id
int64 17
1.89B
| cases
stringlengths 8
539k
| labels
stringlengths 38
1.25k
| instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|
151,997,523 |
This petition is filed seeking for a direction to alter the charge sheet in C.C.No.255 of 2013 on the file of the Mahila Court, Coimbatore by adding the names of the accused persons found in the FIR in Crime No.315 of 2008 and to include section 304B of the IPC in the charge sheet.He therefore submitted that the names of the other accused are to be included in the charge sheet and also Section 304 of the IPC is to be included and for that purpose, this petition is filed.According to me, when the charge sheet is filed only against some persons by omitting some others' name found in the FIR, the police ought to give notice to the defacto complainant to enable him to file a Protest Petition.In this case, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no notice was issued to the petitioner.As no notice was issued to the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled to file a Protest Petition before the Mahila Court, Coimbatore, seeking to alter the charge by including 304B of the IPC and also to include the name of the other accused on the basis of the Section 161 statement obtained during investigation.Hence, this petition is disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the Mahila Court, Coimbatore by filing a Protest Petition for alteration of charge and also for inclusion of other names and on receipt of the petition, the Mahila Court, Coimbatore is directed to consider the same and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.The connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.29.01.2015Index:Yes/NoInternet:Yes/NoasvmR.S.RAMANATHAN, J.1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, P.N.Palayam Sub Division, Coimbatore.2.The Inspector of Police, P.N.Palayam Police Station, Coimbatore District.3.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.CRL.O.P. No.31277 of 2014andM.P.No.1 of 201429.01.2015
|
['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
151,998,119 |
Ct-34 pk C.R.R 2714 of 2004 Sri Bipad Bhanjan Mukherjee Vs.The State and Anr.None appears for the petitioner.No accommodation is sought for.The revisional application has been preferred for quashing of the proceedings arising out of Durgapur Police Station Case No.205 of 2003 dated 17.09.2003 under Sections 420/419/120B/500/506 of the Indian Penal Code.I find from the records of the case that the investigating agency on completion of investigation submitted charge sheet against two accused persons including the petitioner.The interim order, if any, stands vacated, as the revisional application is dismissed.(Tirthankar Ghosh,J.)
|
['Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
152,006,556 |
The prosecution version briefly stated is as follows:-On 7th May 2005 at about 11.15 hrs.a telephonic message was received by the P.W.37 N.C. Mondal, an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Nawadeep Police Station, intimating him that between 10.45 hrs.and 11.10 hrs.on 7th May 2005 one Haru Ghosh, son of Mohan Ghosh of Ramchandrapur Ghoshpara, assaulted three persons of the said village by a sharp cutting dao and tried to assault others and that police help was immediately needed.Shri Mondal recorded a G.D. Entry bearing no.300 dated 7th May 2005 and informed the Inspector-in-Charge of the Nabadwip Police Station.Shri Amitava Ghosh (P.W.39), Inspector-in-Charge, Nabadwip Police Station, along with Sub-Inspector Arup Kumar Sarkar and available police force proceeded to Ramchandrapur Ghoshpara and reached at about 11.25 A.M. They met the informant Samir Ghosh (P.W.1) who narrated to them the occurrence that had taken place.The bodies of a female and a male child, near the tubewell of the house of the victims, were found.P.W.39 Mr. Amitava Ghosh asked the informant Mr. S. Ghosh to state the occurrence in writing in pursuance whereof a written complaint was submitted by him which has been marked exhibit '1'.The written complaint was sent to the police station for starting a case which was started at 1.15 A.M. on 7th May 2005 as would appear from the evidence of the Assistant Sub-Inspector D. Sankar (P.W.38).P.W.42 Mr. D Sarkar the accompanying officer started interrogation.From the written complaint it appears that upon hearing a hue and cry the complainant (P.W.1), aged about 21 years, came out of his house and found the accused Haru Ghosh, aged about 35 years, strangulating Subhankar Pramanik, aged about 12 years.Upon intervention Subhankar was released from the clutches of Haru.Subhankar was already bleeding from his mouth.Anima, mother of Subhankar, took him to the nearby tubewell.She was pouring water on his mouth and face.Shyamal Ghosh, a neighbour, with a dao in his hand was watching the incident.Haru snatched the dao from Shyamal Ghosh and started assaulting Subhankar and Anima with the aforesaid dao indiscriminately.Both of them collapsed on the ground with severe bleeding injuries.Haru thereafter ran with the dao.A few minutes later the informant had come to know that Haru Ghosh had gone to Jeevan Krishna Chakraborty's house and hacked him with the aforesaid dao.The informant also came to know that Haru had also gone to the house of one or two others.The bleeding Anima and Subhankar with the help of police were sent to the Pratapnagar Hospital.Anima was declared brought dead.Subhnakar's condition was stated to be very critical.From the evidence adduced, it appears that Samir (P.W.1) upon hearing the hue and cry from the house of Buddhadev Pramanik, rushed to the spot and found Haru Ghosh pressing the throat of Subhankar.He was also assaulting him with fists and blows.P.W.1 Samir and his mother Sabitri (P.W.2) and the neighbours namely Adhir (P.W.8) and his wife Bandana (P.W.3) intervened and rescued Subhankar from the clutches of Haru Ghosh.P.W.2 Sabitri deposed that she was in her house when Anima called out saying "help help, Aunt, Haru has almost done to death my Kebol".Haru left Jeevan and chased his sons and Uttam with the dao in his hand.P.W.26 Prasanta corroborated the evidence of P.Ws.10 and 12 and added that at the time when his father was being assaulted except for Sikha (P.W.10) and Haru none else was there.He further deposed that when he, his brother and the neighbour Uttam were chased he took shelter in the house of Manik Ghosh.P.W.29 Jayanta deposed that when Haru had rushed at them he ran away.After sometime he came back to his house only to find his father lying in a pool of blood.I took a look in their premises across my boundary wall and saw Haru wielding a 'daa' stained with blood.Haru also had stains of blood over his face, head and all over.I got hold of a small bamboo baton and tried to wade off Haru and asked him not to enter my house.Haru climbed the veranda of my brother's house and then stepped over on the low boundary wall of my house and threatened me that he will not spare me.In cross-examination Dr. Mishra deposed that Haru told him that he had been assaulted by Bahadur Ghosh.The accused in his examination under section 313 Cr.P.C. in answer to question no.30 admitted that he had entered the house of Nilmani Ghosh.The postmortem report of Anima Praminik has been marked exhibit '14'.He also conducted the postmortem on the dead body of Subhankar and found as many as 10 injuries.The right wrist joint of the deceased had separated completely.In his opinion the death was due to shock and hemorrhage following the injuries which were all ante-mortem and homicidal in nature.The postmortem report has been marked exhibit '15'.It appears from the evidence of the P.W.31 that at the time when the incident happened, he was not at home.He had gone to milk a cow at some distance.His nasal bones were cut and eye balls punctured.Mr. Swapan Mallick Mr. Kalyan Moitra Hearing concluded on: 20.2.2008 Judgment on : 27.03.2008 GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA, J :The death reference and the appeal arose out of an order dated 16th May 2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Nabadwip in Sessions Trial no.14(VIII)/2003 arising out of Sessions Case No.62(8)/2005 by which the appellant was convicted of an offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for murdering Anima Pramanik, aged about 30 years and her son Subhankar Pramanik @ Kebal, aged about 12 years; under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code for attempting to murder Jeevan Krishna Chakraborty, aged about 60 years and under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code for assaulting the said Jeevan Krishna Chakraborty with a dao on his left wrist causing fracture and dismemberment of his right index finger.By the order dated 17th May 2006 the convict was sentenced to death for the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code subject to confirmation by this Court in terms of Section 366 of the Cr.P.C. The convict was also sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months for the offence punishable under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and he was also sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code.Both the reference and the appeal have been heard together and this judgment will govern both the reference and the appeal.She instantly rushed to the locale.So did Bandana (P.W.3) who deposed that the incident of pressing the throat of Subhankar took place in the bedroom of Buddhadev Pramanik.Subhankar was bleeding from the mouth.P.W.8 Adhir also corroborated the evidence of the aforementioned witnesses.Adhir pulled Haru outside the house and with a jerk freed himself.Kebol's mother took him to the tubewell.Atasi (P.W.5) pumped the tubewell and Anima was pouring water on the face and head of Subhankar @ Kebol.P.W.6 Shyamal Ghosh on the fateful moment was going towards his field to cut banana leaves for feeding the cattle.He had a dao in his hand.Hearing the hue and cry in the house of Buddhadev Pramanik he had stopped near the tubewell of Buddhadev Praminik.He saw Atasi pumping the tubewell and Anima pouring water on her son Kebol.Haru suddenly snatched away the dao from his hand.Shyamal (P.W.6) requested him to return the dao but he would not.Shyamal applied force to take it back but he was pushed aside by Haru with a jerk.Haru ran with the dao and chopped on the neck of Anima.He thereafter struck on the hand of kebol.Kebol's hand was severed from the wrist.He thereafter struck incessantly the mother and the son.Both of them collapsed on the ground.Shyamal (P.W.6) was overawed by the incident and ran to the house of Nilmani Ghosh.Atasi (P.W.5) immediately after the first blow on Anima on her shoulder had escaped from the place of occurrence and bolted herself in her house.Another neighbour (P.W.4) Namita had reached the place of occurrence at the time when Anima was pouring water on the face and head of Kebol.P.W.1 Samir deposed that he was shocked and afraid.He thought that both the mother and the son had died.He and his mother (P.W.2) fled from the place.None tried to rescue the victims out of fear.P.W.1 deposed that he had seen Haru running away with the dao towards the interior of the locality.P.W.2 deposed that her son(P.W.1) informed the matter to the police over telephone.P.W.3 deposed that she and her husband (P.W.8) had left the place after the hand of Subhankar had been severed.P.W.4 Namita deposed that she had her baby in her lap.She had seen Anima lying at the spot and Kebol being dealt blows by the dao on his face and eyes.His hand had already been severed from the wrist.Haru looked towards his house and ran away pushing her aside.It has come from the evidence of the P.W.31 Buddhadev Pramanik, the husband and the father of the aforesaid victims that the house of Haru is situate just opposite to that of Buddha.From the evidence of the P.W.10 Sikha it appears that between 10.30 A.M. and 11 A.M. on 7th May 2005 she was cooking food in the verandah and her father- in-law Jeevan Krishna Chakraborty, a member of the Gram Panchayat, was sitting.He had earlier complained that he was not feeling well.Haru appeared at the verandah with a blood smeared dao.He approached Jeevan and told him that "he had finished Anima and Kebol and would finish him as well".P.W.12 Jeevan Krishna Chakraborty corroborated the evidence of P.W.10 Sikha.He added that Haru assaulted him with a dao indiscriminately on his head, back and on both of his hands, chin near the throat, three teeth near the lower jaw were dislocated due to assault which had to be removed.The learned Trial Judge has observed as follows:-"Witness rose his right hand and showed his right index finger has been cut down, he showed his left hand with three long cut marks on the left palm.(The witness was permitted to remove his shirt and he showed several long cut marks on his back and on both his upper arms.He also showed a cut mark below his chin near to the throat)."P.W.12 further deposed that his daughter-in-law Sikha (P.W.10) raised alarm while he was being assaulted by Haru.On hearing the hue and cry Jayanta and Prasanta, both sons of the victim Jeevan Krishan Chakraborty and a neighbour Uttam came running to the place and intervened.P.W.30 Uttam deposed that when Haru had chased them he fled away form the place.P.W.13 Nilmani Ghosh deposed that Jeevan Krishna Chakraborty was chopped on different parts of the body.P.W.13 had visited him in the hospital on the date of the incident itself.So did the P.W.17 Shri Biswajit Ghosh.P.W.27 Sushanta, another son of Jeevan deposed that he at the relevant time was in his shop.When he found that his father Jeevan Krishna Chakraborty was being taken to the hospital in a trolley he joined his father and accompanied him to the hospital.P.W.34 Dr. Kanchan Kumar Sarkar deposed that Jeevan Krishna Chakraborty, aged about 60 years, had told him that he had been assaulted by Haru Ghosh with a katari on 7th May 2005 at 10.30 A.M. The doctor recorded the history given by the patient in his injury report which has been marked exhibit '28/1'.Haru after assaulting Jeevan Krishna Chakraborty had entered the house of Nilmani Ghosh (P.W.13).Nilmani Ghosh deposed as follows:-"Mausumi my second daughter-in-law was in the first floor and she raised an alarm that Haru Ghosh was returning.I shut the outer door of our house.Mausumi indicated from top that Haru was approaching through the house of my younger brother.I left the bamboo baton and ran into my house.My three sons were in the house.On hearing the bang of the door they came out."Nilmani Ghosh's son Sakhhi Ghosh (P.W.7), Bahadur Ghosh (P.W.9), Biswajit Ghosh (P.W.17) and Gautam Ghosh overpowered and apprehended Haru Ghosh.P.W.7 deposed as follows:-"I heard my "Boudis" (sister-in-law) shouting from the first floor that Haru was returning.I saw Haru was trying to enter into our house by scaling the boundary wall after passing through the house of my uncle, Sricharan Ghosh.At that time Haru was holding the blood stained 'daa' in his hand.My father Nilmoni on seeing Haru approaching our house out of fear went inside.My elder brother Bahadur Ghosh was standing on the verandah of our house.Haru Ghosh on seeing brother threatened him that he had already chopped three persons and it was his turn to be chopped.Out of fear and for the purpose of saving his life my elder brother Bahadur Ghosh caught Haru tight by his hand in which he was holding the 'daa'.In order to protect my brother as well as to save ourselves I dealt a blow with a 'dasha' (wooden bar) on the head of Haru.Haru fell down on the courtyard.Then Bahadur Ghosh my brother, my second elder brother Bablu Ghosh, my younger brother Biswajit, my cousin Sanat Ghosh, Goutam Ghosh apprehended Haru and tied him a rope.Gautam Ghosh hit Haru on his hand with a brickbat at this Haru left the 'daa' loose.Police reached the locality at that time."P.W.9 Bahadur Ghosh, P.W.16 Sanat Ghosh materially corroborated the evidence of the P.W.7 Sakhhi Ghosh.P.W.16 deposed that Sakhhi Ghosh dealt a blow on the backside of Haru's head with a dasha (wooden bar).Haru fell down.Gautam hit Haru with a brickbat on his hand to take away the dao.On being hit on his hand Haru's grip of the dao was loosened.A rope from the house of the P.W.16 Sanat was brought and Haru was tied.By that time the police reached the place.The offending weapon namely the dao with the wooden butt approximately 20" long was seized under a seizure list in the house of Nilmani Ghosh which has been marked material exhibit 'I' and has been identified by the owner thereof the P.W.6 Shyamal Ghosh, P.W.13 Nilmani Ghosh, P.W.16 Sanat Ghosh and P.W.17 Biswajit Ghosh.The ganjee of Bahadur Ghosh, which had become bloodstained in seeking to overpower Haru, was also seized which has been marked material exhibit 'II'.Haru was arrested from the house of Nilmani Ghosh.He was taken to Dr. Mishra (P.W.41).He deposed that he "found two lacerated injuries on his occipetal area, parallely situated.One sharp cut injury present on the cheek just below the left eyelid.I also found one lacerated injury on the middle right index finger."In answer to question no.31 he admitted that Sakhhi Ghosh had struck him on his head and Bahadur hacked him on his hand.In answer to question no.3 he admitted that he was arrested in the house of Nilmani Ghosh.In answer to question no.51 he admitted that after his arrest he was taken to the P.W.41 Dr. Mishra.He had examined him and he told the doctor that he had been hit by Bahadur Ghosh in the house of Nilmani Ghosh.P.W.34 Dr. Kanchan Kumar Sarkar deposed that on 7th May 2005 Anima Pramanik was brought to the State General Hospital, Nawadeep, at about 11.35 A.M. She however had died before she reached the hospital.He submitted a report to that effect which is exhibit '28'.Subhankar @ Kebol died shortly after reaching the hospital.P.W.18 Dr. Halder had conducted the postmortem on the dead body of Anima.He found as many as six sharp cut injuries on the body of the deceased Anima.In his cross-examination he was suggested that the victim had suffered injury due to a vehicular accident which the doctor denied as completely improbable.The aforesaid wearing apparels along with the offending weapons and other seized articles were sent to the forensic laboratory.As per the report of the Serologist the seized articles contained human blood.The report was marked exhibit '33'.Exhibit '34' the FSL report goes to show that the saree and saya contained double edged cut marks which matched with the dao which was found to produce double edged sharp cuts.P.W.33 Prasanta Ghosh deposed that the incident as a news item was shown in the television which he had watched.Out of curiosity he had called telephonically the wife of Jeevan Krishna Chakraborty (P.W.12) to know more about the same when she confirmed that the incident had taken place.The evidence discussed above, in our view, establishes beyond any reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused appellant.Further assurance in this regard is lent by the facts and circumstances narrated hereinbelow.P.W.1 Samir Ghosh was suggested that the Muslim cattle traders used to frequent the house of the deceased Anima Pramanik as regards which the P.W.1 had no knowledge.The suggestion and answer is reproduced hereinbelow:-"I am not aware that any Muslim trader used to visit our locality for the purchase of cattle or goats or that he used to spend the nights in the house of Anima Pramanik due to his not being able to return to his native place."P.W.2 Sabitri Ghosh was also suggested the same thing which she denied.P.W.4 Namita Ghosh was suggested in her cross-examination that there was enmity between the deceased Anima Pramanik and the accused Haru Ghosh which she denied.P.W.42 Mr. A.K. Sarkar the investigating officer in his cross-examination was asked on behalf of the defence whether any statement of the accused was recorded on 8th May 2005 to which he answered in the affirmative.P.W.42 thereafter was asked by the defence counsel to narrate the statement made by the accused Haru which the P.W.42 narrated in these words:-"The accused had stated before me that on 5.5.05 Anima Pramanick had called his wife Mamata Ghosh to her house through her son Kebol Pramanick and also stated that the accused had found his wife Mamata with Muslim 'paikar' (cattle trader) in a compromising situation."Far from suggesting to the P.W.42 that no such statement was made by the accused, the P.W.42 was further questioned in cross-examination on behalf of the defence as to whether the wife and daughters of the accused Haru Ghosh were interrogated by him.The answer of the P.W.42 in this regard was as follows:-"I did not examine the wife or daughters of accused Haru Ghosh.I did not record the statement of Mohon Ghosh, father of the accused Haru Ghosh."P.W.42 was ultimately suggested that he had filed the charge sheet against the accused person being carried away by emotion.The victim Jeevan Krishna Chakraborty (P.W.12) deposed that the accused Haru Ghosh used to sell illicit liquor in the locality of the village Ramchandrapur.Consequent to a complaint by the villagers the P.W.12 as a panchayat member had asked the accused Haru to stop selling the illicit liquor to which he did not agree.Thereafter legal action was proposed to be taken against him which had angered the accused Haru.The accused Haru in answer to question no.14 during his examination under section 313 CrPC has admitted that he used to sell country liquor to the labourers of the brick field which is situate in the village of Ramchandrapur itself.He however denied in answer to question no.20 that anyone had asked him to stop selling the illicit liqour.P.W.9 Bahadur was suggested that the accused Haru was employed with the Mitra Brickfield in the year 2000 which he denied.P.W.26 Prasanta Chakraborty, son of the victim Jeevan Krishna Chakraborty (P.W.12) corroborated the evidence of the P.W.12 and added further that the accused Haru Ghosh had cut banana plants owned by Buddhadev Pramanick the husband of the deceased Anima, Nemai Ghosh, Balaram Ghosh, Jharu Ghosh and Tetul Ghosh.He went on to add that his father Jeevan Krishna Chakraborty had protested against such activity of the accused which had also angered the accused Haru.A salish, according to him, was held in the village on 28th March 2005 over the cutting of the banana plants of the cultivators including Buddhadev Pramanick by the accused Haru Ghosh which ultimately led to lodging of a General Diary with the concerned police sation which has been marked exhibit '29'.The fact that such a diary was lodged has been admitted by the accused Haru in answer to question no.15 during his examination under section 313 CrPC.A large number of the witnesses including P.Ws.27,28,29,31,33 and 37 corroborated the evidence as regards cutting of the banana plants of the cultivators including Buddhadev Pramanick which led to futile a salish and ultimately the matter was brought to the notice of the police by lodging a diary.P.W.26 Prasanta, son of the victim Jeevan Krishna Chakraborty was suggested that the accused Haru Ghosh had campaigned for his father in the panchayat election on many a occasions.P.W.12 Jeevan Krishna Chakraborty was suggested that the accused Haru had complained to Jeevan Krishna Chakraborty that L. Sarkar and Santa Ghosh had collected a sum of Rs.10000/- from Mitra Brickfield forcibly which was brought to the notice of the P.W.12 but he did not, in the capacity of a Panchayat member, take any steps with regard thereto.The accused Haru Ghosh as such had joined the rival political group of CPI(M).The suggestions were however denied by Jeevan (P.W.12).From the evidence discussed above the fact that the accused Haru had a grudge against Jeevan can safely be inferred.The fact that Haru was inimical towards Anima has been the case of the accused himself which would appear from the suggestion given to the P.W.4 noticed above.The grudge against Jeevan Krishna Chakraborty and the enmity with Anima may have furnished the accused Haru with a motive to commit this ghastly crime.He was treated by Dr. Patra, a psychiatrist.We have considered the rival submissions.From the case suggested to the P.W.4, noticed above, it appears that there was enmity between the accused Haru and the deceased Anima.P.W.31 Buddhadev, husband of the deceased Anima and father of the deceased Subhankar @ Kebol deposed that out of fear he maintained good relationship with the accused Haru despite the fact that he had destroyed the banana plantation of the former about two months prior to the date of incident which again was a sequel of the fact that the P.W.31 had demanded payment of the price of milk worth Rs.1700/- sold and delivered to Sreedam Ghosh, elder brother of the accused Haru Ghosh, which had offended both Sreedam and Haru.When a salish was held the accused did not appear.In the circumstances a written complaint was made to the police station which has been exhibited in the trial.The accused had threatened to beat up Buddhadev or to force him to leave his house.When he was returning home he was told by the villagers that his wife and son were lying dead by the side of the tubewell in his house.The fact that the accused Haru took food in the house of the victims goes to establish that he entered the house in the guise of a friend.Out of fear the accused was entertained to ensure peaceful survival.The accused however grabbed the opportunity, afforded by the absence of Buddhadev, to throttle his minor child Subhankar.When Subhankar's mother raised alarm and the neighbours rushed in Subhankar was rescued but he already was bleeding from his mouth.The child was taken to the tubewell for the purpose of pouring water on his head.Mr. Dastoor submits that it is unnatural that the neighbours, who had collected, did not take any step to beat up the accused Haru or to drive him away from the place which was an unnatural conduct according to him.The persons present at the place of the occurrence could not muster the necessary courage to inflict any violence upon him.They were too happy to have rescued the child and it was only natural that steps would first be taken to ensure the survival of the victim of strangulation who was already bleeding from his mouth.Hardly was there any time lag.While water was being poured on the head of the child, P.W.6 Shyamal with a dao in his hand was watching the incident.The accused snatched the dao from the P.W.6 Shyamal and indiscriminately assaulted the mother and the son.When the child was strangulated by him he cannot be considered to have been doing so in zest.The child had already started bleeding from his mouth.A person is presumed to intend the natural and probable consequence of his act.We already have noticed from the evidence of the P.W.1 that the first blow with the dao was inflicted on Anima.If the accused had intended to kill only the child, the blow would have been directed to him.The fact that the mother was attacked with the dao first goes to prove that the accused intended to kill both the mother and the son.Nay he intended to kill many more people.He rushed to the house of Jeevan Krishna Chakraborty (P.W.12) and attacked the helpless, unarmed and infirm old person.When the sons of Jeevan and the neighbour Uttam, hearing the hue and cry, rushed in, the accused chased the interveners with the dao.He thereafter entered the house of Nilmani Ghosh wielding the dao.While he was on bail he committed the present crime.Accordingly the matter was kept for argument.On 19th April 2006 a document was sought to be filed which was opposed by the prosecution.The document appears to have been kept on record but no submission with regard thereto was advanced either before the learned trial Court or before this Court.The learned Trial Court has made a balance sheet of the mitigating and aggravating circumstances which is as follows:-"On considering the fact situation of this case the following conspicuous features of the offence have been found:-1) The convict lacks basic humanness.Having his own children at home, he did not hesitate to kill Shuvonkar Pramanick, who was only 12 years of age.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
