abuses in the name of his caste "ekaxV;k".He has also given threats to the first informant.The wife Sangita and neighbour Sangita Kamble both had given understanding to the first informant not to file complaint against the appellant in the Police Station, which would cause their relations strained.Therefore, first informant did not file complaint to the Police Station.But, the appellant used to harass the first informant by giving castiest abuses.Eventually, first informant rushed to the Police Station and filed the FIR against the appellant.::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2019 05:19:05 :::Pursuant to the FIR, Police of Newasa Police Station registered the crime under section 3(1) (r) (s) of the Act of 1989 and set the penal law in motion.The appellant has an::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2019 05:19:05 ::: 4 16-CriAl-789-18-I apprehension that he may be arrested in this crime.Therefore, apprehending his arrest at the hands of police, appellant rushed to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Newasa and filed the application bearing Criminal Misc.Application (Bail) No. 264 of 2018 for relief of anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Cr.P.C. However, learned Sessions Judge did not give positive response for the relief of pre-arrest of appeal and rejected the application of the appellant filed under section 438 of the Cr.P.C. The impugned order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Newasa is challenged in this appeal.::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2019 05:19:05 :::Mr. Sapkal, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submits that the appellant has not committed any crime, but he has been falsely implicated in this case on account of dispute of the charitable trust of Mahalaxmi temple.The first informant Vijay Shirsath and his family members are in habit to making false complaint on the trustee of the temple and other villagers.Sapkal, learned counsel drawn the attention towards document of various proceedings filed on behalf of first informant and his family members including his wife and father etc. and asserted that the first informant always attempted to blackmail the villagers on one or other pretext by taking disadvantage of his caste.The learned trial Court did not appreciate the factual aspect in its proper perspective.It is not considered that no evidence under the Act of 1989 was made available on record::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2019 05:19:05 ::: 5 16-CriAl-789-18-I against the appellant.There was no mensrea or malafide intention reflects from the recitals of the FIR.There was colossal delay in filing the FIR.Learned counsel Mr. Sapkal contends that if circumstances on record are not sufficient, prima facie case to make out the offence under the Act of 1989, then the statutory bar under section 18 of the Ac of 1989 would not be made applicable in the present complaint.Therefore, he requested to allow the appeal for pre-arrest bail in favour of the appellant in this crime.::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2019 05:19:05 :::6. Learned APP for respondents raised objection and submits that the section 18-A of the Act of 1989 put embargo on the Court for exercising powers under section 438 of the Cr.P.C. The appellants abused the complainant on his caste within public view.Therefore, application for anticipatory bail of the appellants cannot be entertained.The learned APP produced on record the relevant documents of investigation of the crime for perusal.It is to be noted that this Court in the decision of Criminal Appeal No. 787 of 2018 (Kiran Madhukar Ingle Versus State of Maharashtra and another), elaborately dealt with the issue of applicability of Section 18 of the Act of 1989 to entertain the::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2019 05:19:05 ::: 6 16-CriAl-789-18-I application for pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. and made observations in paragraph Nos. 13 and 15 as under :-::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2019 05:19:05 :::When the Court is held competent to enter into scrutiny of the allegations to determine whether the person can be treated as accused of commission of offence under the Act of 1989, then question would arise as to what extent the Court would be justified to examine material to determine the prima facie case against him.xx xx xx xx xx xx xxThe exposition of law as referred above unequivocally pointer to the inference that the application for anticipatory bail can be entertained only on the ground of inapplicability of the provisions of Act of 1989 and it would be ascertainable only on perusal of recitals of the FIR or complaint and not beyond that, because once it is gathered from the FIR that the applicant is accused of committing the offence prescribed under section 3 of the Act of 1989, a bar under section 18 of the Act of 1989 would instantly operate against him.Therefore, the Courts are not permitted to enter into roving enquiry in regard to sustainability of accusation nurtured on behalf of complainant.Moreover, further scrutiny by summoning the case diary or other material to test veracity of the allegations made in the FIR also not permissible under the law.In the instant appeal, the prosecution applied the provisions of section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Act of 1989 against the present appellants, which reads as under :::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2019 05:19:05 :::::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2019 05:19:05 :::State of Maharashtra reported in 1982 Cr.L.J. 872, it has been held that merely calling a person by his caste name though may amount to insult or abuse to him, it cannot be said to be with intent to humiliate such person.::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2019 05:19:05 :::::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2019 05:19:05 :::8 16-CriAl-789-18-IIn the matter-in-hand, it has been alleged that the appellant hurled castiest abuses as "sekaxV;k" during the altercation on account of police complaint filed on behalf of the first informant against the applicant.If word " ekaxV;k" is taken out from the complaint for moment then other utterances that, ^^rqyk ybZ ekt vkyk; dk rq>k ekt ftjokok ykxsy- Fkqyk ekfgr ukgh dk ek>h xkokr pkaxyh pyrh vkgs- rq fnysyh rdzkj ekxs ?ks**, perceived from the FIR though indicate "threat" or "intimidation" but does not pointer to the inference that there was any intent or mensrea to humiliate the complainant on his caste within public view.The allegations in the FIR in regard to assault and intimidation taking name of caste of the complainant would be at the most fall under the provisions of Indian Penal Code under section 506 of the IPC.The circumstances on record adumbrates that the incriminating factor to show the intentional insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate the complainant within public view on the part of appellant are lacking in this case.As such, there is no statutory bar for this Court to consider the applications of the appellant filed under section 438 of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, there is no difficulty to allow the present appeal for the relief of anticipatory bail in favour of appellant-accused in the present crime.Hence, appeal deserves to be allowed.::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2019 05:19:05 :::In sequel, the appeal stands allowed.The impugned order dated 26-10-2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Newasa, in Criminal Misc.Application (Bail) No. 264 of 2018 is hereby quashed and set-aside.The application of the appellant- applicant filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for his pre-arrest bail before the learned trial Court is hereby allowed.The appellant- Kadubal Govind Gore be released on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No. I-661 of 2018 registered at Newasa Police Station under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 [ i.e. Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, 1989 prior to amendment], on furnishing PR bond of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) with one solvent surety of like amount.It is stipulated that appellant-applicant shall not indulge, directly or indirectly, in any kind of activities of tampering with the evidence of prosecution witness.The appellant/applicant shall attend the::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2019 05:19:05 ::: 10 16-CriAl-789-18-I Newasa Police Station, on every Sunday in between 11.00 a.m. to 3.00 p.m. till filing of the charge-sheet and shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer for the sake of investigation into the crime.Inform the concerned Investigating Officer accordingly.::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2019 05:19:05 :::The present Criminal Appeal stands disposed of in above terms.No order as to costs.[ K. K. SONAWANE ] JUDGE MTK.*::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2019 05:19:05 :::::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2019 05:19:05 :::
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
112,142,339 |
2 The respondent in Crl.A.No.261/2013 is 2nd accused and the respondent in Crl.A1 is father and A2 is son.Accordingly, they prepared a fabricated R.C. Book for a Maruthi car bearing Reg.Thereafter, they sold the said car to one Mathivanan for a sum of Rs.1,17,500/- making him believe that the registration certificate is a genuine one.Further, On 05.01.2004, the respondent/A2 was having one fabricated R.C.http://www.judis.nic.in 3 with a number TN39K 3330 in Tiruppur Nanisa driving school.After the purchase, he and his family members travelled in the said Car and near Sangagiri, it met with an accident and on the spot his aunt died and others got injured.Thereafter, P.W.12, P.W.15 and P.W.14 had purchased the said Car and when they brought the vehicle to the Workshop for maintenance, situated in V.K.K.Menon Road, they saw the vehicle which has the same Registration Number and immediately they returned the same to P.W.1, from whom they have purchased the Car.Ramasamy ... Respondent in Crl.For respondents : Notice served – No Appearance in both the appealshttp://www.judis.nic.in 2 COMMON JUDGMENT These criminal appeals have been filed by the State against a common judgment of acquittal dated dated 04.10.2012 made in C.A.Nos.12 & 13 of 2012 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur.A3, who is another son of A1 had also charged and tried separately and since he admitted the charges levelled against him, he was imposed imprisonment.The respondents in both the criminal appeals along with A3 were running a driving school called “Kavitha Driving School” in Tiruppur.They conspired together for fabricating false registration certificates.Thereafter, P.W.1 lodged a complaint narrating the incidents.3 Based on a complaint given by Fiaz Ahamed, a case was registered in Crime No.1671 of 2002, which was later transferred to CB CID by order of the Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu.The Inspector of Police, CB CID, Coimbatore City, after completing the investigation, filed a charge sheet against three accused, before the learned Judicial Magistrate II, Coimbatore, under Sections 465, 466, 468, 471, 473, 474 and 420 IPC read with 120 (b) IPC.After trial, the learned Magistrate found the accused guilty of all the charges levelled against them and sentenced them to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 465 IPC and three years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1000/- for the other offences.4 As against which, A1 & A2 filled separate appeals before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur, which were taken on file in C.A.Nos.12 & 13 of 2012 respectively.After hearing both sides, the learned Sessions Judge, by a common judgment dated 04.10.2012, allowed both the appeals and acquitted the accused 1 & 2. 5 Aggrieved against the above judgment of acquittal dated 04.10.2012, the Inspector of Police, CB CID, Coimbatore, has preferred the present criminal appeals before this court.6 The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the appellant/State would submit that P.W.2 had lodged a complaint stating that his vehicle bearing Reg.TN-37-N-6966, which washttp://www.judis.nic.in 5 parked in front of the Suguna Thirumana Mandapan was missing.After receipt of the complaint, P.W.3 had registered a case in Cr.No.1148 of 1996, and later it was closed 'as undetectable'. P.W.4 and P.W5, who are Insurance Officials, had clearly stated that, for the Car by P.W.2, they have settled an amount of Rs.1,40,000/-.When P.W.1 lodged a complaint, it was noticed that the said Car was connected with the Cr.No.1148/1996, which was closed 'as undetectable'.Hence the link has been clearly proved by the prosecution by cogent evidence.Further one of the accused, namely A3, had admitted the charges levelled against him and imprisonment was imposed.All the three accused only conspired together and fabricated the RC Book in order to cheat the buyers for unlawful monetary gain.The trial Court had rightly appreciated the evidence on record and convicted the accused, whereas, the lower appellate Court, erroneously disbelieved the evidence of prosecution and acquitted the respondents/accused.7 Even though notice served on the respondents, they did not choose to appear before this Court either in person or through Advocate.Since the appeals are pending from the year 2013, this Court heard the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the appellant/State and carefully perused the materials placed on record and decide the appeals on merits.http://www.judis.nic.in 6 8 It is seen that P.W.2 had lodged a complaint stating that his vehicle bearing Reg.TN-37-N-6966, which was parked in front of the Suguna Thirumana Mandapan was missing.After receipt of the complaint, P.W.3 had registered a case in Cr.No.1148 of 1996, and later it was closed 'as undetectable'. P.W.4 and P.W5, who are Insurance Officials, had clearly stated that, since the case was closed 'as undetectable', the claim of P.W.2 was accepted and they have settled an amount of Rs.1,40,000/-.When P.W.1 lodged a complaint stating that the Car purchased by him was found to be stolen car, it was noticed that the said Car was connected with the Cr.No.1148/1996, which was closed 'as undetectable'.Hence the link has been clearly proved by the prosecution by cogent evidence.The appellants/accused conspired together and fabricated the RC books of stolen Cars and thereby committed the offence charged against them.The trial Court had rightly convicted the appellants, but the lower appellate Court failed to note that already one of the accused had admitted the offence alleged against him and since these accused denied the allegations, trial commenced and ended in conviction.http://www.judis.nic.in 7 Therefore, this Court is of the view that the acquittal of the appellants/accused by judgment dated 04.10.2012 is liable to be set aside, since the judgment of conviction of the trial Court is well founded and there is no reason to interfere with the same.9 In the result, both criminal appeals are allowed and judgment of acquittal passed by the lower appellate Court dated 04.10.2012 is hereby set aside and the judgment of conviction made by the trial Court dated 19.07.2011 is hereby restored.The learned Magistrate is directed to secure the custody of the accused through jurisdictional police, to undergo remaining period of imprisonment, if any.15.04.2019 Index: Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order cgihttp://www.judis.nic.in 8 P.VELMURUGAN,J.The Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur.The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.The Section Officer, VR Section, Madras High Court.A.Nos.261 & 265 of 2013 15.04.2019http://www.judis.nic.in
|
['Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
112,146,966 |
CASE OF THE PROSECUTIONBriefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 28 th September, 2000, the appellant-convict Ranjeet Singh had gone to the house of his mother-in-law i.e. Ms. Pyar Kaur (PW-1), where after pouring kerosene over his wife Babbal, he burnt her.The appellant-convict Ranjeet Singh was accompanied by his friend and co-convict Balwant Singh.Deceased Smt Babbal has allegedly made a statement that accused Ranjeet did not want to keep her as his wife and was even threatening her to kill her.Many a times he had threatened to attack her with a knife.A. Nos.896/2004 & 619/2005 Page 3 of 1947) After the door had been opened by the deceased Smt Babbal no effort were made by Accused Balwant Singh to dissuade accused Ranjeet Singh from acting in the manner he ultimately did.A. Nos.896/2004 & 619/2005 Page 4 of 19 handwriting.According to her, the alleged dying declaration of deceased Babbal was not recorded in the prescribed question answer format and was a verbatim copy of the statement of Ms. Pyar Kaur (PW-1) - mother of the deceased.She emphasised that the Doctor had declared the deceased fit for statement at 3:50 pm on 28th September, 2000, but the SDM had arrived one and a half hour later according to HC Joginder Singh (PW-5) and therefore, it cannot be ruled out that the deceased was not fit to give a statement.Per contra, Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, learned APP for the State stated that HC Joginder Singh (PW-5) had moved an application for recording the statement of the deceased on the date of the incident and Dr. Ajay Kumar Dabas (PW-20) had certified the deceased Babbal fit for statement.She CRL.A. Nos.896/2004 & 619/2005 Page 5 of 19 further stated that after the certification, SDM (PW-6) had arrived at the hospital at about 3.30 p.m and recorded the statement of the deceased Babbal.She relied upon the testimonies of HC Joginder Singh (PW-5), Mr. Vijay Khanna, SDM (PW-6) and SI Ajay Kumar (PW-23).The relevant portions of their testimonies are reproduced hereinbelow:-A. Nos.896/2004 & 619/2005 Page 5 of 19A. HC Joginder Singh (PW-5) "......I had moved an application to the incharge burn Wards Safdarjung hospital requesting him for recording the statement of Smt. Babbal.The same is signed by me at point A. On my application Dr. Ajay Kr.Dabas had declared the patient fit for making a statement at 3.50 PM.........."B. Mr. Vijay Khanna, SDM (PW-6) "XXXXXXX by Sh.Inderjeet Barnala, Cl. for accd.I had received the phone in my office.I had reached Safdarjung at about 3.35 / 3.40 PM.IO of this case and SHO met me first in the hospital.Dr. Ajay Kr.Dabass seat was in the burns Ward itself and he was present there.My reader had recorded the statement of Smt. Babbal on my dictation.Dr. Dabas had examined Smt. Babbal in my presence on my request and then he wrote his endorsement Ex.PW6/A and thereafter I got the statement of Smt. Babbal recorded which is Ex.PW6/B. I had enquired from Babbal if she wanted to make statement voluntarily and only when she had answered in the affirmative I recorded her statement........ I started recording the statement immediately at 3.50 p.m...."C. SI Ajay Kumar (PW-23) ".....I had informed the SHO and SDM at about 2 PM.The English translation of the said dying declaration (Ex. PW-6/B) is reproduced hereinbelow:-"IN THE COURT OF SDM (RAJOURI GARDEN) MCD MIDDLE SCHOOL : RAM PURA MEDICAL FITNESS CERTIFICATE It is certified that Smt. Babbal W/o Ranjit R/o 93, T.C. Camp (12) Raghubir Nagar is medically fit / unfit to make a statement.Your name and address: Babbal, 305, R Block, Raghubir Nagar, Aged 35 Years.When and where the Today at about 10-11 AM at accident took place: House No. 93 (12 sq. yds.) TC Camp Raghubir NagarAt about 10 AM, Ranjit R/o. 305, R.While Crl.A. No.896/2004 has been filed on behalf of appellant- convict Ranjeet Singh, Crl.A. No.619/2005 has been filed on behalf of appellant-convict Balwant Singh.Both the appeals have been filed challenging the judgment dated 24th August, 2004 and the order on sentence dated 26th August, 2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 1040/2001 arising out of FIR No.935/2000 registered with Police Station Rajouri Garden, whereby both the appellant-convicts have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.500/- under Sections 302/34 IPC.Thereafter, appellant-convict Balwant Singh has been untraceable and notice could not be served upon him or his sureties.Even the non-bailable warrant issued against him could not be executed on account of his non-availability.A. Nos.896/2004 & 619/2005 Page 2 of 19The appellant- convicts fled the spot after the incident.Thereafter, the deceased was taken to the hospital where her statement (PW-6/B) was recorded by SDM Mr. Vijay Khanna (PW-6) after she was declared fit for statement by Dr. Ajay Kumar Dabas (PW-20).FINDING OF THE TRIAL COURTThe Trial Court convicted the appellant-convicts under Sections 302/34 IPC and held as under:-44) Ex. PW6/B is the dying declaration of deceased Smt. Babbal which is in question answer form.From the perusal of Ex.xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx46) ....It has been alleged in the dying declaration Ex. PW6/B that accused Balwant Singh had come with her husband accused Ranjeet Singh and they got the door opened and thereafter, the accused Ranjeet had sprinkled kerosene on her and then ignited her with a match stick.Accused Balwant Singh even did not make any attempt to save deceased Smt Babbal when accused Ranjeet Singh was attempting to put kerosene on her and igniting her.48) In the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is difficult to accept the plea of defence counsel that accused Balwant Singh has no role to play in the death of Smt Babbal.present case, I am of the opinion that prosecution has been able to prove its case against both the accused persons for the offence punishable U/s 302 IPC read with section 34 IPC.I find both the accused persons guilty for the offence punishable U/s 302 IPC read with section 34 IPC and convict them accordingly."ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT-CONVICT RANJEET SINGHConsequently, according to her, the dying declaration (Ex. PW-6/B) was unreliable and the conviction based on the same should be set aside.A. Nos.896/2004 & 619/2005 Page 4 of 19In the alternative, the learned counsel for the applicant-convict Ranjeet Singh prayed that his sentence be reduced by converting the conviction to Section 304 Part II IPC, as the incident had taken place in the heat of the moment and he had no intention to kill.Consequently, she prayed that the appellant-convict Balwant Singh be acquitted.ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE STATESDM arrived at hospital at about 3-30 PM.Reader of the SDM had also come along with SDM...."A. Nos.896/2004 & 619/2005 Page 6 of 19Learned APP for the State also handed over a list of previous cases/involvements of appellant-convict Ranjeet Singh.She stated that he was involved in a number of serious criminal cases and that was the reason why the near and dear ones of the deceased Babbal had turned hostile.The said list is reproduced hereinbelow:-S. FIR No. Sections FIR Date Police Status of Status Present Reward No. Station Case of Status Amount Accused Date450/2016 186/353/307/ 06/11/2016 Khyala Pending Judicial 34 IPC & Investigation Custody 25/27 Arms Act2. 398/2016 307 IPC 29/09/2016 Khyala Pending Judicial Investigation Custody574/2016 307 IPC 14/09/2016 Sarai Pending Judicial Khawaja Investigation Custody4. 376/2016 307 IPC 10/09/2016 Khyala Pending Judicial Investigation Custody243/2016 307/34 IPC 29/05/2016 Khyala Pending Judicial Investigation Custody6. 45/2010 186/353/307 18/03/2010 Khyala Pending Arrested IPC & Investigation 25/27/54/59 Arms Act264/2009 379 IPC 28/10/2009 Subzi Pending Arrested Mandi Investigation163/2009 25 Arms Act 04/05/2009 Govind Pending Judicial Puri Investigation Custody456/2004 25 Arms Act Rajouri 326 IPC Garden935/2004 302/34 IPC Rajouri Garden439/2003 20/4/85 Hari NDPS Act Nagar55/2000 25 Arms Act Roop Pending Nagar Investigation342/2000 379/356/34 Patel IPC Nagar520/2000 379/356/34 Patel IPC Nagar469/2000 379/356 IPC Pashchim Pending Vihar (E) Investigation CRL.A. Nos.896/2004 & 619/2005 Page 7 of 19A. Nos.896/2004 & 619/2005 Page 7 of 19365/2000 379/356 IPC Moti Nagar974/1997 25/54/59 A. 13/11/2002 Rajouri Convicted Act GardenMs. Aashaa Tiwari, contended that the Trial Court committed no error in relying upon the dying declaration of the deceased to convict the appellant-convict Ranjeet Singh.COURTS REASONING THIS COURT IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE DYING DECLARATION OF THE DECEASED WAS VOLUNTARY, CORRECT, TRUTHFUL, INSPIRES FULL CONFIDENCE AND WAS MADE IN A FIT AS WELL AS CONSCIOUS STATE OF MIND.THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT SHE HAD BEEN TUTORED, PROMPTED OR THE DYING DECLARATION WAS A RESULT OF HER IMAGINATIONHaving heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the most material evidence in the present case is the statement/dying declaration (Ex. PW-6/B) of the deceased which was recorded on the date of the incident itself by the SDM - Mr. Vijay Khanna (PW-6).Time: 3:50 PM dated 28.09.2000 Name of M.O:Dr.Ajay Kumar Dabas Sign of M.O.: Ajay Kr.Dabas CRL.A. Nos.896/2004 & 619/2005 Page 8 of 19 Statement of Smt. Babbal W/o Ranjit Singh R/o. 305, R- Block, Raghubir Nagar (25 Sq.Yds.)A. Nos.896/2004 & 619/2005 Page 8 of 19were with you and what poured kerosene oil (half) from a did they do? can lying nearby on my person and set me afire with the help of a match stick as Ranjit did not want to keep me in his house as his wife and he had been threatening to do away with me for the last few days.He has also threatened to kill me with a knife.Therefore, Ranjit has set me afire by way of pouring kerosene oil on me with an intention to kill me.Legal action may be initiated against Ranjit.My marriage took place with one Ashok about 14-15 years ago and out of the said wedlock, a boy namely Sunny was born to us presently aged about 10-12 years.A. Nos.896/2004 & 619/2005 Page 9 of 19I was married to Ranjit about 4 years ago with our sweet will.My first husband namely Ashok has expired many years ago.Ranjit and Balwant fled from the spot.The deceased had also stated that the appellant-convict Ranjeet Singh had been threatening her as he did not want to keep her as his wife.However, before placing reliance on the dying declaration of deceased Babbal (Ex. PW-6/B), it is essential to determine if the same was truthful, CRL.A. Nos.896/2004 & 619/2005 Page 10 of 19 inspired confidence and was made in a fit state of mind.In order to determine the said fact, the testimony of Dr. Ajay Kumar Dabas (PW-20) has to be considered.The relevant portion of his statement is reproduced hereinbelow:-A. Nos.896/2004 & 619/2005 Page 10 of 19The application of the H.C. Joginder Singh is Ex. PW5/B and my endorsement is Ex. PW20/A and it is signed by me at point B. I had also issued a medical fitness certificate pertaining to the fitness of Smt. Babbal at the time of recording the statement of Smt. Babbal by SDM.The medical fitness certificate is Ex. PW6/A and which contained the statement of Smt. Babbal and same is Ex. PW6/B. After recording the statement of Smt. Babbal by the SDM Smt. Babbal had put her RTI at points X and D and both the thumb impressions are attested by me at point Y and Z. I had also given the endorsement on the medical fitness certificate and the same is Ex. PW6/A.Inderjeet Barnala, counsel for accused Balwant......There was no crowd in the burn ward when I had given the fitness of Smt. Babbal.....SDM concerned was present near the bed of Smt. Babbal.Other police officers were also present near the bed of Smt. Babbal when I gave the certificate of fitness at 3.50 P.M. It took about 15-20 minutes in recording the statement of Smt. Babbal by the SDM.I was present when the statement of Smt. Babbal was being recorded.Her statement was recorded by the SDM in his own hand-writing......Smt.Babbal was lying on the bed when her statement was recorded by the SDM.No relatives of Smt. Babbal were present at that time.It is wrong to suggest that at the time of recording the statement of Smt. Babbal I was not present at the spot....."A. Nos.896/2004 & 619/2005 Page 11 of 19A. Nos.896/2004 & 619/2005 Page 11 of 19"......I in order to satisfy myself again contacted the Dr. and he told me that the patient Smt. Babbal was fit to make a statement.I again obtained the endorsement of Dr. Ajay Kr.Dabas before recording the statement of Smt. Babbal and the endorsement of Dr. Dabas which has been signed by him is at point A. The endorsement is Ex.PW6/A....."PYAR KAUR AFTER RECORDING THE DYING DECLARATION OF DECEASED BABBALThe contention that the dying declaration of deceased Babbal was a verbatim copy of her mothers statement is contrary to facts inasmuch as SDM Mr. Vijay Khanna (PW-6) had recorded the statement of Ms. Pyar Kaur after recording the dying declaration of deceased Babbal.The cross examination of SDM Mr. Vijay Khanna (PW-6) on this aspect is reproduced hereinbelow:-" .........I recorded the statement of Smt. Babbal first of all.Statement of Pyar Kaur was recorded outside the burn ward in the Safdarjung hospital......Immediately after recording the statement of Babbal I recorded the statement of her mother Smt. Pyar Kaur....."We do not understand how a woman, particularly a mother, turned her back on the daughter.Possibly these witnesses were bought over by the appellant.Such conduct displays greed and lack of compassion.Consequently, Crl.A. Nos.896/2004 & 619/2005 Page 18 of 19MANMOHAN, J SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J JANUARY 21, 2020 rn/js CRL.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,121,478 |
The Petitioners were charged under Section 420/ 120B of Indian Penal Code (IPC).The brief facts necessary to decide this petition are that a complaint was filed against the accused persons on the allegation that the complainant, V.K. Anand was a Civil Engineer by profession, working as a builder and contractor.He was allegedly approached by Accused No. 1 alleging himself to be chairman and Managing Director of various companies for the construction of two factories in Rajasthan.The complainant thereafter agreed to become Executive director of the companies Tefcil Marbles Ltd., and Tefcil Breweries Limited with the power to operate accounts and do other things.It is alleged by the complainant that he made efforts and enrolled members, thus collecting an amount of Rs.3,95,000/- in Tefcil Marbles and further amount of Rs.1.3 lakhs, in Tefcil Breweries Limited.A sum of Rs.5,25,000/- was given to the Accused No. 1 through cash, cheque and draft.These also included amounts paid earlier to him.A statutory report presented on 12.1.96 was rejected by the members and allegedly on inquiry it was revealed that a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- in cash was paid to one R.P. Tyagi of Natraj Cinema for his share in M/s. Transnational Export and Financial Corporation India Ltd., and the remaining amount of Rs.7,05,000/- had been diverted to compensate to the loss of Transnational Export and Financial India Ltd. It was alleged that the share certificates issued to the members were forged as they did not bear the common seal of Transnational Export and Financial Corporation India Ltd. The complainant allegedly asked the Petitioners to return the amount collected by him as share money but the same was not returned.The Petitioners were alleged to have thus committed fraud by manipulating the records.The companies, i.e TEFCIL Marble Ltd. and TEFCIL Breweries Ltd. were formed in accordance with law.JUDGMENT S. Ravindra Bhat, J.The present revision petition is preferred against an order dated 27.9.2005 of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (M.M).The complainant was appointed Executive Director on the payment of Rs.2, 00,000/- to Transnational Export and Financial Corporation India Ltd.The Petitioner No. 2 allegedly applied to the Registrar of the Companies for incorporation of the said two companies.The name of the complainant and his wife figured as subscribers in the Memorandum and Articles of Association.Thereafter the complainant was asked for a sum of Rs.50,000/- on the pretext of meeting the day to day expenses of the company.The complainant was also asked to enrol other members for the companies.The Petitioners and the complainant were allegedly its directors.The Learned Counsel further submitted that the grievance of the Complainant is that he being a share holder of the company was not allowed to operate the bank account.The learned Counsel has further submitted that the dispute is of a civil nature and the remedy for the complainant lies under the Companies Act. The complainant aggrieved with not being allowed to operate the bank account made a false and frivolous allegations against the Petitioners.The counsel further submitted that the court below has exceeded its jurisdiction by framing charge on the subject on which there is a specific bar under Sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, against the institution of criminal proceedings.The trial court by its order dated 27.9.2005 charged the Petitioners under Section 420/120B of the Indian Penal Code.The extracts of the order dated are as follows;The petition is therefore rejected as unmerited without any order as to costs.