152,006,960 |
The first respondent is the defacto complainant in the case.Seeking to quash the said F.I.R., the petitioners are before this Court with this petition.2.When the matter came up for hearing on 09.12.2014, there was no representation for the defacto complainant.The learned counsel for the petitioners has completed his arguments.However, with a view to afford yet another opportunity to the defacto complainant, the matter was ordered to be listed today (15.12.2014).Today also, there is no representation for the first respondent.3.I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the second respondent and I have also perused the records carefully.4.A perusal of the complaint would go to show that the defacto complainant received certain anonymous calls.When she picked up the phone, there was no response.This allegation according to the learned counsel for the petitioners would not make out an offence under Section 506(ii) I.P.C. Further, there is no straight allegation that the petitioners are response for the same.5.In view of the said submission made, I find that the registration of the case as against the petitioners is not sustainable.Hence, I am inclined to quash the F.I.R.6.In the result, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the case in Cr.No.73 of 2011 on the file of the second respondent is quashed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.1.The Inspector of Police,SIPCOT Police Station,Hosur, Krishnagiri District.S.NAGAMUTHU,Jjbm Crl.OP No.16277 of 201415.12.2014
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
152,008,813 |
Record of the trial Court has been received.Heard on the question of admission.The appeal is admitted for final hearing.Heard on I.A. No.9123/2020 which is second application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant No. 3-Deepak Suryavanshi.Earlier application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 24.02.2020 by this Court.The appeal has been preferred under Section 374 of the Cr.Appellant No. 3-Deepak Suryavanshi stand convicted for the offence punishable under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 06 months and fine of Rs.300/- in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 15 days each, Section 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 05 years and fine of Rs.5,000/- in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 6 months, Section 323 read with Section 149 (four counts) of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 03 months and fine of Rs.300/-each counts in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 15 days.T he prosecution case in short is that on 23.02.2018 appellant No. 3--Deepak Suryavanshi armed with sword alongwith co-accused armed with Signature Not sticks have unlawfully assembled with an intention to cause injury to the SAN Verified Digitally signed by LALIT SINGH RANA Date: 2020.11.07 17:36:54 IST 2 CRA-11308-2019 complainant-Rajaram (PW-1), appellant No. 3--Deepak Suryavanshi inflicted injury to the complainant-Rajaram (PW-1) by means of sword and co- accused persons have inflicted injuries to other complainants, namely, Narayan, Kailash, Neeraj and Kedar by means of sticks.Thereafter, on the complaint of the complainant, a case has been registered against the present appellants and other co-accused.He submits that learned trial Court has acquitted the appellant No.3-Deepak Suryavanshi under Sections 294, 324/149, 506 Part-II and 427 of the IPC.The witnesses have not supported the prosecution case.The appellant No.3 has been falsely implicated in this case.No case is made out against the present appellant for the alleged offences.He also submits that complainant party is aggressor and appellant has also lodged a report against them for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 323, 327 and 506-II read with Section 34 of the IPC.He also submits that the said incident occurred due to trivial matter.There are fair chances to succeed in the case.Final hearing of this appeal will take time.There are no possibility of their absconding.This appeal is of the year 2019 and appeal will take time for its final disposal.Therefore, the application filed on behalf of the appellants may be allowed and the period of his remaining jail sentence may be suspended further and he may be released on bail.Appellant No.3--Deepak Suryavanshi be released from custody subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.The appellant No.3 shall appear and mark his presence before the trial Court on 11.02.2021 and shall continue to do so on all such future dates, as may be given by the trial Court in this behalf, during pendency of the matter.List this for final hearing in due course, as per listing policy.Certified copy as per rules.(RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) JUDGE L.R.
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
150,878,172 |
Shri P.C. Paliwal, Advocate for the objector.This is the first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail who has been arrested on 1.6.2020 in connection with Crime No.281/2020 registered at Police Station, Kundipura district Chhindwara for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366-A, 376-1, 376-3, 506 of the IPC and 4,6 POCSO Act.As per the prosecution story, the allegation against the applicant- accused is that he kidnapped and committed rape with the prosecutrix who was minor at the time of incident.Charge-sheet has been filed.The trial will take time.In the circumstances, the applicant is entitled to get the benefit of bail.Therefore, it is prayed that the applicant-accused be released on bail.Learned Panel Lawyer as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the victim objected the application and stated that the applicant forcefully kidnapped the minor girl.Hence, the application be rejected.Signature Not Having considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, in SAN Verified Digitally signed by JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Date: 2020.10.13 16:50:20 IST 2 MCRC-28436-2020 view of this Court, the applicant's further custody is not required.Hence, the application is allowed and it is ordered that the applicant-accused Nitesh be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond for the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rs. Forty thousand only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for securing their presence before the said Court on all the dates of hearing fixed in this regard during trial and for complying with the conditions enumerated in sub-section (3) of Section 437 of Cr.P.C.Certified copy as per rules.
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
150,879,963 |
The petition at hand challenges the order dated 05.04.2017 of the Metropolitan Magistrate in the criminal case arising out of report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) submitted on conclusion of investigation into FIR No. 39/2013 whereby charge under Section 498A/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) was framed against the petitioners.On being asked, the counsel for the petitioner submits the said order was earlier challenged in the court of Sessions invoking its revisional jurisdiction.The revision petition was dismissed.The petition is dismissed.
|
['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.
|
150,881 |
The appellant is the wife of one deceased A.K.Garg who was admitted to the National Heart Institute (hereinafter referred to as 'the Institute') for medical treatment and because of the negligence of the doctors of the Institute he could not get proper medical treatment and ultimately he died.The deceased A.K.Garg was employed as Electrical Engineer in I.D.P.L., Vir Bhadra (Rishikesh).The deceased was drawing a salary of Rs.8000/- per month at the time of his death.He left behind his family members namely; (i) Smt.Savit Garg (wife),(ii) Smt. Sushila Garg (mother), (iii) Shri Ankul Garg (son), (iv) Miss. Ruchi (daughter), (v) Shri Sauragh (son) and (vi) Anoop Garg (brother).Prior to the admission of the deceased, A.K.Garg in the Institute he was being treated at G.B. Pant Hospital and he did not improve there, therefore, his case was referred to the Institute by his employer, IDPL.The deceased was admitted for angiography on 4.7.1994 and a sum of Rs.14,000/- was deposited for his treatment.He was discharged on 5.7.1994 after angiography.J U D G M E N T A.K. MATHUR, J.This appeal is directed against the order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Commission'), New Delhi whereby the Commission has dismissed the original petition of the appellant on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties.Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of this appeal are as follows.Again he was admitted on 2.8.1994 at 11.15 A.M. and remained there till 9.8.1994 and ultimately died at the Institute.It was alleged that on 3.8.1994 he was operated and was brought to the Intensive Care Unit of the Institute.No attendant was allowed to see the patient except through the glass windows of I.C.U. The deceased was operated twice by Dr.O.P. Yadav of the Institute for his treatment.It is further alleged that Dr.O.P.Yadav was too much worried and perturbed after the deceased's operation.On the said day i.e. on 3.8.1994, 8 bottles of blood were transfused in the body of the deceased and even on 4.8.1994 another 8 bottles of blood were demanded by the Doctors of the Institute and the same was somehow arranged.The deceased is said to have developed jaundice may be because of wrong transfusion or extra transfusion of blood.It is further alleged that the deceased developed septic and as the septic in the bone became incurable, therefore a Doctor from Batra Hospital was called for to amputate one leg of the deceased A.K.Garg.Thereafter , as it was reported to be case of kidney failure, the deceased was put on dialysis.However, on 9.8.1994 at 2.30 hours the deceased was declared dead.Therefore, a complaint was filed before the Commission claiming a sum of Rs.45 lacs, the details of which have already been given in the complaint.The appellant has detailed the reasons for the negligence in her original petition filed before the Commission.The Institute also challenged the jurisdiction of the Commission to entertain the said original petition.A rejoinder was also filed by the appellant and it is alleged that septic was developed because of the negligence which shows lack of care on the part of the doctors.However, when the matter came up for hearing on 12.4.2002, the Commission directed both the parties to file brief notes of submissions on the question of maintainability of the complaint as well as the effect of non-impleading the attending doctors against whom the medical negligence has been alleged and the matter was posted to 2.5.2002 for directions.No order as to costs.
|
['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.
|
150,881,718 |
Item No 18 Court No.15 Avijit Mitra W.P. No. 8894 (W) of 2018 In re: Subichai Mondal @ Gudhi Chai- Versus -The State of West Bengal & Ors.Mr. Ambu Bindu Chakraborty Ms. Mrinmoyee Roy Chowdhury For the Petitioner Mr. Ashis Guha Mr. Naren Ghosh Dastidar For the State Respondents Affidavit-of-service filed by the petitioner be kept on record.Mr. Chakraborty, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner of the land detailed in paragraph 2 of the writ petition.He was forcibly dispossessed from the said land by the private respondents.Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached the police authorities and thereafter proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was drawn up and an order was passed in the same on 22nd January, 2015 directing the respondents nos. 3 and 6 to ensure the possession of the concerned land in favour of the petitioner.The said representation has also not been responded to and aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this court.Mr. Ghosh Dastidar, learned advocate appearing for the State respondents, upon instruction, submits that on the basis of petitioner's complaint against the private respondents in the year 2014, Harishchandrapur Police Station case No.12/14 dated 8th 2 January, 2014 under sections 341/323/325/354B/379/506 of the Indian Penal Code was registered and upon completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed in the same.The petitioner has also admitted the fact that she was handed over possession on 30th May, 2017, as would be explicit from the documents produced before this Court on behalf of the State respondents.Let the said document be kept on record.As the police authorities and the respondent no.3 took appropriate steps and as the petitioner has been handed over possession of the concerned land, no further interference is called for in the present writ petition and the same is, accordingly, disposed of.There shall however be no order as to costs.Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties.
|
['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
150,891,163 |
Prosecutrix was about 22 years of age at the time of incident.Prosecutrix and appellant were neighbours.They CRL.A. 248/2010 Page 1 of 15 were living in the same building.Appellant was working as Lower Division Clerk (LDC) in Naval Headquarters, R.K. Puram, New Delhi.He was unmarried.Prosecutrix was pursuing Bachelor's degree in Arts through "correspondence course".She was taking tuitions from the appellant.During her fourth month of pregnancy, prosecutrix disclosed to her mother that appellant had sexually exploited her by promising her that he would marry her.Appellant also threatened her that in case she disclosed this fact to any one, he would defame her, kill her and her family members.Even thereafter, he committed rape upon her two/three times.After about two months, when she came to know CRL.A. 248/2010 Page 2 of 15 from a doctor that she was pregnant, she asked the appellant to marry her.Instead of marrying her, appellant shifted to some unknown place.Thus, she was compelled to lodge the FIR.A. 248/2010 Page 2 of 15She was living in a building where other persons CRL.A. 248/2010 Page 13 of 15 were also living as tenants.Appellant has been convicted under Section 376 IPC by the Trial Court and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of `5000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.Thereafter, she made a written complaint with the Crime Against Women Cell, Nanakpura, Moti Bagh, Delhi, pursuant whereof FIR No. 270/2004 under Sections 376/493/506 IPC was registered at Police Station Sarojini Nagar.In her complaint she stated that appellant had sex with her after enticing her and by promising to marry her.Now he had been saying that he cannot marry her because of his family members.A. 248/2010 Page 1 of 15She has deposed that in the year 2004 appellant had been giving tuitions to her; he often molested her.He had even proposed to marry her.One day he came to her house and raped her after extending threats.He also told her that she should not raise alarm as he would eventually marry her.Even otherwise, from the conduct of the prosecutrix it can be inferred that she was in love with the appellant, which might have developed between them as they had been meeting on regular basis.It also appears that she continued without any protest demur on objection with the affair of having sexual intercourse with the appellant since much prior to the alleged occurrence.In this view of the matter the allegation that the informant was made to have sexual intercourse with the accused on the assumption based on an assurance and promise or giving out an understanding that appellant would marry her cannot amount to the lack of consent so far as the CRL.During this period accused and prosecutrix developed sexual relations which continued for three months.When prosecutrix became pregnant, she disclosed that she had sex with the accused as he had promised to marry her.This consented sexual intercourse between P.W. 1 Meena Kumari and the appellant continued for three months until the day of the reckoning when P.W. 3, the informant filed this case."A. 248/2010 Page 9 of 15In my CRL.A. 248/2010 Page 12 of 15She continued to have sex with the appellant for more than three months.Even after she became pregnant, she did not immediately disclose this fact to anyone including her mother.At the time when FIR was lodged, she was four months pregnant.In her deposition she has admitted that after two months she became aware that she was pregnant.Meaning thereby, even after prosecutrix became pregnant she did not disclose this fact to her family members immediately.There was no reason for her not to disclose to her mother that appellant had promised her to marry.She disclosed this fact only when her parents came to know through a doctor that she was carrying four months pregnancy.Appeal is disposed of in the above terms.A.K. PATHAK, J.A. 248/2010 Page 15 of 15A. 248/2010 Page 15 of 15
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
150,897,108 |
In brief the case of prosecution is that Ram Kumar (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') and his brother Sukhlal are the residents of Balrampur and are agriculturists.In Balrampur the nuptial home of the deceased is also there.Apart from agricultural work, the deceased was also a labourer.On 21.7.1998, the deceased on being asked by his wife Koushalya went to his nuptial home, where he started hurling abuses to his wife and children.It is also said that he was also committing Marpeet with them.On seeing this, brother of Koushalya (the appellant) who is brother-in-law of deceased dealt knife blows upon the person of the deceased as a result of which he had died.The incident took place in presence of complainant- Sukhlal.Since the incident had occurred in the night, therefore on the next day i.e. 22.7.1998 the said Sukhlal lodged the FIR in the concerning police station.On lodging of the First Information Report, the criminal law was triggered and set in motion.The investigating agency arrived at the spot; seized the dead body; seized the ordinary and blood stained earth; sent the dead body for postmortem; recorded the statements of witnesses; arrested the appellant and seized the knife which was used as weapon in the commission of offence.After the investigation was over, a charge-sheet was submitted in the committal Court who committed the case to the Court of Session and from where it was received for trial.Learned trial Judge on the basis of allegations made in 3 Cr.A. No.425 of 2002 the charge-sheet, charged the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC which he denied and requested for trial.3 Cr.A. No.425 of 2002In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses and also placed documents Ex.P-1 to P-25 on record.The defence of the appellant is of maladroit implication and the same defence he set forth in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. However, in support of his defence, he did not choose to examine any witness.Learned trial Judge, on the basis of oral and documentary evidence placed on record, came to hold that the appellant has committed the offence under Section 302 of the IPC and eventually, convicted him to suffer life imprisonment and passed the sentence which we have already mentioned herein above.In this manner, this appeal has been filed by the accused/ appellant assailing his judgment of conviction and order of sentence.The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that the sole eye-witness to the incident is brother of the deceased, namely, Sukhlal (PW-1) and the entire case rests upon the pivotal statement of this witness.Further learned counsel submits that the testimony of this witness is not worth reliable for the simple reason that he had not seen the incident and whatever has been deposed by him is nothing but concoction.Hence, it is prayed that this appeal be allowed and the 4 Cr.A. No.425 of 2002 appellant be acquitted from the said charge.4 Cr.A. No.425 of 2002On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has argued in support of the impugned judgment and submitted that cogent reasons have been assigned by the learned trial Judge for convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC.Therefore, it has been prayed that the appeal be dismissed.Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that this appeal deserves to be dismissed.On going through the statements of the witnesses, we find that there is only single eye witness Sukhlal who is brother of the deceased.Merely because he is the real brother of the deceased, would not mean that his testimony should be viewed with doubt.It is well settled in law that if the witness is having blood relation with the deceased, his testimony should be considered with great care, caution and circumspection, therefore, we shall now x-ray the testimony of this witness by keeping this well settled law in our mind.On going through the testimony of this witness Sukhlal, we find that in very specific words in his examination-in-chief he is saying that he is the resident of the same village in which the nuptial home of the deceased is there.On the date of incident, he had gone to carry his children and at that juncture he saw that some quarrel was being taken place in the open courtyard of the house of the appellant and the said quarrel was going on between the wife of the deceased, appellant and the deceased himself.During the course of quarrel and altercation, the appellant brought a knife and dealt 4-5 blows upon the person of the deceased as a result of which he had died.After causing injuries by knife the 5 Cr.A. No.425 of 2002 appellant fled from the place of occurrence.Thereafter, this witness had gone to the house of the Sarpanch to narrate the entire incident.Thereafter on the second day i.e. 22.7.1998, he lodged the First Information Report (Ex.P-5).This witness has also proved the FIR lodged by him.On going through the cross- examination para 7 onwards, we find that nothing has been carved out from his testimony in order to disbelieve him.On the contrary, we find that the testimony of this witness is clear, cogent and trustworthy and the learned Trial Court did not err in placing reliance upon his testimony.5 Cr.A. No.425 of 2002The evidence of this witness has been corroborated by the evidence of the autopsy surgeon Dr. Abhay Raj Singh (PW-9) who has proved the postmortem report of the deceased which is Ex.As per the testimony of the doctor and the postmortem report, we find that the deceased had sustained following injuries:Stab wound spindle shaped up and down 1 '' x 1 '' x thoracic cavity deep just Lateral at 3'' Left Nipple blood clot present.Stab wound spindle shaped up and down 2 '' x 1 '' x thoracic cavity deep infero- lateral left Nipple just 4'' distance blood clot present.Stab wound spindle shaped 2'' x 1'' Abdominal cavity deep right lateral side of behind sternal bone.Obliquely-subere- medially interiorly blood clot present.Stab would spindle shaped 2 '' x 1 '' x abdominal cavity with cleaned portion of small intestine just below umbilicus transversally.All four injuries clear cut margins due to hard and sharp cutting object and grievous in nature which is dangerous to life.Ante-mortem in nature.6 Cr.A. No.425 of 2002Ab judicatio, the appeal fails and it is hereby dismissed.
|
['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.
|
1,509,001 |
The appellant was running a Kirana shop near the Jhuggi of Shankar.On the date of incident, i.e., 17-5-1990, at about 7.00 p.m., the appellant along with acquitted accused Maniram and Suresh were dancing in front of the said kirana shop where a tape recorder was blaring.Shankarlal protested saying that gekjs ?kj esa cgw csfV;k gS His protest went unheeded.Then he went and called Vimlabai (P. W. 2) and her husband Santram (P. W. 6) from their nearby dairy.They too requested the dancers to stop their performance which annoyed the latter who started uttering abuses and mounted assault.Bittu alias Nizamuddin dealt one blow with a wooden piece forming leg of a cot on the neck of Jagdish, maternal nephew of Shankarlal.When Shankarlal tried to intervene he was also assaulted.Then Bharat Singh, another maternal nephew of Shankarlal came to intervene and he was stabbed to death with a knife by the appellant.The incident was witnessed by Vimlabai, Santram and wife of the deceased, Deobati (P.W. 10).The deceased had brought his wife that very day for the first time after Gouna from village Chopra in Rajgarh district.After the murder the appellant and his associates made good their escape.Bharat Singh was removed to Hamidia Hospital.On receiving information police arrived in the hospital where Shankarlal lodged first information report recorded as Dehaati Nalishi (Ex. P. 1) by Ramswaroop Sharma, A. S. I. (P. W. 12).On its basis formal first information report (Ex. PP.22) was recorded at Nishatpura police station and crime No. 211/90 Under Section 307/34, I. P. C. was registered.Town Inspector P. S. Choukesey (P. W. 14) took up investigation.Reaching the spot he prepared sketch map of the scene of occurrence (Ex. P. 7) which is in front of Jhuggi of Shankarlal.JUDGMENT P.N.S. Chouhan, J.Six persons were tried in S. T. No. 235 of 1990 of Bhopal Sessions Division on charges of committing murder of Bharat Singh and causing simple injuries to Jagdish (P. W. 5) and Shankarlal (P. W. 1) on 17-5-1990 in front of Chandbad temple in Bhopal near the Jhuggi belonging to Shankarlal.Vide Judgment dated 10-10-1991 five accused were acquitted and appellant Pappu alias Sirajuddin was convicted Under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life which is under challenge in this appeal.Bharatsingh succambed to his injuries in the hospital.On receiving intimation of his death of offence was converted Under Section 302, IP. C. read with 34, I.P.C. Inquest was held vide Ex. P. 3 and requisition issued for post-mortem examination.Dr. B. P. Dubey (P. W. 11), vide autopsy report Ex. P. 20), found the following injuries on the body of Bharat Singh shown by diagram in Ex. P. 28 "1. 3" linear abrasion on left upper arm.Stab wound on left third space upper end 4.5 cm, lower end 6 cm, left to midline side 4 x 1.5 cm cutting the 3rd rib.The wound had entered the upper lobe of lung piercing the pericardium up to right part of the heart.The injury was 9 cm deep echymosis was present and the periocardial cavity was found full of blood.Stab wound 2.5 cm x 1 cm 14 cm below the left clavical bone and 12 cm on the left from the midline cutting the third pace.The injury had pierced 2 cm inside the upper lobe of left lung.Its depth was 4 cm and ecchymosis was present.Stab wound 2 cm x 0.5 cm x 5 cm 4 cm above the enterior superior ilise spine.In the opinion of the Doctor, Bharat Singh died of shock and haemorrhage produced by stab wounds which were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.The same was sent to Dr. Dubey for examination and opinion.On 21-5-90 he examined it and opined vide Ex. P. 21 that the injuries round on Bharat Singh could have been caused by that knife.He has prepared a diagram thereof in his report.This knife along with other articles was sent for chemical examination but the Chemical examiner, vide report Ex. P. 24, did not find any blood thereon.At the trial all the witnesses, excepting Deobati, turned hostile.In absence of such an exercise, appellant's identification by her for the first time in the Court was absolutely valueless.Kanan's case (supra) was one of criminal conspiracy leading to Nexalites attack on a police station.The evidence on criminal conspiracy was not found reliable.No member of the raided police station or staff was able to identify the miscreants.A cautious approach is not to be equated with a morbid obsession for likely error which may result in Hamletonion dilemma and coax the Judges mind to rush for the too attractive soft option of 'benefit of doubt' where the facts and circumstances do not warrant such a course.As observed by the Supreme Court in State of U. P. v. Krishna Gopal, 1989 Cri LJ 288 : AIR 1988 SC 2154, 'Forensic probability must, in the last analysis, rest on a robust common sense and, ultimately, on the trained intuitions of the judge.She has stated that she came along with her husband to the house of Shankerlal (PW-1) in Nishatpura Bhopal for the first time on 17-5-90, i.e., the day of incident from her parents village Chopda, As per her a quarrel took place in front of the house of her maternal father-in-law Shankerlal (PW-1) as he had objected to the dancing of boys to the tune of a blaring tape-recorder in front of his house, in course whereof Pappu (the appellant) assaulted her husband with a knife.Seeing this she swooned for a while and regaining consciousness accompanied her injured husband Bharat along with others in an Auto-rickshaw to the hospital.Her husband had received injuries on the chest where a towel was wrapped.Shri stayed at Bhopal the following day and she left for her in-law's place wherefrom she came for her evidence in the trial.She has admitted that there were many people between her and the spot where the quarrel took place.She denied the suggestion that on this account she could not see the assailant.In para 12 she has stated:^^;g lgh gS fd eSaa pksV yxrs le; vius ifr dks ns[k jgh Fkh fdUrq eSaus ;g ugh ns[kk Fkk fd mudks pksVsa dgk dgk yxh yxh Fkha A** In the following paragraph refuting the suggestion that she was naming Pappu as the assailant at the instance of the police she asserted that she had seen her husband being assaulted by Pappu with a knife.During cross-examination, she has stated that she is not aware as to when the police party arrived.She is unable to recollect if she gave any statement to the police.She has denied the suggestion of the incident having taken place in darkness and has asserted that there was electric light at the scene of occurrence.Contends the learned counsel for the appellant that in fact there was no light at the scene of occurrence as deposed to by Shankarlal (PW-1) in para 11 of his statement and, therefore, the learned trial Judge ought to have held the claim of Deobati to have identified the assailant doubtful for want of adequate light.Shankarlal testified to his objecting to the disco dance of the appellant and his two companions to the tune of a blaring tape-recorder, but denied that the deceased was assaulted in his presence and that he had lodged the report in the police station.The trial Judge permitted his cross-examination by the prosecution, in course whereof F.I.R. (Ex. P-1) was read over to him and he admitted that the same was lodged by him.Understandably as this witness had turned hostile he subsequently denied the incriminating portions of Ex. P-1 and went to the extent of saying that the scene of incident was shrouded in darkness.There is thus no doubt that this witness is hiding the truth and trying as best as possible to shield the offender.On the other hand, we find evidence of Deobati natural and truthful.We, therefore, hold that the learned trial Judge was justified in rejecting the aforesaid evidence of Shankarlal on the absence of light at the scene of occurrence as a conscious lie and to have accepted the testimony of Deobati in this behalf.Appellant's learned counsel criticised the evidence of Smt. Deobati on the ground that if she could forget arrival of the police and her giving statement to the Investigating Officer, her claim that she remembers the features of her husband's assailant whom she did not know prior to the incident must be held doubtful.Deobati had seen the appellant dancing in front of her house before the quarrel took place.Then she saw him inflicting the fatal knife blows on her husband.Till the assault the situation was normal and her observation of the assailant and his companions was in a cool frame of mind to make the features of her husband's assailant indelible in her memory as the contours of evil destiny responsible for shattering her life's dream.She could identify only the appellant and one of his companion, namely, Suresh, but she named only the appellant and identified Suresh by pointing at him in the dock.In such cases, the witnesses do not get the opportunity of seeing the miscreants in a cool frame of mind and for any considerable length of time.Therefore, in such cases, where the witness had a fleeting view of the miscreants in a state of shock resulting from terror unless their evidence is tasted by a prior test identification proceeding, for obvious reasons prudence will require calling for corroboration from some independent source to accept such evidence to base the conviction on.
|
['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.
|
150,903,313 |
CRL.A. No. 654/1999 Page 1 of 11On the question that the deceased Hari Om was a co-security guard deployed at the J.S. Farms, village Dera at the date and time of occurence along with the appellant, we have evidence in the form of testimonies of two brothers; Abrar Ahmed (PW-1) and Asrar Ahmed (PW-7), who were working as gardeners at the said farm, and Rajeev Chadha (PW-6), Staff Officer Marwell Security International.They have deposed affirming the said factual position.Abrar Ahmed (PW-1) and Asrar Ahmed (PW-7) have also deposed that in the morning of 9th April, 1998, dead body of Hari Om was found lying in the security-guard room and the appellant-Daya Nand Giri and his minor sister, who were residing in the same room, were missing and had absconded.Rajeev Chadha (PW-6) has stated that at about 8.30 A.M. on 9th April, 1998, he was informed on telephone that a security guard had been murdered but the caller did not tell him the name of the victim.On being cross-examined by the Additional Public Prosecutor, he reiterated his stand, but accepted that he had furnished the permanent address of the appellant- Daya Nand Giri.On the question of abscondence and the fact that the appellant was missing, Abrar Ahmed (PW-1) and Asrar Ahmed (PW-7) have been forthright and categorical.Abrar Ahmed (PW-1) had also made a statement, Exhibit PW-1/A, which was signed by him and became the substratum of the FIR in question.The versions given by Abrar Ahmed (PW-1) and Asrar Ahmed (PW-7) get affirmed from the statement of Head Constable Satbir (PW-2), who had recorded DD No. 6/A (Exhibit PW-2/A) on intimation given on telephone that a security guard had been murdered by another security guard at J.S. Farm, village Dera.PW-2 on directions of CRL.A. No. 654/1999 Page 2 of 11 the SHO had proceeded to the spot and at 11.40 A.M., Constable Vinod Kumar (PW-15) had brought the rukka on the basis of which FIR (Exhibit PW-2/C) was recorded.Similar is the statement of SI Hari Singh (PW-4), who was posted as the duty officer in Police Station, Mehrauli and had visited the farm and, thereafter, written the application (Exhibit PW-4/A) for conducting post-mortem.Gokul Kumar (PW-5) has stated that he had received a call from Sanjeev Lamba at about 9 A.M. on 9 th April, 1998 that at his (Sanjeev Lamba's) farm, a murder had taken place and a person had run away.The site plan of the place was prepared by Madan Lal, Draughtsman (PW-8), who had proved the scaled site plan (Exhibit PW- 8/A).Constable Gurmeet Singh (PW-9) affirmed that he had visited the J.S. Farm along with SI Hari Singh and had seen the dead body of Hari Om at the spot.The dead body was sent for post-mortem to the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) and on 10th April, 1998, he had brought from the hospital, a sealed parcel containing bedding, blood stained clothes, one envelope containing blood gauge, blood samples, etc., which were seized vide memo (Exhibit PW-9/A).SI Vijay Kumar (PW-17) was the Investigating Officer, who went to J.S. Farm after receipt of DD No.6/A (Exhibit PW-2/A) and had seen the dead body of Hari Om, which was lying smeared with blood in a room near the gate of the farm house.He had recorded the statement of Abrar Ahmed (PW-1) (Exhibit PW-1/A) and prepared the site plan (Exhibit PW-17/B).Blood from underneath the dead body was seized vide Exhibit PW-15/A. He had also completed the inquest proceedings and proved the inquest report (Exhibit PW-17/C).CRL.A. No. 654/1999 Page 2 of 11The aforesaid depositions thus prove the following facts; the deceased Hari Om and the appellant-Daya Nand Giri were working as CRL.A. No. 654/1999 Page 3 of 11 security guards at J.S. Farm and used to reside in the same room; minor sister of the appellant-Daya Nand Giri also used to reside with them; they were seen together in the evening of 8th April, 1998; in the morning of 9th April, 1998 at 8/8.30 A.M. dead body of Hari Om was found in the said room and the appellant-Daya Nand Giri and his sister were absconding.The aforesaid facts when put to the appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were partly accepted as correct as the appellant accepted that he was working as security guard in J.S. Farm and Hari Om was also working as a security guard in the said farm.He has also accepted that Abrar Ahmed (PW-1) and Asrar Ahmed (PW-7) were living in the said farm with their family.The injury in question is substantial and a serious one.That apart, the appellant had absconded and had run away.He did not get in touch with other residents/workers in the farm house, including Abrar Ahmed (PW-1) and Asrar Ahmed (PW-7), who were staying separately in their quarters constructed at some distance.CRL.A. No. 654/1999 Page 4 of 11Interestingly, the appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has stated that he did not know the cause of death, but he along with his sister had run away as some robbers had entered the farm house at night.The appellant claimed that he and his sister were sleeping when some 'badmash' had entered the room and asked for the keys to the farm.He had informed them that the keys were with Hari Om.Thereafter, as per the appellant, the said badmash went to the room of Hari Om, which was situated at the other side of the gate.Out of fear, the appellant and his sister ran away from the spot.Subsequently, the appellant surrendered to the police.From the testimony of Abrar Ahmed (PW-1), Asrar Ahmed (PW-7) and other police witnesses who had visited the spot, it is apparent that no evidence of forced entry or robbers/badmash having entered the farm house at night was found.On the other hand, Abrar Ahmed (PW-1) and Asrar Ahmed (PW-7) have stated that the appellant-Daya Nand Giri, his minor sister and the deceased Hari Om used to reside/sleep in the same room and not in two separate rooms at night.It is also an accepted position that the appellant had absconded, even before any resident/worker had seen the dead CRL.A. No. 654/1999 Page 5 of 11 body or the police had arrived.No one till then had suspected the appellant, as the perpetrator and asked him any question.In case robbers/badmash had entered the farm house at night, the appellant should have protested and shouted, or would have returned and come back after some time or at least by the morning.Daya Nand Giri impugns the judgment dated 21st August, 1999 in Sessions Case No.11/1998 arising out of charge sheet filed in FIR No.187/1998, Police Station Mehrauli, convicting him under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, for short) for having committed murder of his co-security guard Hari Om in the intervening night between 8 th and 9th April, 1998 at J.S. Farms, village Dera, Mehrauli, Delhi.The appellant has also challenged the order on sentence dated 23rd August, 1999 by which he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, fine of Rs.5,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years.Benefit of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C., for short) has been granted.The appellant has challenged his conviction on merits and in the alternative that the offence should be converted to one under Section 304, Part I or Part II of the IPC.We would first examine the contention whether there is sufficient evidence to establish that the appellant Daya Nand Giri was the perpetrator who was responsible for the homicidal death of Hari CRL.A. No. 654/1999 Page 1 of 11 Om.The factum that Hari Om had died a homicidal death is not in dispute.This aspect has been also examined while answering the question raised above.The appellant affirmed that he and his sister were living in the J.S. Farm and that the deceased Hari Om had started working as a security guard in the said Farm, about 20-22 days before the occurrence.CRL.A. No. 654/1999 Page 3 of 11On the question whether the deceased Hari Om had suffered a violent homicidal death, we have referred to the statements of Abrar Ahmed (PW-1), Asrar Ahmed (PW-7) and the police officers, who had visited the spot and seen the dead body, namely, SI Vijay Kumar (PW-17), SI Hari Singh (PW-4), Constable Gurmeet Singh (PW-9), Constable Bhure Singh (PW-11) and Constable Vinod Kumar (PW-15).On the nature and cause of death/injuries, we have the testimony of Dr. S.K. Gupta (PW-18), who had conducted the said post-mortem examination and proved the post-mortem report (Exhibit PW-18/A).He opined that the deceased had suffered ante- mortem injury in the form of split laceration measuring 10 cm x 3 cm on the left parietal area of the skull.On dissection, extravagation of blood in the scalp tissues in an area of 17 cm x 7 cm compound radiating fracture of parietal bone in an area of 12 cm x 2 cm underneath the brain tissues was found.The cause of death was shock and coma as a result of blunt force injury No.1, which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of CRL.A. No. 654/1999 Page 4 of 11 nature.He also opined that the iron pipe (Exhibit P-1) could have possibly caused the injury in question.He, however, accepted that the injury found on the dead body could have been inflicted if the deceased had fallen down on his own.On 18th April, 1998, the appellant was formally arrested with the permission of the court and, thereafter, two days of police custody was granted.SI Vijay Kumar (PW-17) has deposed that the appellant thereupon had made disclosure statement (Exhibit PW-14/B) and from the J.S. Farm house, they had recovered an iron pipe (Exhibit P-1) and the blood stained pant (Exhibit P-2), which was seized vide memo (Exhibit PW-14/C).As noticed above, Dr. S.K. Gupta (PW-18) had deposed that the injury in question was possible with the iron pipe (Exhibit P-1).The said iron pipe had also been sent for forensic examination and human blood was found.Similarly, on the pant in question, human blood of Group 'A' was found, which matches with the blood group of the deceased.The FSL report was marked Exhibit PW-16/C. On the question of disclosure statement (Exhibit PW-14/B) and the recovery of the pant (Exhibit P-2) and the iron pipe (Exhibit P-1), we also have testimonies of Constable Surender (PW-14) and Inspector Jagdish Prasad Meena (PW-16).The presence of the appellant at the farm house on or about 19th April, 1998 is deposed to by Abrar Ahmed (PW-1) and Asrar Ahmed (PW-7).No doubt, PW-1 has stated that the appellant had told the police officers that some 'badmash' had come there, but PW-1 was equally assertive that this story by the appellant was CRL.A. No. 654/1999 Page 6 of 11 concocted and he had not seen any third person and no noise or voices were heard.CRL.A. No. 654/1999 Page 6 of 11We clarify that abscondence by itself has not been treated as a significant incriminating circumstance.We have noted the entire gamut of facts proved, the factum that the appellant and the deceased were co- security guards residing in the same room, the occurrence resulting in homicidal death of Hari Om by violence had taken place at night, and the incriminating facts when put to the appellant had drawn unacceptable and false explanations as to the reasons and cause for abscondence and the injury, etc. Recoveries made and admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 would be another link in the chain of the facts substantiated and proved.The cumulative effect of the facts established and proved form the essence and foundation of the finding that the appellant and no other person was the perpetrator.The last question and issue is whether the appellant should be convicted under Section 302 IPC for having committed the murder of Hari Om or the present case is one where the crime is of a lesser degree, i.e. 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder'.Learned counsel for the State has submitted that this is a case of pre-meditated murder as on 8th April, 1998, there was a dispute/quarrel between the appellant-Daya Nand Giri and the deceased Hari Om and a call had been made to Rajeev Chadha (PW-6) regarding the same.Abrar Ahmed (PW-1) and Asrar Ahmed (PW-7) have deposed on the nature of the dispute, which pertained to price of salt, i.e. whether the purchase price was Rs.2/- or Rs.5/-.PWs-1 and 7 have stated that they had asked the two guards to resolve the petty matter and the issue was settled.Rajeev Chadha (PW-6) accepted having received a call from the appellant at around 7.30 P.M. on 8th April, 1998, regarding the quarrel and the appellant had alleged that the deceased Hari Om had abused CRL.A. No. 654/1999 Page 7 of 11 him.PW-6 at that moment had asked the appellant not to quarrel with Hari Om and that he would change Hari Om's duty on the next day.As we perceive, there may have been a quarrel between the appellant-Daya Nand Giri and the deceased Hari Om on 8th April, 1998 at about 5 P.M., but it was on a petty and a trivial matter.The issue, thereafter, was sorted out and the two were pacified.It is not the allegation of the Abrar Ahmed (PW-1), Asrar Ahmed (PW-7) or Rajeev Chadha (PW-6) that the appellant and the deceased had come to fists and blows or they had tried to physically assault each other.We would, therefore, not give too much credence and importance to treat the said quarrel as an impelling motive for committing the offence.Of course, it does appear that the relationship between the two had become strained.CRL.A. No. 654/1999 Page 7 of 11The accused can be also forthright.However, sometimes, due to lack of understanding and proper legal advice, the accused do not appreciate the significance of the statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C. The appellant has, as noted above, to exonerate himself alleged that a third person/robbers were responsible for the said assault.To this extent, we have disbelieved the appellant.The question, therefore, arises whether the appellant should be convicted of a lesser offence under Part I to Section 304 IPC.Whether a solitary blow should be treated as 'murder' or 'culpable homicide not CRL.A. No. 654/1999 Page 8 of 11 amounting to murder' has been a subject matter of several decisions.There are decisions in which a solitary or a single blow has been held to be 'murder' punishable under Section 302 IPC, and in other cases even the injuries caused by a knife, have been treated as one falling in Part I or Part II of Section 304 IPC.The outcome would be different with a slight change in facts.The adjudication would depend upon the nature of injury, the reason of which the injury is caused, pre- and post-occurrence facts, the utterances made by a party, existence of motive, etc. The whole exercise depends upon what was the intention of the perpetrator.CRL.A. No. 654/1999 Page 8 of 11CRL.A. No. 654/1999 Page 9 of 11In the present case, the appellant and the deceased were alone in the room.The appellant will pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, within a period of 45 days from the date of this judgment and in default of payment of fine, will undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four months.The quantum of fine has been fixed keeping in mind the economic position of the appellant.While fixing the sentence, we have also noted the fact that the occurrence in question relates to the year 1998 and the appellant was released on bail on or after December, 2003 and has been on CRL.A. No. 654/1999 Page 10 of 11 bail for the last 12 years.It has been stated at the Bar that he is not involved in any other case.CRL.A. No. 654/1999 Page 10 of 11The appeal is accordingly disposed of.Trial court record will be sent back.(SANJIV KHANNA)(ASHUTOSH KUMAR) JUDGE APRIL 22, 2015 VKR/kkb CRL.A. No. 654/1999 Page 11 of 11CRL.A. No. 654/1999 Page 11 of 11