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
112,154,711 |
The prosecution case, as alleged against the appellants, is to the effect that one Kabirul Sk.(P.W.9) had paid some money to appellant No.1, Rafique Sk., appellant No.7, Yunus Sk.and one Manik Sk.for purchasing four bighas of land from Lalu Sarkar.After his father's demise, Kabirul proposed to purchase only one bigha out of four bighas of land and demanded return of the remainder sum.Over this issue, a dispute arose between Kabirul Sk.on the one hand and Rafique Sk., Yunus Sk.Pintu hurled bomb aiming at Mamed.Kabirul tried to save Mamed and received bomb injury on his hand.Mamed suffered deep injuries on his body and expired at the spot.Kabirul was admitted at Jangipur S.D. Hospital.Mofijul Sk.He is the nephew of the deceased Mamed Sk.He deposed nine years ago at 07.30 a.m. he confronted Yunus Sk.at Kalabagh Natunpara and told him to give account of their property.An altercation ensued.At that time Pintu and Rafique came towards them with bombs in their hands.Mamed Sk. was standing at the spot.Rafique hurled bomb at Mamed.Yunus fired from his pipe gun at the victim.Pintu hurled bomb which hit the palm of his right hand.He received bleeding injury.Other accused persons, namely, Kangali Sk.Rintu Sk., Ramjan Sk.Sanaullah Sk.and Jiabul Sk. came to the spot being armed with hesso, kaati and shabol.He lost his senses.Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 12.3.2013 and 14.3.2013 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track 3rd Court, Jangipur, Murshidabad, in S.T. No.1/March/08 corresponding to S.SL.Case No.19/08 convicting the appellants, namely, Rafique Sk., Kangali Sk., Bishu Sk., Jiaur Rahman @ Jiabul Sk., Sonsulla Sk., Ramjan Sk.and Yunus Sk.for commission of offence punishable under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'I.P.C.') and sentencing them to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year.and others on the other hand.Mamed Sk.(the deceased), uncle of Kabirul sought to intervene and compromise the matter.On 31.3.1999 at about 07.30 a.m. the appellant No.7, Yunus Sk., was proceeding towards the bank of the river.As he came in front of the house of Kabirul, Kabirul demanded land or money from him.An altercation ensued between them.Mamed was standing beside Kabirul.At that time, the appellants who were variously armed attacked them.Yunus fired from pipe gun at Mamed.In the course of trial, prosecution examined nineteen witnesses and exhibited a number of documents.In the course of trial, co-accused Pintu Sk. expired.In conclusion of trial, the trial judge by the impugned judgment and order convicted and sentenced the appellants, as aforesaid.No finding was, however, recorded with regard to other charges framed under section 307/34 I.P.C. and section 286/34Hence, the present appeal.While P.W.s 1, 3 and 9 claimed that Mamed died due to firing by appellant No.7, Yunus and bomb thrown by appellant No.1, Rafique, P.W.s 12, 13 and 16 deposed that bomb was thrown by Kabirul which had hit Mamed resulting in his death.P.W.s 12, 13 and 16, however, have not been declared hostile and the prosecution which is a divided house cannot be relied upon.That apart, role of appellant No.1, Rafique is not disclosed in the First Information Report (in short 'F.I.R.').P.W.9 categorically disclosed the roles of the appellants in the murderous assault on his uncle Mamed Sk.and upon himself.Evidence of P.W.s 12, 13 and 16 are woefully vague and the said witnesses could not even state the date of the alleged incident.They appear to be reported witnesses and there is nothing to show that they were not present at the spot.Hence, little importance ought to be attributed to their evidence and the prosecution case well founded on the version of the injured witnesses corroborated by medical evidence is proved beyond doubt.Accordingly, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.From the rival submissions of the parties, it appears P.W.9 is the star witness for the prosecution.He was taken to Jangipur S.D. hospital.He was treated for three days.Mamed died at the spot owing to injuries.P.W.9 was extensively cross-examined but remained unshaken.His evidence is supported by P.W.1, Mofijul Sk.son of the deceased and de facto complainant in the instant case.He deposed that Pintu Sk.threw a bomb at his cousin Kabirul resulting in injury on his right hand.Yunus fired from his pipe gun at his father and Rafique and Yunus threw bombs at his father.His father suffered injuries and died at the spot.He lodged written complaint at the police station.It was scribed by Nejam Sk.(P.W.2).He proved his signature.His father was taken to Jangipur S.D. Hospital where he was declared dead.Kabirul was also treated at that hospital.Evidence of P.W.1 has been criticised on the premise that he did not disclose the specific role of Rafique Sk.in the F.I.R. No contradiction to that effect has been taken from the said witness in Court.Even otherwise, I note that the presence of Rafique Sk.with arms is disclosed in the F.I.R. Incident occurred in the course of an altercation where near relations of P.W.1 had been assaulted.Hence, it is possible that P.W.1 was unable to specifically spell out the role of each and every accused in F.I.R. which had been lodged soon after the incident.However, in Court the said witness has specifically narrated the role of Rafique Sk.in the assault which finds resonance from the deposition of the injured witness P.W.9, Kabirul.Evidence of aforesaid witnesses are corroborated by Hameda Bewa (P.W.3), sister of the deceased and mother of P.W.9, Kabirul Sk.Reading the evidence of P.W.3 as a whole I am of the view that failure on the part of the said witness to narrate the name of other persons present at the place of occurrence has little relevance to her identifying the miscreants who assaulted her brother and son resulting in grievous injury on one and death of the other.It is all but natural that the witness could recollect the identity of the persons who played a vital role in the assault of the victims and failed to notice out of trauma the presence of others at the spot.Eye-witnesses' version find corroboration from the medical evidence of Dr. Ashmuddin Biswas (P.W.11) who treated Kabirul Sk.(P.W.9) and deposed that he had suffered lacerated bomb injuries on right hand, right wrist and lower part of right forearm.Post-mortem report (Exbt.4) also shows lacerated injuries on the deceased Mamed Sk.corroborating the ocular version of the aforesaid witnesses.It has been strenuously argued that no gunshot injury was found on the victim.In view of the extensive lacerated bomb injuries found on the body of the victim it is possible that gunshot injury was not detected by post-mortem doctor.Even for argument's sake, the bullet fired by appellant No.7, Yunus, had missed the target, his conduct in participating in the assault by firing at the victim from a pipe gun clearly exposes his common intention to murder the victim.The said witnesses made cryptic statements in Court that Kabirul threw a bomb at his uncle, Mamed Sk.resulting in injuries.The witnesses were unable to state the date on which the incident occurred and upon reading their evidence as a whole I do not find any convincing material on record to show that they were at all present at the place of occurrence.Hence, the said witnesses appear to be reported witnesses who made a desperate effort to screen the real offenders.It is true these witnesses ought to have been declared hostile by the prosecution but the prosecutor for the reason best known to him had not done so.Judging the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses from that perspective, I find no reason to attach credence to their versions so as to discredit the convincing evidence of the injured witness and other eye-witnesses in the instant case.Versions of P.W.s 12, 13 and 16 are most incredulous as no motive is forthcoming why Kabirul would throw a bomb at his own uncle, Mamed, as claimed by these witnesses.Furthermore, their versions also appear to be at variance to the suggestion given by the defence to the investigating officers that in the course of the milieu a bomb carried by Kabirul had accidentally burst causing injuries to himself and Mamed Sk.resulting in his death.No suggestion was ever given by the defence to the investigating officers that Kabirul had hurled bomb towards Mamed Sk.as claimed by the aforesaid witnesses.Finally, it is argued on behalf of the appellants that there are defects in investigation which has prejudiced the prosecution case.I am unable to subscribe to such view.(deceased accused) shared common intention to murder the victim Mamed Sk.and pursuant to such common intention to murder Mamed Sk.and pursuant thereto Yunus Sk.fired at him and Rafique Sk.and Pintu Sk.hurled bombs resulting not only in fatal injuries on the deceased Mamed Sk.but also grievous injuries on Kabirul.(P.W.9).In addition to recording conviction under section 302/34 IPC, trial Court ought to have recorded a finding with regard to other charges framed against the appellants.However, in view of the scanty and non-specific evidence vis--vis the roles of others appellants, namely, appellant No.2, Kangali Sk., appellant No.3, Bishu Sk., appellant No.4, Jiaur Rahman @ Jiabul Sk., appellant No.5, Sonsulla Sk.and appellant No.6, Ramjan Sk.and since they did not participate in the assault of the victims at all, I find it difficult to sustain their conviction under sections 302/34 I.P.C.Accordingly, conviction and sentence of appellant No.1, Rafique Sk.and appellant No.7, Yunus Sk. are upheld.Conviction and sentence of appellant Nos.2 to 6 are set aside.Period of detention, if any, undergone by the appellant Nos.1 and 7 during investigation, enquiry and trial shall be set off against the substantive sentence imposed upon them in terms of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The bail bonds of appellant Nos.2 to 6 shall continue for a period of six months in terms of section 437A Criminal Procedure Code and thereafter shall stand discharged.Hence, the appeal is partly allowed.Let a copy of this judgment along with the lower court records be forthwith sent down to the trial court at once.Photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, shall be made available to the parties within a week from the date of putting in the requisites.I agree.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,121,621 |
JUDGMENT V.D. Misra, J.(1) This revision has been filed against the order of Sessions Judge, Mandi, whereby he allowed the petitioner to withdraw his complaint against the respondents.(2) T.N. Bahl, petitioner, had filed a complaint under sections 406/420, 506/5 I of the Indian Penal Code against the respondents in the Court of Shri Hem Chand, Magistrate 1st Class, Mandi.After holding a preliminary enquiry as provided under Chapter Xvi of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Magistrate was satisfied that a prima-facie case under section 406/420 read with section 109 of the Indian Penal Code was established against the respondents.Accordingly, he issued summons against the respondents.Hari Kishan Joshi, one of the accused persons, filed an application for revision before the Sessions Judge, placing for quashing the proceedings initiated by the Magistrate.During the pendency of this revision the Sessions Judge recorded the statement of T.N. Bahl in which he stated that he was taking back his complaint against Hari Kishan Joshi.He also stated that he would take back all the suits and complaints made by him against them including the complaint under the Telegraph Act against Sahib Dayal and that he will be on friendly terms with Joshi in future.On the basis of this statement the Sessions Judge passed the impugned order to the effect that since the parties have patched up their differences and the complainant has withdrawn the complaint, the revision petition before him has become redundant, and it was accordingly rejected.The file be consigned to the record room."(7) The learned counsel for the respondents has urged that the statement made by T. N. Bahl before the learned Sessions Judge should be treated as compounding the offences.
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
112,163,327 |
DATED : 16th JULY, 2019 ORAL JUDGMENT :This appeal is directed against the order dated 25-6-2019 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur in Miscellaneous Criminal Application 670/2019 whereby the application::: Uploaded on - 17/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2019 02:03:45 ::: 2 apeal469.19 preferred by the appellant under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Code) is rejected.::: Uploaded on - 17/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2019 02:03:45 :::The appellant is a Medical Practitioner, aged 72 years.However, the learned Sessions Judge was persuaded to reject the anticipatory bail on an assumption that in the statement dated 27-4-2019 recorded under Section 164 of the Code one child victim had accused the appellant-Medical Practitioner of sexually::: Uploaded on - 17/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2019 02:03:45 ::: 3 apeal469.19 abusing her during the medical examination.::: Uploaded on - 17/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2019 02:03:45 :::When this appeal was argued on the last date of hearing, the learned Senior Counsel Shri Anil Mardikar was at pains to assert that the observation of the learned Sessions Judge is patently erroneous and no child has accused the appellant-Medical Practitioner of sexual misconduct.The order impugned is clearly unsustainable and is set::: Uploaded on - 17/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2019 02:03:45 ::: 4 apeal469.19 aside.The interim order dated 09-7-2019 is confirmed.::: Uploaded on - 17/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2019 02:03:45 :::The appeal is allowed in the afore stated terms.JUDGEadgokar ::: Uploaded on - 17/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2019 02:03:45 :::::: Uploaded on - 17/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2019 02:03:45 :::
|
['Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
11,216,596 |
Heard on the question of admission.Revision is admitted for final hearing.Learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondent/State is put to notice, therefore, no notice after admission is required.Office is directed to requisition the record of the Courts below.Also heard on I.A. No.4770/2016, which is an application for suspension of custodial sentence awarded to the applicant.Applicant stands convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 354-D and 509 of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo S.I. for six months and fine of Rs.500/-for each offence with default stipulations.After having heard learned counsel for the parties and going through the impugned judgment, I am of the opinion that the application for suspension of sentence awarded to the applicant deserves to be allowed.Accordingly, I.A. No.4770/2016, stands allowed and closed.The custodial sentence awarded to the applicant shall remain suspended during the pendency of this revision.Applicant be released from custody subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rs. Thirty Thousand Only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry/Office of this Court on 01.08.2016 and shall continue to do so on all such future dates as may be given in this behalf during the pendency of the matter.Matter be processed to be listed for final hearing in due course of time at its own turn.C.C. on payment of usual charges.(S.K. SETH) JUDGE
|
['Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
14,316,473 |
Shri Gulab Singh, counsel for the respondent no.2/complainant Vijay Shankar Mishra.Heard on I.A.No.15716/2018, an application under Section 320 (2) (5) (9) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for permission to compromise filed on behalf of respondent no.2-Vijay Shankar Mishra.A perusal of record reveals that the petitioners/accused persons are undergoing trial under Section 420 read with section 120-B and Section 409 read with section 120-B of the IPC before the trial Court on a complaint filed on behalf of respondent-Vijay Shankar Mishra.During the course of the trial, parties entered into a compromise outside the Court and moved an application under Section 320 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the trial Court.However, aforesaid application was dismissed by order dated 01.06.2018 on the ground that the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 409 read with section 120- B of the IPC are non-compoundable.Subsequently, petitioners/accused persons moved this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the proceedings in the aforesaid complaint case, on the ground of compromise entered into between the parties.On the direction of this Court, the parties appeared in person before the Registrar Judicial of the High Court, who verified the compromise and after due inquiry and statements recorded a finding to the effect that in his opinion, the parties entered into a compromise without any threat, coercion or inducement and the compromise is voluntary.As such, the proceedings in Sessions Trial No.393/2017 Vijay Shankar Mishra Vs.Ram Prakash Singh is liable to be quashed.Consequently, this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is allowed.2 MCRC-24626-2018 The proceedings pending in the Court of 12th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in Sessions Trial No.393/2017 (State Vs.Ram Prakash Singh and Another) on the private complaint lodged by complainant-Vijay Shankar Mishra, are hereby quashed.(C V SIRPURKAR) JUDGE Digitally signed by Sha SHALINI SINGH LANDGE Date: 2018.10.11 04:12:47
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
143,170,016 |
1 45 017 d C.R.M. 2203 of 2017 In the matter of an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 15.03.2017 in connection with Farakka Police Station Case No. 336 of 2016 dated 28.08.2016 under Section 147/148/149/325/326/307/186/353/ 332/333/338/427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 3/4 E.S.Act, 25/27 of the Arms Act and 8 BNH Act and 3 PDPP Act and 9 MPO Act.Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.(Patherya, J.) (Debi Prosad Dey, J.) 2
|
['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
143,180,375 |
The instant application has been filed u/s 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the entire proceeding as well as summoning order dated 27.10.2016 passed by Judicial Magistrate (J.D.), Hawali, Farrukhabad in Complaint Case No. 996 of 2016 (Km.Sangeeta Vs.Sarvendra Singh), under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Merapur, District Farrukhabad, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate (J.D.), Hawali, Farrukhabad.Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case due to a civil dispute pertaining to sale of land.A criminal case has already been filed by the brother of applicant against the brother of respondent No. 2 regarding occurrence dated 27.7.2015 which has been stayed by the coordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court.
|
['Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 190 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,431,808 |
ORDER R.P. Awasthy, J.By filing the present petition under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code it is being sought that the complaint filed by the non-applicant against the present petitioners be quashed.2. Facts of the case are as below :The petitioners and the non-applicant are partners of a firm.The present non-applicant filed a complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhopal, alleging, inter alia, that the accounts of the said partnership firm used to remain in the custody of petitioner No. 4 who was responsible for maintaining the said accounts.It has been further alleged that from the month of March 1989 petitioners Nos. 1 to 3 in collusion with petitioner No. 4 conspired to commit criminal breach of trust by fraudulently depriving the present non-applicant of his share and earnings of the said firm and usurping amount of the said firm.Thereafter, no amount was paid to the present non-applicant.The said firm obtained payments of rupees four lacs from the Public Health Engineering Department of Bhopal Division and about nine lacs from Rajgarh, Schore, Shajapur, Guna and Raisen but no account of the said payment, was supplied to the present non-applicant.Nevertheless, the present petitioner No. 4 confessed before the witnesses of the complainant/ non-applicant that the said amount had been received by the said firm.It has further been alleged in the said complaint that the said partnership firm possesses the articles detailed in para 4 of the said complaint.The partners of the said firm sold one truck belonging to the said firm.The non-applicant demanded from petitioner No. 4, to give him accounts of the firm but the present petitioners did not give the said accounts of the firm to him.On the other hand, they misbehaved with him and criminally intimidated him.Thus, in spite of repeated demands, the present petitioners were not giving the accounts of the said firm to the present non-applicant.On the said basis, it was alleged by the complainant/present non-applicant that the petitioners have committed offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 380, Indian Penal Code.After recording the statement of the complainant and making an enquiry under Section 203, Criminal Procedure Code, the trial Court registered an offence punishable under Section 380, Indian Penal Code, against the present petitioners.The present petitioners filed a revision petition against the said order which was rejected.
|
['Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
143,202,244 |
Take another example.There is no provision permitting delegation thereof 94 but only a provision entitling superior officers to supervise or participate under Section 551.” (at pages 1156-1158) This statement of the law was reiterated in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mubarak Ali (1959) Supp.It is important to remember that an officer-in-charge of a police station, when he investigates an offence, begins by gathering information, in the course of which he may collect evidence relating to the commission of the offence, which would include search and seizure of things in the course of investigation, to be produced at the trial.In point of fact, Notification S.O. 822(E) issued by the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), dated 14.11.1985, empowered the following officers under section 42 and 67 of the NDPS Act:“S.O. 822(E).-In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (1) of section 42 and section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), the Central Government hereby empowers the officers of and above the rank of Sub-Inspector in the department of Narcotics and of and above the rank of Inspector in the departments of Central Excise, Customs and Revenue Intelligence and in Central Economic Intelligence Bureau and Narcotics Control Bureau to exercise of the powers and perform the duties specified in section 42 within the area of their respective jurisdiction and also authorises the said officers to exercise the powers conferred upon them under section 67.” 95Notification S.O.823(E), also dated 14.11.1985, the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), empowered the following officers under section 53(1) of the NDPS Act:“S.O. 823(E).-In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (1) of section 53 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), the Central Government, after consultation with all the State Governments hereby invests the officers of and above the rank of Inspector in the Departments of Central Excise, Narcotics, Customs and Revenue Intelligence and in Central Economic Intelligence Bureau and Narcotics Control Bureau with the powers specified in sub-section (1) of that section.”These notifications dated 14.11.1985 were superseded by the following notifications issued by the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) on 30.10.2019:“S.O. 3901(E).—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 42 and section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue number S.O. 822(E), dated the 14th November, 1985, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii), except as respects things done or omitted to be done before such supersession the Central Government hereby empowers the officers of and above the rank of sub-inspector in Central Bureau of Narcotics and Junior Intelligence Officer 96 in Narcotics Control Bureau and of and above the rank of inspectors in the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Central Economic Intelligence Bureau to exercise the powers and perform the duties specified in section 42 within the area of their respective jurisdiction and also authorise the said officers to exercise the powers conferred upon them under section 67.” “S.O. 3899(E).—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 53 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985) and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue number S.O. 823(E), dated the 14th November, 1985, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii), except as respects things done or omitted to be done before such supersession, the Central Government after consultation with all the State Governments hereby invests the officers of and above the rank of inspectors in the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, Central Bureau of Narcotics, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Central Economic Intelligence Bureau and of and above the rank of Junior Intelligence Officer in Narcotics Control Bureau with the powers specified in sub-section (1) of that section.”Asearly as in July 1906, Reverend Brent wrote a letter to PresidentRoosevelt expressing his anxiety over the increasing illicit traffic inopium and the necessity of curbing the same.That was followed by aseries of meetings amongst various nations of the world, at regularintervals, leading to the enactment of several Drug Laws in thosenations.An International Convention was held at Hague in 1912, tointer alia regulate the preparation and sale of raw and preparedopium and other derivatives like Morphine and Cocaine etc.In 1920-1923, the Council of the League of Nations, entrustedthe control, manufacture, trade and traffic in drugs inter alia to theAssembly and Council of the League of Nations, the AdvisoryCommittee on the subject relating to traffic in opium and otherdangerous drugs, the Health Committee of the League of Nationsand its Supervisory Body.The Geneva Opium Agreement made elaboraterecommendations in respect, of the problems relating to intake andillicit traffic of opium.The next Convention was held at Geneva in1931 for limiting the manufacture as well as regulating thedistribution of Narcotic drugs.In 1936, another Convention for the 169 suppression of illicit traffic in dangerous drugs was held in Geneva.In 1946, the United Nations established the Commission forNarcotic Drugs as a functional Commission of the Economic and theSocial Council.In 1953, the Commission formulated Protocols forlimiting and regulating the cultivation of opium plant, internationalwhole-sale trade in opium and the use of opium.In 1961 a Single Convention of Narcotic Drugs was adopted bythe United Nations with the objects of: -There are two main enactments on the subject, the NDPS Actand the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and PsychotropicSubstances Act, 1988, hereinafter refered to as the 1988 Act.The NDPS Act consolidated and amended the existing lawsrelating to narcotic drugs, strengthened the existing control over drugabuse, considerably enhanced the punishments particularly fortrafficking offences, made provision for exercising effective controlover psychotropic substances and provided for the implementation ofthe then existing international conventions.The NDPS Act with Chapters I to VIII, comprises 83 sections.Chapter I contains the short title of the Act, definitions of variouswords and expressions used therein and a provision enabling additionto and deletion from the list of psychotropic substances.The Police Act 1949, enacted for the constitution of a generalpolice-district embracing two or more Union Territories, and for theestablishment of a police force therefor, extends the application ofthe Police Act, 1861 to police officers in Union Territories.There are several other statutes such as the Delhi SpecialPolice Establishment Act 1947, enacted to investigate into offencesand/or class of offences notified under the said Act, the CentralReserve Police Act, 1949, the Bombay Police Act 1951, the CalcuttaPolice Act 1866, the Bengal Police Act, 1869, the Madras City PoliceAct 1888, the Assam Rifles Act, the Nagaland Armed Police Act, 1966,to name a few.The powers of an Officer in Charge of a Police Station arenot exhaustively specified in the Cr.P.C. in any specific chapter orany set of provisions grouped together.The duties and powers ofan Officer in Charge of a Police Station are implicit in interspersedprovisions of the Cr.P.C., many of which relate to the duties andpowers of all police officers in general.After hearing arguments from both sides, the Court recorded that the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.152 of 2013 had challenged his conviction primarily on three grounds, as follows:The Himalayan foot hills and the Terrai regions ofNepal produce inter alia ‘cannabis restin’.
|
['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.