|
['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
150,904,972 |
He would not move in the vicinity of complainant party.Matter is heard through Video Conferencing.The applicant has filed this first bail application u/S.439 Cr.P.C for grant of bail.Applicant has been arrested on 26.04.2018, by Police Station Chanderi, District Ashoknagar, in connection with Crime No.162/2018, for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 376-AB of IPC and Sections 5/6 of the POCSO Act.From the perusal of case diary, it appears that applicant is suffering confinement since 26.04.2018 and material prosecution witnesses including the family members of the prosecutrix have been examined.They did not support the prosecution story and declared hostile.He undertakes to cooperate in trial/investigation and would not be a source of embarrassment/harassment to the complainant party in any manner.Under these grounds and looking to the period of custody and the fact that chance of tampering with the evidence/witnesses HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No.4585/2020 (Mukesh Vs.State of M.P. and another) 2 is remote, he prayed for bail.Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposed and prayed for dismissal of this application.7.Applicant shall not be a source of embarrassment/harassment/threat to the complainant party in any manner and would not move in the vicinity of complainant party.Application stands allowed and disposed of.E- copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance, if possible for the office of this Court.Certified copy/ e-copy as per rules/directions.(Anand Pathak) Judge Rashid RASHID KHAN 2020.12.03 11:13:10 +05'30'
|
['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
152,069,213 |
As per the prosecution story, Sunita Bai PW-2 lodged the FIR alleging that she is working in the factory of ready made garments.On 23.08.2018, near about 5.00 AM in the morning, her daughter PW-1 left the house without leaving any message.She is aged about 15 years and 6 months and despite search, she has not been found.THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, INDORE BENCH CRA No.11227/2019 Indore, dated :16.03.2020 Shri A.K. Saxena, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri V. Hardia, learned Public Prosecutor for the non- applicant - State.Heard on I.A. No.10806/2019 an application for suspension of jail sentence filed on behalf of the appellant.The appellant has been convicted and sentenced by Sessions Judge, Indore passed in S.T. No.26/2019 vide judgement dated 11.12.2019 as under:Near about 11 AM, she came to know that she has been taken by the present appellant and who, himself left her in the night.The FIR was registered and investigation was done.The prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses.The learned Sessions Judge after appreciating the evidence came on record, came to the conclusion that she was minor at the time of commission of the offence and she was taken from the custody of her father against her wishes and accordingly convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above.Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn attention of this Court towards the Court statement of PW-1 in which she has specifically stated that she went alongwih the appellant on his motorcycle, he took her to Mandaw and near 11:00 PM, they came back to house and during this period, he has not committed any wrong with her, they simply visited the tourist place and though, she was minor, but attaining the age of majority.Hence, prayed for suspension of jail sentence.Learned counsel for the State has opposed the suspension application.Considering the aforesaid, without commenting on the merits of the case, the application I.A. No.10806/2019 stands allowed.It is directed that on furnishing bail bond to the tune of Rs.50,000/- (rupees Fifty Thousand) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 14.12.2020 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry, appellant Vishal Bhuriya be released on bail subject to payment of fine amount if not deposited and the substantive sentence shall remain suspended till the disposal of this appeal.This is an admitted appeal.List for final hearing in due course.C.c as per rules.(Vivek Rusia) Judge amit Digitally signed by Amit Kumar Date: 2020.03.16 17:59:55 +05'30'
|
['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
152,069,292 |
WP-3670-14.doc ::: Uploaded on - 09/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2016 19:45:07 ::: ORAL JUDGMENT :::: Uploaded on - 09/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2016 19:45:07 :::1. Rule.Rule is made returnable forthwith, by consent.Heard learned counsel for both the parties.They had earlier challenged this order by preferring Criminal Revision Application No.22 of 2014 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Palghar.Submission of learned counsel for the Petitioners is that the entire dispute involved in the present case is purely and simply of a civil nature.The allegations made in the complaint, even if taken at their face value, they do not constitute any of the ingredients of the offence of cheating.According to him, initially, even the Trial Court also, at the first blush, has observed that there is dispute regarding breach of contract.Subsequent thereto, the Trial Court has, after conducting inquiry under Section 202 of Cr.P.C., issued the process, but, as per learned counsel for the Petitioners, the complaint is conspicuously silent about dishonest intention of cheating on the part of the Petitioners-Accused since inception, which is the crux of Section 420 of IPC.He has further submitted that the 2/14 WP-3670-14.doc ::: Uploaded on - 09/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2016 19:45:07 ::: Petitioners had already made the payment of Rs.2,00,000/-.If the intention on the part of the Petitioners was to cheat since inception, the Petitioners would not have done so.By relying on various authorities of the Apex Court, the learned counsel for the Petitioners has submitted that, this tendency to convert the civil dispute into a criminal prosecution and thereby adopting the short-cuts to recover the amount is required to be curbed, as observed by the Apex Court.In the instant case also, therefore, according to him, the process issued against the Petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 420 r/w. 34 of IPC is required to be quashed and set aside.::: Uploaded on - 09/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2016 19:45:07 :::Learned counsel for the Petitioners has further urged that the first claim towards the bill was made two years after the alleged bills and the complaint is also lodged after more than two years and it also, therefore, suffers from delay and laches.On this ground also, the process issued against the Petitioners needs to be quashed.Per contra, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 has supported the impugned order of the Trial Court by inviting attention of this Court to various allegations made in the complaint, which spell out, according to him, the essential ingredients of the dishonest intention and cheating on the part of the Petitioners.Learned counsel for Respondent No.2 has further submitted that the Petitioners are even challenging and denying 3/14 WP-3670-14.doc ::: Uploaded on - 09/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2016 19:45:07 ::: the work done by Respondent No.2, which necessarily implies the dishonest intention on the part of the Petitioners.Hence, according to learned counsel for Respondent No.2, the Trial Court, after taking into consideration the allegations made in the complaint, finding prima facie case against the Petitioners, has issued the process and at this stage of threshold, no interference is warranted in the said order, especially, when it is also confirmed by the revisional Sessions Court.::: Uploaded on - 09/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2016 19:45:07 :::In my considered opinion, in order to properly appreciate the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the Petitioners and Respondent No.2, it would be useful to refer to the allegations made in the complaint filed before the Trial Court.It is stated in the complaint that Respondent No.2 is the Proprietor of M/s. Crown Crane Services, engaged in the business of erection, servicing and maintenance of textile machinery, having office at Vasai (West).Petitioner No.1 herein is a Textile Company, situated at Plot No.E-26, M.I.D.C., Tarapur, Dist.It was the case of Respondent No.2 that the Petitioners wanted his services for installation of textile machinery, fabrication and electrical work.As per the requirements of Petitioners, he agreed to do the work for total consideration of Rs.8,13,936/-.After completion of work, Respondent No.2 demanded balance amount of Rs.6,13,936/-.The Petitioners, however, started avoiding to make the payment on one count or the other and thus they cheated Respondent No.2 by avoiding the payment of the outstanding amount of Rs.6,13,936/-.Hence, after issuing the notices dated 30th November 2012 and 14th January 2013, Respondent No.2 approached the Trial Court for issuance of process against the Petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 420 r/w. 34 of IPC.::: Uploaded on - 09/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2016 19:45:07 :::The Trial Court, initially, by its order dated 4 th October 2013, observed that, "it appears that there is dispute regarding breach of contract".However, as the Petitioners, who were accused in the complaint, were residing outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Trial Court, the Trial Court directed Tarapur Police Station to conduct inquiry under Section 202 of Cr.P.C.Subsequently, on the receipt of the Report of the inquiry under Section 202 of Cr.P.C., the Trial Court observed that, "it appears that the complainant had carried out all the work as per the direction of the accused, however, the accused have failed to make payment of the bills 5/14 WP-3670-14.doc ::: Uploaded on - 09/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2016 19:45:07 ::: raised by the complainant and hence it appears that the accused had dishonest intention to deceive the complainant".With these observations, the Trial Court issued the process against the Petitioners under Section 420 r/w. 34 of IPC.::: Uploaded on - 09/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2016 19:45:07 :::As per learned counsel for Respondent No.2, there are sufficient allegations in the complaint in para No.3 to the effect that, "the accused falsely, with the deceiving intention, assured and made representation to the complainant that they would make the payment of the works, which would be done for their factory and at that time, complainant could not smell the deceiving intention of the accused.The complainant did the works of textile process machine, fabrication, electrical works and labour charges etc. and thereafter raised the bills, which are stated in the complaint and which are to the tune of Rs.8,13,936/-".In para No.3, it is further alleged that, "the accused has made the advance payment of Rs.50,000/- in the first week of February 2010 and Rs.1,50,000/-afterwards, in the beginning, with dishonest deceiving intention to win the confidence and to induce the complainant to get their work done.However, after he completed the work, the accused avoided to make the payment.Thus, the accused have, by making false representations, with the intention of cheating the complainant since beginning, made the initial payment and succeeded in their plan of cheating the complainant".WP-3670-14.doc ::: Uploaded on - 09/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2016 19:45:07 ::: However, when the notices were sent demanding the payment, the accused even challenged and denied that any such work was done by the complainant.Even it was questioned whether complainant was having the license to do the work.It was further alleged that false and bogus bills are raised by the complainant.Thus, according to learned counsel for Respondent No.2, there are sufficient averments in the complaint and, therefore, the process issued by the Trial Court against the Petitioners cannot be quashed.::: Uploaded on - 09/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2016 19:45:07 :::the proper remedy for Respondent No.2 was, therefore, to approach the Civil Court.He has tried to convert the civil dispute in criminal prosecution.::: Uploaded on - 09/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2016 19:45:07 :::WP-3670-14.doc ::: Uploaded on - 09/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2016 19:45:07 :::::: Uploaded on - 09/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2016 19:45:07 :::In the instant case, however, from the cursory perusal of the allegations made in the complaint filed before the Trial Court, which are quoted in extenso above, it can be seen that there are specific allegations made in the complaint that, since beginning, the Petitioners had the intention of deceiving and cheating and with that specific intention, in order to win the confidence and to induce Respondent No.2 to get their work done, they made initial advance payment of Rs.50,000/- and subsequently Rs.1,50,000/- and thereby got the work of Rs.8,13,936/-There are also allegations to the effect that accused made false representation with the common intention of deceiving, in the beginning, by making payments to the complainant and thus accused succeeded in their plan of cheating by inducing the complainant of giving assurance of making the payment and thus got their work done.Thus, accused cheated the complainant and the complainant suffered monetarily.Therefore, there are prima facie allegations made in the complaint itself spelling out the essential ingredients of the offence of cheating.They even disputed receipt of the bills and hence, by 10/14 WP-3670-14.doc ::: Uploaded on - 09/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2016 19:45:07 ::: subsequent notice, the copies of the bills were sent to them.They have then called those bills as bogus.They even questioned whether Respondent No.2 was having any license to do the other work, which he claims to have done.Therefore, from the averments made in the reply notices sent to the Petitioners by Respondent No.2, it can be said that it is not simplicitor a breach of contract as such and, therefore, a civil dispute, but some criminal element is definitely involved therein.::: Uploaded on - 09/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2016 19:45:07 :::The settled principle of law is that at the stage of quashing the complaint or F.I.R., the High Court is not to embark upon mini-trial or roving inquiry as to the probability, reliability or the genuineness of the allegations made in the complaint.WP-3670-14.doc ::: Uploaded on - 09/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2016 19:45:07 :::::: Uploaded on - 09/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2016 19:45:07 :::[DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.] 14/14 WP-3670-14.doc ::: Uploaded on - 09/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2016 19:45:07 :::::: Uploaded on - 09/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2016 19:45:07 :::
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,520,700 |
Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.1. Leave granted.This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 15.03.2010 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4867 of 2009, whereby the High Court had partially allowed the appeal filed by the Respondent No. 3 and 4 herein, against the award dated 28.08.2009 passed by the Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Satna, Madhya Pradesh and enhanced the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.The said jeep wasbeing driven by Respondent No. 1 and met with an accident near Dhal Factory General Road due to rash and negligent driving by the Respondent No. 1which resulted in his death on the spot.FIR was lodged at Police Station, Civil Lines, Satna against the driver under Sections 229 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code.His dead body was taken to his village from the hospital on payment of Rs. 800/- and amount of Rs.25000/- was spent on cremation.It was stated in the claim petition that before his death, the deceased was a young man of robust health and was working as mechanical fitter in Priya Engineering Prism Cement Factory on the salary of Rs. 4500/- per month and in total 2 was getting Rs. 6000/- a month inclusive of salary and over time allowance and was supporting his parents financially.After his death, Respondents No. 3 and 4 have been rendered without any financial support and have been deprived of the association and pleasure of having a family and grand children in future.The M.A.C.T., Satna, came to a finding that the deceased was earning Rs. 3000/- per month and deducted 50 % therefrom towards personal expenses, as he was a bachelor.Considering the age of the parents which was 56 and 55 years, applied the Multiplier of 9, and awarded a total compensation of Rs. 1,72,000/- (Rs. 1,62,000/- towards the loss of dependency + Rs. 10,000/- towards conventional heads) along with 6 % interest per annum from the date of claim petition.Being aggrieved, the Respondent No. 3 and 4 preferred miscellaneous appeal No. 4867 of 2009 before the High Court for enhancement of amount of compensation stating that the income of the deceased was Rs. 4500/- and not Rs. 3000/- as determined by the Tribunal, and a multiplier of 16 instead of 9 was supposed to be applied.The 3 High Court relying on the judgment of this Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another (2009) 6 SCC 121, enhanced the multiplier to 18 instead of 9 and granted expenses to the tune of Rs. 15000/- under conventional heads.Accordingly, the High Court enhanced the amount of compensation from Rs. 1,72,000/- to Rs. 3,39,000/-The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the High Court had failed to correctly apply the ratio laid in the case of Sarla Verma case (supra.).It was further contended that this Court has repeatedly held that in case where an unmarried young man dies, the average age of the parents will be taken for determining the multiplier and not the age of the deceased.In the aforesaid case, it has been clearly stated that for the age group of 56-60 years the multiplier should be 8, as has been correctly applied by the Tribunal by taking the average age of the Respondents 3 and 4 who are 55 and 56 years of age.The learned Counsel relying on the 2nd Schedule of the Act contended that the deceased being about 16 or 17 years of age, a multiplier of 16 or 17 should have been granted.It is undoubtedly true that Section 163A was brought on the Statute book to shorten the period of litigation.