|
17,095,827 |
The case of the prosecution is that on 2.2.2013 at about 4.30 p.m when the victim girl aged about 5 years was playing with her friends near to the accused house, the accused sexually assaulted her.This criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant against the Judgment dated 20.04.2016 made in S.C.No.227 of 2014 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge Mahila Court, Salem, for the offence under POCSO Act and also IPC.Therefore, the respondent police registered a case in Crime No.20 of 2013 Under Sections 3 and 4 of POSCO Act, 2012 and under section 366 of IPC.In order to prove the case of the prosecution before the Trial Court P.W.1 to P.W.12 were examined and Ex.1 to Ex.18 were marked and no material objects were marked.One P.Angamuthi was examined on the side of the defence and no documents were marked.The learned Sessions Judge, after adverting to the materials placed on record and after hearing both the parties, by judgment dated 20.04.2016 the accused is found guilty of the offence U/s 3 and 4 of POCSO ACT and convicted Under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C and sentencedhttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default and to under go simple imprisonment for 3 months.Out of fine amount a sum of Rs.9,000/- is ordered to be given to the victim girl as compensation under section 357(1) of Cr.P.c.Aggrieved against the said judgment of conviction, the accused has preferred the present criminal appeal.The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the victim girl was aged about 5 years and except the mother of the victim girl, no body has given any complaint and there is no eyewitness in the case and the children who were playing with the victim girl have not been examined by the investigating officer or before the Trial Court.Therefore, there is a motive between the defacto complainant/ parents of the victim girl and the appellant.Hence, they foisted the false case.The learned Government Advocate(Crl side) states that there is no motive between the appellant and the parents of the victim girl and further states that the victim girl has clearly stated about thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 4 occurrence.PW1 is the mother of the victim girl, who in her evidence has stated that when her daughter reported that her private part is paining, she applied coconut oil and advised the victim girl not to play in the sunlight and handed over her daughter to her grand mother and went to job.The doctor also in his evidence stated that the victim girl complained about the pain in the private part.He would further submit that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and prays to dismiss this appeal.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.The prosecution in order to prove the case, examined P.W.4/Kannan who clearly deposed that even though the appellant put a thatched house in the lane between the appellant and the house of the victim girl, alleged previous enmity between them was proved by the defence and no parents will foist a false case against the appellant by sacrificing the future of female child.The Victim girl was aged about 4-5http://www.judis.nic.in 5 years and at the time of occurrence, she did not know the intricacies and trickeries of the world.10. P.W.1 Kala, mother of the victim girl in her evidence deposed that her daughter Naveena was siting near by house and weeping and when she enquired about the reason for her weeping she reported her private part is paining.Hence, she thought that it would be due to heat, and she adviced the victim girl as don't play in the sunlight and applied some coconut oil on her head and abdomen and rubbed and advised her not to play in the sunlight and handed over her daughter to her grand mother Seerangayee and went to job.After finishing her work she came at 6.00 p.m and grand mother of the victim girl reported that child was still weeping and when she enquired her child, she told that when she was playing in the street with her friends the appellant called her to his home and pinched her private part and it was still paining.P.W.7 Dr.Dineshkumar in his evidence stated that on examination of the victim girl it shows ulcer in the vicinity of vaginal infile and referred to Salem Hospital for expert opinion.http://www.judis.nic.in 6Though the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there was a motive between the defacto complainant and the appellant, P.W.3 has clearly stated that the victim girl was crying and said that her private part is paining due to the illegal act of the accused.On reading of the evidences adduced by P.W.6,7 and 8 and also the A.R. Copy of Edapaddy Government Hospital of the victim girl,it reveals that the appellant has used his finger and due to which the private part of the victim girl is paining.14. D.W.1 in her witness stated that there was a dispute between the parents of the victim girl and the appellant and the same is not proved with manner known to law, hence the same is not acceptable.Therefore, it is clear that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.This Court does not find any sound ground to take a differenthttp://www.judis.nic.in 7 view in the present case on hand.For the offence under the POCSO Act, the accused should be punished with heavy terms of imprisonment, in order to give effective implementation to the Act.There is no merit in the present criminal appeal and hence the appeal is dismissed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.23.04.2019 smn Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No To The Sessions Judge Mahila Court, Salemhttp://www.judis.nic.in 8 P.VELMURUGAN, J., smn Crl.M.P.No.4996 of 2016
|
['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
170,961,238 |
rrc W. P. 30150 (W) of 2015 [Lakshman Thakur Vs.The Principal Secretary (Home Police) & Ors.] Ms. Kakali Samajpati ......For the petitioner Mr. Amitesh Banerjee .......For the State Report of the Superintendent of Police, Hooghly dated 2nd March, 2016 filed by Mr. Banerjee, learned senior Government advocate for the State shall be retained with the records.It appears therefrom that investigation of Chandannagar PS F.I.R. No. 259/15 dated 20th December, 2015 under Sections 498A/306, Indian Penal Code has resulted in submission of charge-sheet vide Chandannagar PS C.S. No. 23 of 2016 dated 22nd February, 2016 under Sections 498A/306/406, Indian Penal Code.It also appears that departmental proceedings have been initiated against the erring police officer i.e. S.I. Kishore Sinha Chaudhury for delayed registration of the F.I.R. despite the statutory mandate, orders passed by the Supreme Court as well as this Bench on the necessity of prompt registration of F.I.R. upon receipt of complaints disclosing cognizable offence as well as an order passed by the relevant magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure upon being approached by the petitioner.( Dipankar Datta, J. )
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
17,096,208 |
They were running a jewelery shop, by name, 'Sivagiri Thanga Maligai at Perumanallur Road, Tirupur.A1 and A2 are friends.A1 was working as a cashier in a hotel at Tirupur.Both A1 and A2 conspired together to steal jewels from the above said jewelery shop.In furtherance of the above conspiracy, on 23.12.2005, at about 11.00 a.m., both the accused went to the jewelery shop of the deceased and placed an order for a baby chain and paid an advance of Rs.100/- for the same.On the next date, on 24.12.2005, at about 9.30 a.m., both the accused went to the jewelery shop.When the deceased went into the store room to get the chain, which was ordered by the accused, A2 followed him and went into the room and A1 was sitting in front of P.W.1, who was an employee in the jewelery shop.Since the deceased did not come back from the store room, P.W.1 went into the storeroom and found the deceased dead with cut injuries.A1 and A2 stolen the jewels from the shop at knife point and A1 threatened P.W.1 and they closed the door and ran away.On the alarm raised by P.W.1, the neighbouring shop owners came there and they informed the occurrence to the police.Then, the respondent police came to the scene of occurrence and recorded the statement of P.W.1(Ex.P.1).3. P.W.18, Sub Inspector of Police, attached to the Perunamanllur Police Station, recorded the statement of P.W.1 and based on the same, he registered a case in Crime No.583 of 2005 for the offences under Sections 302 and 380 IPC.Then, he forwarded the First Information Report, Ex.P.W.20, Inspector of Police, on receipt of the First Information Report, proceeded to the scene of occurrence and prepared an Observation Mahazar(Ex.P.2) and a rough sketch (Ex.P.19) in the presence of P.W.4 and another witness.He recovered bloodstained broken pieces of kuthuvilakku(M.O.12) and blood stained earth(M.O.13).Then, he sent for finger print expert and also sniffer dog.P.W.8, Scientific Officer, working in the Forensic Department, collected blood swab from the iron bureau(M.O.14), hair with blood on the bottom portion of Kuthuvilakku(M.O.16) from the scene of occurrence.At about 1.15 p.m., P.W.20 conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased, in the presence of panchayathars and prepared an Inquest Report, Ex.P.W.20 sent the dead body for autopsy to the Government Hospital, Tiruppur, through P.W.19, Head Constable.J) A2 in Sessions Case No.145 of 2008, on the file of the Fast Track Court No.V, Coimbatore at Tirupur, is the appellant herein.He, along with another accused stood charged for offences under sections 120-B, 302 and 394 r/w. 397 IPC.After trial, by judgement dated 11.06.2009, the trial Court convicted both the accused under all the above charges and sentenced each of them to undergo Imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 120-B(1) IPC and sentenced to undergo another imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 IPC and for the offence under Section 394 r/w.397 IPC, the trial Court sentenced the accused to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo imprisonment for six months.The trial Court ordered the sentences to run concurrently.7. P.W.21, continued the investigation and on 05.12.2007, he arrested A1 near Pooluvapatti Road, Peruvanallur.Based on the disclosure statement of A1, P.W.21 recovered a knife.He also recovered the stolen jewels from one Mahalakshmi Finance at Tiruppur.A2 also voluntarily gave a confession and based on his disclosure statement, P.W.21 recovered a knife and also jewels, which were sold to KRC jewelers, South Avani Street, Madurai.Then, P.W.21 recorded the statements of some other witnesses.After completing investigation, P.W.21 laid charge sheet against the accused.Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed charges as detailed above and the accused denied the same.In order to prove the case of prosecution, as many as 21 witnesses were examined and 23 documents were exhibited, besides 23 material objects .Out of the witnesses examined, P.W.1 is the employee working in the jewelery shop of the deceased.She is also an eyewitness to the occurrence.and even after 10 minutes, as the deceased did not come out of the store room, she went into the room and saw the deceased dead with cut injuries and both A1 and A2 had stolen all the jewels from the shop at knife point and threatening her and ran away in a motorcycle and on the alarm raised, persons from the neighbouring shops came and they informed about the incident to the police and the police recorded her statement and registered a case.He has given all the details about the stolen jewels and also identified the jewels recovered on the confession of the accused.P.W.3 is the neighbouring shop owner of the deceased shop.His evidence has no substance.P.W.4 is a Village Administrative Officer.He is a witness to the Observation Mahazar.The evidence of P.W.5 has also no substance.P.W.6 is the Judicial Magistrate, Avinashi.He has deposed that he conducted test identification parade, where P.W.1 identified both the accused.P.W.7 is the Doctor who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and gave postmortem certificate(Ex.P.8) and also gave opinion with regard to the cause of death.P.W.8, Scientific Officer, has stated that on th request made by the investigation officer, he collected blood swab and hair from the scene of occurrence.P.W.9 is a Village Administrative Officer.He is a witness to the arrest of A1 and A2 and the confession statement given by them.He is also a witness to the recovery of the stolen jewels.11. P.Ws.10 to 13 have turned hostile.P.W.14, Head Constable, working in the Sniffer Dog Division of the Police Department, has stated that though Sniffer dogs were engaged, no clue was obtained.P.W.15, Head Constable,has stated that he submitted the First Information Report before the Judicial Magistrate Court.P.Ws.16 and 17, Gold smith, who were making jewels for the jewelery shop of the deceased, have stated that they put specific mark in the jewels, which they manufactured for the deceased.They have also identified the jewels made by them on the orders given by the deceased.P.W.18 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, who recorded the statement of P.W.1 and registered the complaint.P.W.19 is the Head Constable who accompanied the dead body of the deceased to Government Hospital, Tiruppur and identified the dead body for postmortem.P.W.21 has deposed that he arrested the accused and based on the disclosure statements, he recovered the jewels and after completion of investigation, he laid charge sheet against the accused.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the same as false.However, they did not choose to examine any witness or mark any documents.Having considered all the above, the Trial Court convicted the accused for the offences as stated in first paragraph of this judgement.Challenging the above conviction and sentence, the appellant/A2 is before this Court.We have heard Mr.S.Samuel Raja Pandian, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.E.Raja, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and we have also perused the records carefully.It is his further submission that P.W.2 has also not identified the jewels, which were recovered based on the confession of the accused and the recovery was also not proved by the prosecution.In this case, A1 and A2 were arrested after 2 years from the date of occurrence, and hence, the alleged recovery based on the disclosure statement also cannot be believed.Apart from that, he submitted that the test identification parade was also not properly conducted by the prosecution.With the above contention, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused and sought for allowing the appeal.Apart from that, only based on the disclosure statements of the accused, jewels were recovered and the stolen jewels were also properly identified by P.W.2, who is father of the deceased.He would further submit that already A1 in this case filed an appeal challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on him in Crl.A.No.376 of 2009 and wherein, he raised the same contentions and a Division Bench of this Court had negatived the contention of A1, and dismissed the appeal by judgment dated 28.10.2009 and since A2 is also similarly placed, this appeal is also liable to be dismissed.We have considered the rival submissions and perused the records carefully.It is her further evidence that after 10 minutes, when she went into the store room, she found the deceased dead and A1 was sitting infront of her and also threatened her with knife and then, both A1 and A2 stolen the jewels and went away in a motorcycle.P.W.1has also identified both the accused in the test identification parade.Report on the Identification Parade has been marked as Ex.Hence, there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.1, who was alone in the shop, along with the deceased at the time of occurrence.On such arrest, they have voluntarily given confessions and based on the disclosure statements, stolen jewels of 60 sovereigns were recovered.The above jewels have also been identified by P.W.2, who is the father of the deceased.Hence, in our considered view, the prosecution has proved the chain of circumstances unerringly pointing the guilt of the accused and we find no merit in the appeal and it is liable to be dismissed.Further more, in the appeal filed by A1 in Crl.A.No.376 of 2009, challenging the very same judgment of the trial court, a Division Bench of this Court, by judgment dated 28.10.2009 has held as follows :In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the lower court was right in ending in conviction against A1 and A2 n the charges framed against them.The appellant/A1 who had also participated with A2 who committed murder in the said occurrence had hatched the conspiracy of committing such murder and theft of jewels from the said shop could be inferred through the circumstances of the case.The accused A1 and A2 wo visited the shop belonging to the deceased person for giving an order for baby ring was established through Ex.Subsequent visiting of A1 and A2 on the next day to the shop belonging to the deceased and commission of murder of the deceased by A2 with active collusion of A1 with knife on hand would automatically put the A1 landing in the crime of conspiracy to commit murder and the appellant/A1 cannot be freed from the charges framed against them.In the above circumstances, the appeal fails and consequently liable to be dismissed.In the result, the Criminal Appeal fails and accordingly, the same is dismissed.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
170,962,589 |
The 2nd respondent is the original complainant.The 2nd respondent alleged in this First Information Report (for short, "F.I.R.") that he is an ordinary resident of Pune.He is ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 01:37:40 ::: vikrant 4/56 906APL-673-2016+1.odt serving in the Department of Technical Education.At the time of registration of F.I.R., he was posted at the Government Distance Education Institute, Shivaji Nagar, Pune.Prior to that, he was posted in the Government College of Pharmacy at Karad as a storekeeper.In the year 2007-2008, one Mr. Satish Bhise and Mr. Kishor Burade belonging to Brahmin and non scheduled caste respectively, were posted at this College at Karad.The complainant-2nd respondent belongs to Mahar community.This fact is known to both Mr. Bhise and Mr. Burade.It is alleged that Mr. Bhise and Mr. Burade colluded with each other and communicated some information which was false and mischievous with regard to the conduct of the complainant.They have, therefore, caused an injury to him.The information that was communicated by these persons in the form of remarks, was made known to the complainant.The 'Statement of Objects and Reasons' to the Act 33 of 1989 reads thus:"Despite various measures to improve the socio-economic conditions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, they remain vulnerable.They are denied number of civil rights.They are subjected to various offences, indignities, humiliations and harassment.1. Rule.By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally at the admission stage itself.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 01:37:40 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 01:37:40 :::vikrant 3/56 906APL-673-2016+1.odtThese two Applications were heard together and as common arguments were canvassed and common issues raised, we dispose of the same by this judgment.We take the facts from Criminal Application No. 1015 of 2016 for convenience.The applicant therein is an Indian citizen and was serving as Director of Technical Education when this Application was filed.He is the original accused in C.R. No.164 of 2016 registered at City Police Station, Karad for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(ix), 3(2)(vi) and 3(2)(vii) of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, "the Atrocities Act"), as also Sections 182, 192, 193, 203 and 219 read with 34 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, "I.P.C.").The confidential letter dated 26 th August, 2008 from the Joint Director of Technical Education, Divisional Office, Pune apprised the complainant of these remarks.Therefore, the complainant addressed a letter to Joint Director and simultaneously, on 19th September, 2009, approached the Karad Police Station.Then, he narrated the nature of the ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 01:37:40 ::: vikrant 5/56 906APL-673-2016+1.odt information communicated by Mr. Bhise and Mr. Burade.He states that the annual confidential report of the complainant for the year 2007-2008 contained these remarks (information).These remarks, according to the complainant, are that he is in the habit of making false complaints, that he does not deserve any promotion, that he requires more and extensive training, that he is not fit to work at the regional level.These remarks, according to the complainant, are false and mischievous and entered in his annual confidential report so as to cause injury to him.As far as Mr. Kishor Burade is concerned, in the same year, he has reported that the complainant's integrity and character is not good.Rather, he is lacking on both counts.This is also a false and frivolous remark and entered in the annual confidential report so as to cause insult and injury to the complainant.It is alleged by the complainant that the said remarks were false has now been proved and established.It is alleged that both of them deliberately and in connivance and collusion with each other, entered and communicated these remarks so as to cause injury to the complainant.Both Mr. Bhise and Mr. Burade are Government ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 01:37:40 ::: vikrant 6/56 906APL-673-2016+1.odt Servants.That is how they are allegedly guilty of the offence punishable under the Atrocities Act.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 01:37:40 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 01:37:40 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 01:37:40 :::The complainant then elaborates as to how, when such adverse remarks were communicated to him, he made a representation and which was accepted.The complainant has got his statement recorded pursuant to which the F.I.R. has been registered.He has submitted all the official documents in relation thereto.The present Application has been filed to quash another F.I.R. in C.R. No. 164 of 2016 dated 28th March, 2016 registered at that very Police Station.We referred to the earlier C.R. and its contents only with a view to appreciate the contentions raised before us by the applicant in Criminal Application No. 1015 of 2016, namely, Dr. Subhash Mahajan.As far as the subject F.I.R. is concerned, the complainant is the same.He refers to the earlier complaint against Mr. Bhise and Mr. Burade.He says that after that complaint was registered, the ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 01:37:40 ::: vikrant 7/56 906APL-673-2016+1.odt prosecution was of the opinion that since the accused are Government servants, for prosecuting them, sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. would have to be obtained.This sanction will have to be obtained prior to the charge sheet being filed.That is why the prosecution applied for such sanction.The prosecution proceeded on the footing that the competent authority is the Director of Technical Education, Divisional Office, Pune.That is why, the papers were forwarded to the said office.At that time, the present applicant was the In-charge Director.The present applicant is also not belonging to Scheduled Caste, but is a member of Leva Patil community.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 01:37:40 :::The allegations are that despite being aware of the legal position that the accused Bhise and Burade are Class-I Officers and in the service of the State Government and a Sanction to prosecute them would have to be granted by the State Government, the applicant-accused proceeded as if he is the sanctioning or the competent authority.He has not provided the requisite information about the power to grant such sanction and deliberately.The power to grant such sanction is not vesting in ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 01:37:40 ::: vikrant 8/56 906APL-673-2016+1.odt this Director In-charge.Yet he has addressed a communication so as to shield and protect Mr. Bhise and Mr. Burade, acting in connivance and collusion with them.The intent on the part of the applicant was to save both Mr. Bhise and Mr. Burade from criminal legal proceedings and the probable punishment.This resulted in a "C" Summary Report being filed against both accused in the competent Criminal Court.The complainant has alleged as to how systematically there was an attempt made to shield and protect Mr. Burade and Mr. Bhise from criminal prosecution and the present applicant, acting in connivance and collusion with them, committed the aforesaid acts.There is a further elaboration in that regard in the statement pursuant to which the said F.I.R. of ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 01:37:40 ::: vikrant 9/56 906APL-673-2016+1.odt 2016 has been recorded.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 01:37:40 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 01:37:40 :::It is this F.I.R. which is sought to be quashed by means of this Application and invoking the power of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. On 13th January, 2017, this Application was placed before a Division Bench of this Court.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, on instructions of the concerned Police Officer present on that date, made a statement that the charge sheet will not be filed against the applicant till the next date.However, the papers were again produced on 1st March, 2017 and the Division Bench passed the following order."Not on Board.Taken on Board.No order."However, subsequently, the date was preponed by consent of parties.A copy of this Application has been served on both, the State/prosecution and the complainant.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 01:37:40 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 01:37:40 :::vikrant 10/56 906APL-673-2016+In that affidavit, the complainant-respondent no.2 states that it is true that he made a complaint against Mr. Satish Bhise and Mr. Kishor Burade.That was for the purpose of prosecuting these officers for the offences with which they have been charged by him and referred by us hereinabove.The complainant states that for the purpose of prosecuting them, sanction under Section 197(1) of Cr.P.C. was required.That letter was written to the applicant Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan, who, at the relevant time, was working as In-charge Director of Technical Education, Maharashtra State, Mumbai.The complainant then refers to the Government Resolution dated 22nd December, 2006, issued by the Home Department of the Government of Maharashtra.He also referred to a corrigendum dated 10 th January, 2007 to this Resolution.The allegation then is that in the light of this Resolution and the corrigendum, it was necessary for the applicant to refer the application seeking sanction to the State Government.However, ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 01:37:40 ::: vikrant 11/56 906APL-673-2016+1.odt instead of referring this matter to the State Government, the applicant suo motu decided to reject the said application.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 01:37:40 :::Then, the complainant reiterates his allegations and with reference to the relevant statutory provisions and the documents which he had produced at the time of registration of the F.I.R.He denies that this F.I.R. registered on 28th March, 2016 and the earlier F.I.R. of 2009 can be said to be identical.The role and involvement of the applicant in this Application, which is elaborated in F.I.R. of 2016, may be registered at the same Police Station, is different and distinct.He has been accused of an offence and which is clearly spelt out by the Atrocities Act and the I.P.C. The attempt, therefore, to link these two F.I.Rs., and to contend that for the same act of omission or commission, two F.I.Rs. cannot be registered, is an erroneous and frivolous plea.That is how in this affidavit, he has endeavoured to point out this ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 01:37:40 ::: vikrant 12/56 906APL-673-2016+1.odt distinction.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 01:37:40 :::These adverse remarks have been entered knowingly.Such false and frivolous remarks being deleted, there was no justification for the applicant Dr. Mahajan to protect and shield the other two accused, namely Bhise and Burade.With a view to shield and protect them from criminal prosecution and the ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 01:37:40 ::: vikrant 13/56 906APL-673-2016+1.odt probable punishment, he has committed the alleged acts which amount to an offence punishable under both statutes.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 01:37:40 :::It is, therefore, the complainant's contention that the application be dismissed.He has taken us through the present Application and all the annexures thereto.The complainant, according to Mr. Kumbhakoni, has indulged in acts which would demonstrate as to how he has been avoiding work and has made no endeavour to improve his performance.The remarks were entered in the annual confidential reports during the course of official duties.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 01:37:40 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 01:37:40 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 01:37:40 :::vikrant 15/56 906APL-673-2016+Mr. Kumbhakoni submits that the Section presupposes that whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, gives any false or frivolous information to any public servant and thereby causes such public servant to use his lawful power to the injury or annoyance of a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, shall be punishable for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years and with fine.In the present case, the applicant was performing an official duty.A request was made by the Police machinery to grant sanction to prosecute Mr. Bhise and Mr. Burade.That was the application which was forwarded to the office of the Joint Director (Divisional Office), Technical Education Department, Government of Maharashtra.The applicant, at the relevant time, was the Director In-charge of this Department of Technical Education.He, therefore, acting on the premise that he is the competent authority to grant or refuse sanction, passed an administrative order in exercise of his administrative powers and refused sanction.The complainant himself alleges that this was an order and passed by the applicant.Once, he alleges so, then, there is no offence which can be said to be committed within the ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 01:37:40 ::: vikrant 16/56 906APL-673-2016+1.odt meaning of this provision.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 01:37:40 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 01:37:40 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 01:37:40 :::Even the applicant has a grudge against the complainant.However, we are called upon to go into a larger question and posed for our consideration by Dr. Mahajan.Before we proceed to analyze and interpret the relevant provisions, we must at once clarify that we were hesitant to enter into this issue and at this stage.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 01:37:40 :::Then, what is stated is that on 17th December, 2016, the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Karad rejected the prayer for grant of "C" Summary in F.I.R. No. 3122 of 2009 and directed the Investigating Officer to re-investigate the case, apply for sanction under Section 197(1) of the Cr.P.C. and then submit a report.Annexure R-2 is the copy of this order dated 17 th December 2016 of the trial Court.The Act has now been extensively amended.The normal provisions of the existing laws like the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 and the Indian Penal Code have been found to be inadequate to check these atrocities.Under these circumstances, it was found necessary to enact a special legislation to check and deter crimes against the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.To achieve this objective, a Bill was introduced in the Parliament, i.e. "The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Bill".::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 01:37:40 :::They have, in several brutal incidents, been deprived of their life and property.Serious crimes are committed against them for various historical, social and economic reasons.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 01:37:40 :::When they assert their rights and resist practices of untouchability against them or demand statutory minimum wages or refuse to do any bonded and forced labour, the vested interests try to cow them down and terrorise them.When the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes try to preserve their self-respect or honour of their women, they become irritants for the dominant and the mighty.Occupation and cultivation of even the Government allotted land by the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes is resented and more often these people become victims of attacks by the vested interests.Of late, there has been an increase in the disturbing trend of commission of certain atrocities like making the Scheduled Caste persons eat inedible substances like human excreta and attacks on and mass killings of helpless Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes and rape of women belonging to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes.Under the circumstances, the existing laws like the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 and the normal provisions of the Indian Penal Code have been found to be inadequate to check these crimes.A special Legislation to check and deter crimes against them committed by non-Scheduled Castes and non-Scheduled Tribes has, therefore, become necessary.The term 'atrocity' has not been defined so far.It is considered necessary that not only the term 'atrocity' should be defined but stringent measures should be introduced to provide for higher punishments for committing such atrocities.It is also proposed to enjoining on the States and the Union Territories to take specific preventive and punitive measures to protect the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes from being victimised and where atrocities are committed, to provide adequate relief and assistance to rehabilitate them.The Bill seeks to achieve the above objects."::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 01:37:40 :::7. ......8. ......9. ......::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 01:37:40 :::Sections 3 to 7 of the said Act prescribed punishments for enforcing religious, social and any other kind of disabilities on the ground of untouchability.There were several complaints from various quarters of the society about the lacunae and loopholes in the said Act. Several amendments were made to the said Act which was rechristened as the 'Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955'.In spite of a major overhaul, it was noticed that the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 and the Indian Penal Code, 1860 were inadequate to check the atrocities committed on Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.The fact that the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes remained a vulnerable group in spite of the introduction of several measures to improve their socio- economic condition was a matter of deep concern to Parliament.Parliament acknowledged that the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes were subject to various offences, indignities, humiliations and harassments perpetually.Numerous incidents of brutalities and atrocities depriving the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes of their life and property were a cause of concern for the Parliament.The Preamble to the Act reads as under:"An Act to prevent the commission of offences of atrocities against the members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, to provide for special courts for the trial of such offences and for the relief and rehabilitation of the victims of such offences and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto."::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 01:37:40 :::vikrant 36/56 906APL-673-2016+The Act also provides protection to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes for various atrocities affecting social disabilities, properties, malicious prosecution, political rights and economic exploitation.Thus, the authorities ought to encourage the officials working under them and the superior officers have, therefore, been entrusted with a public duty so as not to discourage, unduly harass and completely demoralize those reporting to and working under them.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 01:37:40 :::Keeping this backdrop as well in mind, if we peruse what are essentially projected before us, namely, two clauses, Clause(vi) and Clause (vii) of Sub-section (2) of Section 3, then, it is ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 01:37:40 ::: vikrant 42/56 906APL-673-2016+1.odt evident that they advance or carry forward the object of the legislation.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 01:37:40 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 01:37:40 :::The complainant has also relied upon several documents to support his allegations.That was in order to shield and protect these officers.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 01:37:41 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 01:37:41 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 01:37:41 :::As a result of the above ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 01:37:41 ::: vikrant 54/56 906APL-673-2016+1.odt discussion, we dismiss both the Criminal Applications."1. Not on board.Taken on board.No.3122 of 2009 registered with Karad City Police Station and 'C' Summary Report submitted by the investigating officer.The learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant on instructions ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 01:37:41 ::: vikrant 55/56 906APL-673-2016+1.odt states that there is no final order passed on the said Report.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 01:37:41 :::It appears that 2nd Respondent/Complainant filed an objection in writing on 2nd April 2016 to the report claiming 'C' Summary.An order is passed by the learned Judge on the said objection recording that recently second FIR is registered in connection with the same crime.Prima facie it appears that the said F.I.R. is based on the same incident.In the circumstances, the request as made by Mr. Shetye is refused.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 01:37:41 :::(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.) (S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 01:37:41 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 01:37:41 :::
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
170,968 |
JUDGMENT S.P. Kukday, J.Rule, made returnable forthwith with consent of parties.Heard both sides.During that period, she was taking education and was appearing for the examination of 3rd year B.E. (Electronics) at Pune.After the marriage, her husband and other petitioners were demanding forty tolas of gold, Scorpio car, furniture, etc. The demands could not be satisfied by parents of respondent No. 2, therefore, respondent No. 2 was subjected to ill-treatment.When she could no longer endure ill-treatment, respondent No. 2 left her matrimonial house on 17.7.2005 and started living with her parents.She then filed a complaint against the petitioners with City Chowk Police on 11.7.2005, on the basis of which, offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 506 read Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, was registered.The present petition is filed for quashing this F.I.R.During pendency of the petition, there was settlement between the parties.Section 498A was added with a view to punishing a husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry.The hyper-technical view would be counter productive and would act against interests of women and against the object for which this provision was added.
|
['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.
|
1,709,746 |
It will be sufficient to quote the following paragraph "Whereas, said Shri Dharamvir Singh, Dy.Director (Horticulture) did not take any action on the aforementioned reports submitted by Shri Surender Singh, S.O. he has taken action on similar reports submitted by Surender Singh, S.O. In the matters relating to the contracts executed by other contractors during the same period.These reports include (i) Page 81 dated 6.3.2003 in respect of tree plantation work executed by M/s Pragati Traders - seen & signed by Shri Dharamvir Singh, DD (H) on 6.3.2003 itself, i.e. on the same date when the reports in respect of three works executed by M/s P.K. Traders were simultaneously submitted to DD (H) by Shri Surender Singh, S.O. (ii) at page 85 on 22.4.2003 in respect of tree-plantation work executed by M/s Pragati Traders - seen and signed by Shri Dharamvir Singh, Dy.Director (Horticulture) on 22.4.2003 and (iii) at page 86 on 22.4.2003 in respect of supply of flowers, garlands etc. by M/s P.K. Traders - seen and signed by Shri Dharamvir Singh, Dy.Director (Horticulture) on 22.4.2003 itself - i.e. on the dates subsequent to submission of the reports in respect of four contracts executed by M/s P.K. Traders.Whereas, consequent to apprehension of Shri Surinder Singh, SO on 9.5.2003 while demanding and accepting bribe of Rs.40,000/- from Shri Pankaj Tyagi of M/s P.K. Traders, Shri Dharamvir Singh, Dy.Director (Horticulture) recorded four different notes on 12.5.2003, belatedly, in the margin on pages 82, 83 & 84 of the aforementioned Measurement Book of Shri Surender Singh, S.O. to the effect that the work was not completed by the contractor.Letters/Notices to this effect were also sent on 12.5.2003 by Shri Dharamvir Singh, DD(H) to M/s.P.K.Traders, office copies of which are available in the respective files of the aforementioned four contracts.JUDGMENT Manju Goel, J.The petitioner has come up in revision against this order.The complainant a work contractor of the Municipal Corporation Delhi (MCD) submitted bills of payment which were lying with Surender Singh, Section Officer.Surender Singh is the principal accused in this case who demanded bribe for himself as well as for the petitioner, Deputy Director of Horticulture (DDH) for clearing those bills.The complaint is that when the complainant went to the petitioner and told him that Surender Singh had demanded a bribe on his behalf also, the petitioner stated that the complainant should go by the advise of Surender Singh because he was the person to pass the bills as he was the SO.Eventually the case RCNo.2(A)/2003/CBI/ACU-II was registered and a trap was laid.80 notes of Rs.500/- denomination amounting to Rs.40,000/- was produced by the complainant which were treated with phenolphthalein powder and the same notes were given to Surinder Singh at the gate of the MCD Building at Rajpur Road.A shadow witness heard the conversation of demand and payment.Surinder Singh was caught red-handed.The investigation proceeded in the usual way of obtaining the hand-wash of Surinder Singh to establish the Chemical test and the notes had been received by him.Investigation revealed that the petitioner did not take any action on the reports submitted by Surinder Singh in respect of the progress in the work contract awarded to the complainant although in matters relating to other matters action had been taken by him.After apprehension of Surinder Singh, the petitioner recorded four different notes on the measurement book of Surinder Singh to the effect that work was not completed by the complainant.The notes had been appended after the book had been closed on 21.4.2003 and thus it revealed the attempt on the part of the petitioner to escape his liability.The investigation inter alia recovered a slip written by Surinder Singh on which he had indicated the share of DD(H) to the extent of Rs.75,000/-.The petitioner raises the following pleas in support of his demand for discharge(a) the sanction for prosecution of the petitioner was once denied but the competent authority has reviewed its orders and has granted sanction without any additional material and therefore the sanction itself was bad.(c) the petitioner never demanded any bribe for himself and if the principal accused demanded bribe in his name he could not be charged u/s 7 and Section 13(2)(i) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.Apart from these, the petitioner has pointed out further shortcomings in the prosecution case namely:(a) the statement of principal accused was not recorded after he was trapped(b) the case of the complainant that bills worth Rs.7,50,000 was due was itself absurd because the contract given to him was only worth Rs.5,68,824/-(c) original bills were not recovered at all by the investigation.The first thing to be examined is whether there is a valid sanction to prosecute the petitioner.The letter dated 2.7.2003 in respect of sanction for prosecution of the petitioner is as under:"The entire matter was placed before the Commissioner/MCD for considering to accord sanction for prosecution in respect of Sh.Dharamveer Singh, Deputy Director (Hort.), who observed that merely levelling allegation upon Sh.Dharamveer Singh by Sh.Surender Singh that he demanded and accepted the bribe on behalf of Sh.Dharamveer is not a sufficient reason for giving prosecution sanction against Sh.If the CBI has any specific evidence about the involvement of Sh.Dharamveer in the present case, they may be requested to inform us about the same."Subsequent thereto, the CBI addressed the letter dated 7th July, 2003 to the Commissioner of MCD giving further details of facts required for sanction to prosecute the petitioner.The competent authority thereafter issued the sanction order in respect of the petitioner.In this sanction order details of evidence examined by the sanctioning authority for granting sanction against Dharamveer Singh have been mentioned.In fact, as per the rubber stamp affixed on page No.84 as also on page 3 of the Index of this Measurement Book, this Measurement Book was closed as on 21.4.2003 under signatures of Shri Ramesh Kumar, AE (QC) and hence, recording of the aforementioned belated notes on 12.5.2003 reveals an attempt on the part of Shri Dharamvir Singh, DD(H) to escape his liability and as such reflect guilt complex on his part.Whereas, final action in respect of the aforementioned 4 contracts awarded to M/s. P.K.Traders were kept pending by Shri Surender Singh, S.O. (H) and Shri Dharamvir Singh, Dy.Director (Horticulture), bribe of Rs.75,000/- each for himself and Shri Dharamvir Singh, Dy.There is on record a slip written by Shri Surender Singh, S.O. which was given by him to the complainant, on which he had made a rough quantification of the value of contracts executed by the complainant in respect of which, the payments were pending and also on which slip Shri Surender Singh and had also indicated about the share of Dy.Director (Horticulture) to the extent of Rs.75,000/-.The contents of this slip are reproduced as under:-Whereas on 9.5.2003, Shri Pankaj Tyagi of M/s P.K. Traders, who did not want to pay the demanded bribe lodged a complaint with CBI, consequent to which Shri Surender Singh, S.O.(H) was caught red handed by CBI officers on 9.5.2003, in presence of independent witnesses, near MCD office at 16, Rajpur Road, Delhi while demanding and accepting the bribe of Rs.40,000/- from the said Shri Pankaj Tyagi.Whereas, it was incumbent upon the said Shri Dharamvir Singh to conduct checks on the works allotted to private contractors for ensuring correct completion thereof, no such checks were conducted by him in respect of 4 contracts awarded to M/s P.K. Traders during January/February 2003, within the period prescribed for completion.Whereas Dy.Director (Horticulture), Civil Lines Zone of MCD, Delhi and the said Shri Dharamvir Singh was the authority competent to accept the aspect of completion of work in respect of the captioned 4 contracts awarded by him to M/s P.K. Traders, after due certification to the said effect by Shri Surender Singh, S.O. And where after the process for payment in respect of these contracts could have been initiated/completed.Whereas instead of taking such action as he was duty bound to take, the conspiracy with Shri Surender Singh, Section Officer (Horticulture)in furtherance to which the payment action in respect of the captioned 4 contracts executed by M/s P.K. Traders, were kept pending awaiting fulfillment of their demand for bribe, as made to Shri Pankaj Tyagi of P.K. Traders, as aforementioned.And whereas, the aforesaid acts of accused Shri Dharamvir Singh, Dy.Director (Horticulture), MCD, Civil Lines Zone, Delhi constitute offences punishable under section 120B IPC r/w Section 7 and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988 and substantive offences thereof.Therefore, I, Rakesh Mehta, Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi being the authority competent to remove the said Shri Dharamvir Singh from service, after fully and carefully examining the material placed before me in regard to the said allegation and circumstances, including the documents and statements of witnesses, as have come on record during the investigation, consider that the said Shri Dharamvir Singh should be prosecuted in the Court of Law for the offences u/s 120B IPC r/w Sec. 7 and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act 1988 and for any other offence made out of the said allegations.Now, therefore, I, Rakesh Mehta, Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi do hereby accord sanction u/s 19(1)(c) of PC Act, 1988 for prosecution of said Shri Dharamvir Singh for the said offences and other offences punishable under other provisions of law in respect of aforesaid acts and for taking cognizance of said offences by the Court of competent jurisdiction."By the letter dated 2.7.2003, the sanction was not exactly declined.The letter only calls for more details in respect of the facts discovered by the investigation vis-a-vis the petitioner.It shows that the sanctioning authority has duly applied its mind and has found that a mere allegation that the principal accused had demanded bribe not only for himself but also for the petitioner would not be sufficient to sanction prosecution against the petitioner.At that time there was nothing other than this alleged statement of Surender Singh naming the petitioner as one of his accomplices.The prosecution has evidence over and above, the alleged statement of Surender Singh.So far as the piece of paper containing the entry of "DDH 75000" is concerned, the same is said to have been written by the principal accused to indicate that the DDH that is the petitioner was also required to be paid Rs.75,000/-.Further the prosecution may be required to explain how the complainant could submit a bill of Rs.7,50,000/- although the contract was for Rs.5,68,824/-.These two points may assist the defense but for the present case they cannot stand in the way of framing charge against the petitioner.