|
['Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
152,075,444 |
CRR No. 1683 of 2014 Smt. Tulsi Jana Vs.The State of West Bengal In the matter of : An application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India;Mr. Tapas Kumar Dey (II) ..... For the Petitioner.Mr. Amarta Ghose ..... For the State.Criminal Section is directed to supply urgent Photostat certified copies of this order to the parties, if applied for, after compliance with all necessary formalities.( R. K. Bag, J. )
|
['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
152,080,251 |
(iii) Applicant shall report MIDC Police Station, Mumbai, once in a month on first Monday of the month between 11:00 a.m. to 01:00 p.m, till further orders;(iv) Applicant is permitted to furnish cash security of Rs.25,000/-, in lieu of surety for a period of six weeks from today;(viii) Bail Application stands disposed of.(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)::: Uploaded on - 15/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/02/2019 22:32:22 :::::: Uploaded on - 15/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/02/2019 22:32:22 :::
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,520,860 |
It is further alleged that Then one of his associate Thiru.Subash forcibly robbed Rs.150/- from the pocket of the complainant and anotherassociate Thiru.Padaleeswaran forcibly robbed Rs.200/- from Thiru.Index : YesInternet: YesdpkToThe District Magistrate andDistrict Collector,Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.The Superintendent of Police,Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.The Public Prosecutor,High Court, Madras.The Superintendent,Central Prison, Cuddalore.In the first adverse case dated 11 .9.2001, theallegation is that the detenu and his 5 associates formed an unlawful assemblywith a common object of damaging a bus and in furtherance of their commonobject, they damaged the front and rear wind screen glasses,side glasses, headlight with casuarina sticks and thereby caused damages to the tune ofRs.20,950/- and they also assaulted the witness and caused injuries. On thebasis of the aforesaid allegation, a case has been registered in Manalmedu P.SCr.In the second adversecase dated 29.3.2003, the allegation is that the detenu and his 3 associatesattacked one Dhanasekaran with veecharuval due to previous enmity and causedthe death in pursuance of their common intention.Chandrasekaran. All the accused persons also chased the witnesses andthreatened them.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
152,086,048 |
Case diary is available.Heard on this first application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the applicant in Crime No.554/2018 registered by Police Station Amarwada, District Chhindwara under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.The case of the prosecution is that, on 07.11.2018 at about 08:00 am deceased Santram Verma, aged about 45 years was found dead in the field of co-accused persons at village Lehangdua, Goughat under the jurisdiction of Police Station Amarwada, District Chhindwara.On the information of Mahendra Verma, son of deceased marg intimation was registered.During the course of enquiry it was found that applicant Shivkali Bai (wife) and co-accused (sons) have killed the deceased.Later on, she has called co-accused Gajendra Verma, who is son-in-law to dispose of the dead body and with his help they have taken the dead body from the place of incidence to Goughat road, village Lehangdua and threw it on the way.On that basis, crime under aforementioned offence has been registered against the applicant and other co-accused persons.Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has not committed any offence and has falsely been implicated in the crime.In view of the aforesaid, prayer has been made to enlarge the applicant on bail.Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/ State on the other hand has opposed the application.On perusal of the case diary, it seems that the allegation of attacking the deceased is against co-accused persons, who are sons of the deceased.Applicant is the wife of the deceased and the allegation against her is only that she has provided a rope which was allegedly used by co-accused persons for strangulating the deceased.It also seems that the cause of death of the deceased shown to be injuries inflicted on his head by the co-accused persons.Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case particularly the fact as pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant, allegation made against the applicant and also looking to the period of detention of the applicant, in the opinion of this Court, the applicant deserves to be released on bail.Consequently, this first application for bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of applicant-Shivkali Bai, is allowed.It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one solvent surety in the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for her appearance before that Court on all dates fixed in the case and for complying with the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Certified Copy as per rules.(Mohd. Fahim Anwar) Judge taj.Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Date: 18/02/2019 21:50:47
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
152,088,093 |
Heard Sri Kartikey Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri R.P. Bhatth, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.-341 of 2019, under Section-420 IPC, Police Station-Jamunapaar, District- Mathura during the pendency of the trial.It is next contended that although, the ATMs Card have been recovered from the possession of the applicant from which the money has been withdrawn from the account of the informant that has not been tallied and the entire recoveries are forged and there no independant witness of the same.The parity was also claimed by the counsel for the applicant.In case the applicant has been enlarged on short term bail as per the order of committee constituted under the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court his bail shall be effective after the period of short term bail comes to an end.The applicant shall be enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond without sureties till normal functioning of the courts is restored.Order Date :- 17.6.2020 Akbar
|
['Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
152,089,858 |
The appellants challenge, through the appeal at hand, their conviction and order on sentence on the charge for offences of cruelty meted out to, and dowry death of, Har Pyari (wife of the first appellant) in the matrimonial home on 11.03.1995, primarily on the basis of findings returned accepting the testimony of the father and brother of the victim.On 11.03.1995, she received burn injuries in her matrimonial home in Kamal Vihar, Kamalpur, Burari, Delhi within the jurisdiction of police station Timarpur ( "the police station"), sometime around 3:30 PM.She was brought to Jai Crl.A.No.213 /2000 Page 1 of 15 Prakash Narayan Hospital ("the hospital") at 5:00 PM by an official of Police Control Room (PCR).She died at 7:05 PM on the same day due to burn injuries, stated to be 100% all over the body.On the basis of statement (Ex.PW-4/B) of her father (PW-4), given on 24.04.1995, before Mr.Vijay Kumar (PW-7), the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM), the FIR (No. 150/1995) was registered in the police station at 6:10 PM on 26.04.1995, pursuant to endorsement (Ex.PW-9/A) by Inspector K.S.Bhatnagar (PW-9), the SHO.The case was investigated from the perspective of offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).On conclusion of investigation, the report under Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) was submitted on 12.0.1995 seeking trial of Dhani Ram (the first appellant) and four members of his family including his mother Sukko (the third appellant), two brothers Gulab and Sita Ram (second and fourth appellant) and Draupadi (the fifth appellant) wife of Sita Ram.Crl.A.No.213 /2000 Page 1 of 15A.No.213 /2000 Page 2 of 15 respectively on each count.The benefit of set of under Section 428 Cr.P.C. was granted.Crl.A.No.213 /2000 Page 2 of 15At the trial Ramji Lal (PW-4) deposed about the harassment of his daughter in the matrimonial home in the following manner:"After one or two months of her marriage, my daughter was not treated well by the accused persons, for insufficient dowry.This fact was told to me by my daughter whenever she used to visit us.On this issue my daughter had been ousted from her matrimonial house by the accused persons on 8/10 times atleast, but all those occasions we used to send back our daughter after pacifying all the accused persons and after advising my daughter to bear it till the days turn good.Whenever I had talked with accused persons on this issue at my own house, then accused persons used to demand a scooter, coloured TV and a golden chain Crl.A.No.213 /2000 Page 3 of 15 for resuming the conjugal rights of my daughter.But I could not afford it, so I simply used to beg sorry and used to tell them that I am too poor man to fulfill these demands.Somehow, I used to send my daughter back to her matrimonial house on every occasion.However, I have never complaint to the police on these demands in order to let my daughter live peacefully at her matrimonial house.On last occasion i.e. about 2/3 months prior to her death Har Pyari was again thrown out of her matrimonial house and when accused Sita Ram and on Manohar Lal- another Jeth and accused Dhani Ram had come to my house and had promised me all that they would keep my daughter happy, so I had then agreed to send her back."Crl.A.No.213 /2000 Page 3 of 15Raj Kumar (PW-5), brother of the deceased, similarly narrated the harassment allegedly meted out to his sister in the following words:"After about 1-2 months from her marriage she was constantly harassed and beaten up by all the accused persons for not bringing sufficient dowry and on number of occasions she was left at her house by the accused persons, which happened on 10-15 occasions.Accused persons used to demand sometimes scooter, TV, golden chain and cash of 20,000/- for her rehabilitation, which were never paid since we were too poor.I had also with my father had advised them not to do so and had begged from them that they should allow our sister to live peacefully at her matrimonial house and so we manage to send our sister Har Pyari back to her matrimonial house on those occasions.Ultimately, about 1 months prior to her death, again my sister was ousted from her matrimonial house by accused persons and when accused Sita Ram and Manohar Lal-another Jeth and accused Dhani Ram had come to my house and had promised us all that they would keep my sister happy so I had then agreed to send her back."Crl.A.No.213 /2000 Page 4 of 15Panna Lal (PW-2), another brother of the deceased, deposed about the above allegations as under:"After marriage initially she led a peaceful life at her matrimonial house for about 2 months but after two months whenever my sister used to visit me at my house she used to complaint that she has been regularly quarrelled by her mother in law, Jeth etc., besides these two persons it were all of the accused persons today present in court who used to harass her for not bringing sufficient dowry.This fact of harassment was told by my sister to me.Besides taunting, all the accused persons also used to beat her for not bringing sufficient dowry.I cannot give the exact date or month on which my sister was subjected to harassment but it was on 10/15 occasions whenever my sister visited me she complaint constantly against these accused persons.Once in the presence of my father Dhani Ram accused has slapped my sister at her matrimonial house.Whenever accused Dhani Ram used to come to us in order to take my sister back we had advised him not to torture my sister and had shown our inability to met with their demands of dowry being poor people, but our advise used to fall on deaf ears, the moment my sister entered into her matrimonial house.Lastly, about 1 or 3 days before the marriage of accused Gulab, when at that time my sister was with us at Mathura at Kaushi Kalan; at that time her brother in laws Manohar, Sita Ram and husband Dhani Ram had come to take her back home, then again we advised them for not torturing our sister and at that time all these persons had promised us that they will not torture our sister any longer, so we send our sister with them."The circumstances further leave no scope for debate as to the fact that her death in all probability was suicidal inasmuch as the evidence vividly shows that Crl.A.No.213 /2000 Page 5 of 15 she received burn injuries in a room bolted from inside with no one present there except her.When the matter reached the notice of police, through DD No. 12 on 11.03.1995, pursuant to the admission of the victim in the hospital against medico legal record (not formally proved during trial) , the initial inquiry was made by SI Darshan Kumar (PW-Crl.A.No.213 /2000 Page 5 of 15The reason is that no allegation implicating the appellants was made immediately or for more than a month thereafter.Ramji Lal (PW-4), the father of the deceased and her brothers Panna Lal (PW-2 and PW-5) are residents of village Kausi Kalan, Tehsil Chhatta, Distt.Mathura (UP).It is not that Ramji Lal (PW-The appellants were brought to trial in the court of Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) in sessions case number 121/1997 which concluded with judgment dated 01.03.2000 holding all of them guilty on the charge for offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC.By order dated 09.03.2000, the trial court awarded imprisonment for life with fine of 20,000/- each for the offence under Section 304-B and rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of 10,000/- each for offence under Section 498-A IPC.The order directed that in default of payment of fine, the appellants would have to further undergo simple imprisonment for two years and nine months Crl.Sukko, the third appellant, mother-in-law of the deceased woman died during the pendency of the appeal.The appeal filed by her, thus, has abated.The gravamen of the charge against the appellants essentially has been that Har Pyari died an unnatural death on 11.03.1995 on account of burn injuries suffered in the matrimonial home and that soon before her death she had been subjected by the husband (the first appellant) and his relatives (the other appellants) to cruelty and harassment in connection with demands for dowry.The FIR was registered with allegations to such effect on the basis of statement (Ex.PW4/B) made on 24.04.1995 by Ramji Lal (PW-4).Besides paying a visit to the hospital finding the victim unfit for statement, he had inspected the scene of incident.He also informed the SDM (PW-7) for inquest proceedings.During the course of his inquiry, the SDM had recorded the statement (Ex.PW-7/E), amongst others, of a neighbour Vishamber Dayal (DW-1).Though his word in this regard finds support from other statements gathered during the inquiry by the SDM on the same day, because of the somersault made by some of them, (i.e. the relatives on the parental side of the deceased woman), for the present, we restrict the scrutiny in light of the evidence of DW-1 alone.The statement of DW-1, coupled with the description of the scene of incident coming forth during the testimony of PW-8, and corroborated by the seizure memo (Ex.Pw-8/A), it is clearly proved that the room where Har Pyari received the burn injuries was bolted from inside at the time of she catching fire.DW-1 proved, and the prosecution accepts this position, that attention of others had been drawn to the fire inside the room on smoke coming out.The material on record shows that, at the relevant point of time, the third appellant Sukku, mother-in-law and another daughter-in-law of the family were present though in a different room.Crl.A.No.213 /2000 Page 6 of 15Har Pyari was never in a position to give any statement and, thus, her version is not available.Given the above noted facts, including the confirmation by PW-8 of the word of DW-1 that the door had to be broken open to attempt rescue Har Pyari while she was burning, there is no doubt that it was a case of self-immolation.The post-mortem report Ex.(PW-3/A), proved by Dr.Yogender Singh Bansal (PW-3), proved that the death occurred due to shock consequent upon burn injuries which were extensive and 100% of the total body surface area.The chronology of events noted above shows that no case was registered for investigation into a cognizable offence immediately.Their evidence suggests that they had learnt about the incident, and the death, on the same day and had arrived on the same night, the request for post-mortem examination was made formally by the father (PW-4) on 13.03.1995 by his signed application (Ex. PW-4/A) made to the SDM.Pertinent to note here that PW-4 admitted he having submitted the said application for such purpose.On 13.03.1995, almost parallel to the conduct of the autopsy on formal request (Ex. PW-7/I) made to the Head of department of forensic medicine, Maulana Azad Medical College (to the mortuary whereof the dead body had been shifted), the SDM recorded the Crl.A.No.213 /2000 Page 7 of 15 statements of relatives on both sides.We may presently focus only on the statements of Ramji Lal (Ex. PW-7/C), Raj Kumar (Ex.PW-7/D) and Somati (Ex.PW-7/B), the father, brother and mother respectively of the deceased.This would be, of course, in addition to the statement (Ex.PW-7/E) of Vishamber Dayal (DW-1).Crl.A.No.213 /2000 Page 7 of 15The SDM (PW-7) proved having recorded the abovementioned statements of the four persons and on that basis concluded his proceedings vide report Ex.In the said statements, the parents and the brother of the deceased had stated that she (the deceased) was suffering from some mentally disturbed state and on that account she had been under treatment of a doctor (Dr.R.K.Jain of Agra).Ramji Lal (PW-4), particularly stated that he had himself seen Har Pyari behaving as an insane person after the fact of her disturbed mental state had been brought to his notice by his other son Panna Lal (PW-2).All the said persons, including PW-4 and PW-5, confirmed that they had no cause of complaint against the husband or other relatives of the deceased woman and that there had been no demand for dowry at any stage.4) did not have any grievance against the matrimonial family of his daughter (the deceased).He told the SDM in his statement (Ex.PW- 7/C) that he had been arranging the medical treatment of Har Pyari on the request of her matrimonial family, who had assured that they would bear the expenses but this assurance had not been abided by as no payment was made.Thus, the grievance made was on account of non- payment of medical expenses on treatment of Har Pyari.Crl.A.No.213 /2000 Page 8 of 15Against the above backdrop, the SDM vide his proceedings (Ex.PW-7/A) closed his inquiry, and rightly so, as there were no allegations made of any offence being involved.On 24.04.1995, Ramji Lal (PW-4) again appeared before the SDM (PW-7) and made a fresh statement (Ex.PW-4/B) now alleging that, about 2-3 months after the marriage, Har Pyari had told him that she was being harassed for dowry in the matrimonial home.He stated that all the five appellants would harass her and she had been sent back after the quarrels from the matrimonial home 10-15 times.He stated that once or twice even he had to bring her back.He stated that though he tried to reason out with her Jeth (the fourth appellant) but no one listened.He stated that the mother-in-law (the third appellant, since deceased) used to pick up quarrel and taunt the deceased over insufficient dowry.He also added that some days before the incident the matrimonial relatives and the husband had come and taken away Har Pyari assuring that there would be no further quarrel.He stated that he and his family had not lodged any complaint with the police as they did not want any further trouble.He told the SDM that he suspected that his daughter had been killed by the husband and his relatives.He added that he had not earlier stated these facts because he had been threatened by the first, second and fourth appellant that he would meet the same fate as of his daughter.He also stated that the allegations made by him would be confirmed by four other persons, namely, Kunwarpal, Yad Ram, Pooran Chand and Shiv Lal.On this fresh statement (Ex.PW-4/B) being made on 24.04.1995, the SDM by his proceedings (Ex.PW-7/L), recorded on 24.04.1995, Crl.A.No.213 /2000 Page 9 of 15 directed a case to be registered.Thus, the SHO made his endorsement (Ex.PW-9/A) and got the FIR registered.The four persons referred by him to be in a position to confirm his word (Kunwarpal, Yad Ram, Pooran Chand and Shiv Lal) were not presented as witnesses at any stage.Even their description, relation or role was not delineated in any manner.His son Raj Kumar (PW-5) also deposed in similar breath.The latter (PW-2) had not been examined during the inquest proceedings.Raj Kumar admitted that the document (Ex.PW-7/D) bears his signatures but he denied having made such statement.He would not explain as to how his signature appears on the said document if he had not appeared to make a statement before the SDM.Ramji Lal (PW-4) denied having made the statement (Ex.PW-7/C) or the said document to be bearing his signatures.Noticeably, Ramji Lal (PW-4) started putting thumb impression on the proceedings relating to the case after 24.04.1995 though his statement Ex.PW-7/C before the SDM and application for autopsy (Ex.PW-4/A) were duly signed by him.Indeed, the evidence of the Crl.A.No.213 /2000 Page 10 of 15 SDM (PW-7) in such regard cannot be disbelieved.He is a senior public servant who had no personal stake involved.He, thus, would not go about preparing false record.The stand taken by Ramji Lal (PW-4) and Raj Kumar (PW-5) disowning their respective statements (Ex.PW7/C and Ex.PW7/D) is, thus, not truthful or honest.Crl.A.No.213 /2000 Page 10 of 15It also needs to be mentioned that PW-5 was uttering false-hood when he stated that the information about the burn injuries, and death, was received through Panna Lal who was residing in Delhi during those days.His brother Pannal Lal (PW-2) would not say so.Rather, his evidence shows that he was also living in native village in District Mathura with the rest of the family at the relevant time and had learnt the news there only.It is clear from the court depositions of the father and two brothers of the deceased woman (quoted earlier) that they were talking in general terms, avoiding specifics.PW-4 spoke of the deceased having been "ousted" from the matrimonial home 8-10 times.PW-2 and PW-5, on the other hand, would say she had been turned out 10-15 times.The way PW-4 and PW-5 speak about the demands of scooter, T.V. and gold chain (to which PW-5 adds the demand of cash of 20,000/-), it seems to be indicated that same were conveyed to the father and brother respectively for "rehabilitation" of the deceased.It is not clarified as and when these demands were made or by which of the five appellants.This omission is significant as in the statement (Ex.PW-4/B) made before the SDM on 24.04.1995, PW-4 had not spoken about the deceased having been turned out of the matrimonial Crl.A.No.213 /2000 Page 11 of 15 home followed by demands of costly gifts as a pre-condition for her return.Crl.A.No.213 /2000 Page 11 of 1524. PW-5 stated that the deceased was constantly harassed and beaten up by all the accused persons for not bringing sufficient dowry.PW-2 spoke about regular quarrels and harassment in such context and then would say all the accused persons would also beat the deceased and added that on one occasion the husband (the first appellant) had even slapped the deceased in the matrimonial home, in the presence of her father (PW-4).PW-4, on the other hand, would not allege physical assault.He only talked in vague and general terms that his daughter was not treated well and had been turned out of the matrimonial home on several occasions.The allegations made by PW-2, PW-4 and PW-5 at the trial came to be raised six weeks after the unnatural death.It is admitted that no complaints about the harassment, illegal demands for dowry, forcible ouster from the matrimonial home or physical assaults were made a subject of any complaint, meeting with elders or family members.It was not so stated at the time of death either.PW-4 while lodging the FIR on 24.04.1995 had claimed that this was not done so that the deceased was not troubled further.This explanation does not stand to reason.It is not even confirmed by PW-4 or for that matter by his sons (PW-2 and PW-5) in their court depositions.PW-4 was critical of Har Pyari's in-laws and husband when he had raised the grouse of non-payment of medical expenses.PW-4 was therefore open and candid.He did not appear to be under pressure or threat.Crl.A.No.213 /2000 Page 12 of 15It is against the above backdrop that the statements made by PW-4 and PW-5 during the inquest proceedings on 13.03.1995 assume significance.It does appear that both these witnesses spoke about the disturbed mental state of the deceased on account of she having consumed Bhaang on some occasion prior to her marriage.We are unable to accept this story of consumption of Bhaang on one occasion resulting in insanity or mental illness.The fact remains that whatever be the cause of such condition, both PW-4 and PW-5 were categorical in admitting before the SDM on 13.03.1995 that the deceased was suffering from disturbed state of mind to the extent that she had to be taken for medical treatment by a doctor in Agra.The fact that this disturbed mental state was her history even prior to the marriage shows the possibility that the said problem was not make-belief and probably may have been concealed from the matrimonial family.The statements (Ex.PW-7/C and Ex.PW-7/D) of PW-4 and PW-5 respectively on 13.03.1995 before the SDM contained admissions that the disturbed mental state of Har Pyari had continued to persist even after the marriage and her conduct in such disturbed mental state had been seen by them with their own eyes during her stay in the matrimonial home.The said statements also contained an admission that it was against this backdrop that Har Pyari was brought back by them from the matrimonial home on the request of matrimonial family so that medical treatment could be arranged at Agra.We are conscious that no medical record of treatment of Har Pyari for disturbed mental state has been brought to light.But, for this omission, the appellants' side cannot be blamed.Since the above- noted statements of the father and brother of the deceased before the Crl.A.No.213 /2000 Page 13 of 15 SDM on 13.03.1995 clearly showed that it was that side of the family which had organized the medical treatment at Agra, the record of medical treatment would be in their custody and control.If the said position was indeed false, the prosecution was obliged to offer affirmative and clear evidence to show that the earlier statement was indeed a false pretext and made under coercion.Crl.A.No.213 /2000 Page 13 of 15While changing the stand on 24.04.1995 lodging the FIR through his statement Ex.PW-4/B, PW-4 had sought to explain that he had not earlier revealed the case of ill treatment of the deceased by the matrimonial family on account of threats extended to him by the appellants' side and the police.He rather chose to take the easier course of not speaking about his earlier statement.When confronted, during cross- examination, with the earlier statement, he chose the plea of denial.As noted earlier, after 24.04.1995, PW-4 started avoiding putting his signatures.Instead, he tried to show that he is totally illiterate person who can only put his thumb impression.As mentioned earlier, this was a stand exposed to be false by his own application (Ex. PW-4/A), duly signed on 13.03.1995, for post-mortem examination of the dead body.On the forgoing facts, and in the circumstances, we find it difficult to believe, or act upon, the statements of PW-2, PW-4 and PW-5 with regard to their allegations concerning cruelty for dowry Crl.A.No.213 /2000 Page 14 of 15 meted out to the deceased in the matrimonial home.The admissions of PW-4 and PW-5 in their respective earlier statements before the SDM on 13.03.1995 that there had never been any demand of dowry or any harassment meted out to the deceased and that she had been in a disturbed mental state for prolonged period cannot be wished away.These admissions show the allegations made in the FIR and the evidence of the abovementioned three witnesses (PW-2, PW-4 and PW-5) at the trial in poor light.Therefore, in our view, the evidence of the three abovementioned witnesses (PW-2, PW-4 and PW-5) does not inspire confidence and it is not safe to draw conclusions on such basis.Crl.A.No.213 /2000 Page 14 of 15In the result, the appeal is allowed.The impugned judgment and order on sentence are set aside.The appellants are acquitted.They had earlier been released on bail pending adjudication on the appeal.Their bail bonds are discharged.R. K. GAUBA (JUDGE) SANJIV KHANNA (JUDGE) NOVEMBER 19, 2015 mr Crl.A.No.213 /2000 Page 15 of 15Crl.A.No.213 /2000 Page 15 of 15
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
152,090,177 |
Re : An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 7th March, 2014 in connection with Khargram P. S. Case No. 469 of 2013 dated 01.12.2013 for committing offence under Sections 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code.In the matter of : Sarbeswar Konai & Ors.... Petitioners.Mr. Md. Anowar Hossain.....For the Petitioners.Ms. Sonali Bhar.....For the State.We have heard the submissions of the learned Advocate for the petitioner and the learned Advocate for the State.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(JOYMALYA BAGCHI, J.) (SUBRATA TALUKDAR, 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.