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
170,977,675 |
She was found dead in the house of the present appellant.The appellant suffered conviction and sentence as under:-According to the prosecution story, the deceased was married to the present appellant.The opinion expressed by the doctor does not indicate homicidal death of the deceased.Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs.In that case there was no evidence to show that the appellant was inside the house when the incident took place and apart from the ligature mark there was no bodily injury found on the body of the deceased and therefore, no case under Section 302 of IPC is made out.Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposes the application.However, we have to go through the material available in this particular case and cannot take into account the extraneous evidence available.In this case, the post-mortem was performed by a team of doctors.If the appellant was doubtful by the opinion expressed, he should have examined other doctors of the team also.There is no reason to disbelieve the doctor at this stage.In the considered opinion of this Court, no case is made out for suspension of sentence.C.C.as per rules.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,709,801 |
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.Each of the accused persons was found guilty for the 1 offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 ofthe Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short `IPC') and sentenced toundergo RI for 5 years.Additionally, respondents wereconvicted for offence punishable under Section 27 of the ArmsAct, 1959 (for short `Arms Act') and sentenced to undergo RIfor 3 years.Background facts, in a nutshell, are as follows:On 11.8.1992 at 7.00 a.m. the informant was going tosee his transplanted paddy in the field and when he reachednear the Ahari Payin, he saw the appellants behind palm treearmed with Garasa and country made rifle.The appellantsbegan to abuse him, which was protested by the informant.Thereupon, accused Ramchandra ordered his son accusedShravan to fire and Sravan fired upon the informant which hithis right chest.It has been stated that prior to thisoccurrence two days earlier an altercation had taken place inbetween the informant and the accused persons on use ofirrigational water.The informant after sustaining injuries sat 2 down and thereafter he was taken to Magadh Medical Hospitalwhere he was treated and his Fardbeyan was recorded by theS.I. of police.On the basis of Fardbeyan, F.I.R. was drawn up.After completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted,cognizance was taken and the case was committed to thecourt of Sessions.Finally the trial concluded with the resultas indicated above.The appellant pleaded not guilty and stated that theyhad been falsely implicated in this case.3. 8 witnesses were examined to further the prosecutionversion of whom PWs.1, 5 and 6 were stated to be the eyewitnesses.But ultimately it was noted that PWs.1 and 5 werenot eye witnesses and the prosecution version primarily restedon the evidence of PW-6, the injured informant.The TrialCourt found the evidence to be cogent and accordinglysentenced the accused persons.In appeal, the High Court found that the prosecution hasnot been able to establish the accusations and directedacquittal.The informant has filed these appeals questioningacquittal.In support of the appeal learned counsel for theappellant submitted that there was no basis to discard theevidence of PW-6 and, therefore, the High Court should nothave directed acquittal.Though the judgment of the High Court is very sketchy,we find that vital facts have been noted by the High Court.The incident is supposed to have taken place on 11.8.1992.The first information report was lodged on 13.8.1992.Strangely, the doctor (PW-7) stated that on the basis ofrequisition received from the police, he had examined theinformant on 11.8.1992 at 11.30 a.m.In fact, the first information reportshows that the fardbeyan was on 11.8.1992 at 1400 hrs.andthe first information report is registered at 13.8.1992 at 1130am.The IO was not examined whocould have explained the delay in registering the FIR anddispatching the same to the Court and no reason wasindicated as to why he was not examined.Additionally,evidence of PW-6 is also contrary to the medical evidence in asense that according to him there was one shot.But therewere three injuries.The High Court noted that there was noexplanation for the third injury.Even doctor's evidence showsthat the two injuries cannot be treated as an entry and exitrooms.According to PW-6 the first information report wasrecorded through Jamin Khan at the medical college.If thatbe so, there was no reason as to why the first informationcame to be lodged after two days.In view of the aforesaid discrepancies highlighted by theHigh Court, we find no reason to interfere with the judgmentof acquittal recorded.The appeals are dismissed............................................J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT) ...........................................J. (HARJIT SINGH BEDI)New Delhi:September 18, 2008 6
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
157,037,101 |
This is first bail application filed on behalf of the applicant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The applicant is in custody since 09.04.2019 in connection with Crime No.271/2019 registered at Police Station-Motinagar, District-Sagar (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Section 294, 323, 324, 326, 506 & 307 of IPC.Prosecution story in short is that on 29.03.2019 at about 8.30 P.M., when the victim Lallu Yadav was coming from the outside of his house and saw that his neighbor's son Mohit Prajapati has done the urine in the front of his house then victim has stopped them.Thereafter, present applicant and another co-accused person has come there and caused injury to the complainant by iron sheet and knife due to which he sustained injuries.Thereafter, victim has informed to the police and police has registered the aforesaid offence against the present applicant and the other co-accused person.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case.He further submits that on the date of incident, victim has already forcibly entered the house of the applicant-accused so applicant-accused tried to stop them.Some hot talk has been occurred between them.The applicant is ready to furnish bail bond, as per the order, abiding with all conditions imposed by the Court.On these grounds, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant.Per-contra, learned PL for respondent-State opposes the bail application.Certified copy as per rules.C. stands disposed of.(RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) JUDGE Pallavi PALLAVI Digitally signed by PALLAVI SINHA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR, postalCode=482001, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=600e120521d63fece86ac5428e3c83625e5b09fa04449276db5ca2a1e541 SINHA f76f, 2.5.4.45=032100728661DDD81A0E0C366E10579627223ACB0483C00C1E8220160 2089D4E4E3FF5, cn=PALLAVI SINHA Date: 2019.06.24 14:39:48 +05'30'
|
['Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,570,568 |
The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder:According to her, she belongs to Hindu, Mathaari (Sakkiliar) community, whichcomes under the Scheduled Caste.She has one male minor child and one femaleminor child.It is aclear custodial death.TheRevenue Divisional Officer was appointed to conduct the preliminary enquiryand ultimately he concluded that it was a case of death in police stationcustody.He also requested the third respondent's permission for a detailedMagisterial enquiry into the death of her husband, accordingly a Magisterialenquiry was ordered.The Revenue Divisional Officer, who conducted theMagisterial Enquiry, after recording statements from all the personsconcerned, found that Sub Inspector of Police, Alanganallur and otherconstables jointly committed the offences under Sections 330, 342 and 323I.P.C. by wrongfully confined her husband and voluntarily caused 10 injurieson her husband's body and thereby resulted in custodial death.The enquiryreport of the Revenue Divisional Officer was submitted to the Government ofTamil Nadu.It is stated in the counter affidavit thatthe present writ petition is belated one.One cow of one Kanniappan ofKalvelipatti was said to have been stolen by Vellaiyan and Nallaiyan.I have already referred to the grievances ofthe petitioner, namely, that on the date of death of her husband under policecustody on 21-10-89, she had to look after one male minor child and anotherfemale child.Index:- YesInternet:- Yes.The Chief Secretary to the Govt.District Collector, Madurai District,Madurai.The Revenue Divisional Officer,Madurai, Madurai District.The petitioner Pandiammal, for the death of her husband Vellaiyan inAlanganallur Police Station on 21-10-1989 while in police custody, has filedthe above Writ Petition, claiming a compensation of Rs.3 lakhs.The Government, after careful consideration of the said R.D.O'sreport, has issued an Order in G. O.Ms.No. 1520 dated 25-9-199 0 forlaunching criminal prosecution and departmental action against the above saidofficials involved into the death of her husband in police custody.Pursuantto the said Government Order, the third respondent in his proceedings directedthe 5th respondent to launch criminal prosecution in the appropriate courtagainst the police officials concerned.The 5th respondent, after a prolongedtime filed a private complaint against the accused officials in P.R.C.No.27of 1996 which is pending before a Court at Madurai.It is evident that herhusband was illegally and wrongfully detained by the police officials andinhumanly tortured and beaten up which resulted in death in police custody.Her husband was the only bread-winner in her family.Though Government itselfhas provided compensation for death in police custody, in spite of herrequest, no amount has been paid to her; hence she approached this Court forappropriate direction to the respondents 1 and 2 for payment of Rs.3 lakhs ascompensation for the custodial death of her husband.The Secretary to Government, Public and Rehabilitation department,Secretariat, Chennai-9/first respondent herein, has filed a counter affidaviton behalf of other respondents.Thesaid Kanniyappan, owner of the cow, had preferred a complaint before the SubInspector of Police, Alanganallur.It is alleged thatthe said Vellaiyan died due to hanging in the bath room of Alanganallur PoliceStation and the dead body was removed by the police and thrown out intoPeriyar Main Channel which was recovered from this channel.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai, who had conducted theenquiry, reported that 7 police personnel were responsible for the death andillegal custody of the said Vellaiyan.The Revenue Divisional Officerrecommended for taking criminal action against them for the above lapses.TheGovernment in G.O.Ms.No. 1 520, dated 25-9-90 ordered for launching criminalprosecution and departmental action against the above police officials.Asper the order of the Government, a criminal case in P.R.C.27/96 was filedbefore the Judicial Magistrate-No.5, Madurai and is pending.But, in this case, the death of Vellaiyan, husbandof the petitioner, has occurred only on 20-10-89 i.e., before the date ofissue of the said Government Order; hence the petitioner is not eligible forfinancial assistance and the prayer of the petitioner cannot be considered forsanction of financial assistance.In the light of the above pleadings, I have heard Mr. R. Malaichamy,learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleaderfor the respondents.The only point for consideration in this writ petition is, whether thedeath of Vellaiyan was due to police torture and, if so, what is the quantumof compensation payable to the petitioner?In view of the information furnished in the counter affidavit, I am of theview that it is unnecessary to refer the factual details once again.In thecounter affidavit, it is fairly stated that though the husband of thepetitioner namely Vellaiyan and another person Nallaiyan were enquired by thepolice of Alanganallur police station relating to a complaint of oneKanniyappan for the theft of his one cow, it is fairly admitted that based onthe complaint of the petitioner and several others, including the politicalparties, etc., an enquiry was ordered by the District Collector.Pursuant tothe said order, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai conducted the enquiryinto the cause of death of Vellaiyan and ultimately found that 7 policeofficials were responsible.It is the complaint of the petitioner that herhusband Vellaiyan died on 21-10-89 due to torture by the police.The Revenue Divisional Officer, who conducted an enquiry, and onthe orders of the Government, has filed a criminal case on 5-7-96 before theJudicial Magistrate No.5, Madurai against 7 police officials of AlanganallurPolice station under Sections 323, 166, 306 and 201 I.P.C. The enquiryofficer has stated that there were 19 wounds found on the dead body ofVellaiyan, and concluded that the Sub Inspector of Police (Crime),Alanganallur Police Station and 6 police personnel jointly committed theoffences under Sections 330, 342, 323 I.P.C. The Revenue Divisional Officerhas also found that they were liable for punishment under Section 306 I.P.C.It is also clear from the counter affidavit that the Government aftercarefully analysing the enquiry report of the Revenue Divisional Officer,accepted the same and directed the latter to initiate criminal anddepartmental proceedings against all the 7 police officials.The report ofthe Revenue Divisional Officer, acceptance of the report by the Government,direction for criminal prosecution under various sections of Indian Penal Codeand the initiation of departmental action against 7 police officials wouldclearly show that the said Vellaiyan, husband of the petitioner, died due topolice torture while he was in custody.When the deceased was enquired inrespect of death of one cow of Kanniyappan, as rightly observed by the enquiryofficer, there is no need to cause 19 injuries on his body.Mr. D.Krishnakumar, learned Special Government Pleader, by drawing my attention to ajudgement of II Additional Sessions Judge, Madurai, dated 30-11-2000 inSessions Case No. 587/99, acquitting all the 7 police officials from thecharges levelled against them, would contend that the petitioner is notentitled to any compensation from any one of the respondents.I am unable toaccept the said contention.I have already referred to the report of theRevenue Divisional Officer holding that 7 police officials were responsiblefor the death of Vellaiyan, acceptance of the said report by the Governmentand the subsequent follow up action, including prosecution and departmentalaction.Merely because the criminal case ended in acquittal, that would notexonerate the responsibility of the Government from paying reasonable amountby way of compensation to the victim.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has brought to my notice thatthe Government itself has passed an Order in G.O.Ms.no. 874, Public (Law andOrder-B) Department, dated 8-8-96 for payment of compensation to the victimsin respect of custodial death due to police torture.It is also brought to mynotice that by G.O. Ms.No. 153, Public (Law and Order.B) Department dated31-01-98, the Government has enhanced the quantum of compensation fromRs.50,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/- to certain categories which includes death due topolice torture.Here again, learned Special Government Pleader pointed outthat inasmuch as the death of Vellaiyan had occurred on 20-10-89 and theGovernment Order came to be passed on 8-8-96, the petitioner is not eligiblefor financial assistance.Here again, I am unable to appreciate the saidcontention.No doubt, according to the Secretary to Government, Public andRehabilitation department, Chennai-9, the Government in G.O.Ms.No. 874 Public(Law and Order) Department dated 8-8-96 have issued orders to include thecategory of "death due to police torture" for the sanction of financialassistance to the victims.She lost her bread-winner and she has to lookafter two minor children as well as aged in-laws.Considering all the aboveaspects, more particularly, the fact that from the date of the death of herhusband-20/21-10-89, viz., for the last 13 years, the petitioner being a poorilliterate lady is struggling for her survival with other family members andin spite of Government's decision holding responsibility on the officials ofAlanganallur Police Station, I am of the view that ends of justice would bemet by directing the respondents 1 to 3 to pay a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-for the custodial death of petitioner's husband.It is brought to my noticethat pursuant to the direction of this Court, the Government have investedRs.50,000/- as interim relief in the name of the petitioner-Pandiammal in theBank of Maharashtra, Madurai Branch for a period of five years.Therespondents 1 to 3 are directed to invest the balance amount in the same Bankin the name of the petitioner herein-Pandiammal within a period of 4 (four)weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.On such deposit beingmade, the petitioner-Pandiammal is permitted to withdraw periodical interestonce in three months for the entire amount (Rs.50,000/- already deposited +Rs.1,50,000/- to be invested in the same Bank).It is further made clear thatafter the expiry of the due date, she is permitted to withdraw the entireamount.Writ Petition is allowed with the above observation.No costs.Consequently, WPMP No. 58448 of 2002 is closed.
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
157,057,145 |
Issue notice.Mr. O.P. Saxena, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. D.K. Pane, Advocate for respondents 2, 3 and 4, enter appearance and accept notice.The complainant Ravi Garg, who is arrayed as respondent Crl.M.C. No.5614/2014 Page 1 of 7 No.2 to this petition; the injured Vishnu Prasad Sharma, who is arrayed as respondent No.4; and Mr. Rajkumar, who was the third occupant of the vehicle of the complainant and is respondent No.3, are present in person.UP- 14CH-0008, being driven by the petitioner Akash Mittal.The complainant's car was struck from behind at the Dhaula Kuan crossing, New Delhi, and appears to have been considerably damaged.The fourth respondent, Vishnu Prasad Sharma, also sustained injury in the collision on his forehead, which necessitated stitches.It is stated that whilst the matter has been pending investigation, the petitioner approached respondents 2, 3 and 4 individually, and entered into separate settlements with each of them.Copies of the settlement Deeds have also been annexed to this petition.M.C. No.5614/2014 Page 2 of 7Respondents 2, 3 and 4 accept this offer and state that they have settled all their disputes with the petitioner and have no grievance against him; and that they do not wish to proceed with the matter any further.The aforesaid amount has been handed over to respondents 2, 3 and 4 in cash in Court today.M.A. No.19159/2014 Exemption, as prayed for, is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.This application is disposed off.This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of FIR No.458/2014 registered under Section 279, 337 IPC at police station Delhi Cantt.on 07.08.2014, on the ground that the matter has been settled between the parties.They are also identified by the Investigating Officer, Head Constable Promod.M.C. No.5614/2014 Page 1 of 7It is stated that the aforesaid FIR came to be lodged as a consequence of a collision that had taken place with a Santo Car bearing No.HR-06Y- 2984 being driven by the complainant, Ravi Garg, where the third and fourth respondents were also seated, with a Honda City Car bearing No.I am of the considered opinion that since the parties concerned in this matter have arrived at an amicable settlement, inter alia, by payment of the aforesaid compensation, which has been accepted by respondents 2, 3 and 4 and who have also expressed their disinclination to proceed with the matter any further; and since the petitioner, who seems to be genuinely remorseful, is at the threshold of his career, it is best to give a quietus to the matter at this stage itself.Consequently, the petition is allowed and FIR No.458/2014 registered under Section 279, 337 IPC at police station Delhi Cantt., and all proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed.The petition stands disposed off.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
157,059,372 |
22.08.13 Item No. 69 Court No.17 A.B.Item No. 69And In the matter of: Nafirul Sk @ Kalu & Ors.- versus -The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Mr. Amanul Islam For the Petitioners Mr. Anjan Dutta For the State The Petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Thanarpara Police Station Case No. 174 of 2013 dated 28.7.2013 under Sections 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code, have applied for anticipatory bail.The Petitioner No. 1 is the husband of the complainant.The other Petitioners are his relatives.We have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioners and the learned Advocate for the State.We have seen the case diary and other relevant material on record.In our opinion Petitioner No. 1, Nafirul Sk @ Kalu does not deserve to be granted anticipatory bail in this case.Therefore his application for anticipatory bail is rejected.As regards the Petitioner No. 2, 3, 4 & 5 there is no need for their custodial interrogation in this case.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Kanchan Chakraborty, J)
|
['Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
157,061,558 |
He further submits that the complainant was completely drunk and his version given to the police cannot be relied upon.It is contended that there is absence of mens rea or common intention or conspiracy.As per the FIR, the complainant while he was driving his car hit the car of another person.The person in the car at front came down and started fighting with the complainant.Observing the fight, two boys (petitioner and the co-accused Amit Kumar) stopped their car and intervened.Charge Sheet has been filed under Sections 308/34 Indian Penal Code.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated.He submits that there no cogent material on record for trial court to proceed against the petitioner for commission Crl.P.271/2017 Page 1 of 9 of offence under section 308 IPC.He submits that it is not the case of the prosecution that the petitioner inflicted any injury or incited, exhorted or even provoked the co-accused to commit the subject offence.P.271/2017 Page 1 of 9It is submitted that the allegation is that when the complainant slapped the co-accused Amit Kumar, he asked the petitioner to bring a rod from the car and the petitioner is alleged to have brought the rod and handed it over to co-accused who then hit the complainant with the rod on his forehead.One of the boys berated the complainant for being drunk while driving.It is alleged that in a fit of rage, complainant slapped the co- accused Amit Kumar, who then asked the petitioner to bring a rod from the car stating that lets teach a lesson to the complainant.It is alleged that the petitioner brought the rod from the car and handed it Crl.P.271/2017 Page 2 of 9 over to co-accused who then hit the complainant with the rod on his forehead.P.271/2017 Page 2 of 9The role ascribed to the petitioner is of handing the rod to co- accused Amit Kumar, when he asked him to bring the same from the car.The co-accused thereafter hit the complainant.It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that there was no element of mens-rea or common intention to cause hurt or injury to the complainant as the act done by the petitioner was on the spur of the moment due to grave and sudden provocation.The injury was caused in the course of a sudden quarrel, and there was no proper planning or pre-meditation.Further it is submitted that as per the MLC, the complainant sustained injuries on his forehead, hand and forearm and sustained fracture on his little finger.He was discharged on the same day after treatment and then was asked to come to OPD after 5 days which shows that the injury sustained by the victim was neither grievous nor life threatening.It is contended that the MLC on record shows that the blood alcohol content of the complainant was 182% and as such his statement could not have even been relied on by the prosecution and it further establishes that he was driving the vehicle in a drunkard state.P.271/2017 Page 3 of 9Per contra, Learned APP for the state submits that there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order and the petitioner has been rightly charged under section 308 IPC.It is submitted that petitioner along with co-accused had the common intention to cause death and further that it is a matter of trial and petitioner cannot be discharged without a trial.It is urged that injuries caused by an iron rod impels one to infer the intention to cause death as any prudent man is aware that the injuries inflicted on the head with a rod may lead to fatality.In the present case, the allegation against the petitioner is that when the petitioner and the co-accused Amit Kumar intervened in the fight between the complainant and a third party, complainant slapped the co accused.The co-accused Amit Kumar, asked the petitioner to bring a rod from the car stating that lets teach a lesson to the complainant.The petitioner allegedly brought the rod from the car and handed it over to co-accused who then hit the complainant with the rod on his forehead.The complainant sustained injuries on his forehead, hand and forearm and sustained fracture on his little fingerThe trial court after perusing the arguments and evidence on record observed:P.271/2017 Page 4 of 9"The case of the prosecution is that A-2 had given a call to A-1 to bring a rod.There upon A-2 had inflicted the injury.Considering the statement recorded by the police during investigation, it cannot be said that there was no common intention among the accused.The common intention seemingly had developed on the spot at the spur of the moment.
|
['Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
157,072,905 |
The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.366 of 2018, on the file of the Inspector of Police, Chidambaram Town Police Station, Cuddalore District.Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.366 of 2018 for the offences under Sections 363 of IPC, as against the petitioners.Hence, he prayed to quash the same.3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the investigation is almost completed and the respondent police have only to file final report.4.Heard, Mr.S.Sairaman, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the first respondent and M/s.Muthumoni Dosaisami, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the second respondent and perused the materials available on record.Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. the State of Maharashtra & ors in Crl.
|
['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
157,076,725 |
ad This is a repeat application for suspension of custodial M sentence awarded to the appellant.Appellant stands convicted for an offence punishable of under Section 302 of the IPC and has been sentenced to rt undergo R.I. for life.ou Submission of learned counsel is that the entire prosecution is based on evidence of Sangeeta Bai (PW-1), C wife of the deceased.The rest of the material witness h examined by the prosecution have turned hostile and did not ig support the prosecution story.The application is opposed by the State Government by filing written objection.After going through the previous order-sheets, we find this is a 7th application.I.A. stands rejected and closed.DN: c=IN, o=High Court of IRFAN Madhya Pradesh, ou=Administration, C postalCode=482001, st=Madhya Pradesh, SIDDIQ 2.5.4.20=9e52cc092beccf97f b4519f021aa0efe655497f8e6 h 9e9c7c35b1dbc4f77fcd7e, UI cn=MOHD IRFAN SIDDIQUI ig Date: 2017.11.28 11:19:14 +05'30' H
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,570,771 |
Where the opposite party (defendant) or its authorised agent fails to appear on the day of hearing, the District Forum, may decide the complaint ex-parte."JUDGMENT D.B. Bhosale, J.These two writ petitions involve common issue as to whether parties before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short "Consumer Forum") and Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, "State Commission") are entitled to be represented by authorised agents who are not enrolled under the Advocates Act, 1961 and such Authorised Agents have the right of audience.The counsel appearing for the parties confined their arguments only on the aforesaid issue and hence we have not gone into the facts and merits of the complaints filed before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short, "Consumer Forum") by the petitioners.The petitioners in the first writ petition (Writ Petition No. 1147 of 2002), who are advocates by profession, filed complaint bearing No. 428 of 2000 against respondent Nos. 2 and 3 - tour operators before respondent No. 1-Consumer Forum complaining deficiency in their service.It is the case of the petitioners that after numerous adjournments and at the stage of filing affidavit of evidence, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 filed an application dated 22nd September 2001 objecting the appearance of Shri Jahangir Gai who was appearing as authorised agent of the petitioners.The petitioners filed their reply to the said application.The said application was heard by respondent No. 1 and by order dated 5th April, 2002 held that Shri Jahangir Gai, the authorised agent of the petitioners, had no right to plead before the Consumer Forum since he is not enrolled as an Advocate under the Advocates Act, 1961 (for short, "Advocates Act").The said application was disposed of by common order dated 5th April 2002, in Complaint Nos. 428 of 2000 and 304 of 2000, which is impugned in the said writ petition.It is the case of petitioner No. 1 that he has filed complaint No. 167 of 1997 oh 17th June 1997 before the Consumer Forum seeking reliefs against respondent No. 1 for the deficiency in their service.Petitioner No. 2 was appearing for petitioner No. 1 as his authorised agent in the said complaint.Respondent No. 1 was being represented by respondent No. 2-Advocate before Consumer Forum.Respondent No. 2 filed an application objecting appearance of petitioner No. 2 for petitioner No. 1 as his agent contending that addressing the Consumer Forum amounts to pleading and only an advocate enrolled under the Advocates Act is vested with that right.The said application was heard by the Consumer Forum consisting of three members.The majority judgment was carried in Revision Application No. 150 of 2001 by respondent No. 1 before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra State (for short, State Commission).Feeling, aggrieved by the interim order dated 21st December 2001 passed by the State Commission, the petitioners have impugned the said order in second writ petition.Though in the aforesaid writ petitions, the issue involved is common, the difference is that in first writ petition "the consumer" is before the Court contending that he has a right to engage an "agent" to act, appear and plead before the Consumer Forum, while in the second writ petition, the authorised agent himself is before the Court contending that he has every right to act, appear and plead before the Consumer Forum as authorised agent of the parties whenever parties so desire.While issuing rule in these writ petitions, since the question of greater importance to the Bar was raised, the notice was issued to the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa and a separate notice to the Bar Council of India, in pursuance thereof, the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa as well as All India Bar Council appeared in these writ petitions and submitted their written submissions, over and above oral submission made at length by Mr. Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the State Bar Council and Mr. Jamdar on behalf of the All India Bar Council.The registrar of the State Commission respondent No. 3 filed affidavit on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in the second writ petition.In these petitions, the petitioners have claimed the aforesaid right on the basis of Rules 2(b), 4(7), 8(7), 9(1) and 9(6) of the Maharashtra Consumer Protection Rules, 2000 (for short, Rules of 2000), contending that these rules permit a party to appoint an agent to represent him/her before the Consumer Forum/State Commission and since inception of the various Consumer Fora, viz. District Forum, State commission and National Commission authorised agents who are not enrolled advocates, are granted right of audience.It is further contended that the provisions of the Advocates Act would not come in the way of authorised agent to act, appear and plead before the Consumer Forum.According to the petitioners, the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, "Act of 1986") is enacted for settlement of consumer disputes and agent representing a party before the Consumer Fora for the settlement of such disputes, could not be equated with a person practicing law and hence such agent is not affected, by the provisions of the Advocates Act. The petitioners in support have raised diverse contentions in the writ petitions which we will be dealing with, to avoid repetition, while considering submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties in the later part of the judgment.We heard learned counsel appearing for the parties at length, perused the writ petitions, affidavit filed by the State Commission and annexures thereto and the written submissions filed by the parties.