|
152,092,780 |
Mr. D.G. Khamkar, Advocate appointed for the Appellant Mrs. Shilpa Gajare-Dhumal, APP for the State CORAM : SMT.V.K. TAHILRAMANI & SMT.ORAL JUDGMENT [PER SMT.The prosecution case briefly stated, is as under:(i) Deceased Murugan and his wife PW 2 Mallika were working as labourers in Mumbai.They were residing on the footpath of Carter Road, Bandra (W), Mumbai.During daytime, Murugan and his wife Mallika used to do labour work and at night, they used to sleep on the footpath of Carter Road.Many other persons were also sleeping on the footpath of Carter Road including PW 3 Arjunan and PW 4 Shekhar.At about 02.00 a.m., PW 2 Mallika got up and shouted as she was hit by a stone.When she woke up Pg 2 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:40:15 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:40:15 :::2. cri apeal 237-07.doc from sleep, she saw a person.She also saw that person hitting her husband with a stone.Her husband became unconscious.On hearing shouts, all the persons who were sleeping on the pavement gathered around PW 2 Mallika.The person who hit Mallika and her husband Murugan with a stone, started running away from the spot, however, he was chased and caught by other pavement dwellers.2. cri apeal 237-07.doc she knew them.She and her husband Murugan worked as labourers.They left their place i.e the pavement at about 08.00 a.m. and used to return back at about 07.00 p.m. They used to sleep on the pavement.On the day of the incident, at about 02.00 a.m., Mallika got up and shouted as she was hit by a stone.When she woke up from sleep, she saw a person.She also saw that person hitting her husband with a stone.Her husband became unconscious.ig On hearing shouts, all the persons who were sleeping on the pavement gathered around Mallika.The person who hit Mallika and her husband Murugan with a stone, started running away from the spot, however, he was chased and caught by other pavement dwellers.On hearing shouts, Police also reached the spot.The Police helped PW 2 Mallika to take her husband to hospital in an auto rickshaw.The police also apprehended the person i.e the appellant who assaulted Mallika and her husband Murugan.V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] :-By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Sections 302 and 324 of IPC and sentenced him as follow:-Pg 1 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:40:15 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:40:15 :::2. cri apeal 237-07.doc Convicted Under Sentenced to Section 302 of IPC To suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of ` 500/- IDRI for 1 month.Section 324 of IPC To suffer RI for 2 months and to pay a fine of ` 100/- IDRI for 7 days.The learned Additional Sessions Judge directed that both the substantive sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently.On hearing shouts, Police also reached the spot.The Police helped PW 2 Mallika to take her husband to the hospital in an auto rickshaw.The police also apprehended the person i.e the appellant who assaulted Mallika and her husband Murugan.The appellant was also taken to the hospital by the police.(iii) In the hospital, dying declaration of Murugan came to be recorded by the police.PW 8 PSI Satam recorded dying declaration of Murugan.The said dying declaration was treated as F.I.R. Thereafter, investigation commenced.Murugan died on the next day.His body was sent for postmortem.During postmortem, the following injuries were observed:-Pg 3 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:40:15 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:40:15 :::2. cri apeal 237-07.doc " Haematoma in left parito temporal region.Fissured fracture left parito temporal bone 8 c.m.long extending upto middle cranial fossa.Fracture of temporal bone also seen.Cerebral oedema and congestion.Subdural haematoma in left / right parito temporal region.Contusion left temporal region."As per the postmortem notes, the cause of death was due to traumatic fracture of skull and subdural haematoma due to blunt force (unnatural).In the opinion of the Doctor, if a person is sleeping on the footpath and if he is hit by a big stone like article No. 3, the injuries sustained by Murugan are possible.After completion of investigation, charge sheet came to be filed.In due course, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.Charge came to be framed against the appellant under Section 302 of IPC for causing the death of Murugan and Section 324 of IPC for causing injuries to PW 2 Mallika.The appellant pleaded not guilty to the said charge and claimed to be tried.The defence of the appellant is that of total denial and false implication.His further defence is that he was not sane at the Pg 4 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:40:15 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:40:15 :::2. cri apeal 237-07.doc time when the incident took place, hence, his case would be covered under Section 84 of IPC.After going through the evidence adduced in this case, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated in paragraph 1 above.Hence, this appeal.4 We have heard the learned Advocate for the appellant and the learned APP for the State.After giving our anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced by the learned Advocates for the parties, the judgment delivered by the learned Sessions Judge and the evidence on record, for the reasons stated below, we are of the opinion that the appellant did assault Murugan with stone Article 3 and he also assaulted PW 2 Mallika with a stone.The conviction is mainly based on the evidence of PW 2 Mallika, PW 3 Arjunan and PW 4 Shekhar who were the eye witnesses to the incident.PW 2 Mallika has stated that in January 2003, she was residing along with her husband on the pavement.Many persons used to sleep on the pavement by their side, hence, Pg 5 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:40:15 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:40:15 :::PW 3 Arjunan was also residing on the pavement at Carter Road where PW 2 Mallika and her husband Murugan were Pg 6 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:40:15 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:40:15 :::2. cri apeal 237-07.doc residing.He has stated that on 18.01.2003, he returned home from work at about 07.00 to 08.00 p.m. After having meals, he went to sleep.At about 02.00 a.m., he heard shouts of Mallika, hence, he woke up.He saw that the appellant hit Murugan with a stone.Thereafter, the appellant started running.PW 4 Shekhar and Munian chased the appellant and caught hold of him.PW 4 Shekhar was also sleeping on the pavement at Carter Road.On the night between 18.01.2003 and 19.01.2003 at about 02.00 a.m., he heard shouts of Mallika, hence, he woke up.He saw one person hit Murugan with a stone.The said person then started running away.This witness and Munian started chasing him i.e the appellant.Then they caught hold of the appellant.In addition, the evidence of PW 2 Mallika shows that the appellant assaulted her with a stone.Nothing has been elicited in cross-examination of any of these three witnesses so as to disbelieve Pg 7 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:40:15 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:40:15 :::2. cri apeal 237-07.doc their testimony.The medical evidence is also consistent with the prosecution case.Thus, Mallika was assaulted on the head with a stone by the appellant and the appellant also hit Murugan with a stone.To support his submission, he placed reliance on the evidence of the Investigating Officer PW 9 PI Hujband and PW 7 Dr. Patil.PW 9 PI Hujband has stated that on the very same day that the accused was apprehended, he was sent for medical examination, mainly because, he was found violent and he apparently looked like a lunatic.The appellant was referred to PW 7 Dr. Patil who was attached to the Police Hospital at Nagpada.PW 7 Dr. Patil has stated that on 19.01.2003, the appellant was brought before him by the police stating that he had some Pg 8 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:40:15 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:40:15 :::2. cri apeal 237-07.doc psychiatric problem.PW 7 Dr. Patil asked the police to get the appellant on the next day i.e on 20.01.2003 which was a day the psychiatric specialist visited the hospital.Accordingly, on 20.01.2003, 23.01.2003 and on 30.01.2003, Dr. Patil along with another Doctor examined the patient i.e the appellant.On the basis of these three sittings, a certificate was issued relating to the medical condition of the appellant.In the certificate, it was stated that on medical examination, it was revealed that the appellant is suffering from delusions and persecutory ideas with no insight in his illness.Dr. Patil has also observed that on questioning the patient i.e the appellant, the appellant stated "I have killed people as they are spies of our country" and therefore, the appellant feels that he has done good deed.The appellant also added that the Doctors are restraining him from killing other spies.According to Dr. Patil and other Doctors, the appellant was a case of paranoid schizophrenia and he was not mentally sane.Accordingly, certificate Exh. 15 came to be issued.The certificate dated 19.02.2003 shows that on mental examination, the appellant was found suffering from delusions and persecutory Pg 9 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:40:15 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:40:15 :::2. cri apeal 237-07.doc ideas with no insight in his illness.In short, the appellant is suffering from mental illness (paranoid schizophrenia) and is "not mentally sane".Noting dated 20.01.2003 also shows that the appellant was not mentally sane.On that day, the appellant was examined.The Doctor had noted that the appellant does not feel that he is ill.He does not feel that he has done anything wrong.On 23.01.2003, the appellant was examined, no change was found in his mental condition.On that day, the appellant stated that foreigners are spoiling our country by spying and sending information.He admitted killing a person by hitting with a stone, however, he did not feel that he had done anything wrong.The Doctor opined on that day that the appellant was not aware of the consequences of his act.On 30.01.2003, when the appellant was examined by the Doctors, they found that there was no change in his mental condition.The appellant was telling that they are not allowing him to kill the spies.Thus, the evidence of PW 9 PI Hujband who is the Investigating Officer in the present case as well as the evidence of PW 7 Dr. Patil who was working in Police Hospital at Nagpada Pg 10 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:40:15 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:40:15 :::2. cri apeal 237-07.doc shows that the appellant was not sane on 19.01.2003 i.e the day of the incident and even thereafter.Based on the evidence of PW 9 PI Hujband and the evidence of PW 7 Dr. Patil, the learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that at the time of the incident, the appellant was suffering from mental illness and due to the mental disturbance, the appellant caused injuries to PW 2 Mallika and Murugan by assaulting them with a stone.Looking to the evidence of PW 9 PI Hujband and PW 7 Dr. Patil, it is clear that the appellant was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia and that he was not mentally sane.The medical papers which have been brought on record by PW 7 Dr. Patil clearly show that the appellant was not aware of the nature and consequences of his act or that he has done anything wrong or contrary to law.The only aspect now to be considered is the defence of the insanity of the appellant.The evidence of the prosecution witnesses especially that of PW 7 Dr. Patil clearly shows that the appellant was suffering from mental illness on the Pg 11 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:40:15 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:40:15 :::2. cri apeal 237-07.doc day of the incident and even thereafter.The burden to prove that the accused was of unsound mind and as a result thereof he was incapable of knowing the nature and consequences of his acts is on the accused.The burden of proving the existence of circumstances bringing the case within the purview of S. 84 lies upon the accused under S. 105 of the Indian Evidence Act. Under the said section, the Court shall presume the absence of such circumstances."(a) A, accused of murder, alleges that, by reason of unsoundness of mind, he did not know the nature of the act.The burden of proof is on A."Pg 12 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:40:15 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:40:15 :::Pg 13 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:40:15 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:40:15 :::2. cri apeal 237-07.doc (3) Even if the accused is not able to establish conclusively that he was insane at the time he committed the offence, the evidence placed before the Court by the accused or by the prosecution may raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of the Court as regards one or more of the ingredients of the offence, including mens rea of the accused and in that case the Court would be entitled to acquit the accused on the ground that the general burden of proof, resting on the prosecution was not discharged.The circumstances that stand proved in this case in relation to the defence of the appellant of lunacy are that :a)On the day of the incident, the Investigating Officer PW 9 PI Hujband referred the patient i.e the appellant for medical examination, mainly because, he was found violent and apparently, looked like a lunatic;b)The evidence of PW 7 Dr. Patil who examined the patient on the day of the incident i.e on 19.01.2003 and even thereafter till 30.01.2003 shows that the appellant was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia and he was not found mentally sane.Dr. Patil found that the Pg 14 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:40:15 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:40:15 :::2. cri apeal 237-07.doc appellant was suffering from delusions and persecutory ideas with no insight in his illness;c)The medical papers relating to examination of the appellant which has been deposed to by PW 7 Dr. Patil show that the appellant was not aware about the consequences.This means that the appellant was not aware of the nature and consequences of his act or that it was wrong or contrary to law;d)The appellant did not even thereafter feel that the act done by him was contrary to law, which is seen from the evidence of PW 7 Dr. Patil and the medical papers which show that the appellant did not feel that he had done anything wrong;e)After the incident on the very same day, the appellant was sent for medical examination in relation to his mental condition.The appellant told Dr. Patil that he had killed people as they are spies of our country and on account of this, the appellant feels that he had done a good deed.The appellant even told the Doctors who examined his mental condition that they are restraining him from killing other spies.Thus, this conduct of the appellant immediately after the incident also shows that Pg 15 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:40:15 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:40:15 :::2. cri apeal 237-07.doc in all probability, the mental condition of the appellant was not sane at the time of the incident;f)There was no motive from the appellant to assault Mallika or to assault Murugan.In the present case, motive has not been brought on record by the prosecution.None of the prosecution witnesses have stated that there was any enmity between the appellant and the deceased or even the injured.None of the witnesses have stated that the appellant had any grudge against the injured or the deceased or any feeling of ill will of any kind whatsoever.The evidence on record shows that on the day of the incident, when the appellant was examined by the Doctors, he was found to be suffering from paranoid schizophrenia.He had delusions and persecutory ideas with no insight in his illness.From this, an inference can reasonably be drawn that the appellant was under paranoid delusions at the time that he Pg 16 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:40:15 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:40:15 :::2. cri apeal 237-07.doc committed the offence.From all the evidence on record, it can be inferred that at the time of the incident, the appellant was suffering from mental illness.Having regard to the nature of burden on the appellant, we are of the view that the appellant has proved existence of circumstances as required by Section 105 of the Evidence Act so as to get benefit of Section 84 of IPC.There is enough evidence to assume that at the time of the incident, the appellant was incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that it was wrong or contrary to law by reason of unsoundness of mind and thus, he is entitled to get benefit of Section 84 of IPC.Hence, the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302 of IPC as well as Section 324 of IPC cannot be sustained.In the result, we proceed to pass the following order:-ORDER i.The appeal is allowed.Judgment and order dated 03.07.2006 passed by learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No. 76 of 2004 convicting and sentencing the appellant under Sections 302 and 324 of IPC is set aside.The appellant is Pg 17 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:40:15 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:40:15 :::2. cri apeal 237-07.doc acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 324 of IPC.The appellant shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.Office to communicate this order to the Superintendent of prison where the appellant is lodged and to the appellant-original accused.Writ of Order be expedited.[SMT.V.K. TAHILRAMANI,J ] jfoanz vkacsjdj Pg 18 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:40:15 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:40:15 :::
|
['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.
|
151,547,157 |
Some men ego will not allow them to accept rejection and when their advances are spurned they retaliate by throwing acid at the woman.An acid attack is a terrifying experience.Acid melts human flesh and even bones.It causes excruciating pain and terror.The victims are left mutilated and scarred for the rest of their lives.Some suffer permanent disabilities such as blindness and some victims even die as a result of their injuries.The attacks are made possible by the easy availability of cheap acids as cleaning fluid or for use in the cotton industry.Dealing with this cruellest menace, the Honble Supreme Court in a recent case of Laxmi vs. Union of India and Others reported in 2012(9) SCALE 291 directed the State governments and the Union territories to make appropriate rules for the sale of acid in states and union CRL.A. 788/2011 Page 2 of 31 territories respectively.The Honble Apex Court also directed the government to take appropriate measures for proper treatment, after care, rehabilitation and payment of compensation to the victims of acid attack.CRL.A. 788/2011 Page 2 of 31The case in hand also relates to one such unfortunate woman who became the victim of such horrifying act at the hands of, none else than her own husband, who could not bear her rejection.In the present case deceased who became a victim of such barbaric act of the offender was just 24 years of age and had a boy child, six years old, from her first husband.She was attacked by accused when she had reached at a place near Petrol Pump, Britannia Chowk, J.J. Colony, Shakurpur, Delhi.The exact prosecution story as it unfolds in the chargesheet is as under:-"On 29.02.2008 on receiving the DD No. 17A, IO SI Daya Chand along with Constable Amar Singh went to petrol pump, Britannia Chowk, J.J. Colony, Shakurpur where no eye witness or complainant met them.In the meantime, PCR control room informed that the injured was removed by PCR van Commander 21 to Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital.IO along with constable Amar singh reached the hospital and collected the MLC of injured Jyoti, w/o Mahender@ Dabbu aged 24 years, r/o. G-23, J.J. Colony, Shakurpur, Delhi.Doctor had mentioned on the MLC alleged history of 75% acid burn and declared her unfit for statement and result on the nature of injuries as grievous.No eye witness met them at the hospital.IO prepared rukka on DD No. 17A and handed over the same to Constable Amar Singh for registration of FIR, who left the hospital.During the investigation, doctor handed over the burnt clothes of injured Jyoti, in a sealed parcel along with sample seal.In the CRL.A. 788/2011 Page 3 of 31 meantime Constable Amar Singh returned back to the hospital and handed over the copy of FIR and original Rukka to the IO.IO along with Constable Amar Singh Nath again went to the place of incident and took into the possession some burnt clothes lying at the spot, which were smelling like acid and turned it into clothes parcels and sealed and seized with the seal of DCS.IO prepared the site plan of the spot and informed the SDM about the incident.SDM, Model Town went to the LNJP hospital and recorded the statement of the injured Jyoti and made inquiries from her.Thereafter IO recorded the statement of the witness and tried to search the accused but the accused could not be traced.On 05.033333.2008, accused surrendered himself before the court.The court made inquiries from the police and remanded him to the police custody for one day.Thereafter he was formally arrested and send in the judicial custody where his disclosure statement was recorded.IO prepared the site plan at the instance of the accused and tried to search the acid bottle, which could not be traced.IO recorded the statement of witnesses and deposited the case property to malkhana.On 12.04.2008, IO received the information from the LNJP hospital that injured Jyoti has expired.In her this statement, she also disclosed that she was residing with her parents and her first marriage had taken place in the year 2001 with one Mr. Arun and there was a male child aged 6 years born out of the said wedlock.She also stated that after two years of her marriage with Mr. Arun, her marriage ended with divorce.She also stated that on 28th September, 2005 she had married the present appellant Mahender @ Dabbu in a Court and thereafter she started living with Mahender in a rented accommodation.She also stated that just after one year of marriage, Mahender started harassing her and had also thrown her CRL.A. 788/2011 Page 11 of 31 out of the matrimonial home.She also stated that earlier Mahender used to ask for the divorce but when she gave her willingness then he started extending threats to kill her.A portion of the dying- declaration is also in question-answer form.To a question whether she was in her full senses?, she replied that she was in her full senses.She was also put a question as to whether Mahender was carrying acid when she had met with him? She replied stating that he was hiding acid in his jacket in a cream colour bottle and he was also carrying divorce papers which he got signed from her few days back.When questioned as to how she knew that it was Mahender who has thrown acid at her? She replied that when Mahender had thrown something at her then she saw that her clothes and the papers, which she were holding in her hands, got burnt and gradually her eyes got glued and thereafter she felt that Mahender had poured acid at her.PW-15 in his deposition categorically deposed about the fitness of the victim to give her statement.He also deposed that her statement was recorded in his presence and under his directions, on the questions as were put by him to her.He also deposed that the deceased Jyoti had put thumb impression at point C and had signed at point D on Ex. PW-15/A. The defence utterly failed to rebut or challenge the testimonies of the said two important witnesses, who proved on record, the said two dying-declarations as Exs.KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.By this appeal filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C), the appellant seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 12.05.2011 and 