|
['Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 228 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
157,077,670 |
It has further been ordered that both the substantive sentences to run concurrently.2 Brief facts which are be enumerated from the record can be stated thus:(i) PW-11 P.S.I. Shri Kerubhau D. Kolhe was on 5.7.2003 attached to Rasayani police station, Alibag and was on night-round patrolling duty ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2014 00:41:02 ::: 3 APEAL.445-2005.sxw near Bhatan Tunnel, when he received a message on the wireless from Rasayani police station informing him that an incident of murder of Gangaram Kokre had taken place at Sarsai Road, near Khadkichi Wadi.He then immediately went to the said spot of incident and noticed that one Gangaram Kokre was lying on the spot in dead condition and Dhau Shingade (PW-7) was lying near him in injured condition.::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2014 00:41:02 :::(ii) He therefore immediately took Dhau Shingade to H.O.C.Hospital, Rasayani.In the hospital PW-11 PSI Shri Kolhe recorded the complaint of injured Dhau Shingade, PW-7, as per his hay.On the basis of the said complaint, PW-11 PSI Shri Kolhe registered the offence and started investigation of the same.He then went to the spot of incident and prepared Inquest Panchanama of the dead body lying at the scene of the incident.(iii) PW-11 PSI Shri Kolhe then sent the dead body of Gangaram to primary health center, Panvel for conducting postmortem examination.He thereafter prepared spot panchanama of the scene of incident which was in the main square of Poultry Farm at Sarsai road.5 PW-1 Govind Balu Kokre, in his testimony, has stated that he knew the appellant very well.He has stated that he also knew one Bharat Dhebe, deceased Gangaram and injured Dhau Shingade.That deceased Gangaram and PW-7 Dhau Shingade were from his village while Bharat ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2014 00:41:02 ::: 7 APEAL.445-2005.sxw Dhebe is the resident of the village of the appellant.The said witness has stated that on 4.7.2003 he returned from his field at about 7.30 pm in the evening.PW-7 Dhau Shingade in his testimony has stated that deceased Gangaram was the ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2014 00:41:02 ::: 9 APEAL.445-2005.sxw father-in-law of his daughter.He has stated that Laxman son of Gangaram has married with the daughter of PW-7 Dhau and they all are residents of Khadkichi Wadi.He has further stated that he knew the appellant and Smt. Ramibai, the mother of the appellant.He has stated that Smt. Ramibai is closely related with him and the appellant and his mother were from village Palaswadi.He stated that road approaching the village of the appellant passes from his village.PW-7 Dhau Shingade in his testimony has further stated that on 4.7.2003, he returned to his home in the evening at about 7 to 7.30 pm and within 5 to 10 minutes thereafter the appellant and one Bharat were quarreling and there were hot altercations between them near the house of Govind (PW-1).He has further stated that he himself, Govind and Gangaram (deceased) and other villagers then had been to the place and intervened in the quarrel and requested the appellant and Bharat not to quarrel in our village.The appellant thereafter left towards his house.He stated that at about 9.30 pm, he had his dinner and at about 10.30 pm he went to the house of PW-1 Govind for watching the movie on television.::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2014 00:41:02 :::He has further stated that he himself and Gangaram were sitting in front of the door of his house and other persons were watching the television from inside the house.PW-7 Dhau Shingade with deceased Gangaram thereafter heard a sound of the appellant and Smt. Ramibai shouting loudly and abusing them from poultry-phata.That Gangartam thereafter asked PW-7 Dhau Shingade that they would go to the said place and see what the matter is about.He has stated that Gangaram proceeded ahead and PW-7 Dhau followed him.PW-7 Dhau sustained bleeding injuries and therefore he shouted loudly as "run run, Gangaram is killed", "he may also be killed".By that time PW-1 Govind and Ankush rushed towards him after hearing shouting.Dhau Shingade is also resident of village Khadkichi Wadi.This witness has further stated that he knew the appellant and his mother Smt. Ramibai.They were from village Palaswadi.He has further stated that on 4.7.2003, he was going to Kalivali and was carrying fertilizer.He was proceeding to Kalivali by poultry farm road.Except vague and general admission to the effect that, she cannot say definitely whether the injuries were simple injuries or grievous injuries, no fruitful material was elicited in the cross-examination.9 PW-9 is Dr. Megha Laxmanrao Deshpande, Assistant Chief Medical Officer at HOC Hospital, Rasayani in her testimony has stated that on 5.7.2003 she was on duty as Medical Officer at HOC Hospital, Rayasani and received emergency call from the Resident Medical Officer Dr. Rubina (PW-10) at about 3.30 am.PW-10 Dr. Rubina called PW-9 Dr. Megha Deshpande and informed her that one Dhau Shingade has been admitted in the hospital.PW-9 Dr. Megha Deshpande immediately from her residence went to the hospital and examined the patient PW-7 Dhau Shingade.She noticed that the blood pressure of the patient was lowered down and the patient was having injuries which were sutured and had been already applied dressing on the right arm.She did not notice any smell of alcohol.10 PW-4 Dr. Prabhakar Patil was then attached to Primary Health Centre as Medical Officer and had examined and gave treatment to PW-7 Dhau Shingagde on 7th and 9th 11th July 2003 for the injuries which were caused to him.This witness has also examined accused no.1 i.e. the present appellant and original accused no.2 i.e. the mother of the appellant.Oral Judgment (Per A.S. Gadkari, J.) 1 The appellant-original accused no.1 by the present appeal has questioned the correctness of the judgment and order dated 22 February 2005 passed by the learned Ad-Hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Raigad in Sessions Case No.239 of 2003, thereby convicting him for an offence ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2014 00:41:02 ::: 2 APEAL.445-2005.sxw punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month.The appellant has been further convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for one month.The appellant along with original accused no.2 Smt.Ramibai Janu Khadme i.e. the mother of the appellant were charged with offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 and 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code for committing the murder of Gangaram Nagu Kokre and causing grievous hurt to PW-7 Dhau Shingade on 4.7.2003 approximately at about 11.30 pm.::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2014 00:41:02 :::After arresting accused persons, he found that the accused persons have sustained some injuries and therefore he referred both the accused persons to the Primary Health Centrer, Lohap, Taluka-Khalapur and got them medically examined.::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2014 00:41:02 :::He also obtained the medical certificate of the injuries of the accused persons.(iv) During the course of investigation, PW-1 PSI Shri Kolhe recorded the statements of the witnesses.The appellant when was in police custody, expressed his willingness to show the place where he had concealed the knife which was used by him while committing the present crime.A memorandum of statement of the appellant dated 6.7.2003 was recorded in the presence of two panch-witnesses by PW-11 PSI Shri Kolhe, as per the narration of the appellant.That in accordance with the statement of the appellant, the appellant led the police personnel to Sarsai road and from beneath the bushes on the western side of Sarsai road he took out a knife and produced it before the police.The said knife was seized in the presence of panch-witnesses by effecting the seizure panchanama.The knife was having blood stains on it, when it was discovered at the instance of the appellant.PW-11 PSI Shri Kolhe thereafter sent the clothes and the said knife for the forensic examination to the concerned laboratory.After receipt of the injury certificate of PW-7 Shri Dhau, postmortem notes of deceased Gangaram, the reports from the chemical analyzer and other related documents, PW-11 PSI Shri Kolhe submitted a chargesheet against the appellant and the other accused before the competent Court having jurisdiction over it.::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2014 00:41:02 :::(v) The learned Ad-Hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Raigad after recording the evidence of the witnesses and after hearing the parties to the said Sessions Case No.239 of 2003, was pleased to convict the appellant/accused no.1 and was also further pleased to acquit the accused no.2- Smt. Ramibai Janu Khadme as aforestated.3 We have heard Shri Shrikant Gavand the learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri H.J. Dedhia, the learned APP for the State at length.The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the discovery of the weapon as per Exhibit 61 the Seizure panchanama, is made by the police from the same spot i.e. from the very place where the incident had occurred and the police had visited the said spot while conducting the inquest panchama on deceased Gangaram and therefore the discovery of the said ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2014 00:41:02 ::: 6 APEAL.445-2005.sxw knife at the instance of the appellant vitiates.He further submitted that on the day of incident, there was neither the moonlight nor there was any light which would entail PW-1 Govind and injured witness PW-7 Dhau Shingade to identify the appellant.The learned Counsel for the appellant further submitted that there is no evidence at all to connect the appellant with the crime in question.He therefore submitted that the appeal may be allowed and the appellant may be acquitted.Per contra, the learned APP for the State supported the impugned judgment and order and prayed that the appeal may be dismissed thereby confirming the conviction and sentence of the appellant.::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2014 00:41:02 :::4 With a view to appreciate the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned APP, it is necessary to advert to the evidence in brief, of the prosecution witnesses, which is available in the form of testimony and the documents which have been proved during the course of trial.At that time there were hot altercations between Bharat Dhebe and the appellant.He along with Gangaram and Dhau settled the said dispute and asked appellant and Bharat to go to their respective houses.::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2014 00:41:02 :::Accordingly, Bharat and the appellant left for their home.He thereafter had his dinner and was watching television.He subsequently noticed that the appellant and his mother-original accused no.2 had came there and were abusing in filthy language to the persons.PW-7 Dhau therefore asked PW-1 Govind to lower down the volume of the television.PW-7 Dhau rushed out of the house to see what had happened.PW-1 Govind also followed Dhau and noticed that the sound of abuses and quarrel was coming from the side of poultry-phata.PW-1 Govind then heard the sound of Dhau saying "melo melo".PW-1 Govind thereafter rushed fast towards that particular side and noticed that the appellant along with his mother Smt.Ramibai-original accused no.2, were running from poultry-phata towards the forest.PW-1 Govind tried to follow/chase the appellant for a little while and after he realized that the appellant had ran away towards the forest, he returned back to the poultry-phata and found that Dhau and Gangaram were lying on the spot.PW-1 Govind has stated in his testimony ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2014 00:41:02 ::: 8 APEAL.445-2005.sxw that he found Gangaram having blows on his person on the left side of chest and back and on left-side of waist and was lying in pool of blood.He also noticed, Dhau had also suffered two blows on his right hand and was having bleeding injuries.He has stated that thereafter the police reached there.PW-1 Govind has further stated that he was also panch-witness to the Inquest Panchanama which was effected pertaining to the dead body of deceased Gangaram.::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2014 00:41:02 :::PW-1 Govind has been cross-examined at length by the appellant.However, no material which is useful for the appellant or which can create doubt about his testimony was elicited in the cross-examination.He has stated that at about 11 to 11.30 pm, Smt. Ramibai, the mother of the appellant, had been there from the side of her house and ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2014 00:41:02 ::: 10 APEAL.445-2005.sxw started abusing in filthy language to Gangaram and asked Gangaram that she had come now where he will flee and she then left towards poultry-::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2014 00:41:02 :::While proceeding towards poultry-phata, Smt. Ramibai was continuously abusing Gangaram.When they reached to the poultry-phata, they heard the sound of shouting and abuses by the appellant and his mother.The moment they reached the poultry-phata, the appellant started assaulting Gangaram by means of knife and gave about 7 to 8 blows with the help of knife on the chest and stomach of Gangaram.Gangaram collapsed immediately.When PW-7 Dhau went ahead to rescue Gangaram, appellant rushed towards him and when PW-7 Dhau tried to catch hold the appellant, the appellant assaulted him by means of knife and PW-7 Dhau was hit with two blows of the knife on his right arm.The appellant and his mother ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2014 00:41:02 ::: 11 APEAL.445-2005.sxw Smt. Ramibai then ran away from the spot towards the forest.He has further stated that Gangaram died on the spot and was lying on the ground.::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2014 00:41:02 :::He has further stated that the incident took place at poultry-phata which was a tar-road.This witness has stated that no stones etc. were there at the spot.That person from his village had gathered there and somebody tied a piece of cloth to his injuries and informed to police and after about half an hour police came there with a vehicle and took him to the hospital from the jeep.This witness has further narrated the fact about the medical treatment given to him at various Government hospitals.This witness has identified the article-10 i.e. the knife as the same weapon by which the appellant assaulted him.The appellant has cross-examined this witness at length.However no fruitful material which would come to the help of the appellant could be elicited from this witness, except few minor variations pertaining to timing of the incident and the distance and or the place.The said minor variations do not disturb or shake the testimony of PW-7 Dhau Shingade which would create doubt in the mind of Court to disbelieve it.7 PW-8 Bharat Soma Dhope in his testimony has stated that he knew deceased Gangaram.He stated that deceased Gangaram was the husband of his sister Lilubai.PW-8 Bharat was resident of village ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2014 00:41:02 ::: 12 APEAL.445-2005.sxw Khadkichi Wadi.At about 7 pm he was returning back and on his way back near the poultry farm phata, the appellant and his brother-in-law Mohan met him.The appellant started altercations with him on the point that PW-8 Bharat was taking his cattle for grazing in the forest at the upper-side of the village and therefore the appellant was having hot altercations with PW-8 Bharat on that count.::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2014 00:41:02 :::While they were indulging in hot altercations, they reached near the house of deceased Gangaram near Khadkichi Wadi.At that time deceased Gangaram, PW-7 Dhau Shingade and PW-1 Govind Kokre and other villagers came there and the quarrel was settled.He has further stated that the appellant thereafter went towards his house.PW-8 Bharat, Laxman and Babu then went to village Kalivali and informed the police Patil about the incident which occurred.After informing the police patil, they returned and reached near poultry phata at about 11 to 11.30 pm when he noticed that Gangaram has received injuries on his chest and stomach.PW-7 Dhau was also there and had suffered injuries on his right hand.At that time, PW-7 ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2014 00:41:02 ::: 13 APEAL.445-2005.sxw Dhau told them that the appellant and his mother have assaulted and killed Gangaram and also assaulted Dhau Shingade (PW-7).Police came there and thereafter PW-8 Bharat left the said spot.::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2014 00:41:02 :::This witness has been cross-examined at length.However, no omissions were brought on record which would create doubt about the truthfulness of the testimony of this witness in the mind of the Court.8 PW-10 is Dr. Rubina Sayyed Usmaini, the Medical Officer, HOC Hospital, Rasayani.She was on 5.7.2003 attached as Medical officer to the said hospital and was on duty.This witness has stated that at about 1.30 am on 5.7.2003 one Dhau Shingade (PW-7) was brought in injured condition to the hospital.She examined him and noticed the following injuries on his person:Stab injury on front portion above elbow right arm, 3 x 1 cms.Stab injury on front portion above elbow right arm 2 x 1 cms."She found that both the injuries were fresh and probable weapon used for causing the said injuries was a sharp object.She found that the patient was in conscious condition.She sutured the wounds by giving local anesthesia and antibiotic medicines and kept the patient under observations.This witness was also produced and proved the medical treatment documents which was given to PW-7 Dhau Shingade.::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2014 00:41:02 :::This witness was cross-examined by the appellant.After PW-9 Dr. Megha Deshpande examined PW-7 Dhau Shingade, ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2014 00:41:02 ::: 15 APEAL.445-2005.sxw noticed that the blood pressure of the injured was lowering down and she suspected about internal injuries and advised the patient i.e. PW-7 Dhau Shingade to be taken to the civil hospital at Alibag for further investigation and therefore PW-7 Dhau was not admitted in the said hospital.She has further stated that in spite of her advise, the patient i.e. PW-7 Dhau had obtained discharge against the same on the same day at about 9.45 a.m. In her cross-examination, this witness has flatly denied the suggestion that injuries which were caused to PW-7 were possible by a fall on sharp edge stone.::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2014 00:41:02 :::PW-6 Dr. Shivaji Ghumre is also a Medical Officer who was attached to Primary Health Centrer, Lohap, Taluka-Khalapur, has examined the appellant and the original no.2 the mother of the appellant on 5.7.2003 and treated them for the injuries caused to them.In our opinion the evidence of PW-4 Dr. Prabhakar Patil and PW-6 Dr. Shivaji Ghumre is formal in nature and does not require any comments on the same.::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2014 00:41:02 :::APEAL.445-2005.sxw 11 PW-5 is Dr. Murlidhar Chimaji Pawar and was then working as a Medical Officer at Panvel.This witness has conducted the postmortem on the body of deceased Gangaram.On examination, PW-5 Dr. Pawar found the following injuries on the body of deceased Gangaram."1) Stab injury left side chest oblique of siz 2 x 1 cms.cavity deep 4 cm from middle line 8 cms.left to the left to nipple.2) Stab wound left blank oblique 4 x 1 cms on 14 cms from middle line 10 cms above ilisc chest, failing upwards.3) Stab wound left abdomen 5 cms from middle line 12 cms above pubis 2 x 0.5 cms cavity deep.4) Incised wound on left side back of 2 x 0.5 cms 5 cms from middle line, 20 cms below collac bone muscle deep.5) Incised wound on left scapule 1.5 x 0.5 cms muscle deep 12 cms from mieel line, 9 cms below shoulder joint.6) Incised wound on left forearm posterial suspect 1 x 0.5 cms 10 cms above elbow just muscle deep.7) Incised wound 2 x 1 cms on left forearm posteriarly 8 cms below joint.8) Incised wound on left side chest 1 x 0.5 cms 13 cms from middle line 12 cms below nipple.9) Incised wound on left side chest on middle axilliary muscle deep."::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2014 00:41:02 :::APEAL.445-2005.sxw PW-5 Dr. Pawar has therefore opined that all the injuries were antemortem injuries.PW-5 Dr. Pawar on internal examination noticed the following injuries:"Thorax walls cut in 5th inter costal space.Haemorrahage seen at the injury.Pleura cut, haemoi throx 1200 ml blood.Examination of the heard.Left Ventricle puncture internally.Haemorrhage of size 1 x 1 cms in masentry."12 PW-5 Dr. Pawar therefore opined that the cause of death of deceased Gangaram was haemorrhage and shock due to stab injury to the heart and it was unnatural.He had further opined that injury no.1 mentioned in column no.17 of the postmortem notes was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death.13 PW-2 Anand B. Pawar is the panch-witness to the arrest panchanama of the appellant dated 5.7.2003 and is also panch to the spot panchanama i.e. the scene of offence panchanama.This witness did not support the prosecution and was declared hostile.::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2014 00:41:02 :::APEAL.445-2005.sxw 14 PW-3 Baliram Gharat is the panch-witness to the spot panchanama (Exhibit 58), panchanama of seizure of the clothes of the appellant (Exhibit 59), memorandum statement (Exhibit60) and discovery panchanama (Exhibit 61).This witness is also panch to the seizure of the clothes of deceased Gangaram.This witness also did not support the prosecution case and has been declared hostile.15 PW-11 is P.S.I. Shri Kolhe, the Investigating Officer of the crime.This witness has narrated all the facts pertaining to the information received by him and the procedure adopted by him while completing the investigation of CR No.41 of 2003 i.e. the present crime.This witness has proved the documents namely spot panchanama (Exhibit 58), panchanama of seizure of clothes of the appellant (Exhibit 59), memorandum statement (Exhibit 60), discovery of the weapon clothes at the hands of the appellant (Exhibit 61), the letter sent to the chemical analyzer (Exhibit 62) and the reports of the chemical analyzer (Exhibit 63 to Exhibit 67).The Investigating Officer has seized the knife which was used by the appellant by effecting discovery panchnama at Exhibit 61 at the instance of the appellant.The said knife was stained with blood.The report of chemical analyzer which is at Exhibit 66 points out that human blood was found on ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2014 00:41:02 ::: 19 APEAL.445-2005.sxw the said knife.This circumstance corroborates the prosecution case against the appellant.::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2014 00:41:02 :::This witness has been cross-examined by the appellant, however no material which would come to the help of the appellant, was elicited this witness.Ashok Kumar & Anr.::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2014 00:41:02 :::It only reflects about the sun rise and sun-set on those particular days and therefore, the contention of Mr. Gavand that on 4 and 5 July 2003 there was no moon at all which was based on the reliance on the said almanac, in our opinion is totally incorrect.May it as it may, we have perused the entire evidence on record and we have found that the almanac for the year 2003-2004 has been produced before this Court for the first time and the same was not brought on record durinig the trial.The said almanac and/or its contents was also not put to any witness during the course of trial for proving it as a document on record.18 After scrutiny of the evidence minutely, we have further found that even PW-1 Govind has not been contradicted of his voluntarily admission which has come on record in his cross-examination, about the presence of moon-light at the spot of incident and the said admission was unchallenged.The judgment of the Supreme Court relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellant has no application in view of the facts of the present case, as the facts mentioned in the said judgment are totally different.In the said judgment of the Supreme Court, the two prosecution eye-witness no.1 and no.2 who had admittedly seen the firing from a distance of about 150 yards, as was reflected from the examination of the ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2014 00:41:02 ::: 21 APEAL.445-2005.sxw site plan and which was endorsed by PW-1 who stated in his evidence that he had given the details of the place from where they saw the occurrence to the Investigating Officer at the spot.The first question which had fallen for consideration of the Supreme Court, was as to whether the witnesses would be in a position to identify the respondents from such large distance at night.It has further been observed by the Supreme Court that it is true that it was a moon-lit night but from a reference to the almanac it would appear that the moon had covered 3/4th distance on the night of occurrence and was to set at 3.23 a.m The Supreme Court has further observed that even though there may be some moon light at that night, it is difficult for the witnesses to identify the respondents or even if they did the possibility of mistake in identification cannot be completely excluded.The ruling of the Supreme Court (supra) relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellant in our opinion has no application in the set of the facts of the present case.::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2014 00:41:02 :::19 In the present case, PW-7 Dhau is the injured eye-witness.The assault on deceased Gangaram and injured Dhau (PW-7) had taken place near their village and it is the specific case of PW-7 Dhau that the appellant assaulted the deceased Gangaram and also to him.Assuming for the sake of argument that there was no moonlight at the place of incident, however, the fact remains that the deceased and the injured were knowing to the ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2014 00:41:02 ::: 22 APEAL.445-2005.sxw appellant.There were altercations amongst themselves just prior to the incident.The appellant also hails from the vicinity of the village of PW-7 Dhau.We further find that the assault had taken place from a distance of not more than 3 feet and there was every probability of the said PW-7 Dhau identifying the appellant correctly.As stated in the forgoing paragraphs, the evidence adduced by PW-7 Dhau is sterling, impeccable and inspires full confidence in the mind of the this Court.::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2014 00:41:02 :::20 After scrutinizing the evidence on record, we are of the firm opinion that there is no evidence on record, to even suggest that at the time of incident there was no light at all and it was totally dark which would disbelieve the probability of identification of the appellant at the hands of PW-7 Dhau.We have further noticed that at the very first instance, the said PW-7 Dhau, while lodging the FIR at about 2.05 am on 5.7.2003, has in clear terms mentioned the name of the appellant as the assailant of deceased Gangaram and the said PW-7 Dhau.21 After scrutinizing the entire evidence on record we are of the firm opinion that the appellant and the appellant alone is guilty of the present crime and the learned Trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the charges levelled against him.We therefore find no merits in the present appeal.::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2014 00:41:02 :::::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2014 00:41:02 :::
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
307,438 |
Brief facts as is revealing from the record which are relevantfor the decision of this revision, are that first informant Sri Nath Tiwari had gone to see his grove on 5.7.1995 at about6:00 p.m. Accused persons Ganga Bishun, Ram NarainTiwari, Surendra Singh, Man Singh and Pappu Singh alsoreached there.Accused Pappu Singh at that time was armedwith a country-made pistol while other had lathi with them.All the accused persons on account of the old enmity, startedassaulting Sri Nath Tiwari after abusing him.On the alarmbeing raised by Sri Nath Tiwari, Vijay Kumar, Gaya Prasadand certain other persons reached there who saw incident andintervened.The accused persons left the place of incident,threatened Sri Nath Tiwari to kill him.Reserved Criminal Revision No. 124 of 2000 Ganga Bishun and (4) Others .......................Revisionists Vs.State of U.P. ................ Opposite PartyHon'ble Vedpal,J.This revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed bythe accused persons (revisionists herein) against the judgmentand order dated 7.3.2000 passed by Sri P. N. Rai, H.J.S. thethen Sessions Judge, Unnao in Criminal Appeal No.83 of1999 : Ganga Bishnu and Others Vs.Sri Nath Tiwari in theincident received several injuries.One Rajendra PrasadPandey scribe the written report at the dictation of Sri NathTiwari, which was submitted at Police Station Makhi District-Unnao.On the basis of the said written report, a case for theoffence punishable under Sections 147/148/323/149/325/149/ 504/506(2) I.P.C. was registered against accused personsand the investigation of the case was taken up by the police.The injured Sri Nath Tiwari was sent by the police to districthospital, Unnao with a constable where he was medicallyexamined by Dr. Alok Ranjan Mishra on the same day at11:45 a.m. The following injuries were found on his person:-A lacerated wound 1cm x 0.5cm aponeurosis deep on right parietal region of scalp, 13 cm away from right ear.Blood is oozing from the wound on cleaningAn abraded contusion reddish in colour 9 cm x 5 cm on left side of face.A lacerated wound 1cm x 0.5cm x muscle deep on outer aspect of right upper arm, 12cm away from right shoulder joint.Blood is oozing from the wound on cleaning.A reddish contusion with diffuse swelling 15cm x 3cm on lower behalf of left upper arm at its back.A reddish contusion with diffuse swelling 12cm x 9cm on the back of left elbow joint.A reddish contusion with diffuse swelling 15cm x 8 cm on the back of upper 2/3 rd of left forearm.A reddish contusion with diffuse swelling 10cm x 6 cm on the back of hand.An abraded contusion reddish in colour with diffuse swelling 10cm x 8 cm on left shoulder joint and upper 1/3rd of left upper arm.A lacerated wound 1cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep in front of left leg, 15cm away from left ankle joint.10.A lacerated wound with diffuse swelling 18cm x 6cm in front of right knee joint and upper 1/3rd of right leg.11.A reddish contusion 20cm x 12cm on left scapular region of back.In the opinion of the doctor, all the injuries were found freshand caused by blunt object.Injuries nos.9, 10 and 11 weresimple while others were kept under observation and x-raywas advised for them.Sri Nath Tiwari was X-rayed on thenext day whereupon fracture of 4th meta carpal bone of hisleft arm was found.On the basis of X-ray report, an additionof Section 325 IPC was made.The police after havingcompleted the formalities of the investigation submittedcharge sheet against accused persons for the offencepunishable under Sections147/148/323/149/325/149/504/506(2) I.P.C. whereuponaccused persons were summoned and put on trial.Learned trial court levelled a charge against accused personsfor the offence punishable under Sections147/148/323/149/325/149/ 504/506 (2) I.P.C. to whichaccused persons had pleaded not guilty and claimed to betried.In order to prove the charge levelled against accused persons,prosecution had examined six witnesses in all.PW-1 GayaPrasad is alleged to be an independent eye witness of theincident.PW-2 Sri Nath Tiwari is injured himself.PW-3 Dr.Satya Prakash had X-rayed injured Sri Nath Tiwari on6.7.1995 and had found fracture of 4th meta carpal bone ofleft arm of Sri Nath Tiwari.He has also proved X-rayexamination report.PW-4 Sub-Inspector Ram Singh is theInvestigating Officer of the present case who had recordedthe statement of witness and had preferred the site plan of the place of incident after visiting the same and he had alsosubmitted charge sheet after completing the investigation.Hehas deposed in support of the factum of investigation.PW-5Om Prakash Mela is a formal witness who had prepared chikreport on the basis of written report of the incident and hadregistered the case in the G.D. He has deposed on the saidfactum.PW-6 Dr. Alok Ranjan Mishra had medicallyexamined Sri Nath Tiwari on 5.7.1995 at 11:15 a.m. who hadproved injured report, no other witness was examined by theprosecution.The accused persons in their statement under Section 313Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution allegations against them.Theyin their defence filed copy of charge sheet relating to CaseCrime No. 784/98 Sri Nath Tiwari Vs.State of U.P. underSections 323, 504, 506 IPC P.S. Makhi but no witness wasexamined by the accused persons in their defence.Aftergoing through the evidence on record and after hearing theparties, the learned trial court came to the conclusion thatcharge levelled against accused persons is made out beyondreasonable doubt and accordingly he convicted the accusedpersons for the offence punishable under Sections147/148/323/149/325/149 and 506 IPC.Each of the accusedwas sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of sixmonths for the offence punishable under Section 147 I.P.C.,one year rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishableunder section 148 I.P.C., six months rigorous imprisonmentfor the offence punishable under Section 323/149 I.P.C., threeyears rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 325/149 I.P.C. and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and oneyear rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable underSection 506(2) I.P.C. It was further directed that the accusedwho commits default in the payment of the fine, he shallfurther undergo imprisonment for one month.Feeling aggrieved with the said judgment, the appeal wasfiled by accused persons, which was disposed of as statedabove.Learned AGA submitted that a prayer for releasing them on Probation of Offender Act was made by the accused personsbefore the learned Magistrate but the same was refused andbenefit of Probation of Offender Act was not sought for byaccused persons before the appellate court and as such theyshould not be given the benefit of Probation of Offender Actand as such there is not infirmity or irregularity in thejudgment and order passed by the court below and therevision is liable to be dismissed in toto.I carefully considered the respective submissions made by theparties.
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
3,074,861 |
I) The appeal is partly allowed.III) The conviction of the appellant under Section 332 of the Indian Penal Code is hereby upheld, however I modified the order of sentence from one year jail period to the period for which the appellant has already undergone in jail.IV) With this, appeal is partly allowed and disposed of.JUDGE puk ::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2017 00:11:14 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2017 00:11:14 :::
|
['Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
307,495 |
The second and third accused are the father and mother of the first accused.The first accused married the deceased, Vijaya, daughter or PW-8 (the appellant herein) on 10.5.79 at Tirumala hills.PW-9 is the brother of the deceased.All the accused are residents of Komaripalem.The appellant is the resident of Rayavaram.At the time of the marriage, the appellant gave sufficient cash and gold to the deceased.As the deceased was aged about 12 years at the time of her marriage she stayed with her parents till she attained her puberty and thereafter was sent to her marital home.The case of the prosecution is that the deceased used to complain to her father and that her husband and in-laws were pressing hard to get some landed property towards her dowry.When the appellant made enquiries about her daughter's complaints, the accused abused and tried to beat him.In 1985 during the second crop season, the accused 1, 2 and 4 along with the deceased forcibly harvested the crop standing in the land of the appellant.It is stated that the deceased even went to the extent of filing a suit against her father, the appellant (PW-8) and brother (PW-9) claiming that the land in dispute was in her possession.The appellant filed a criminal complaint against the deceased and the accused persons.Thus, there were civil and criminal proceedings between the parties.On the intervening night of 6/7th September, 1985 the accused 1 to 3 are said to have attended the marriage celebrated in the house of PW-1 and remained in the marriage house till morning of 7th September and when they came back to their house they, to their shock and surprise found number of people gathered in front of their house and the body of the deceased lying in an easy chair.The fourth accused who is not a respondent in this appeal went to the police station and gave the report Ex. 14 to the Head constable.Some nail marks and swelling over the neck, lips, chin and nose were noticed on the dead body.A tin covered with a cap and pasted with a label inscribed 'Democran' (i.e. pesticide) was found by the side of the dead body.The fourth accused stated in Ex. P. 14 that the deceased had committed suicide.PW-10 registered the report.Thereafter, PWs 10 and 11 reached the scene and took up investigation.In the meanwhile, the appellant and PW-9 on receipt of the jarring information about the death of the deceased came to the scene village.During the investigation, the first accused handed over three letters Ex. P. 6 to P-8, said to have been written by the deceased to her father.ORDER S. Ratnavel Pandian, J.This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, rendered in Criminal Appeal No. 544 of 1987 partly allowing the appeal by setting aside the convictions of respondents 2 to 4 (accused Nos. 1 to 3) under Section 302 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. and Section 498-A I.P.C. and the sentence of imprisonment for life and the sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment respectively but retaining the conviction of the respondents 2 to 4 under Section 201 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. and the sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment as against respondents 2 and 3 (accused 1 and 2) but reducing the sentence of imprisonment inflicted on respondent No. 4 (A-3) to the period already undergone and in lieu of the unserved portion of the sentence, imposing a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months.The relevant facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are necessary to be re-capitulated for the disposal of this appeal.Before the Trial Court, there were four accused namely respondents 2 to 4 and one Mallidi Peda Kapu alias Venkata Reddy (accused 4) who stood convicted under Section 201 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months and who is not a respondent in this appeal.For the sake of convenience, we shall refer respondents 2 to 4 in this judgment as accused Nos. 1 to 3 as arrayed before the Trial Court.PW-10 held the inquest and during the course of which he examined P.Ws 8 and 9 and others.As suspicion was entertained over the death of the deceased, the dead body was sent for post-mortem examination.PWs 5 and 6, the Medical Officers conducted autopsy and found some external injuries.The medical officers sent the viscera and some of the parts of the dead body namely liver, kidney for chemical examination.After the receipt of the Chemical Examiner's report both PWs 5 and 6 gave their opinion that the death was due to poisoning and smothering i.e. asphyxia.All the accused were arrested.After completing the investigation, charge-sheet was laid.On the side of prosecution PWs 1 to 14 were examined.All the accused denied their complexity with the offence in question and stated that the relationship between the deceased and the accused were on cordial terms, that on the ill-fated night they were all in the marriage house of PW-1 and that this case is foisted against them by the appellant on account of the long-standing enmity.The Trial Court accepting the evidence let in by the prosecution convicted A-1 to A-3 under the respective charges and sentenced them as aforementioned.Both the appeals were disposed of by the High Court by the impugned common judgment.The State has not preferred any appeal against the order of acquittal of A-1 A-3 of the charges punishable under Sections 302 read with 34 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code; but this present appeal is by PW 8, the father of the deceased.The appeal is dismissed accordingly.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
3,075,210 |
Thereafter, they demandedwater which she again refused.The prosecutrix has alleged thatthereafter respondents/accused switched off the electricity andaccused/respondent No.2 Gunjesh Chaudhary caught hold of herhands and the other three accused had torn her clothes andcommitted rape on her in turn.The prosecutrix has alleged that sheraised an alarm and fell unconscious thereafter.On hearing thealarm, Bashira Khatoon, mother of the prosecutrix (PW-3) camethere and saw the four accused/respondents coming out of thejhuggi.Bashira Khatoon (PW-3) found the prosecutrix lyingunconscious inside the jhuggi.Police Control Room (PCR) van tookthe prosecutrix to All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS)hospital.At about 11.45 PM, the prosecutrix was medicallyexamined by Dr. Monika and it was noted in MLC (Ex.-PW6/A) thatthere were "bruises of 4 x 4 cm on medial aspects of both thighs ofthe prosecutrix".The blouse of the prosecutrix was found torn in theback side along the left sleeve.At about 09.30 PM, information was received in the PoliceStation, Hauz Khaz PCR/South District regarding some quarrel atShaheed Bhagat Singh Jhuggi.SI Jai Bhagwan (PW-7) along withConstable Khushi Ram (PW-4) reached the spot and learnt that theprosecutrix was taken to the hospital by a PCR Van.SI JaiBhagawan (PW-7) along with the constable went to the AIIMS andfound PW-1 Phoola (Prosecutrix) there.At about 08.05 PM, atelephonic information was received vide DD No.67-B at PoliceStation Hauz Khas regarding a quarrel at Shaheed Bhagat SinghJhuggi.R. BANUMATHI, J.By the impugned judgment, the High Court also issued direction to lodge a complaint against the appellants-police officials (CA No.2298/2009) for prosecuting themSignature Not VerifiedDigitally signed byMAHABIR SINGHDate: 2018.10.3015:39:52 IST under Sections 193 and 195 IPC.Case of prosecution is that the accused/respondents whowere living in the neighbourhood of the prosecutrix (PW-1) atShaheed Bhagat Singh Jhuggi Camp, Katwaria Sarai, entered herjhuggi at about 09.00 PM on 28.07.1997 and demanded a bidi fromher.She refused to give them any bidi.Doctor declared PW-1 fit tomake statement and SI Jai Bhagwan recorded her statementconcerning allegations of rape by the accused/respondents.Thestatement of the prosecutrix was recorded at 02.30 AM on29.07.1997 and ruqqa for registration of the case under Section 376IPC was sent at 02.50 AM.On the date of incident i.e. 28.07.1997 at about 11.45 PM, theprosecutrix was medically examined by Dr. Monika.It was noted inthe MLC (Ex.-PW6/A) that there were bruises of 4 cm x 4 cm on themedial aspects of both the thighs of the prosecutrix.The blouse wastorn along the back of the left sleeve and at the time of preparingthe MLC (Ex.-PW6/A); the clothes of prosecutrix could not besealed since she did not have spare clothes.Later her petticoat 3 was collected and sent for chemical examination.Upon completionof investigation, charge sheet was filed against theaccused/respondents.Charges were framed against the accused/respondents underSection 376(2)(g) IPC to which they pleaded not guilty.To bringhome the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined sevenwitnesses and exhibited number of documents.Theaccused/respondents in their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.stated that PW-1-Prosecutrix was of bad characterand she was indulging in prostitution and they have lodgedcomplaint against her and therefore, they have been falselyimplicated in the rape case.Upon consideration of evidence of PW-1-Prosecutrix andmedical report, forensic report and other evidence, the trial courtconvicted accused/respondents under Section 376(2)(g) IPC andsentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for tenyears.Being aggrieved, the accused/respondents filed appealbefore the High Court.In the High Court, the accused/respondentsfiled petition under Section 391 Cr.P.C. for taking additionalevidence which was allowed by the High Court.The High Court bythe impugned judgment allowed the appeal by setting aside the 4 conviction of the accused/respondents under Section 376(2)(g) IPC.The High Court held that regarding the ladies quarrel at 07.30 p.m.on 28.07.1997 involving sex workers including the prosecutrix atShaheed Bhagat Singh Jhuggi, FIR No.558/97 was registered andin connection with the said FIR No.558/97, the prosecutrix and otherladies were arrested and that they were in custody with the police tillat least 09.30 PM.The High Court therefore doubted theprosecution case in FIR No.559/97 and held that when theprosecutrix and other ladies were in custody with the police between08.50 PM till 10.00 PM on 28.07.1997, it is quite impossible that theoccurrence of rape would have taken place at 09.00 PM on28.07.1997 as alleged by the prosecutrix.Based upon the Report of Joint Commissioner (Ex.-DW6/A)and the Report of DCP, the High court directed the RegistrarGeneral of the High Court to make a complaint against SI JaiBhagwan (PW-7), SI Prem Chand (DW-3) and Head ConstableSagar Chand (DW-5) before the concerned court for prosecution forthe offences under Sections 193 and 195 IPC.Being aggrieved bythe remarks made against them and also the direction to lodge acomplaint to initiate prosecution against them, SI Jai Bhagwan (PW- 57), SI Prem Chand (DW-3) and Head Constable Sagar Chand (DW-The learned Additional Solicitor General Mr. VikaramjitBanerjee appearing on behalf of appellant Govt. of NCT of Delhihas submitted that the High Court has failed to appreciate theevidence of PW-1-Prosecutrix which is corroborated by the medicalevidence and the High Court erred in relying upon the events in FIRNo.558/97 and erred in acquitting the respondents/accused.Thelearned Additional Solicitor General further submitted that the HighCourt erred in relying upon the report of the Joint Commissioner(Ex.-DW6/A) and other materials produced at the time of argumentsand the High Court ought not to have proceeded on presumptionand conjectures and erred in not appreciating the evidence andmaterials placed on record.The learned senior counsel Mr. Mukul Gupta and Mr. SanjayR. Hegde appearing for the appellants-police have taken us throughthe evidence and other materials and submitted that the policeofficials have correctly investigated the case and without giving anopportunity of hearing, the High Court was not right in passingdisparaging remarks against the police officials and issuingdirections to lodge a complaint against the appellants-police officials 6 to initiate the prosecution under Sections 193 and 195 IPC whichhave very serious consequences and impact on their official career.Though the accused initially engaged a lawyer, in laterhearings of the appeal, they were not represented.It is the contention ofthe respondents/accused that the police and prosecutrix haveconspired a plot of false rape case implicating the respondents andthe High Court rightly acquitted the accused/respondents anddirected to initiate action against the police.We have carefully considered the submissions of therespondents/accused and also the appellant/police officials andperused the impugned judgment and materials on record.PW-1-Prosecutrix has spoken about the occurrence of rapecommitted on her that accused/respondent No.2-Gunjesh 7 Chaudhary caught hold of her hands and that other three accusednamely Pankaj Chaudhary, Qasim and Jai Lal Yadav had torn herblouse and committed rape on her and that she raised alarm andthen her mother came there and the accused persons ran away.Dr. Monika who examined the prosecutrix noted inMLC (Ex-PW6/A) that “the blouse of the prosecutrix was found tobe torn along the back of the left sleeve and bruises measuring 4 ×4 cm were found on her both thighs”.Contention of the respondents is that when the prosecutrixwas forcibly held by the accused and gang raped, in all probability,the prosecutrix must have sustained external injuries and absenceof external injuries raises serious doubts about the prosecutionversion.The submission of the accused/respondents that theprosecutrix was not injured, was belied by the presence of bruisesmeasuring 4 × 4 cm on the medial aspects of both the thighs.The 8 blouse was torn along the back of left sleeve and such injuries werepossible by use of force.Further, the version of the prosecutrix iscorroborated by MLC(Ex.-PW6/A) and that the injuries found couldbe possible by use of force.In any event, absence of externalinjuries does not tantamount to consent nor does it discredit theversion of prosecutrix.The evidence of the prosecutrix is also corroborated by FSLReport (Ex.-PW7/G) which shows presence of human semen (Ex.-1) on the petticoat of the prosecutrix.As per the FSL Report (Ex.-PW7/G), blood was detected on Exhibits 3S1 (gauze cloth piecehaving brown stains labelled ‘Pankaj’); 3S2 (gauze cloth piecehaving brown stains labelled ‘Qasim’); and 3S3 (gauze cloth piecehaving brown stains labelled ‘Jai Lal’).The result of the biologicalreport reads as under:-The presence of semen status of ‘B’ group on the petticoat of theprosecutrix which matches with the blood ‘B’ group of accused Jai 9 Lal (3S3) corroborates the version of the prosecutrix.Of course, theSerology Report on Exhibits 3S1 (gauze cloth piece having brownstains labelled ‘Pankaj’); 3S2 (gauze cloth piece having brownstains labelled ‘Qasim’) remained inconclusive; probably due todisintegration of the sample.Such disintegration of the sampledoes not dilute the version of the prosecutrix.The FSL Report (Ex.-PW7/G) was discarded by the HighCourt primarily on the ground that in MLC (Ex.-PW6/A), it is statedthat “the clothes could not be sealed as patient does not have extraclothes” which according to the High Court was inconsistent with thestatement of SI Jai Bhagwan (PW-7) that “Duty Constable of thehospital produced before me two sealed parcels containingpetticoat and slides which was sent to the FSL”.In her evidence during cross-examination, theprosecutrix has stated that the petticoat that she was wearing at thetime of incident was seized by the police.Having regard to the 10 evidence of the prosecutrix, we find no inconsistency between MLC(Ex.-PW6/A) and the statement of SI Jai Bhagwan (PW-7).Drawing our attention to the evidence of prosecutrix whosubmitted that the prosecutrix regained consciousness only at 10.00AM on 29.07.1997 and while so SI Jai Bhagwan could not haverecorded her statement at around 02.30 AM on 29.07.1997 asstated by him and this again throws serious doubt about theprosecution case.The prosecutrix (PW-1) was examined in thecourt on 05.11.1999 nearly two years after the occurrence and shemight not have been able to recollect the happenings as it is.It isalso pertinent to note that SI Jai Bhagwan (PW-7) has enquired theDoctor and the Doctor has declared that prosecutrix was fit to makethe statement and only thereafter the statement of prosecutrix (PW-1) was recorded (Ex.-PW1/A).On the next day i.e., on 29-07-1997 all theaccused/respondents were arrested by SI Jai Bhagwan (PW-7) andthey were medically examined in the hospital between 11.36 AM to 11 11.38 AM and the doctor opined that “on clinical examination, thereis nothing to suggest that the said accused persons are incapableof performing sexual intercourse”.The blood samples and the slideof smear of the accused were also seized and the case propertywas deposited in the malkhana from where it was sent to FSL.Further, as pointed out by the trial court, the prosecutrix hadno motive to falsely implicate the accused.In their statement underSection 313 Cr.P.C., the respondents/accused have stated that theprosecutrix was of bad character and she was indulging inprostitution regarding which they have lodged complaint against herand they have been falsely implicated in the case.The versionthat they lodged complaint against the prosecutrix and therefore,they have been falsely implicated in the case, is not substantiatedby any record.As per the deposition of SI Prem Chand (DW-3), hereached the spot with one lady constable Ms. Sarla Toppo andConstable Sagar Chandra (DW-5) at around 08:18 PM and foundthe ladies including prosecutrix quarrelling at public place in theirjhuggis and immediately arrested the ladies and conductedinvestigation and sent the ruqqa with a constable to register the FIRunder Section 160 IPC.SI Prem Chand (DW-3) stated about the arrest andsearch of four women and then released them on bail bonds and hewas on the spot up to 08:50 PM.The High Court relied on the statement of Head ConstableRatan Lal (DW-4) that SI Prem Chand (DW-3) has made atelephonic call at 08:52 PM to know the serial number of the case 17 and because the FIR was registered at 09:20 PM, the High Courtcame to the conclusion that the women involved in the FIRNo.558/97 could not have been released before 09:20 PM becauseone of the bail bonds contain the said FIR number and also heldthat it is highly unlikely for the police to have completed all the stepsreferred to above in respect of each of the four women and releasedthem by 08:52 PM and as per the site plan drawn in FIR No.559/97,the distance between the road and jhuggi is such that it wasimpossible for the prosecutrix to come back alone and be in herjhuggi at 09.00 PM.The occurrence of rape (FIR No.559/97) was at about09.00 PM regarding which information was received by the samePolice Station Hauz Khas at about 09.30 PM.SI Jai Bhagwan(PW-7) along with constable Khushi Ram (PW-4) reached the spotand learnt that the prosecutrix was taken to hospital by PCR Van.Thereafter, SI Jai Bhagwan (PW-7) along with constable KhushiRam (PW-4) went to AIIMS and found the prosecutrix there and herecorded her statement at 02.30 AM on 29.07.1997 after getting thecertificate from the doctor.After referring to the timings of FIR No.558/97, the High Courtheld that the quarrelling ladies including the prosecutrix were incustody of the police at least till 08.50 PM and it was highlyimprobable that the prosecutrix could have come back and wasalone in her jhuggi at 09.00 PM on 28.07.1997 and that therespondents/accused entered her jhuggi and committed rape asalleged by her and that even before 09.30 PM, she was picked upfrom there by PCR Van.The High Court therefore concluded thatSI Jai Bhagwan, constable Khushi Ram (PW-4) and the prosecutrix(PW-1) have fabricated false case against the accused.In thisregard, the High Court relied upon the Report of JointCommissioner dated 07.11.2000 (Ex.-DW6/A) and the Report ofS.K. Gautam, DCP.The reasoning of the High Court that the ladies were arrestedin connection with FIR No.558/97 under Section 160 IPC and thatthe ladies must have remained with the custody of police till 09.20PM proceeds on presumptive footing and surmises.In his evidence,Mahanand Jha (DW-1) has stated that “the said ladies came backto the area at 08.30 PM and started abusing the neighbourers”.19 Likewise, Sharabuddin (DW-2) has stated that “the police releasedthe said ladies including Phoola (PW-1) and after coming back toher jhuggi, she started abusing the neighbours.Then, I informedPCR Van on telephone and PCR Van came and took Phoola……..”.The High Court failed to appreciate the testimonies of DWs 1 and 2who have categorically stated that the prosecutrix had come backand was abusing neighbours.Mere fact that FIR No.558/97 underSection 160 IPC was registered at 09.20 PM does not indicate thatthe prosecutrix and other quarrelling ladies were in the policecustody till 09.30 PM on 28.07.1997 (with respect to the offence inFIR No.558/97).The aspectregarding FIR No.558/97 was not put to the witnesseseven before the trial court.Everything was brought about in appealas additional evidence in exercise of the power of the appellatecourt under Section 391 Cr.Unfortunately, the High Court was swayed by theDepartmental Enquiry Report (Ext.-DW6/A) prepared by JointCommissioner of Police that was brought on record by ConstableDharamvir Singh (DW-6).Going through the entire report, weobserve that the departmental enquiry was primarily based on thediary entries and the statements of one complainant Amod Shastriand statement of ASI Kamal Dev.In the report, JointCommissioner of Police, inter-alia concluded that the rape incidentcould not have happened at 09.00 PM while SI Prem Chand (DW-3)indicated that quarrelling ladies including the prosecutrix werereleased at 08.50 PM.It is pertinent to note that neither S.K.Gautam, Deputy Commissioner of Police was examined nor thesaid complainant Amod Shastri and ASI Kamal Dev were examined.Yet the High Court relied on it to come to a conclusion that the rapeincident could not have happened at the alleged time and manner.ASI Kamal Dev who took the prosecutrix to the hospital inPCR Van is said to have made the statement before the DeputyCommissioner of Police stating that when he questioned theprosecutrix, she was conscious and that she told him that she hadbeen beaten up and has not stated anything about the allegedincident of rape.In our view, the High Court was not right in placing 21 heavy reliance upon the report of the Joint Commissioner and thereport of Deputy Commissioner who were not examined before thecourt.Based upon the report of Joint Commissioner of Police (Ex.-DW6/A) and the report of S.K. Gautam, DCP, the High Court madedisparaging remarks against the police officials and directedprosecution against the police under Sections 193 and 195 IPC.The police officials were neither party nor summoned by the HighCourt before making such disparaging remarks and giving directionsagainst them in the appeal against the conviction.The High Court erred in brushing aside the evidence of theprosecutrix by substituting its views on the basis of submissionsmade on the sequence of events in FIR No.558/97 and the report ofthe Joint Commissioner of Police (Ex.-DW6/A) and the report of theDeputy Commissioner of Police.The High Court erred in taking intoconsideration the materials produced before the appellate court viz.,the alleged complaints made against the prosecutrix and otherwomen alleging that they were engaged in prostitution.
|
['Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 200 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
30,754,258 |
http://www.judis.nic.in 1/14 CRL.O.P.No.5608 of 2020The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are arrayed as A1 and A2 on the complaint lodged by the respondent herein for the offences under Section 420 of IPC.During the year 2013, the respondent had approached the petitioners to supply animal feeds on credit system.Accordingly, the respondent purchased animal feeds to the tune of Rs.3,59,68,318/- But as assured by the respondent, he did not repay the amount.Therefore, the petitioners lodged complaint before the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Namakkal and the same was registered in Cr.No.12 of 2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 506(i) of IPC as against the respondent.In fact, he was arrested and remanded to judicial custody.Thereafter, after releasing on bail, the respondent admitted his liability and issued two cheques towards legally enforceable liability.Both the cheques were presented for collection and were returned dishonoured for the reason that “payment stopped by the drawer”.After issuance of statutory notice, proceeded for the offences punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act as against the respondent in STC.Nos.170 & 171 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-I, Namakkal.2.1 He further submitted that after receipt of summon in the said proceedings, the respondent lodged complaint alleging that the respondenthttp://www.judis.nic.in 2/14 CRL.O.P.No.5608 of 2020 issued cheques as security to continue the business operation between the petitioners and the respondent.Therefore, both the cheques were not issued for any legally enforceable debt and both cheques were misused by the petitioners.There are totally two accused, in which the petitioners are arrayed as A1 and A2 in the complaint lodged by the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC.The respondent lodged private complaint alleging that the complainant is running proprietorship concern in the name and style of M/s.RSR Egg Centre along with poultry farms at Namakkal District.The petitioners are engaged in the business of selling animal feeds in cash and also on credit basis to customers.In the year 2013, the respondent approached the petitioners for supply of animal feeds and the same was agreed and animal feeds were supplied to the respondent.In the normal course of business transaction between the petitioners and the respondent, for the purpose of holding out security as against the feeds supplied by the petitioners, the respondent issued two cheques for security purpose.While being so, in the year 2017, the feeds supplied by the petitioners were not standard one and therefore vide communication datedhttp://www.judis.nic.in 4/14 CRL.O.P.No.5608 of 2020 12.09.2017, the respondent issued stop payment in respect of the cheques issued to the petitioners.This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.142 of 2020 pending on the file of the Hon'ble Judicial Magistrate No.I, Namakkal having been taken cognizance for the offences under Section 420 of IPC, as against the petitioners.On receipt of the same, the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Namakkal registered case in Crime No.7 of 2019 for the offences under Section 23, 409, 415 and 420 of IPC.After due enquiry, the said complaint was referred as mistake of fact and final report was also submitted before the Judicial Magistrate-I, Namakkal.On receipt of the referred charge sheet notice, the respondent initially filed protest petition and the same was withdrawn with liberty to file private complaint.The learned Magistrate without considering the above facts and circumstances mechanically has taken cognizance for the offences under Section 420 of IPC as against the petitioners.Harihar Singh & Anr in Crl.Therefore, he sought for quashment of the proceedings.http://www.judis.nic.in 3/14 CRL.O.P.No.5608 of 2020Heard Mr.In order to take further action as against the petitioners, the respondent lodged complaint before the District Crime Branch, Namakkal and after the direction issued by the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Namakkal under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., the case was registered in Cr.No.7 of 2019 for the offences under Sections 23, 409, 415 and 420 of IPC as against the petitioners.Unfortunately, the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Namakkal referred the complaint as mistake of fact and filed final report.Aggrieved by the same, the respondent filed private complaint and the same has been taken cognizance for the offence under Section 420 of IPC as against the petitioners.On perusal of the records, the respondent admitted the fact that the respondent received animal feeds to the tune of Rs.3,59,68,318/-.Thereafter towards liability of purchase, the respondent issued cheques for the said sum.Thereafter, the respondent stopped payment and as such both the cheques were returned dishonoured.In fact, evenhttp://www.judis.nic.in 5/14 CRL.O.P.No.5608 of 2020 before initiation of those proceedings, the petitioners lodged complaint as against the respondent before the District Crime Branch, Namakkal and the same was registered in Cr.No.12 of 2018 for the offences under Sections 420 and 506(i) of IPC, in which the respondent was also arrested and remanded to judicial custody.Only after released from the prison, the respondent issued cheques towards liability of purchase of animal feeds.On detailed enquiry, the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Namakkal closed the complaint lodged by the respondent as mistake of fact.As against the closure report, the respondent initially filed protest petition and subsequently it was withdrawn with liberty to file private complaint.Thereafter, the present impugned complaint was lodged by the respondent and the same has been taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Section 420 of IPC.The complaint has to be read as a whole.
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 155 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
30,771,209 |
Heard finally.This is the first bail application filed by applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C for grant of bail.Applicant has been arrested on 2/10/12 in connection with Crime No. 547/12 registered at P.S. Habibganj, District Bhopal for the offence punishable under sections 363, 366, 376, 302, 201/34 of IPC.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the case.Nothing is alleged against this applicant in regard to committing rape and murder of deceased Kavita.The only allegation against this applicant is that he was involved in disposal of dead body of Kavita.For causing disappearance of evidence of rape and murder, at the most, an offence u/s 201/34 of IPC may be attributed to this applicant.Charge sheet has already been filed and trial would take considerable time to be disposed of finally therefore, he prays for bail to the applicant.Learned counsel for the State opposes the application.
|
['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
30,775 |
ORDER R.K. Batta, J.The appellant was tried for murder of his sister, Clementina Fernandes under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and also for causing disappearance of evidence of the offence under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code.The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge.The conduct of the deceased was not liked by the appellant who is her brother which seems to have been enraged the accused to commit the crime in question.The evidence of Sydney Fernandes P.W. 6 is clinching and establishes beyond doubt the involvement of the appellant in the crime in question.Sydney P.W. 6 has stated that he got up at about 3.30 a.m. after hearing that something had hit his mother and found that she was bleeding from her head.No motive has been attributed either to Maria P.W. 1 or Sydney P.W. 6 as to why they should depose against the appellant nor it is suggested that they were having some enemical relations with the appellant.The story put forward by the appellant that the deceased had fallen near the toilet has been overruled by the medical evidence and also the evidence of P.W. 1 to whom the appellant never informed that the deceased had fallen near the toilet, but on the contrary the appellant had told her that he had assaulted the deceased with a danda.The prosecution examined nine witnesses in support of the charge.After assessment of the evidence, learned Additional Sessions Judge by the impugned judgment, which is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal, found the appellant guilty under section 304 (Part II) and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.The appellant was sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default to undergo another six months simple imprisonment under section 304 (Part II) of the Indian Penal Code and was further sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to undergo another two months simple imprisonment under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code.The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.The period of detention during the trial from 18-5-1997 was set off in terms of section 428 of the Criminal Procedure Code.The prosecution case, in brief, is that the appellant, his sister Clementina Fernandes and Sydney Fernandes P.W. 6, son of the deceased Clementina Fernandes were staying together.The husband of the deceased Clementina Fernandes was abroad.On 17-5-1997 at about 3-30 a.m. Sydney Fernandes P.W. 6 got up after hearing that something had hit on his mother.On getting up he saw that his mother was bleeding from her head.He also saw that the appellant had caught hold of the neck of his mother.He also found by the side of his mother a wooden rafter, at one end of which, there was blood and the other end was wrapped with newspaper and the banian of the appellant.The appellant told Sydney P.W. 6 not to shout, otherwise he would assault him.Sydney P.W. 6 saw that the appellant kept the rafter in the kitchen under the firewood.Sydney P.W. 6 also saw that there was blood on the pillow.The appellant called Maria Santan Esakki P.W. 1 who is related to him immediately after the incident.The appellant did not inform her as to what exactly had happened, he only asked her to come.When she came at that time the appellant told her that he had assaulted Clementina by a danda.The police recovered the danda at the instance of the appellant under section 27 of the Indian Penal Code (sic Evidence Act).Besides this, the police also recovered the ashes of the pillow on which Sydney P.W. 6 had seen the blood.The prosecution evidence consists of :(i) Evidence of Sydney Fernandes, P.W. 6(v) Recovery of ashes of the pillow.(vi) Motive.The motive is stated to be that the deceased was roaming with others which was not liked by the appellant.In fact the evidence of the Doctor P.W. 2 on record proves that on the night of the incident, the deceased is said to have intercourse with somebody as spermatozoa were found in the vaginal smears.Admittedly the husband of the deceased was abroad.The appellant had caught hold of the neck of his mother and he threatened him that if he shouted he would assault him.The fact that the appellant had caught hold of the neck of his mother and threatened to assault Sydney P.W. 6 if he shouted has not been denied.Besides this, Sydney found a wooden rafter by the side of his mother.There was blood on one end of the rafter and the other end was wrapped with newspaper and the banian of the appellant.This rafter was kept in the kitchen under the firewood which was recovered at the instance of the appellant under section 27 of the Indian Penal Code (sic Evidence Act).Besides Sydney P.W. 6 has stated that he had seen blood on the pillow on which his mother was sleeping.The ashes of this pillow were recovered at the instance of the appellant from behind the house.This evidence clinches beyond doubt the involvement of the accused and the guilt of the accused.In addition, there is extra judicial confession made by the appellant to Maria Essaki P.W. 1 who was admittedly called by the appellant to his house immediately after this incident.The appellant had rang her up and told her to come without disclosing as to what had happened.When she came to the house the appellant told him that he had assaulted Clementina by a danda.The medical evidence has also ruled out the theory of injuries being the result of fall on any projecting part of the floor or violent impact on a projection of the wall like the tap of a sink.The evidence on record, in our opinion is sufficient to establish involvement of the appellant in the crime.But for this modification, the appeal is dismissed.Appeal dismissed.
|
['Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
188,322,397 |
This Habeas Corpus Petition is filed by the wife of the detenu, namely, Ravi @ Munusamy, son of Kannapiran, aged about 42 years, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records, in No.BDFGISSV No.868/2014 dated 2.8.2014, passed by the 2nd Respondent, detaining the detenu, under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982)the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, branding him as a Goonda, in the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai and to quash the same and to direct the respondents to produce the body of the detenu and set him at liberty forthwith.Though several grounds have been raised in this Habeas Corpus Petition, 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 filed in similar cases, referred to in the grounds of detention, for arriving at the subjective satisfaction that there is likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail, which has affected the constitutional right of making an effective and purposeful representation to the authorities concerned, thereby vitiating the detention.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 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 paragraph 4 of the Grounds of Detention that in similar cases, the accused were released on bail respectively in Crl.M.P.No.2392/2012 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur, in Cr.No.1960/2012 under Sections 341, 294[b], 336, 427, 392, 397 and 506[ii] IPC and in Crl.