13.05.2011, respectively, passed by the Court of Ld.Additional Sessions Judge- 01(NW), Rohini Courts, Delhi, thereby convicting the appellant for committing an offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as IPC) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default thereof to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of one year.CRL.A. 788/2011 Page 1 of 31CRL.A. 788/2011 Page 1 of 31One of the most horrifying forms of gender-based violence, a growing phenomenon in India, is acid attack.Though acid attack is a crime which can be committed against any man or woman, it has a specific gender dimension in India.Most of the reported acid attacks have been committed on women, particularly young women, for spurning suitors, for rejecting proposals of marriage, for denying dowry etc. The acid is used with malicious intent to take revenge, disfigure and harm the person.The offence thereafter was converted from section 307 IPC to section 302 IPC and further investigation was handed over to Inspector Ajay Kumar.Thereafter on 13.04.2008 M.Z.Ansari, Executive Magistrate, Model Town reached the hospital and recorded the statement of the witness in respect to identification of dead body of Jyoti.Executive Magistrate prepared the inquest report and directed for the post-mortem of the deceased Jyoti and prepared scaled site plan of the spot through draftsman.After the completion of the investigation IO filed the charge sheet before the concerned court."CRL.A. 788/2011 Page 3 of 31After supplying the copies of the charge sheet to the accused as per law, case was committed to the Court of Sessions.Arguments on the point of charge were heard and charge under section 302 IPC was framed CRL.A. 788/2011 Page 4 of 31 against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.To prove its case, the prosecution had examined 23 witnesses.The statement of accused was recorded by the learned Trial Court under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the accused pleaded his innocence and false implication.The accused also examined three witnesses in his defence.CRL.A. 788/2011 Page 4 of 31Addressing arguments on behalf of the appellant, Mr. Satish Bajaj, Advocate strongly contended that the dying declaration being a weak piece of evidence, conviction of the accused cannot be sustained solely on the basis of dying declaration.Counsel for the appellant also argued that in the present case, the dying declaration was not recorded by the SDM himself but by PW-18, SI Daya Chand and therefore, also the same loses its credibility.Counsel for the appellant also submitted that the style and the language used in the alleged dying declaration, resembles the pattern as is normally used by the police in recording the statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and therefore, there remains no doubt that the said dying declaration was first recorded by the police official and was later signed by the SDM.Counsel for the appellant also argued that the said dying declaration was not even recorded in the question and answer form as per the mandate of Chapter 13-A of Volume -III of the Rules and CRL.A. 788/2011 Page 5 of 31 Orders of Delhi High court dealing with dying declarations and therefore, the said dying declaration lacks its credibility.Counsel for the appellant also argued that the appellant had never married the deceased and in fact no evidence was produced on record by the prosecution to prove the marriage of the appellant with the deceased.Referring to the deposition of PW-16 ASI Nain Singh, counsel for the appellant also submitted that the deceased was carried by him in his PCR van and on her way to hospital, the deceased told him that she was having one child and for the past six months she was contesting a divorce case against her husband.The contentions raised by the counsel for the appellant was that the deceased herself had admitted the factum of her marriage with Arun and the said marriage of the deceased was still alive and therefore, the allegation of the deceased that she was married with the appellant was palpably false.Counsel for the appellant further argued that the learned Trial Court has ignored the inherent contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, like PW-18 who was the first person to visit the spot and who took the rukka to the police station, in his deposition, described the place of incident as house No.G-230, J.J. Colony, Shakurpur, where-from he had also recovered the clothes of the deceased CRL.A. 788/2011 Page 6 of 31 in torn condition, and whereas the deceased and the other prosecution witnesses disclosed Shakurpur Red Light, Ring Road near Petrol Pump opposite Britannia, to be the place of the incident.Counsel for the appellant also argued that the learned Trial Court committed a grave error in not appreciating the fact that if the alleged incident, had occurred at 10.00 a.m. on the ring road outside the petrol pump then it is not possible that at such a busy public place no independent witness was found by the prosecution to support their case.In support of this argument counsel for the appellant further stated that PW-8 also in his deposition confirmed this fact by stating that there were 6-7 public persons present at the spot.Counsel for the appellant also argued that the prosecution also failed to collect any evidence to prove that the acid was found at the spot of the crime or that any bottle was recovered from the accused from which he had allegedly thrown the acid on the deceased.Counsel for the appellant also argued that no motive was attributed against the appellant to commit said crime and even in the dying declaration, the deceased stated that the accused wanted to get divorce from her and she had agreed for the same and therefore, she was called by the accused to go to the advocate for filing divorce petition in the Tis Hazari Courts The contention raised by CRL.A. 788/2011 Page 7 of 31 the counsel for the appellant was that since no marriage had taken place between the appellant and the deceased, the question of filling the divorce petition to dissolve such marriage cannot arise.Counsel for the appellant also submitted that in fact the deceased herself only poured the acid on her so as to blackmail and pressurise the appellant to agree for the marriage not realising that such act of hers would result into her death.Counsel for the appellant also argued that the appellant had disclosed his entire defence in his statement, recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., giving complete details of his relationship with the deceased and how he was being blackmailed by her and ultimately been falsely implicated in the present case.Based on the above submissions, counsel for the appellant submitted that the order passed by the learned Trial Court is not sustainable in the eyes of law and therefore, the same be set aside.Akbari Begum and Ors.vs. State reported in 2011(3) JCC 18173. Muneer Khan and Ors.CRL.A. 788/2011 Page 8 of 31Countering the said submissions, Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP for the State, submitted that the conviction of the appellant is based on the dying- declaration of the deceased, which finds corroboration from her first statement, proved on record as Ex. PW-12/A, made to PW12 who carried the deceased in a PCR van to the hospital and had also transmitted the first statement by the deceased to the police control room.The contention of the learned APP was that in the very first statement, made by the deceased to the In-charge PCR van, she had named the appellant responsible for pouring acid on her and therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the said two dying-declarations made by the deceased which fully supports each other.Leaned APP further submitted that each and every contention raised by the counsel for the appellant in his final arguments has been dealt with by the learned Trial Court and the reasoning given by the learned Trial Court is based on sound principles of law and on proper appreciation of material available on record.Learned APP also argued that the mere fact that no public witness had come forward to support the case of the prosecution would not create any doubt on the said two dying-declarations made by the deceased which were further corroborated by the other evidence proved on record by the prosecution.Based on these submissions, Learned APP for the State submitted that the learned Trial Court has passed a well reasoned order and the same may not be interfered by this Court in exercise of its Appellate powers.CRL.A. 788/2011 Page 9 of 31We have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length.We have also gone through the Trial Court record before taking a final view in the matter.The present case is primarily based on two dying-declarations of the deceased.Firstly, when she was being taken to the LNPJ hospital and secondly, when she gave her statement to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate.In her statement made to the SDM, she had categorically stated that on 29th February, 2008 at about 8.30 a.m. Mahender gave a telephonic call to her that at 10.00 a.m. both of them will go to Tis Hazari to meet their lawyer who was to prepare divorce papers and for that the accused also CRL.A. 788/2011 Page 10 of 31 told the deceased to bring photo and certificate.The call was repeated by Mahender at 10.30 a.m. telling the deceased to come at Telephone Exchange, Ring Road Bus Stand with the papers and when she had reached at the said place, Mahender- accused met her and started enquiring as to why she was taking divorce from him, at which, she had replied that since he had ruined her life after subjecting her to harassment, therefore, she would not like to live with him.On this, she started looking towards other side when Mahender had poured acid on her from a bottle containing acid.She started crying and felt complete darkness in front of her eyes.She could gain a little consciousness to find that she was brought to the hospital by the police.Thereafter she started residing with her parents.She also stated that Mahender paid repeated visits to her and extended threats by saying that he will physically eliminate her if she dared to take any step to divorce him.The deceased had clearly stated that she was the wife of Mahender and her husband had poured acid at her.CRL.A. 788/2011 Page 10 of 31CRL.A. 788/2011 Page 11 of 31The PCR Form-1 wherein the first dying-declaration recorded was CRL.A. 788/2011 Page 12 of 31 proved on record as Ex. PW-12/A1 in the deposition of PW-12 Head Constable Devi Dutt, 2091, PCR, North West Zone, PCR, Delhi.PW-12 in his cross-examination stated that he had received a call from Mobile No.9891847761 informing him that acid was thrown on a lady near Petrol Pump, Britannia Chowk, J.J. Colony, Shakurpur, Delhi on 29th February, 2008 at about 11.08 a.m. This witness further stated that the said message was transmitted to PCR van and a PCR van reached the spot at about 11.16 a.m. on the same day and then Incharge PCR van transmitted the message to the Police Control Room that they were proceeding towards hospital with the said lady.The said witness also deposed that after the lady was admitted in LNJP Hospital, Incharge PCR van gave back information to the Police Control Room informing that the injured had informed him that her husband had poured acid on her.He also informed the Police Control Room that doctor had disclosed that the injured had received 75% burn injuries.PW-12/A and PW-15/A.CRL.A. 788/2011 Page 12 of 31CRL.A. 788/2011 Page 13 of 31In the present case the appellant has made an attempt to impeach the credibility of the said dying-declarations.The contention raised by the counsel for the appellant with regard to his challenge to the said two dying-declarations has no merit and deserve an outright rejection.CRL.A. 788/2011 Page 21 of 31CRL.A. 788/2011 Page 21 of 31The next argument on which counsel for the appellant laid much stress was that the appellant was never married to deceased and the deceaseds marriage with her previous husband Mr. Arun was still alive, and therefore, the deceased describing the appellant as her husband in the said two dying-declarations is palpably false and her such apparent falseness renders the said dying-declarations as highly doubtful and unreliable.However, this lapse on the part of the prosecution cannot affect the credibility of the said two dying- declarations made by the deceased unequivocally referring the appellant as her husband.20. PW1- Sukhram, father of the deceased, in his cross-examination clearly stated that her first husband had left her and she was having a boy CRL.A. 788/2011 Page 22 of 31 child from that marriage.He also deposed that no divorce had taken place and her daughter got married with the accused Mahender which was her second marriage.He also deposed that her daughter was kept well for two years by accused Mahender after her marriage but thereafter, the disputes arose between them. PW2- Ms. Amarjeet Kaur, mother of the deceased, in her examination-in-chief categorically deposed that it was the second marriage of her daughter with the accused, Mahender and she was having one boy child aged about 6-7 years from her first marriage.The deposition of PW-2 remained unrebutted as she was not cross-examined by the accused.In her dying-declaration made before the SDM, the deceased categorically stated that she got married with the accused Mahender @ Dabbu on 28th September, 2005 and after the marriage she started residing with him in a rented accommodation.She also gave a detailed narration of facts as to how she was being subjected to harassment by her husband Mahender and how she was called at the Telephone Exchange, Ring Road, Bus Stand where acid was thrown at her by her husband, Mahender.Thus it clearly establishes that the deceased and the accused had entered into a matrimonial relationship.CRL.A. 788/2011 Page 22 of 31Further in the present case this Court is not looking at as to whether CRL.A. 788/2011 Page 23 of 31 the first husband of the deceased had divorced her or not or in what circumstances the present accused had married the deceased during the subsistence of her first marriage.The legality and validity of the second marriage of Mahender with the deceased is not an issue before this court.It is not uncommon that many such marriages take place during the subsistence of previous marriage of one of the party and in some rare cases marriages are not dissolved by taking recourse to law but through dubious methods of signing some stamp papers and getting the same attested from a Notary Officer/Oath Commissioner.It is, therefore, difficult to ascertain the validity of marriage in such cases.CRL.A. 788/2011 Page 23 of 31However, after taking into account the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2 read in conjunction with the two dying-declarations made by the deceased, there does not remain any iota of doubt that the accused was the husband of the deceased and they had entered into matrimonial relationship and started living together as husband and wife, though their marriage may not be legal in the strict sense.CRL.A. 788/2011 Page 24 of 31Another contention raised by the counsel for the appellant was that PW18- Constable Amar Singh, in his deposition described the place of incident as House No.G-230, J.J. Colony, Shakurpur, Delhi while the other police officials have described the place of incident as Shakurpur CRL.A. 788/2011 Page 25 of 31 Red Light, Ring Road near Petrol Pump opposite Britannia, and therefore, this contradiction on the part of the PW-18 is enough to disbelieve the story set up by the prosecution.This PW-18 in his examination-in-chief did disclose the place of occurrence being House No.G-230, J.J. Colony, Shakurpur, Delhi but none of the other witnesses have disclosed the said place of occurrence and they were consistent and uniform in disclosing the place of incident as Shakurpur Red Light, Ring Road near Petrol Pump opposite Britannia.PW-15/A The deceased in her dying declaration clearly stated that the appellant used to threaten her even to the extent of physically eliminating her if she dared to take divorce from him.Even before putting acid on her, the appellant had again enquired from the deceased as to why she was interested to take divorce from him, at which, the deceased explained that since he had ruined her life, she was no more interested to live with him.These statements are sufficient enough to show the state of mind of the appellant and the reasons for his taking such step of pouring acid at the deceased.Independent witnesses may not be available but CRL.A. 788/2011 Page 30 of 31 there should be proper care and caution in the matter of acceptance of the dying declaration as a trustworthy piece of evidence."CRL.A. 788/2011 Page 30 of 31In the light of the aforesaid discussion we find our self fully satisfied that the said two dying declarations were made by the deceased voluntarily and truthfully, free from any kind of tutoring or prompting, and they were duly recorded by the Incharge, PCR van and the SDM.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
151,548,030 |
(Passed on the 24 day of July, 2018)1. Heard finally with the consent of the parties.This appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure being aggrieved by the judgment dated 24.06.2013 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Burhanpur in S.T.No. 06/2013 whereby the learned Trial Court convicted the appellant as under:-The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on 23.04.2013 at around 1:30 to 2 P.M when the victim aged 7 years had gone to the appellant's shop to buy cold drink, she came back crying and when her father and mother asked her as to what has happened, then she informed them that appellant Ajay had taken her to the back side of the shop to give her Pepsi and thereafter he opened the chain of his pant and inserted his penis in the victim's mouth.The aforesaid incident was informed to the Sarpanch of the village and Dehati Nalishi was registered vide Ex.P/1 at the instance of the father of the prosecutrix at 5:40 pm.Thereafter, FIR Ex.P/6 was registered at crime No. 101/2013 at 6:50 pm on the same day.CRA No. 1673/2013 2 The appellant was arrested on the same day, in the night at around 23:10 pm and the victim/ prosecutrix was also medically examined by P.W.17 Dr. Rehana Bohra of Nehru Hospital, Burhanpur vide Ex.No mark of injury was found either internally or externally.Although in this MLC it is stated that the prosecutrix had alleged oral sex by the person named Ajay hence slides of oral swab were also taken.The learned Judge of the trial Court after recording the evidence has convicted the appellant as aforesaid and being aggrieved of the same, this appeal has been preferred by the appellant.Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued before this Court that no case for conviction under the provisions of POCSO Act is made out as the appellant has been falsely implicated by the parents of the prosecutrix owing to a dispute on account of non payment of amount due to the appellant.The appellant was running a provision store and used to give the goods to the parents of the prosecutrix on credit.It is further submitted that even otherwise, no case for sexual intercourse can be made out as the act oral sex attributed to the appellant does not fall within the definition of rape.Learned counsel has also relied upon the judgments rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Sakshi/ Smt. Sudesh Jakhu V. Narendra Verma and others, AIR 2004 SC 3566 to submit that no case u/s.377 is made out even if the prosecution story is accepted as also the judgment rendered by the Orissa High Court in the case of Mihir alias Bhikari Charan Sahu V. State of Orissa; 1992 0 Cr.L.J. 488, on the question of quantum of sentence of the appellant, who has already undergone more than 5 years sentence.8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.So far as the age of the prosecutrix is concerned, the same has been stated to be around 7 years by her mother Pw/2 Anita and father Pw/3 Mahehdra and the same has been proved by the Pw/18 Shridhar, the incharge pradhan Pathak at primary school, Nachan Khera vide Scholar Register Ex.P/15C, Admission Register P/16C and the certificate issued by him vide Ex.This witness P.W.18 has not been cross-examined by the defence and as such there is nothing on record to disbelieve the aforesaid documents, which demonstrates the date of birth of the prosecutrix to be CRA No. 1673/2013 3 7.8.2006 and hence on the date of the incident i.e. 23.04.2013 the age of the prosecutrix is held to be 6 years and 8 months.So far as the allegations against the present appellant are concerned, the prosecution has examined the prosecutrix as P.W.1, who in her statement has clearly stated that on the date of the incident when she had gone to buy Pepsi from the appellant's shop, she was subjected to oral sex by the appellant who put his penis in her mouth.She has also stated that subsequently she was taken to hospital where she was examined.In her cross-examination, a suggestion has been made that in the appellant's shop Pepsi is not sold, to which she has denied.A suggestion is also made to her that there was a dispute between the appellant and the prosecutrix's parents owing to credit which the appellant had given to them, to which also this witness had denied.Although she has admitted that prior to the incident, the appellant had refused to give any goods on credit to the parents of the prosecutrix and suggestion is also made that the prosecutrix's parents are now purchasing goods from the shop of one Sanjay whose shop is also nearby and in his shop also Pepsi is available but the prosecutrix is firm on her statement that she had gone to the appellant's shop to get Pepsi only.P.W.2 Anita is the mother of the prosecutrix.She has also reiterated the same story.In her cross-examination she has also been confronted with the same question that she had some dispute with the appellant in respect of credit which the appellant had given to them, to which this witness has denied.She has also denied that the appellant does not sell Pepsi as he has no fridge in his shop and she has categorically denied that there was any dispute in respect of the amount which was due to the appellant.P.W.3 Mahendra is the father of the prosecutrix.He has also narrated the same story and the same questions have been confronted to him to which he has denied.Although he is a hearsay witness but has admitted that on the date of the incident, the mother of the prosecutrix had come to his house and narrated the incident to him.This witness has not been challenged in any manner beneficial to the appellant.CRA No. 1673/2013 414. P.W.5 Baliram is the Sarpanch of village Nachankheda.He has also supported the case of the prosecution and has even asked the prosecutrix as to what had happened in detail.Although there are some contradictions in his statement but the same are minor in nature and cannot be held to be suffering from any infirmity.Thus, so far as the oral testimony is concerned, the same stands unrebutted.So far as the medical and other evidence is concerned, P.W.8 B.C. Tanwar is the Sub Inspector of police station Shahpur.15. P.W.7 Chatar Singh is the person who had collected samples of the prosecutrix from the hospital vide Ex.P/3 and the samples of the appellant vide Ex.P.W.16 Dr. Mujjafal Bohra has examined the appellant and found to be capable of indulging in sexual intercourse vide Ex.P/13 and had also prepared the slides of the swab of penis.P.W.17 Dr. Rehana Bohra has examined the prosecutrix and as already stated above, although she did not find any injury on the person of the prosecutrix but had preserved the slides of oral swab.P.W.19 R.S. Amb, DSP, arrested the appellant and prepared the spot map.He seized articles and sent the same to FSL vide Ex.FSL report is also on record and proved as Ex.P/19 in which oral swab of the prosecutrix marked 'A' and slides B slide of Semen and C slide taken from surface of penis which were taken from the appellant were found to be positive in nature and found to be containing human siemen and sperm and from the slides taken from the appellant, saliva was also found.In the defence, accused has not examined any person and in the statement made under Section 313, his only defence is that the witnesses have made false statement against him.