|
['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,883,228 |
JUDGMENT T.V.R. Tatachari, J.It is against that judgment that the Appeal has been preferred by Devinder Singh, and the learned Sessions Judge has made the Reference to this Court regarding the confirmation of the sentence passed by him.The charge framed against Devinder Singh was as follows : "THATyou, on or about 24th day of April, 1966 in the evening at Khameri forest, near Kosrian village, intentionally caused the death of your wife Mst.Piaro alias Piar Kaur by beheading her and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and within the cognizance of the Court of Sessions, Bilaspur."(3) (AFTER stating the prosecution case in detail and discussing prosecution evidence, His Lordship proceeded:) As regards the evidence that his father demanded Rs. 500.00 from Beant Kaur but she expressed her inability to pay the amount, he stated that the said evidence was incorrect.He stated that he will nto produce any evidence in defense.The Police also tortured the family members of Satish Kumar.There is party faction in the village.There is enmity between Radha Krishan, Pradhan, and the family of Satish Kumar.I never told Krishan Lal that I suspected the character of my wife.He has given a statement under the threat and pressure of the Police.The Police has involved me in a false case.My wife is alive.I do nto know her whereabouts.The Police has concealed her somewhere."(4) The charge against the accused Devinder Singh was that he had intentionally caused the death of his wife Mst.Piaro alias Piar Kaur by beheading her.According to the prosecution, accused Surinder Singh had caused the death of his wife Pier Kaur by beheading her, and that the head and the headless body found in the jungle were those of Piar Kaur.The first question, therefore, that arises for determination in the present case is, as to whether the said head and the headless body were those of Piar Kaur.As regards the head, it was stated by Dr. S. P. Kanwal (Public Witness -1) in his postmortem examination report (Exhibit PA) as well as in his evidence that it was decapitated, and was devoid of all soft parts, ears, eyes, nose, mouth contents and skin of scalp, and was found two furlongs away from the body.The brain was spread over the ground around the skull.He further stated that the head was severed at the highest point of its attachment with the neck at first cervical vertebre.He did nto state that the said head was the head of the headless body that was found at the distance.No other witness identified the head as that of Piar Kaur.There is thus no evidence that the said head was that of the headless body found in the jungle or that it was of Piar Kaur.(7) But, in the present case, the prosecution put forward a specific case that the appellant Devinder Singh caused the death of his wife by heading her, and produced a head and a headless body as those of the wife of the accused, Devinder Singh.We (8) A have held above that the said head and the headless body were nto those of Piar Kaur, the wife of Devinder Singh.Therefore, if the prosecution wants to establish the charge against Devinder Singh by circumstantial evidence, the said circumstantial evidence has to be such as would lead to the irresistible conclusion that Devidnder Singh caused the death of his wife by beheading her.We shall now consider the circumstantial.evidence in the case.(9) We have already set out the case of the prosecution.According to the prosecution, on 24-4-1966, the accused, Devinder Singh, along with his wife Piar Kaur, purchased two tickets for Jullundur and bearded a bus for Jullundur at the Batala Bus stop.The accused denied the same.The evidence regarding this is that of Beant Kaur (Public Witness -11), Laxman Singh (Public Witness -15), Kashu (Public Witness -18) and Pyai-a Singh (Public Witness -19).Beant Kaur deposed that Devinder Singh asked her to bring Piar Kaur to the Bus stand at Batala, that she and Laxman Singh, uncle of Piar Kaur, took Piar Kaur to the Bus stand, that the accused purchased two tickets for Jullunder, and that the accused and Piar Kaur left in a bus for Jullundur.This was corroborated by Laxman Singh (Public Witness -15).Kashu (Public Witness -18) stated that on that date he met Beant Kaur and one Kishan Singh at the Batala Bus stand, that on his enquiry Beant Kaur told him that she had come to leave her daughter, Piar Kaur, who had to go with the accused to Indore, and the that Piar Kaur and the accused were sitting in the bus which was to go to Jullundur.Beant Kaur stated in her evidence that she met Kashu at the Bus stop.Shri Chitkara, the learned counsel for the appellant, Devinder Singh, pointed out that Kashu did nto mention in his evidence about the presence of Laxman Singh at the Bus stop, and that Beant Kaur did nto mention about the presence of Kishan Singh at the Bus stop.These omissions by the said witnesses are nto such as would render their evidence unbelievable.We see no reason to disbelieve the evidence of Beant Kaur, Laxman Singh and Kashu.It has therefore, to be held that the appellant, Devinder Singh along with his wife, Piar Kaur, boarded a bus at Batala Bus stand and left for Jullundur.Piara Singh (Public Witness -19) stated that he met the the accused, Devinder Singh, Piar Kaur, Beant Kaur and the uncle of Piar Kaur at the Bus stop Kotii.His statement appears .to be incorrect as Beant Kaur and Laxman Singh went only to Batala Bus stop and nto to Kotli Bus stand.His evidence has, therefore, to be excluded.The accused denied this allegation also.The evidence relied upon by the prosecutiion consists of an entry (Exhibit PDD1)in the register of the said Sarai, and the evidence of Badri Nath (Public Witness -37),who was working as a Munshi in that Surui.In answer to a question put by the Court, he stated that he could identify the person who came to the Sarai (Dharamsala), and actually pointed our towards Amar Singh, the father of the accused, Devinder Singh, as the person who had cometotheSai'ai.The case of the prosecution is that the accused, Devinder Singh, stayed at the Sarai giving out his name as Ram Singh, and that the signature (Exhibit Pdd 2) in the register was in the handwriting of Devinder Singh.The said signature, along with some specimen signatures of Devinder Singh. were sent for a comparison to Shri S. K. Sharma (Public Witness -13), Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, Government of India.He reported (Exhibit PKK:) that the signature Pdd 2 and the genuine writings were of a common author.The learned Sessions Judge stated in his judgment that a comparison of the signature, Exhibit Pdd 2, with the admitted writings of the accused left no doubt that the signature, Exhibit Pdd 2, was of the accused.We too compared the signature, Exhibit Pdd 2, as enlarged in the photograph Exhibit Qi with the words "Ram Singh" which occur in the photograph of the genuine writing Si of Devinder Singh.Though the word "Ram" in Ql and Si appears to be similar, the word "Singh" appears to be dis-similar to our naked eyes.It is true that the expert gave his reasons for the opinion expressed by him.But, as pointed out by the Supreme Court in Shashi Kumar Banerjee and Others v. Suhodh Kumar Bunerjee "EXPERT'Sevidence as to handwriting is opinion evidence and can rarely if ever, take the place of substantive evidence.(11) In the present case, the only other evidence about the entry is that of Badri Nath (Public Witness -37).He, however, as already pointed out above, pointed to Amar Singh, the father of Devinder Singh, as the person who stayed at the Sarai.(12) The appellant, Devinder Singh, denied that the signature, Exhibit Pdd 2, was his, and he stated that there was another man by the name of Ram Singh, son of Hari Singh, aged 21 years, living in the Village Jawahar Nangal.On the other hand although the name Ram Singh appearing in the entry in the register of the Sarai was known to the prosecution, yet the Investigating Officer, even after coming to know of the entry in the register, did nto investigate into the matter to find out whether such a person was living in the village Johal-Nangal.This version of his was quite consistent with his statement in the letters.Exhibit Px, dated 25-4-1966, Exhibit Pu, dated 27-4-1966, Exhibit Pxi, dated 11-5-1966, and Exhibit Pyi, dated 29-5-1966, to the mother and the brother of his wife, Piar Kaur.The said letters contain his statement that Piar Kaur was alive.
|
['Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
188,330,191 |
Heard on admission.Record of the Court below has been received.The appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 376 (2) (jha) (dha) of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years along with fine of Rs.1,000/-, under Section 363 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years along with fine of Rs.500/- and Section 366 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years along with fine of Rs.500/-, with default stipulation respectively.Being aggrieved by that conviction and sentence, the appellant has filed this appeal.After perusal of the statement of the witnesses and judgment, this appeal is having an arguable point, hence, it is admitted for final hearing.Also heard on I.A. No.1534/2019, an application under Section 389 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant Shanker.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that prosecutrix is more than 18 years.The appellant and prosecutrix fell in love affair.Prosecutrix went along with the appellant.They lived together for 15-16 days.Thereafter she was recovered from the possession of the appellant after lodging the missing person report by parents of the prosecutrix,.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 submits that prosecutrix is a minor girl aged about 18 years; therefore, prays for dismissal of this application.On perusal of the statement of the prosecutrix, it emerges out that prosecutrix seems to be aged about 15-16 years.On the pretext of marriage, she went along with the appellant.On going through the statement of Rekha Bai (PW-7), age of the prosecutrix is disputed in this appeal.THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Criminal Appeal No.773/2019 (Shanker Vs.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: 2019.04.03 12:20:00 +05'30'
|
['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
18,833,127 |
185/12 & 838/10 Page 1 of 11Briefly stated, the prosecution case as set up in the charge- sheet was that on 21.07.2008 at around 01.30 P.M. at jhuggi near Kura Ghar, opposite Madras Road, Jamuna Bazar, the appellants in furtherance of common intention kidnapped X (assumed name) aged 12 / 13 years and sexually assaulted her.When one of the appellants was in the process of committing rape upon X, her brother Mohd.Irshad arrived at the spot and apprehended him (A-1) then and there.The other individual (A-2) succeeded to flee the spot.The occurrence was reported to the police promptly.The Investigating Officer, after recording victims statement (Ex.PW-5/A), lodged First Information Report.His name finds mention in the victims statement (Ex.PW-5/A) recorded soon after the incident.The occurrence took place at around 01.30 P.M. Daily Diary (DD) No.21-A (Ex.PW-14/A) was recorded at 13.57 hours at PS Kashmiri Gate on getting intimation of the incident of rape near Kura Ghar, Nigam Bodh Ghat.The investigation was assigned to SI Ram Singh who with Lady Const.Raj Rani rushed to the spot.The day of occurrence was Monday.No ulterior motive was assigned to her to falsely implicated the appellants with whom she was not acquainted with before the incident and did not nurture any ill-will.The appellants had enticed a poor innocent girl aged about 12/ 13 years on the pretext to provide her good food.The factum of his arrival at the spot is recorded in the statement (Ex.PW-5/A) given to the police at the first instance.He also deposed that when he arrived in Jamuna Bazar at Hanuman Mandir at about 01.00 P.M. in search of her cousin X and enquired from two or three persons about her, he was informed that a girl had gone with two boys towards Kura Ghar.It is to be remembered that PW-5 X was an illiterate girl who earned her livelihood by picking rags from roads.She was not expected to remember all the minute details of the incident.185/12 & 838/10 Page 11 of 11The appellants - Sachin (A-1) and Krishan Kumar (A-2) impugn a judgment dated 05.10.2009 of learned Addl.Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.65/08 emanating from FIR No.212/08 PS Kashmiri Crl.185/12 & 838/10 Page 1 of 11 Gate, by which they were held guilty for committing offences punishable under Sections 363/366A/34 IPC read with Section 376 (2)(g) IPC.By an order dated 07.10.2009, they were sentenced to undergo RI for three years with fine ` 100/- each under Sections 363/34 IPC; RI for five years with fine ` 500/- each under Sections 366A/34 IPC and RI for ten years with fine ` 500/- each under Section 376(2)(g) IPC.All the sentences were to operate concurrently.X was medically examined; she recorded her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. A-1 was also taken for medical examination.Subsequently, A-2 was arrested and application for conducting Test Identification Proceedings was moved but Crl.185/12 & 838/10 Page 2 of 11 he declined to participate.Statements of the witnesses conversant with facts were recorded and after completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against both the appellants.The prosecution examined sixteen witnesses to substantiate its case.In 313 Cr.P.C. statements, the appellants denied their involvement in the crime and pleaded false implication due to a previous quarrel with Xs relatives.They did not examine any defence witness.The trial resulted in their conviction as aforesaid.Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, they have preferred the instant appeals.185/12 & 838/10 Page 2 of 11Appellants counsel vehemently urged that the Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in its true and proper perspective and fell into grave error in relying upon the testimonies of interested witnesses without independent corroboration.Prosecution witnesses have given divergent and conflicting versions as to when and where the occurrence took place.The prosecutrix has narrated different versions in her statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. before the police, 164 Cr.P.C. before the Metropolitan Magistrate and the one given before the Court.From the MLC, it can be inferred that the Crl.185/12 & 838/10 Page 3 of 11 hymen was ruptured but the rupture was old indicating that X was habituated to sexual intercourse.The prosecution was unable to furnish cogent document to ascertain if X was below sixteen years of age.X was taken for medical examination at Aruna Asaf Ali Govt. Hospital at 03.45 P.M. In the alleged history recorded therein (Ex.PW-4/B), there is mention of commission of rape at about 02.00 P.M. behind Hanuman Mandir in Jamuna Bazar.Rukka was sent promptly at 04.45 P.M. In her statement (Ex.PW-5/A), the prosecutrix gave graphic detail of the incident and named two individuals including A-1 to have committed rape turn by turn Crl.185/12 & 838/10 Page 4 of 11 upon her.She also identified the other assailant known as Chavanni who fled the spot.Since the FIR was lodged quickly without any delay, there was least possibility of the prosecutrix to fabricate a false story in such a short interval.In her 164 Cr.P.C. statement (Ex.PW-13/A) also, she attributed specific role to each of the appellants.She informed the learned Metropolitan Magistrate that she was raped by two unknown boys when she was in a state of semi-sleep after taking lunch.Both of them took her to a jhuggi near Kura Ghar, Jamuna Bazar and took turns to rape her.Her brother Mohd. Irshad arrived at the spot per chance and caught hold of one of the rapists whose name was ascertained Sachin (A-1).In her Court statement also she identified with certainty both the appellants to be the perpetrators of the crime.She deposed that when she was picking rags, near Hanuman Mandir at about 02.00 P.M., two boys met her when she was going to Hanuman Mandir to have food.The said two boys offered good food and she accompanied them.They took her towards Kura Ghar where there was a temporary shanty.She was raped by an individual while the other stood outside to guard the spot.In the meantime, her brother Mohd.Irshad came for her search and at that time, A-1 was committing rape upon her.In the cross-examination, she denied herself to be a tutored witness.She Crl.185/12 & 838/10 Page 5 of 11 revealed that she used to go to Hanuman Mandir for food many a times.Thereafter, they established physical relations with her against her wishes.No sound reasons exist to suspect her testimony.185/12 & 838/10 Page 4 of 11185/12 & 838/10 Page 5 of 115. PW-7 (Mohd.Irshad) another crucial witness has corroborated the testimony of the prosecutrix on all material and relevant circumstances.When he reached there, he saw a boy having sexual intercourse with X on a cot.He caught hold of the boy and slapped him.A-1 was the individual identified by him who was caught red Crl.185/12 & 838/10 Page 6 of 11 handed.He also named another individual known Chavanni who fled the spot.In the cross-examination, he stated to have reached Hanuman Mandir between 01.30 P.M. to 02.00 P.M. He was unable to disclose as to what type of clothes the appellants were wearing that time.He denied that a quarrel had taken place between him and A-2 over parking of a Rehri.Again, testimony of PW-7 (Mohd.Irshad) remained unchallenged on material facts.A-1 did not deny his apprehension at the spot by him.No suggestion was put by A-2 as to where else he was present at the time of occurrence.185/12 & 838/10 Page 6 of 11Ocular testimonies of PW-5 and PW-7 are in consonance with medical evidence.PW-4 (Dr.Rajesh Prasad), CMO, Aruna Asaf Ali Govt. Hospital, proved the MLC (Ex.PW-4/B).PW-16 (Dr.Alka Goel), SR, Aruna Asaf Ali Govt. Hospital, deposed that on medical examination, she found hymen ruptured; multiple pustular lesion present on vulva.Nonetheless, the prosecutrix and her close relatives claimed that she was of 12 / 13 years of age.Her ossification test was also conducted to ascertain her age and as per ossification report, she was between 12 - 14 years.Being a little girl, she was not expected even to consent for sexual intercourse with both the appellants one by one during day time.Absence of injuries on her private parts cannot be construed as evidence of consent.The plea that X was habituated to sexual intercourse is devoid of force.In State of U.P. vs. Pappu @ Yunus & Anr., AIR 2005 SC 1248, it was held that even in a case where it is shown that the girl is a girl of easy virtue or a girl habituated to sexual intercourse it may not be a ground to absolve the accused from the charge of rape.It has to be established that there was consent by her for that Crl.185/12 & 838/10 Page 8 of 11 particular occasion.Absence of injury on the prosecutrix may not be a factor that leads the Court to absolve the accused.185/12 & 838/10 Page 7 of 11185/12 & 838/10 Page 8 of 11Adverse inference is to be drawn against A-2 for not participating in TIP Proceedings.Moreover, he was identified with certainty in the Court by X and PW-7 during evidence.Certain discrepancies, exaggerations, improvements and omissions on trivial matters highlighted by appellants counsel are not material to throw away the prosecution evidence overboard.185/12 & 838/10 Page 9 of 11It is significant to note that when charge was framed and it was read over and explained to the appellants, A-1 pleaded guilty to it.However, the Trial Court to get cogent evidence in this regard did not accept the plea of guilt and proceeded to dispose of the case on merits.Plea of guilt by A-1 lends credence to the statement of the prosecutrix and confirms his participation in the crime.The appellants did not give plausible explanation to the incriminating circumstances proved against them.No worthwhile evidence has appeared to infer if any quarrel had taken place on any occasion between them and Xs relatives prompting them to falsely implicate them in this heinous offence.No particulars of such quarrel have emerged on record.No complaint about any such quarrel was lodged with the police.A copy of the order be sent to the Superintendent Jail for information.(S.P.GARG) JUDGE MARCH 27, 2015 / tr Crl.185/12 & 838/10 Page 11 of 11
|
['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']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
188,332,584 |
No.314/1994 whereby the appellants were convicted and sentenced as mentioned in the table below :The prosecution's story in short is that on 7.7.1994 at about 2.00 p.m complainant Amol Singh (PW6), resident of Village Manjala (Police Station Banda, District Sagar) was coming back from his fields.He passed through the land of appellant Girdhari and therefore, Girdhari abused him.When he was passing near the house of one Uddet, appellants met him there.The appellant Girdhari had a katarna, Kamal had a ballam and Haridas had a stick.Girdhari assaulted the complainant Amol Singh by a katarna causing him a grave injury on his left hand.Thereafter, he ran towards the village.He was chased by the appellant Kamal and Haridas.Karan Singh came to the spot after hearing the shouts of the complainant Amol Singh.Girdhari assaulted the victim Karan Singh by a katarna on his head and thereafter, the appellants entered in the house of one Kailash and assaulted him also.The victim Amol Singh had lodged an FIR Ex.P/12 at Police Station Banda soon after the incident.All the injured perrsons were sent to the hospital for their medico legal examination.Dr. S.P. Swarnakar (PW13) examined the injured persons at CHC, Banda.He found an incised wound 10" x 3" in size on the left side of the chest of victim Kailash Singh.He gave a report Ex.P/6A to that effect.Similarly he found one deep incised wound to the complainant Amol Singh on left fore arm.P/4A is the report to that effect.He also found that left ulna bone was cut due to that assault.Similarly, he examined Karan Singh and gave his report Ex.P/5A. He found two incised wounds on left and right parietal region on him.(Delivered on the 12th day of September, 2012) The appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 27.8.1996 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar in ST.All the victims were referred for X- 3Criminal Appeal No.1643 of 1996 Ray examination.Dr. Dinesh Diwakar (PW1) in his X-Ray report (Ex.P/1) found that the complainant Amol Singh sustained fracture of radius bone in his left hand whereas no grave injury was found to the other victims.After due investigation a charge sheet was filed before the JMFC, Banda who, committed the case to the Sessions Court, Sagar and ultimately it was transferred to the First Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar.The appellants abjured their guilt.They took a specific plea that they were falsely implicated due to political enmity.The accused Girdhari took a plea of alibi.In defence Ram Shankar (DW1), Nandram (DW2) and Prembai (DW3) were examined.After considering the evidence adduced by the parties the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned above.The complainant Amol Singh and Karan Singh have submitted IA.No.18495/2012 to seek permission for compromise and also submitted IA.No.18607/2012 a compromise application between the parties.They were sent before Registrar Judicial (I) to examine their voluntariness and thereafter, vide order dated 31.8.2012 compromise for offence punishable under Section 324 of I.P.C was permitted whereas, it was directed that the factum of compromise will be considered at the time of consideration of sentence for offence punishable under Section 326 of I.P.C.I have heard learned counsel for the parties.The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the appellants Girdhari and Haridas were youths of 26 and 19 4 Criminal Appeal No.1643 of 1996 years of age at the time of incident whereas, the appellant Kamal was 32 years old at that time.They remained in the custody for approximately 24 days.Appellant Girdhari remained in custody for 39 days.Under such circumstances, where they faced the trial and appeal for last 18 years they may not be sent to the jail again.It is also submitted that the victim Amol Singh and Karan Singh have submitted a compromise application before this Court to seek permission to do compromise and compromise was also filed by the parties.Looking to the compromise, sentence of the appellants may be reduced.After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties it appears that the appellants have not challenged their conviction for offence punishable under Section 326 or 326 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. However, if merits of the case is considered then it would be apparent from the evidence given by Khilan Singh (PW2), Amol Singh (PW6), Karan Singh (PW7), Tikaram (PW9) that the appellant Girdhari assaulted the victim Amol Singh by a katarna causing a deep injury on his left hand.Version of the witnesses was duly corroborated by a timely lodged FIR Ex.Injury caused to the victim was duly 5 Criminal Appeal No.1643 of 1996 proved by the report Ex.P/4A given by Dr. Swarnakar (PW13).Dr. Dinesh Diwakar (PW1) has proved the X-Ray report Ex.P/1 and found that the injury caused to the victim Amol Singh was grievous.There is nothing on record by which the version of these witnesses can be disbelieved.The defence witnesses tried to establish the alibi of the appellant Girdhari but, it was not proved beyond doubt.Enmity between the parties is established but, enmity is a double edged weapon.Due to enmity the appellants could assault the victim.Under such circumstances, where the testimony of the various witnesses which is duly corroborated by the FIR and medical reports are trust worthy and it is proved beyond doubt that the appellant Girdhari assaulted the victim Amol Singh causing him grievous hurt.The victim Amol Singh sustained only one injury caused by the appellant Girdhari.It is apparent that the remaining appellants did not assault the victim Amol Singh by any weapon but, when Girdhari came to the victim Amol Singh the remaining appellants were accompanying him.They were also armed and when the victim Karan Singh tried to save the victim Amol Singh then these appellants assaulted the victim Karan Singh.Under such circumstances, their common intention is visible that they were interested that the appellant Girdhari could assault the victim Amol Singh in a effective manner.Under such circumstances, the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant Girdhari for offence punishable under section 326 of I.P.C and 6 Criminal Appeal No.1643 of 1996 remaining appellants for offence punishable under section 326 read with Section 34 of I.P.C.So far as the sentence is concerned offences under Section 324 of I.P.C was compounded by the complainants and therefore, according to the provisions of Section 320(8) of the Cr.P.C effect of that compromise would be of an acquittal.Though offence under Section 326 of I.P.C is grave but, it is apparent that the main accused of the case was only 26 years old young man at the time of incident.All the appellants have faced the trial and appeal for 18 years and at present the victim Amol Singh excused the appellants and he filed a compromise with the appellants.In the light of the compromise and harassment caused due to long pendency of the case and appeal with a circumstance that the appellants remained in the custody for more than three weeks it would be proper that they may not be sent to the jail again.However, looking to the overt act done by them fine amount may be enhanced.On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, appeal filed by the appellants is hereby partly allowed.Conviction as well as the sentence directed for offence punishable under Section 324 or 324 read with 34 of I.P.C is hereby set aside in the light of the compromise.The appellants are acquitted from that charge.The conviction for offence punishable under section 326 or 326 read with Section 34 of I.P.C is hereby maintained but, sentence is reduced to the period which they have undergone in the custody by enhancing the fine from a sum of Rs.500/- to a sum of Rs.5000/- 7Criminal Appeal No.1643 of 1996 on each of the appellants.The appellants are directed to deposit the remaining fine amount before the trial Court within two months from today failing which each of them has to undergo for one years' rigorous imprisonment.The appellants are on bail.Copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court with its record for information and compliance.(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE 12.9.2012 bina
|
['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
188,357,826 |
Challenge is made to the order of detention passed by the second respondent vide Proceedings Memo No.1753/BDFGISSV/2014 dated 08.11.2014 whereby the detenu/the son of the petitioner herein, by name, Anil @ Anil Kumar, son of Sithaiya, 24 years, was ordered to be detained under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) branding him as a "GOONDA.2.Though many grounds have been raised in the petition, Mr.However, he submitted that the copy of the bail applications in similar cases, referred to in the grounds of detention was not supplied to the detenu.4.We have given our careful and anxious consideration to the rival submissions put forward by the learned counsel on either side and thoroughly scanned through the impugned detention order and the entire materials available on record.5.It is seen from paragraph No.4 of the Grounds of Detention that in similar cases, the accused were released on bail [a] by the V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai in Crl.MP.Nos.1259 and 1364/2012 for the offence under sections 457 and 380 IPC in Cr.No.1062/2011 on the file of P-3 Vyasarpadi Police Station; and [b] by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur in Crl.MP.No.2392/2012 for the offence u/s.341, 294(b), 336, 427, 392, 397 and 506(ii) IPC in Cr.No.1960/2012 on the file of T-1 Ambattur Police Station respectively.On a perusal of the Paper Book furnished by the Prosecution, it is seen that it does not contain the copies of the said bail applications in similar cases and only the respective bail order was furnished to the detenu in page Nos.277 to 281 [in English version and in Vernacular version] in the Booklet placed before us.
|
['Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
188,358,304 |
This criminal original petition stands allowed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
|
['Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
29,493,591 |
Heard learned counsel for the parties.This is a repeat application of the applicant whereas one of his application was dismissed on 19.8.2016 being withdrawn.The applicant is in custody since 7.2.2016 relating to Crime No.59/2016 registered at Police Station Rajpur, District Barwani (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 353, 332, 333, 186, 147, 149/34 IPC.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a reputed citizen of the society, who has no criminal past.It is alleged against the mob that they pelted stones on Police officials.It is alleged against the applicant that he assaulted the Constable Anil with stone on his head causing fracture of frontal bone.However, he has not repeated the assault on victim Anil or other Police officials.The victim Anil is out of danger and he has been discharged from the hospital.The applicant cannot be kept in custody for an unlimited period.Under these circumstances, she prays for bail.Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application on the ground that if the applicant is released on bail he may escape.It is directed that the applicant, namely, Kalu S/o Gokul Bhilala be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand Only) with a surety bond the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, to appear before the Trial Court on the dates given by the concerned Court.This order shall be effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K. GUPTA)
|
['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 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.
|
29,503,993 |
The applicants have no criminal antecedent.Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, considering the nature of accusation and the fact that applicants have no criminal antecedent, the applicants are entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case.In the event of arrest of the applicants namely Ravindra Yadav, Lallan Yadav and Ashok Yadav, who are involved in Case Crime No. 0167 of 2020, under Sections- 452, 506, 504, 323, IPC, Police Station- Nonhara, District- Ghazipur, shall be released on anticipatory bail till the submission of police report, if any, under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-(i) the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police office as and when required;The applicants are directed to produce a computer generated copy of this order downloaded from the official website of Allahabad High Court, before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned within ten days from today, who shall ensure the compliance of present order.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 :- 25.8.2020 ssm
|
['Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
295,047 |
(1)......(2)......Consequently, connected VCMP and CMPs are closed.The respondent herein preferred a complaint before the DistrictConsumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Namakkal and during the pendency of thecomplaint, the respondent filed an application to amend the name of therevision petitioner herein and the same was allowed.Aggrieved by the same,this revision has been filed.Originally, the respondent herein filed the complaint againstManimalan in his individual capacity and thereafter he filed the applicationto change the petitioner as Managing Partner of the company and the saidapplication was allowed and the same is challenged in this civil revisionpetition.908), would be applicable as far as certain matters are concerned which are,Procedure on admission of complaint-(3)......(4)For purposes of this, the District Forum shall have the same powersas are vested in Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 19 08 (5 of1908), while trying a suit in respect of the following matters, namely:-(i) the summoning and enforcing attendance of any defendant or witnessand examining the witness on oath;(ii) the discovery and production of any document or other materialobject producible as evidence;Fair Air Engineers Pvt. Ltd., & another Vs.N.K.Modi (1996 (II) CTC 664), and the Supreme Court in dealing with the matterhad observed that:"Section 13 provides for the procedure after receipt of complaint andfor disposal thereof.The details thereof are not material exceptsub-sections (4),(5) and (6) thereof which having cutting edge as material inthis behalf.Sub-Section (4) postulates that for the purposes of thatSection, the District Forum shall have the same powers as are vested in acivil court under the Codes of Civil Procedure, 1908 , while trying a suit inrespect of the enumerated matters, namely, (i) summoning and enforcing theattendance of any defendant or witness and examining the witness on oath, (ii)discovery and production of any document or other material object producibleas evidence, (iii) the reception of evidence on affidavits, (iv) therequisitioning of the report of the concerned analysis or test from theappropriate laboratory or from any other relevant source, (v) issuing of anycommission for the examination of any witness, and (vi) any other matter whichmay be prescribed under the Rules framed under the Act. District Forums havegot power to prescribe the procedure of collecting and discovering evidence.Here, the State Commission has got ample power to entertain anappeal as against the order passed by the District Forum and therefore, thepetitioner should have resorted to the said remedy and without doing so, hasfiled this petition which according to me is not sustainable.In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.The District Consumers Disputes RedressalForum, Namakkal.
|
['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.
|
29,509,743 |
CRR 3752 of 2017 g.b. Court No.35 Mrinal Kanti Roy & Anr.State of West Bengal & Anr.Mr. Diptangshu Basu .....For the Petitioners This application has been filed under Section 482 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the charge sheet and/or entire proceedings arising out of Baguihati Police Station Case No. 311/17 dated 23.04.2017 under Sections 498A/406 of the Indian Penal Code pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barasat, North 24 Parganas.Having considered the submission of learned advocate for the petitioners and after going through the materials on record I find that the petitioners are not relatives of the husband of the de facto complainant but they are neighbours of the husband of the de facto complainant.Liberty to pray for extension, modification, variation and/or vacating the interim order upon notice to the other side.List the matter under the heading "Contested Application" six weeks hence.( Debi Prosad Dey, J. )
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
151,982,214 |
The petitioner/accused shall not surrender.This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed, seeking to call for the records, pertaining to the judgement dated 08.11.2015, made in C.A.No.12 of 2015 by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tindivanam, confirming the judgement dated 16.03.2015, made in C.C.No.174 of 201, by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Gingee, convicting the petitioner under Section 324 of I.P.C, and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to by their names.The case of the prosecution is that on 13.01.2011 at 07.45 p.m., when the petitioner was standing in front of a tasmac shop and he was making noise by using filthy language, the petitioner's wife and son have come there and requested him to come home.The petitioner refused to move from the place and quarrelled with his wife and his son.P.W.2, who was there had advised him to go home.Based on the complaint given by the P.W.1, a case was registered in Cr.No.4 of 2011, for thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 2/10 Crl.R.C.No.198 of 2016 offence under Sections 324 of IPC against the petitioner and he was arrested and remanded to custody.After completing the investigation, the respondent police had filed a final report in C.C.No.174 of 2011 before the learned judicial Magistrate, Gingee.The Trial Court had framed charges for the offence under Sections 324 of IPC.When questioned, the petitioner has pleaded "not guilty".When the petitioner was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C on the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, he denied the same.On behalf of the petitioner, no witness was examined nor any document marked.After considering the evidence on record and hearing either side, the Trial court, by judgment and order, dated 16.03.2015 in C.C.No.174 of 2011 had convicted the petitioner under Section 324 of I.P.C, and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.Challenging the concurrent findings of the Courts below, the present revision has been filed.http://www.judis.nic.in 3/10 Crl.R.C.No.198 of 20164.This Court, heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent.5.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner and the respondent are relatives and they are living in the same village and that the occurrence had happened in front of the tasmac shop during a quarrel in an inebriated condition and that the occurrence had taken place in the year 2011 and that the petitioner was arrested by the respondent police on 14.01.2011 and he was in prison for 15 days.He would further submit that the petitioner has expressed his remorse and the matter has been compromised between the parties and the petitioner has paid a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as compensation to P.W.1, who has also accepted the said amount.He would further submit that they have arrived at a compromise and they have also filed a memorandum of compromise to that effect that the parties are living peacefully.He would further submit that though the offence for which the petitioner has been convicted is non compoundable in nature, this Court, taking into consideration the compromise between the parties the present peaceful situation in the village and the relationship between the parties may consider for reduction period of sentence to the period already undergone.N.Premalatha, learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant/Victim/P.W.2 would submit that the matter has been compromised between the parties and that the defacto complainant has received a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as compensation from the petitioner.http://www.judis.nic.in 4/10 Crl.R.C.No.198 of 20167.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the petitioner has been charged and convicted for the offence under Section 324 of IPC which is not compoundable and that the occurrence had taken place during the year 2011 and after the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment Act), 2005 came into effect, Section 324 of IPC has been made non compoundable and there by the compounding cannot be accepted.8.I have perused the judgments of the Courts below and perused the materials available on record.On perusal of the entire evidence, this Court does not find any infirmity or perversity in the judgments of the Courts below, warranting interference.The conviction passed by the Courts below in respect of the offence under Sections 324 of IPC stands confirmed.In our judgment, however, limited submission of the learned counsel for the appellant deserves consideration that while imposing substantive sentence, the factum of compromise between the parties is indeed a relevant circumstance which the Court may keep in mind.”As noted earlier, in the present case the appellant-accused, Manjit Singh, has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for five years.The appellant is said to have served seventeen months of imprisonment.The bail bonds stand canceled.The affidavits filed by the parties are taken on record.13.In the result, this Criminal Revision is partly allowed to the extent indicated above.24.09.2019 Internet : Yes/No Index : Yes/No ttahttp://www.judis.nic.in 8/10 Crl.R.C.No.198 of 2016 To:1.The Inspector of Police, Sathyamangalam Police Station, Sathyamangalam, Gingee Taluk,2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.http://www.judis.nic.in 9/10 Crl.R.C.No.198 of 2016 A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA,J., tta Crl.R.C.No.198 of 2016 24.09.2019http://www.judis.nic.in 10/10
|
['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
151,983,928 |
The brief facts are as follows:P.Ws.1, 2 and the deceased were masons by profession and during the relevant period, P.W.1 was residing at Lakshmipuram in C.N. Village and prior to that, he was residing at Kuruthudaiyarpuram.Lakshmi and Chandra were related to P.W.1 and the deceased and during the relevant period, they were residing at Kuruthudaiyar-Puram village.They were eking out their livelihood by working at construction sites.A.1 and A.2, who are masons by profession, developed intimacy with Lakshmi and Chandra, who were deserted by their respective husbands.A.2 developed intimacy with Chandra and A.1 developed intimacy with Lakshmi.This was not to the liking of the deceased, Ganapathy and he, therefore, advised Lakshmi and Chandra not to have illicit relationship with either of the accused.On account of this, the accused bore a grudge against the deceased.A.1 and A.2 went there and picked up a quarrel with the deceased.They also threatened the deceased not to interfere in their affair by telling him that if he interferes, they will remove his head.The witnesses, who were present, pacified the accused and sent them away.At about 10.00 p.m. on the same night, P.W.1 developed cough as he was a T.B. patient.While P.Ws.1 and 2 were proceeding towards a junction and were near a public lavatory, they heard someone pleading for mercy.A.1 holding the hand of the deceased, cut him, which fell on his left shoulder.A.2, with an aruval, cut him on the neck.The deceased fell down on the septic tank, which was on the west of public lavatory.A.3 stabbed him on the stomach.A.1 cut the deceased on the neck indiscriminately and severed the head.P.Ws.1 and 2 pleaded with the accused not to cut their brother; but the accused threatened them by telling them that they will meet the same fate if they interfere.P.13 is a copy of the printed first information report.P.W. 14, on receipt of the information, reached Tirunelveli Bridge Police station, where he was given a copy of the printed first information report.He took up investigation in the crime and reached the scene of occurrence at 6.00 a.m. and in the presence of P.W.3, prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.P.2, between 6.00 a.m. and 6.30 a.m. He also prepared a rough sketch, Ex.He seized blood-stained cement, M.O.4, sample cement, M.O.5 and a pair of slippers, M.O.6, under a mahazar Ex.P.3 attested by the same witnesses.Inquest over the body of Ganapathy was conducted between 8.00 a.m. and 11.00 a.m. in the presence of Panchayatdars and at the time of inquest, P.Ws.l and 2 were questioned and their statements were recorded.P.18 is the inquest report.The soft tissues at site found cut.The right clavicle found cut in the centre.5.Three parallel (3 x 3 cm each) cut injuries seen just below the previous injuries.The soft tissue found cut.6. HEAD: Heavy cut (7 x 2 cm) injury seen on the left side of face from the lateral end of mustache to the ankle of mandible.The angle of the mandible along with soft tissues found cut.The head found severed at the level of C.3 along with the soft tissues and neck structures.Stab injury 6 x 4 cm seen just below the umbilicus.On further exploration the ileum cut through and through.ORDER N. Dhinakar, J.The appellants, two in number, who in the judgment will be referred to as "A.1" and "A.2", for the sake of convenience, were tried along with another by name Immanuel, who was arrayed as A.3 before the learned Sessions Judge.The allegation against A.1, A.2 and A.3 is that at 11.30 p.m. on 14.5.1997, the accused, in furtherance of the common intention of each other, caused the death of the deceased, Ganapathy, son of Manickam, by A.1 cutting him on the neck and A.2 also cutting him on the back of neck and A.3 stabbing him on the stomach and on account of the said cut injuries suffered by the deceased, Ganapathy, his head was severed and he died.To prove the above allegation, the prosecution, before the trial Court, examined P.Ws.1 to 16 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.18 as well as M.Os.The learned trial Judge, while accepting the prosecution version as against A.1 and A.2 and convicting them under Sections 302 read with 34 IPC., acquitted A.3 on the ground that he was not implicated as an accused in the first information statement, Ex.P.1, given by P.W.1 and that he did not also give the identifying features of A.3, when he gave the complaint to the police.On being convicted, A.1 and A.2 were sentenced each to imprisonment for life and each one of them was also directed to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 with a default sentence of three months rigorous imprisonment.The said conviction and sentence are being challenged in the appeal, while the acquittal of A.3 had become final, as the State has not chosen to prefer any appeal against the said acquittal.They also threatened the witnesses not to inform others about the incident and ran away towards west.At the police station, P.W.1 narrated the incident to P.W.11, the Sub Inspector of Police.P.W.11 reduced the said statement of P.W.1 into writing.The said statement of P.W.1 is Ex.P.W.11 registered a case in Crime No. 302 of 1997 against A.1, A.2 and another person under Section 302 IPC.by preparing express reports.The officer, after the inquest, issued a requisition to the doctor and sent the dead body to the hospital for the purpose of autopsy.On receipt of the requisition, P.W.13, Reader in Pathology, Tirunelveli Medical College, Tirunelveli, conducted autopsy on the dead body of Ganapathy and found the following injuries:-1.2 x 1 cm x muscle deep defence cut injury seen on the base of right terminal phalanx.The underlying soft tissues found cut.Bone -normal.2.1rregular abrasions seen on the right lower abdomen.3.Head and Trunk seen separately.On alignment, it belongs to one and the same individual.Trunk: Head severed at the level of C.3 vertebra and the raw area mesuring 18 x 14 cm.The margins are sharp with surrounding bruising several tags of cut portion of skin at the margins indicating multiple cuts.Apart from this, there is a flap of skin, with soft tissue and with cut portions of cervical vertebra seen on the left side close to the clavicle.The soft tissues along the left clavicle were found cut and exposed.The cut portions of Trachea, Oesophagus found protruding with fresh bleeding points.4.9 x 4 cm.cut injury seen along the right clavicle extending to the axilla.The dimensions of the head cut injuries were 18 x 6 cm.margins shows several cuts with tags of skin hanging from the edges.ON DISSECTION OF SCALP: 3 x 1 cm.bruising seen on the centre of scalp.Vault: Normal.Brain: C/s.Base of Skull: Normal.The doctor issued Ex.P.16, the post-mortem certificate, with his opinion that the death was on account of decapitation of the head.P.W.14, continuing with his investigation, questioned P.W.4 and others, whose statements were recorded.On 19.5.1997, he questioned P.W.13, the doctor, who conducted autopsy and his statement was recorded.He arrested A.3 at 7.00 a.m. on 20.5.1997 at Tirunelveli railway station.A.3 was questioned and he gave a statement.The admissible portion of the statement of A.3 is Ex.P.4 and in pursuance of the said statement, he took the police party to a Mandapam at Kurukuthurai, where from a bush, he produced two aruvals and a knife, M.Os. 1 to 3, which were seized under a mahazar Ex.A.3 was brought to the police station and sent to Court for remand.On the same day, he questioned P.W.5 and another and recorded their statements.On 23.5.1997 he came to know that A.1 and A.2 have surrendered before Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchendur.P.W.14, continuing with his investigation, sent the material objects to Court.He gave a requisition to the Court to forward them for analysis.He retired on 31.5.1997 and handed over the case file to the Sub Inspector of Police on the date of his retirement.They denied all the incriminating circumstances.They did not examine any witness on their side.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants (A.1 and A.2) submits that the occurrence could have taken place much later to 11.00 p.m. and the prosecution having failed to examine any independent witness, the trial Court was not justified in convicting the two accused on the basis of the evidence of two close relatives.We have heard the learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) on the above contentions and perused the recorded evidence.The cause of the death of Ganapathy is beyond dispute.P.W.13, the doctor, conducted autopsy on the dead body of Ganapathy and found the injuries, which he noted in Ex.P. 16, the post-mortem certificate.In his deposition before Court, he has stated that the death was on account of decapitation.On the medical evidence, we hold that Ganapathy died on account of homicidal violence.The said fact was also not disputed by the accused before the trial Court.P.Ws.1 and 2, the brothers of the deceased, were examined to prove that A.1 and A.2 inflicted the injuries, which resulted in his death.It is the further evidence of P.W.1 that Lakshmi and Chandra, in turn, informed A.1 and A.2 about the advice rendered by the deceased and the accused were, therefore, not happy with the deceased.According to P.W.1, at about 5.00 p.m. on 14.5.1997, he was standing in front of the provision store of P.W.4 along with the deceased and his brother, Murugan and Raja was also there.It is the evidence of P.W. 1 that the accused, on seeing the deceased at that place, asked him as to why he is interfering in their personal affairs and also took him to task and that they threatened the deceased with his life by telling him that if he interferes, his head will be severed.This is said to be the motive for the incident, which took place at about 11.00 a.m. or 11.30 a.m. on the same day.According to P.W.1, he was a T.B. patient and at about 10.00 p.m., he developed some respiratory problem and wanted to purchase medicine.He has stated that he left his house for the medical store taking along with him his brother, P.W.2 and while they were on their way to the medical store, they heard someone pleading for mercy and the sound was heard emanating from behind a public lavatory.They have further deposed that the deceased was first cut by A.1 followed by A.2 and after receiving the said cut injury from A.2, the deceased fell down on the septic tank.A.3, then, stabbed the deceased.They have also stated that A.1 indiscriminately cut the deceased on the neck and severed the head.It is the evidence of the witnesses that they were also threatened by the accused with their life and that after the incident, they went towards west.The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 further indicate that after the incident, P.W.2 was left near the dead body and P.W.1 went and informed Shanmugam, the Village Nattanmai and that both of them went to Tirunelveli Bridge Police Station and a complaint was given by P.W.1 to P.W. 11, the Sub Inspector of Police at 2.00 a.m. The said complaint, which was registered as a crime at 2.00 a.m., was received by the Court at 6.00 a.m., as could be seen from the original records.The occurrence having taken place at 11.00 p.m. on 14.5.1997, the complaint having been registered as a crime at 2.00 a.m. on 15.5.1997, which was also received by the Magistrate at 6.00 a.m. on the same day, there is no delay in laying the complaint.In the said complaint, P.W.1 has mentioned A.1 and A.2 as the assailants of the deceased and has also stated that yet another person, who could be identified, inflicted the stab injury.In any event, the fact remains that in the complaint, Ex.P.1, the name of A.1 and A.2, who stand convicted and who are the appellants in the appeal, have been implicated as persons, who inflicted the fatal injuries on the deceased.On going through the cross-examination of P.Ws.1 and 2, we find no material in favour of the defence and the only suggestion made to the witnesses is that they were not there at the time of incident and later, came to the scene of occurrence on coming to know about the occurrence.We find no infirmity in their evidence and merely because they happened to be the relatives of the deceased, their evidence cannot be rejected.It is common knowledge that close relatives will be more interested in implicating the real assailant and will not come out with the false version implicating a person, who is not connected with the crime.The defence did not also elicit any answer in favour of the accused to show that P.Ws.1 and 2 were inimical towards the accused for them to implicate them.On going through their evidence, we find no infirmity in it.It is no doubt true that there were several houses near the scene of occurrence and the non-examination of the persons, who were present in those houses at that time, in our view, is not fatal to the prosecution.The occurrence had taken place at 11.30 p.m. and most of the inmates of the house would have been in their beds.P.Ws.1 and 2 were there at the scene of occurrence as they were proceeding to a medical store to purchase tablets and therefore, had an opportunity of witnessing the incident and merely because there were several houses near the scene of occurrence, this Court cannot infer that the inmates of the houses also witnessed the incident and the prosecution withheld those witnesses from the Court.The contention of the counsel on the above point, therefore, fails.The other contention of the counsel that the occurrence could have taken place much after 11.30 p.m. is to be stated only to be rejected.The doctor, of course, found fully digested food particles and has also stated that he found fully digested non-vegetarian food in the stomach of the deceased.In this background, the evidence of P.W.1 has to be considered.He has stated that after the incident at 5.00 p.m., which took place in front of the shop of P.W.4, he returned to his house and took food along with his brothers and later left for the shop at 10.00 p.m., when he developed some difficulty.The doctor, in cross-examination, has stated that as the deceased had taken non-vegetarian food, it will take about four hours for digestion.If the deceased had taken his last meals at 7.00 p.m. - there is no direct evidence as to when the deceased had his last meals; but it could be inferred from P.W.l's evidence that the deceased could have taken his last meals at 7.00 p.m. - then the evidence of the doctor that the deceased would have met his end after four hours after his meals fits in with the prosecution version that the deceased was attacked at 11.00 p.m. We, therefore, accept the prosecution version and hold that A.1 and A.2 inflicted injuries on the deceased at 11.00 p.m. and the injuries inflicted by A.1 are fatal.The learned counsel finally submits that A.2 may be spared, as according to him, the materials do not indicate that he shared the common intention of A.1 in causing the death of Ganapathy.We are unable to accept the said submission.The facts, which we have extracted above, show that after A.1 commenced the attack on the deceased, A.2 followed him by cutting him on the neck.On receiving the injury at the hands of A.2, the deceased, Ganapathy, fell on the septic tank and later, A.1 inflicted indiscriminate cuts on the neck and also severed his head.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,519,842 |
ORDER Pradip Kumar Biswas, J.Parties are present.Heard them.This is an application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed at the instance of the petitioner, Paresh Chandra Roy, seeking to quash the proceeding being C-715 of 2002, now pending before the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore under Sections 504/506/500 of the Indian Penal Code.The short facts leading to the filing of this revisional application are as under :--The present petitioner is a public servant at present discharging his duty as Officer-in-Charge of Titagarh Police Station.Immediately after the incident, the said Anil Kanti Das made a phone call to the Titagarh Police Station for help and the Officer-in-Charge of Titagarh Police Station was kind enough to depute one officer for spot verification and accordingly the officer sent by the petitioner verified the incident and recorded the statements of the de facto complainant and his wife.On the basis of the preliminary inquiry at the locality, the opposite party No. 1 and his brother, one Hillol Dasgupta were arrested in spite of obstruction and scuffle made by the opposite party No. 1 and his younger brother, Hillol Dasgupta and on 13-10-2002 within 24 hours of their arrest, the opposite party No. 1 who was one of the accused persons of the aforesaid Titagarh Police Station case, was produced before the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore by police escort party and at the Court premises, some Advocates tried to snatch both the accused persons and finding the situation to be difficult, the police escort party was compelled to hand cuff both the accused persons and ultimately, they were produced before the Court.It has further been alleged that on 2-11-2002, i.e. almost beyond 21 days of the alleged incident, the accused of the Titagarh Police Station case, i.e. the opposite party No. 1, Kallol Dasgupta, filed complaint before the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore against the present petitioner and had prayed for issuance of process against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 504/506(ii)/500 of the Indian Penal Code so as to make the petitioner the accused person of the said case and to face trial before the said Court upon the impugned complaint.In the aforesaid case, the learned Court below examined the complainant as P.W. 1 and thereafter examined the witnesses under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and ultimately, issued process against the accused petitioner, Paresh Chandra Roy under Sections 504/506/500, I.P.C.Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned proceeding including the filing of complaint and the impugned orders dated 2-11-2002, 7-11-2002 and 18-12-2002 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore, the petitioner has come up before this forum praying for quashing of the aforesaid proceeding and the impugned order alleging mainly that the cognizance taken in connection with this case was bad in law inasmuch as there has been absolute non application of mind by the Court itself which, therefore, vitiates the taking of cognizance and it has also been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the instant complaint was filed with a mala fide intention only to harass and humiliate the petitioner and to wreak vengeance against him for the earlier administrative action taken by this petitioner against the present complainant and others.It has further been contended that on a plain reading of the complaint itself, it will appear that it does not disclose any offence against the present petitioner.Hence, this prayer for quashing.
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 200 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
151,985,621 |
P.W.3/Mukundan is the maternal uncle and P.W.4/Chandrakumar is the paternal uncle of the victim girl.When P.W.2/Revathi was going to school she became friendly with the appellant/accused who was residing in the house of P.W.5/Padma along with his brother and mother.(ii) On seeing the duo talking with each other very often, P.W.5/Padma informed P.W.1/Ananthi who beat her daughter P.W.2/Revathi and asked her to stop her friendship with the accused.When P.W.2/Revathi intimated the same to the appellant/accused on 04.12.2009, he took her in his bike to the house of his uncle P.W.8/Varadharajan.(iii) On the said day, when P.W.4/Chandrakumar took lunch to P.W.2 to her school, he came to know that she was missing and immediately, he intimated the same to P.W.1/Ananthi, who in turn lodged Ex.P.1/Complaint.P.W.9/Mahalakshmi, S.I of Police received the complaint and registered a case in Crime No.553 of 2009 and recorded the statements of P.W.1/Ananthi, P.W.3/Mukundan and P.W.4/Chandrakumar.The printed FIR is marked as Ex.Thereafter, the matter was placed before Inspector of Police, Singaraja who is no more.(iv) On receipt of information that the victim girl and the accused are in the Koyambedu Bus Stand, P.W.9/Mahalakshmi and Singaraja, Inspector of Police reached the spot and apprehended them and took them to police station.Thereafter, as per Ex.P.9/Alter report, the case has been registered under 366 IPC from girl missing complaint.(v) Thereupon, P.W.2/Revathi was sent for medical examination, where P.W.6/Dr.Seethalakshmi examined her and issued Ex.As per the medical jurisprudence, the age of a person ascertained by the fusion of bones and formation of teeth need not be accurate, as the fusion of bones and formation of teeth vary from person to person, according to the individual's nourishment and constitution of body.So, the age ascertained by the doctor shall vary by two years on either side.So, as per the Ex.This Criminal Appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 25.03.2014 made in S.C.No.306 of 2012 on the file of learned Mahila Court, Chennai, whereby the appellant/accused is convicted and sentenced as follows:SectionsSentences366 A IPCTen years R.I, Fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo six months S.I.376 IPCTen years R.I, Fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo six months S.I.The Sentences imposed on the accused are ordered to run concurrently.Set off was also ordered under Section 428 Cr.P.C.P.4/Medical Certificate and Ex.P.5/Age Certificate.The appellant/accused was also sent for medical examination, where P.W.7/Dr.Saravanan examined him and issued Ex.P.7/Potency Certificate.(vi) On receipt of the medical report, the Investigating Officer altered the case to Section 366-A and 376 IPC as per Ex.P.11/Alter Report.He also recorded the statements of P.W.6/Dr.Seethalakshmi who examined the victim girl and P.W.7/Dr.Saravan who examined the appellant/accused.(vii) The Investigating Officer after completing the investigation, filed chargesheet against the accused under Sections 366-A and 376 IPC.The learned Trial Judge placed incriminating evidence against the accused under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. The accused denied the same in toto.After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Trial Judge has convicted the appellant/accused as stated above.Challenging the conviction and sentence passed against this appellant, the present appeal has been filed.(b) The victim girl, P.W.2/Revathi is aged about 16 years and she has eloped with the appellant/accused.(d) Non-examination of Dhandapani, the paternal uncle of the victim girl, who intimated the fact that the girl was missing is fatal to the case of the prosecution.As also the contradictory evidence of prosecution witnesses.(e) Since the victim girl is above 16 years of age and has consented for sexual intercourse, the offence under Section 375 IPC is not made out.So, the conviction and sentence made under Section 376 IPC is liable to be set aside.The Trial Court without considering the above factum has convicted the appellant/accused.Hence, the learned counsel for the appellant prayed for setting aside the conviction and sentence.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would further submit that the ingredients of Section 366-A IPC is also made out and hence, he prayed for the dismissal of the appeal.Considered the rival submissions made by both sides and perused the typed set of papers.P.W.6/Dr.Seethalakshmi is the doctor who conducted examination on the victim girl and issued Ex.P.4/Medical Certificate and Ex.P.5/Age Certificate.P.W.7/Dr.Saravanan is the doctor who conducted examination on the accused and issued Ex.P.8/F.I.R. P.W.10/Murugesan is familiar with the writings of the deceased Singaraj, the Investigating Officer who conducted the investigation and filed the charge sheet against the accused.Seethalakshmi had examined P.W.2 and issued Ex.P.5/Age Certificate, wherein it was stated that she is above 16 years and below 18 years.But Ex.Once the birth certificate is available, no reliance can be placed upon the age certificate given by the doctor on conducting the ossification test.Seethalakshmi conducted the medical examination on the victim girl and issued Ex.Admittedly, the victim girl was procured on 07.12.2009 and she was examined by the Doctor on 08.12.2009, well within 48 hours.It is also admitted that there was no injury.In such circumstances, I am of the view that the victim girl was subject to rape.First:- Against her will.So, the offence under Section 375 IPC has been made out and the appellant/accused is liable to be convicted under Section 376 IPC.The learned counsel for the appellant would argue that the non-examination of Dhandapani, who has intimated the missing of the P.W.2/Victim girl to P.W.1, mother of the victim is fatal to the case of the prosecution.But, P.W.4/Chandrakumar in his evidence has deposed that he alone has taken lunch to P.W.2/Revathi and at that time he came to know that she was missing.That factum was intimated to P.W.1 and only thereafter they started searching for the victim girl.So, just because the name of the paternal uncle who took lunch to P.W.2 on that particular day was wrongly mentioned as Dhandapani, it will support the case of the accused.On perusal of the evidence of P.W.2/Revathi would show that when her mother scolded her for talking with the accused, she intimated the same to the accused, who took her to his uncle's house in his bike with an intention to commit rape.Since the uncle of the accused was not willing to accommodate them in this house, they went to some other place and stayed for a day, where the appellant/accused committed rape.In fine,(a) The Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.(b) The conviction and sentence imposed on the accused under Section 376 IPC is hereby confirmed.(c) The conviction and sentence imposed on the accused under Section 366-A IPC is hereby set aside.(d) The Trial Court is directed to refund the balance fine amount to the appellant/accused.(e) The Bail Bond, if any, executed by the appellant, is ordered to be cancelled.(f) The Trial Court is directed to take effective steps to secure the accused to undergo the remaining period of sentence.17.02.2015Index:Yes/NoInternet:Yes/NopgpTo1. learned Mahila Judge, ChennaiThe Public Prosecutor, High Court of MadrasRecord Keeper, Criminal Section, High Court of Madras R.MALA,J.A.No.191 of 2014Dated : 17.02.2015
|
['Section 366A 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.
|
151,991,487 |
None for the respondent No.2 though served.The appeal is directed against judgment dated 23.3.2017 passed by the Court of Special Judge, Narsinghpur in Special Case No.187/2016, whereby the application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for bail filed on behalf of the appellant Basant Silawat was dismissed.The first appeal for bail under section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 filed on behalf of the aforesaid appellant was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 9.11.2016 passed in Cr.At about 10:45, he was inside his duty room.At that time, accused persons Govind Choudhary armed with a sword, appellant Mayank and co-accused Basant armed with sticks and co-accused Madan Dubey empty-handed came and started banging the door of the duty room.When he opened the same, they pulled the victim outside the room and started filthily abusing him.Co-accused Govind Choudhary caught hold of his throat and started to press it.With the other hand he assaulted the victim with the sword.When the victim tried to ward off the blow, he suffered injuries to his hands.Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State has opposed the application mainly on the ground that the victim was a Government Doctor on duty when he was assaulted and badly beaten up and humiliated with reference to his caste.no specific allegation is to be found in the FIR against the appellant; apart from bald allegation that he also assaulted the victim with stick;the charge-sheet in the matter has been filed;-in the opinion of this Court, the appellant deserves to be released on bail Consequently, this appeal under section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 filed on behalf of appellant Basant Silawat, is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.(C V SIRPURKAR) JUDGE ahd
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 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 186 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,519,960 |
A. Sreedharan Nambyar, for the appellant.The Appellant who was the Managing Partner ofShree Narayana Transport Company, Calicut filed a CriminalMiscellaneous Petition on 19-2-68 in the High Court ofKerala against the order of the Assistant Sessions Judgeaccording permission to the Public Prosecutor forwithdrawing from the prosecution.The High Court held thatthe Public Prosecutor was justified when he applied for thewithdrawal of the case and accordingly dismissed thepetition against which this appeal comes up before us bySpecial Leave.The 1st Respondent was the Agent of Shree Narayana TransportCompany of one of its Branches namely at Baliapattom and inthat capacity it was one of his duties to accept goods fromthe Public for transporting them by lorry service of theCompany and issue Way Bills.These Way Bills contained anundertaking that in the event of any of the Banksdiscounting them and if goods are 601lost or damaged during transport,, the Transport Companywill be responsible to the Bank.It is alleged that the 1stRespondent issued nine Way Bills on different dates infavour of the 2nd Respondent, as if the goods were receivedbut in fact no such goods were accepted for transport norwere any such goods dispatched.These Way Bills_ were dulydiscounted by the second Respondent the consigner who drewabout Rs. 84,000 against, them from his Bank-.After _investigation the Sub-Inspector ofPolice, Baliapattom filed a charge-sheet.On this view it was observed thatthere was no legal impediment in the Magistrate using thecase diary for the purpose of deciding whether there was acase for committal and accordingly dismissed the RevisionPetition.After this Revision was disposed of the AssistantSessions Judge to whom the case stood committed ordered thesplitting up the charges into 8 cases against which thesecond respondent filed a Revision in the High Court underSec.The PublicProsecutor as we have seen thought that the matter was of acivil nature, that the subject matter of the case before theMagistrate had been decided in a Civil suit, that witnessesare from far off places and their evidence will incur hugeexpenses for the State; that the case was registered asearly as 1963 and the trial has not yet begun.It further thought that thequestion of expenses would also become relevant.We thinkthat these grounds are flimsy and do not justify thegranting of permission to withdraw from the prosecution.Inthe first place there is nothing to indicate what thatpractice was, how it was resorted to and what elements weredefinition to constitute the offences for which theRespondents were entitled to be charged and in the secondplace nothing had happened since the committal order exceptthat the several revisions filed by Respondent 1 and Res-pondent 2 had delayed the trial which delay by itself cannotbe made a ground for according permission.On the otherconsideration which weighed with the High Court that aprosecution would involve a huge expenditure there is nomaterial to show what amount would be involved if the casewas prosecuted nor how many witnesses would be required tobe called from Calcutta and Bombay.
|
['Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 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.