|
['Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
15,155,055 |
Heard on admission.Issue notice to the Respondent No.2/ complainant on payment of PF within a week.Notice be made returnable within two weeks.Learned Panel Lawyer opposing the submissions made on behalf of the applicant has prayed for rejection of the bail application.It is directed that in the event of arrest of applicant Ramesh Kumar Choudhary in complaint case No.37/2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 354-A, 354, 294, 506 and 323 of the IPC, he shall be released on ad-interim bail till further orders on his furnishing a bail bond for the sum of Rs.2 5 ,0 0 0 /- (Rs. Twenty five Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.Certified copy as per rules.(J. P. GUPTA) Digitally signed by VIJAY LAKSHMI JHA Date: 13/07/2020 15:15:18 2 MCRC-13034-2020 JUDGE Digitally signed by VIJAY LAKSHMI JHA Date: 13/07/2020 15:15:18
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
151,556 |
(ii) The State shall also ensure free education to the children of deceased Shri Kalyan;(iii) As long as first accused is undergoing sentence State shall pay Rs. 300/- per month to the 22 years old wife of first accused and their children.ORDER V.L. Bhat, C.J.Learned Sessions Judge tried four accused on charges under Sections 302, 302 read with Sections 34, 307 and 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC and convicted first accused under Section 302, IPC and imposed sentence of imprisonment for life on him and convicted third accused under Section 323, IPC and imposed sentence of simple imprisonment of three months on him.Other accused were acquitted of all charges.Third accused was acquitted of other charges.Learned Sessions Judge further directed-(i) that first accused shall pay compensation of Rs. 25,000/- to the 18 year old widow of the victim Kalyan and since recovery may be delayed or may not be possible for the present, the State shall pay this amount to her and recover it from the properties of the first accused;
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
151,557,805 |
P13 is the printed First Information Report.On 29.07.2009 at about 05.45 a.m., PW-15 visited the scene of crime, prepared observation mahazar [Ex.P2] and rough sketch [Ex.P14] in the presence of PW-8 and another.The photographs are MO-11 series.He conducted inquest on the body of the deceased at 07.00 a.m. in the presence of PWs.1, 3, 4, 6, 7 and others and panchayatdhars.The inquest report is Ex.After completion of inquest, he sent the body to Harur Government Hospital, through PW-13, Head Constable, for post-mortem along with a requisition [Ex.P9].PW-10, Doctor, conducted post-mortem.The post-mortem report is Ex.Identification and caste marks:3.A wound scar on left leg.Its condition then was RM present in all four limbs.Kidney pale.Stomach:- Undigested rice 200 gms present.Uterus empty, normal.Skull bones:- Intact.Brain solid intact.OPINION: - Cause of death due to shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries.The deceased would appear to have died of 20-22 hours prior to autopsy.In continuation of investigation, PW-15, examined PW-4 and another and recorded their statements.In the presence of PW-8 and another, he collected blood stained earth [M.O.1], sample earth [M.O.2] and blood stained guava tree stick [M.O.3] under Ex.P3 at the scene of crime.He collected blood stained earth [M.O.4], sample earth [M.O.5] and a pair of ladies slippers [M.O.6] at the house of the deceased at 10.30 a.m. under Ex.On the basis of the confessional statement, he took the accused to a sugar cane field and recovered a blood stained knife [M.O.7] in the presence of witnesses.The seizure mahazar is Ex.Thereafter, he collected a blood stained pant [M.O.8], shirt [M.O.9] and a plastic bag [M.O.10] under Ex.He examined PWs.8, 9 and two others and recorded their statements.He forwarded the accused to judicial custody.He examined PW-10, Doctor, who conducted the post-mortem and recorded his statement.The serology report is Ex.(Judgment of the Court was made by C.T.SELVAM, J.) This appeal arises against judgment of learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri, passed in S.C.No.134 of 2010 on 20.12.2011, convicting appellant/accused for offence u/s.302 IPC and sentencing him to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000/- i/d 3 years R.I.The case of the prosecution is that the deceased was the second wife of appellant/accused and due to dispute over property, the appellant/accused, with an intention to kill the deceased, assaulted her indiscriminately with a knife and caused her death on 28.07.2009, at about 04.00 p.m.Paramasivam, de facto complainant, preferred a complaint [Ex.P12] on 28.07.2009 at about 05.30 p.m., before PW-15, Inspector of Police, Harur Police Station, who registered a case in Crime No.574 of 2009 for offence u/s.302 IPC.P10 and the same reads thus:Post-Mortem Certificate Regarding the body of a female aged about 30 years, named Geetha.Govinda Rajan.1.ABM on right thigh2.ABM on left knee jointAppearances found at the post-mortem A body of female lying on its back eyes closed.Mouth partially opened, tongue inside the mouth, teeth 8/8, 8/8, fus present over anal region.1.Stab injury on right side neck 3x2x2 cm.Posterior triangle of neck.2.Stab injury on right side neck 2 x 1 x = cm3.Stab injury 3 x 2 x 2 cm right mandible region4.Stab injury right side below the breast 2 x 2 x 1 cm, right hypochondrial region.5.Stab injury right side upper abdomen near midline 2 x 2 x =6.Stab injury right side 2 x 2 x = cm upper abdomen midline.7.Stab injury 2 x 2 x = cm on umbilical region of abdomen right side.8.Stab injury 2 x 1 x = cm right intac region9.Stab injury left hypochondria 3 x 1 x = cm.10.Stab injury 3 x 1 x = cm right lumbar region.11.Abrasion left hypochondria 1 x 1 cm.12.Stab injury left arm near axilla 3 x 2 x 2 cm.13.Stab injury left arm lateral side, 3 x 1 x 3 cm.14.Stab injury 3 x 1 x 1 cm above left scapular region of back.15.Stab injury 3 x 2 x 3 cm left scapular region, back side of body blood continuously woozing from the wound.16.Stab injury, inter scapular region, midline 3 x 2 x 1 cm.17.Stab injury 3 x 1 x 3 cm below the left scapular region18.Multiple linear abrasions left side neck below the left ear.19.Stab injury 1 x 1 x = cm above the left claricular region.20.Stab injury right arm 3 x 1 x = cm medial side, upper half.21.Stab injury back of right arm 3 x 1 x = cm.22.Multiple lacerated wound right forearm.23.Stab injury 2 x 1 x 1 cm right wrist.24.Lacerated wound 3 x 1 x = cm middle of right fore arm.25.Stab injury 3 x 2 x = cm right forearm middle 1/3rd, exterior aspect.26.Stab injury 4 x 2 x 1 cm upper 1/3rd of right thigh, lateral aspect.27.Lacerated wound 2 x = x = cm upper 1/3rd of right thigh.28.Lacerated would 3 x 1 x = cm middle 1/3rd of right thigh.29.Incised wound 4 x 3 x = cm middle 1/3rd of thigh lacerated aspect.30.Abrasion left knee 5 x 4 cm.31.Multiple contusion right breast.32.Contusion 3 x 2 x = cm medial side of left thigh lower 1/3rd33.Contusion 2 x 3 x 1 cm medial side of left thigh lower 1/3rd34.Lacerated wound right scapular region 3 x 3 x 3 cm.35.Stab injury 1 x 1 x = cm above left hip.36.Stab injury 2 x 1 x 1 cm right scapula.37.Stab injury 3 x 1 x 1 cm below the right scapular region of bone blood continuously woozing from the wound.38.Stab injury 2 x 1 x 1 cm right, below the scapular region back of the body.Internal examination:- Hyoid bone intact.Ribs left 7th rib region.There was a contusion 4 x 3 x 2 cm near the sternal end.Ribs intact.Heart chambers empty c/s pale.Liver lacerated wound 2 x 2 x = cm right side c/s pale.Lungs:- Left side lung contusion 3 x 2 x 1 cm.P4 in the presence of the same witnesses.On 30.07.2009, PW-8, Village Administrative Officer and another produced the accused before PW-15 along with a report [Ex.P5].Thereafter, PW-15 recorded the confessional statement of the accused in the presence of witnesses.The admissible portion of the confessional statement is Ex.On 05.08.2009, he examined PWs.11, 12, 13 and one another and recorded their statements.He sent a requisition [Ex.P16] to Judicial Magistrate, Harur, seeking permission for chemical analysis.Obtaining permission, he sent the incriminating materials for chemical analysis under Ex.P18 and the biological report is Ex.Upon completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet informing commission of offence u/s.302 IPC.To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined, PWs.1 to 15, marked Ex.None were examined on the side of the defence nor were any exhibits marked.On questioning u/s.313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied the charges.To add to the prosecution's woes, such witness, in cross, would inform that she had proceeded to the scene on hearing the screams of the deceased, had then not seen anyone present and that she had no direct knowledge of who had murdered the deceased.Learned counsel further contended that PWs.2 to 4, who were examined as eye witnesses had turned hostile.PW-8 had not recorded any extra judicial confession but had merely forwarded the accused along with Ex.Both the arrest and recoveries of murder weapon [M.O.7] under Ex.P7 and appellants clothes [M.Os.8 & 9] under Ex.P8 were unbelievable.PW-5 had deposed to having proceeded to the scene after being informed by her grandsons and others that her daughter, the deceased, had been done to death.None of such persons had been examined.Learned counsel submitted that in the attendant circumstances, the prosecution case bristles with infirmities and in effect was rendered one of no evidence in support thereof.Given the above, the prosecution case necessarily would fail.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the occurrence was of 28.07.2009 at 04.00 p.m. The First Information Report had been registered within 1 = hours i.e., 05.30 p.m. and the same had reached the Magistrate by 07.40 p.m. on the same day.PW-1 had spoken to witnessing the occurrence and of finding the deceased at the scene with a knife and of his thereafter having run away.The deceased had met a gruesome death, having suffered as many as thirty eight injuries at the hands of the appellant/accused.The appellant/accused had appeared before the Village Administrative Officer and confessed to the crime.On his being produced before PW-15, his confessional statement has been recorded under Ex.P6 and thereupon, MO-7, the knife used by appellant/accused had been recovered under Ex.The serology report [Ex.P18] revealed that both the murder weapon as also the clothes of the deceased were of O blood group.In the circumstances, non-examination of other witnesses was of no material consequence.The prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt and hence, the finding of conviction is to be sustained.This Court has considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.The post-mortem report [Ex.P10] informs that the deceased had suffered a most gruesome death.Even so, we are to satisfy ourselves that it was the appellant/accused, who had caused the same.We, given the attendant facts, are not able to arrive at such conclusion for the following reasons:(i)Though the issue has not been canvassed, we are certain that the genesis of the occurrence lies at the house of the deceased.Ex.P2 - Observation Mahazar, informs that besides a pair of slippers of the deceased, blood stains were found at her door step, 25 feet away from where her body was found.Apparently, the blood stains were occasioned owing to injuries suffered by the deceased before she reached the place where her body was found for - the dead dont walk and in any event do not visit to shed blood at their door steps.(ii)the de facto complainant had not been examined at the trial.If the reason therefor is because he had died prior thereto, it was for the prosecution to inform so by producing proof of his death before the trial Court.This, the prosecution has failed to do.(iii)Even if for the purpose of argument, we are to accept that the reason behind the non-examination of the de facto complainant is that he was no more when the case entered trial, the evidence of PW-1 would falsify that which is informed in the First Information Report [Ex.P12] viz., that the de facto complainant was a witness to the occurrence.In chief-examination, PW-1 clearly has deposed to only her having been at the scene at the time of occurrence and that others appeared on the scene upon hearing her cries.PWs.2 and 3 examined as witnesses to the occurrence and PW-4 as witness to the appellant/accused making his getaway, have turned hostile.(iv)Under Ex.P5, PW-8, the ever obliging Village Administrative Officer, has reported a confession of the accused on the date next to the occurrence to PW-15, Investigating Officer.The very projection of an extra judicial confession by the accused raises some doubt regards the presence of persons at the scene, a story which the prosecution has sought to achieve through PWs.1 to 4 and wherein, for reasons aforesaid, the prosecution miserably has failed.(v)In the circumstances, recovery of knife [M.O.7] at the instance of the appellant/accused is not of much consequence.Neither is the confirmation by the serology report that the blood stains on the knife and that on the clothes on the body of the deceased [M.Os.12 to 14] were of one and the same group viz., O, since O is the most common blood group.(vi)Ex.P13 - First Information Report registered at the instance of Paramasivam, de facto complainant, informs that he had witnessed the occurrence.Even if the prosecution version of the occurrence having taken place at 04.00 p.m. is accepted, there is much delay in the First Information Report reaching the Magistrate at 07.40 p.m. The First Information Report informs the scene of crime to be 1= km from the police station and it is the evidence of PW-15 Investigating Officer that the Judicial Magistrate Court is between 100 and 125 mtrs.away from the police station.The proximity of time and place and attendant factors determine whether there is a delay in the First Information Report reaching the Magistrate.In a given case, a delay of a day might be immaterial while in another delay of an hour may be most material.The probability of the First Information Report in the instant case being a doctored document, is high.This Criminal Appeal is allowed.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
152,827,568 |
Requisition record of the lower Court.Heard on point of admission.The revision is admitted for final hearing.Heard on I.A. No.5287/2015, which is first application under section 397(1) r/w section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of the applicants Sanjay S/o Kethun Pardi and Sanjotna W/o Sanjay Pardi.The present applicants suffered conviction and the jail sentence as follows :Taking various facts and circumstances that appear from the impugned judgment into consideration, without commenting on merit, the application is allowed.It is directed that on production of personal bond for Rs.30,000/- each and solvent surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and also on payment of fine, the applicants shall be released on bail for their appearance before the Registry of this Court on 22.09.2015, 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.C.C. as per rules.( Alok Verma) Judge sumathi
|
['Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
152,829,768 |
Prosecutrix was major and she went with the applicant on her own will.The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court.Certified copy as per rules.(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) JUDGE VS Digitally signed by VARSHA SINGH Date: 04/05/2019 12:02:50
|
['Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
152,832,493 |
The petitioner's wife is the 7th respondent herein.After some time, there arosemisunderstanding between them, which resulted in a matrimonial dispute.Already, the petitioner has filed HMOP No.44/2010 on the file of the Sub-Court, Uthamapalayam, for divorce.Apprehending arrest at the hands ofthe 4th respondent, the petitioner and his mother Mrs.Rajeswari filedCrl.3.While so, yet another complaint was given by the 7th respondentto the Superintendent of Police, Theni District, on 22.07.2010, which was inturn forwarded to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Uthamapalayam, who, inturn, referred the same to the 4th respondent, with a direction to register acase.After registering the said case, the 4threspondent arrested the mother of the petitioner Mrs.Rajeswari and producedher before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Uthamapalayam, with a request forjudicial remand.But, the learned Judicial Magistrate declined to remandMrs.Rajeswari and discharged her, since she had already been grantedanticipatory bail and she was virtually on bail.5.The 6th respondent is the Branch Manager of City Union Bank,Theni, where there is a locker facility operated by the petitioner and the7th respondent, jointly.There were jewels kept in the said locker.The 4thand the 5th respondents, in the company of the 7th respondent, went to the6th respondent and wanted to open the locker.According to the 7threspondent, initially the 6th respondent declined to permit the 7threspondent to open the locker in the absence of the petitioner.Hence issuenotice to the I.O. to offer her remarks."This means, the learned Magistrate has returned theForm-95 with all these orders.This is not only strange but also irregularon the part of the learned Judicial Magistrate to have done so.Instead, thelearned Magistrate should have returned only the properties concerned and notthe Form-95, along with orders.It is her further stand that subsequently, during the course ofenquiry, the 7th respondent made a statement that she would settle thematrimonial dispute outside the police station and therefore no furtheraction was required.Therefore, according to the 4th respondent, thecomplaint was closed.Thereafter, the 4th respondent did not receive anycomplaint, directly.Byorder dated 04.06.2010, this Court granted anticipatory bail to the mother ofthe petitioner, namely Mrs.Rajeswari, alone.In pursuance of the same,Mrs.Rajeswari, surrendered before the jurisdictional Magistrate and thelearned Magistrate, accordingly, granted bail to Mrs.Rajeswari.But, sinceit was said by the 4th respondent that such opening was necessitated for thepurpose of investigation, the 6th respondent conceded to the said request.The jewels found therein were all recovered by the 4threspondent under a mahazar and brought to the police station.Thereafter,under Form-95, the 4th respondent forwarded the seized articles to thelearned Magistrate.On receipt of the said Form-95 on 26.07.2010, thelearned Judicial Magistrate, Uthamapalayam, passed the following order: "The properties in the list were recovered by the I.O. during theinvestigation.The 4th respondent, in turn, submitted an explanation.Based on the same, on05.08.2010, the learned Magistrate again passed the following order: "The I.O. failed the written reply stating that she does not know theprocedure.For orders, call on 06.08.2010."On 06.08.2010, the learned Magistrate passed the following order: "This Form-95 is returned for want of explanation and details of thepermission of the Bank Officer."7.After the above order of the learned Magistrate on 06.08.2010,now the properties in question are kept in the custody of the police.Rajeswari as she was unlawfully arrested by the 4th respondent andconsequently to direct the 4th respondent to deposit the gold jewels,weighing 691.360 grams from her custody into the bank locker of the 6threspondent Bank in Locker No.4, which was illegally seized by her.9.According to the 4th respondent, it is true that earlier acomplaint, dated 14.05.2010, was given by the 7th respondent and since it wasa matrimonial dispute, case was not registered and the matter was enquiredinto.The 7th respondent, by suppressing the complaint givenearlier, had gone to the Superintendent of Police, Theni, with a complaint,which, in turn, was forwarded to the Deputy Superintendent of Police and theDeputy Superintendent of Police had directed the 4th respondent to register acase.Thus, it was, in obedience to the directions of the DeputySuperintendent of Police, the 4th respondent registered the case.Thereafter, according to her, she had to arrest the mother of the petitionerMrs.Rajeswari as per the instruction given by the Deputy Superintendent ofPolice.11.As I have already extracted, the reliefs sought for by thepetitioner can be grouped into three.The first relief is for departmentalaction against respondents 3 to 5 for having arrested the petitioner's motherMrs.The second relief sought for is for damages to be paid toMrs.Rajeswari by the respondents 3 to 5 for having illegally arrestedMrs.In my considered opinion, these reliefs cannot be granted inthis writ petition because, the petitioner has got no locus standi to ask forsuch reliefs.At the most, it is for the person aggrieved, namely the motherof the petitioner, to work out her remedies.Therefore, onthis ground, the first two reliefs sought for cannot be granted.12.Now turning to the facts, on the complaint dated 14.05.2010,the 4th respondent did not register any case because the dispute wasmatrimonial in nature and thus she proceeded to hold enquiry.In this, I donot find any illegality.Similarly, the subsequent complaint was notdirectly given to the 4th respondent.The learned Magistrate, in my considered opinion, was not legallyright in returning the properties to the Inspector of Police.
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
152,835,490 |
I. Both anticipatory bail applications are hereby allowed.::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2019 00:47:38 :::This protection by way of anticipatory bail will operate till decision of the Committee and the applicants shall further extend all cooperation to the Investigating Officer for investigating into the matter.Both anticipatory bail applications are accordingly disposed of.( V. K. JADHAV, J.) Sam..::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2019 00:47:38 :::
|
['Section 200 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
15,283,578 |
His petition was resisted, inter alia, by a short reply (on affidavit) of the fourth respondent, he being an Under Secretary in Union Public Service Commission (UPSC).In the said affidavit, it was, inter alia, indicated that an Crl.A-1094/2018 Page 1 of 3 eligibility list of five officers had been furnished by the department which did not include the petitioner.On the basis of information gathered under the Right to Information Act, 2005, it was claimed by the petitioner that the eligibility list based on zone of consideration would include seven names, he being at the seventh position, this being reflected in a communication dated 28.09.2016 from the Ministry of Defence (Finance) addressed to Secretary, UPSC.A-1094/2018 Page 1 of 3Based on the above, the petitioner had filed an application seeking criminal action to be initiated under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. PC), in his submission, offences punishable under Sections 193, 196, 199, 200 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) having been committed.
|
['Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 200 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
152,836,813 |
This revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "The Code") has been preferred against order dated 16/06/2016 and order dated 20/12/2016 passed by the Court of learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Sendwa, District Bharwani, in S.T. No.44/2016 to the extent they relate to charges under Section 467, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC.
|
['Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
152,839,449 |
* This is an application by the appellant/applicant under Section 389 of Criminal Procedure Code seeking suspension of his sentence and to release him on bail during the pendency of the appeal.M.B. No. 1112/2010 in Crl.A. No. 941/2010 Page 1 of 9 The appellant has been convicted with imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 15,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months by order of conviction dated 30th January, 2010 and sentenced by the order dated 6th February, 2010 in a case arising out of FIR 337/2007 PS Nabi Karim under Section 302/34 of IPC.M.B. No. 1112/2010 in Crl.A. No. 941/2010 Page 1 of 9According to the applicant his family comprises of his wife and four minor children and applicant is the only bread earner in the family and he was earning Rs.2500/- per month as a labourer in a shop.He is alleged to have come from a poor segment of society and he is unable to furnish a local surety of minimum amount if bail is granted to him.It is also contended that he was never on bail and he has never jumped bail and has never been declared a proclaimed offender.The applicant has contended that he has already undergone incarceration for the last three years and he has good chance of acquittal as the order convicting him is based on surmises and conjectures and the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.M.B. No. 1112/2010 in Crl.A. No. 941/2010 Page 2 of 9M.B. No. 1112/2010 in Crl.A. No. 941/2010 Page 2 of 9For seeking suspension of sentence, the applicant has asserted that the testimony of PW-4 Laxman Indoriya lacks credibility and consistency as when he saw the applicant attacking the deceased, instead of trying to rescue the victim or calling police, he proceeded to Railway Station and did not make any effort to call the police which is highly improbable and the conduct of such a witness is doubtful and could not be relied on for his conviction.The testimony of PW-4 is also challenged on the ground that though he has stated that he is not related to the accused, PW-4 is related as Laxman Indoria PW-4 and Mr. Vikas @ Sunil, another co-accused are cousins as their grandmother was Smt. Hardai as testified by DW-1 and the relations between the two branches of the family were not cordial and PW-4 has been extorting money and blackmailing the people.The applicant has also referred to the inconsistencies and glaring discrepancies in the statement of PW-4 which according to the applicant has not been taken into consideration.The Nominal Roll dated 28th August, 2010 of the applicant reveals that as on that date he has undergone a sentence of 2 years 11 months and six days and has earned remission for two months and nine days.M.B. No. 1112/2010 in Crl.A. No. 941/2010 Page 3 of 9M.B. No. 1112/2010 in Crl.A. No. 941/2010 Page 3 of 9The status report filed by the respondent states that the applicant Suresh @ Bona had not availed any relief in the nature of interim bail/parole till date and his character during the last one year had been satisfactory.The Court was not satisfied with the status report dated 30th August, 2008 and therefore, directed the respondents to file the detailed report about previous cases or conviction of the appellant or any other material relevant to decide whether the sentence of the applicant is to be suspended or not or whether he is to be released on bail.Another status report dated 26th October, 2010 of Station House Officer, PS Nabi Karim has been filed indicating about 15 cases against the applicant.Some of the cases are pending trial against the applicant whereas he has been acquitted in some of the cases and he has also been convicted in some cases.He has been convicted in FIR 352/07 dated 26th November 2002 under Section 384/324 of IPC & 25 of Arms Act, as well as FIR 92/2006 dated 5th April, 2006 under Section 21 of NDPS Act, PS Nabi Karim and as also in FIR 337/2007 dated 18th September, 2007 under Section 302/34 of IPC, PS Nabi Karim.According to the learned counsel for the prosecution, the applicant is a hard core ruthless criminal, and the details of cases against him are as under:-M.B. No. 1112/2010 in Crl.A. No. 941/2010 Page 4 of 9The learned additional public prosecutor has also brought to our notice that Laxman Indoria PW-4 was the eye witness of the incident.Pursuant to the disclosure statement, blood stained nicker and one Iranian note of 25000 dinar were recovered.The status report filed by the respondent also reveals that during the trial, the eye witness Laxman Indoria had made the complaints about threats from applicant consequent to which security under the Witness Protection Program was provided to him.Though later on security provided to PW-4, eye witness Mr. Laxman Indoria was withdrawn on account of the fact that the applicant and other co- accused were convicted.However, the eye witness Laxman Indoria again Crl.A. No. 941/2010 Page 5 of 9This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.M.B. No. 1112/2010 in Crl.A. No. 941/2010 Page 6 of 9In the instant case, the only factor which seems to have weighed with the High Court for directing suspension of sentence and grant of bail is the absence of allegation of misuse of liberty during the earlier period when the respondent-accused were on bail.M.B. No. 1112/2010 in Crl.A. No. 941/2010 Page 7 of 9M.B. No. 1112/2010 in Crl.A. No. 941/2010 Page 7 of 9M.B. No. 1112/2010 in Crl.A. No. 941/2010 Page 8 of 9
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 384 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
152,843,557 |
25.08.2018 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No rli/dnahttp://www.judis.nic.in 5 ToThe Additional District and Sessions Judge Fast Track Court No.III, Vridhachalam, Cuddalore District.The Appellant herein was charged with offence under Sectionshttp://www.judis.nic.in 307, 332, 342 and 506(ii) of IPC along with one Balamurugan in 2 SC.No.346 of 2005 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No.III, Virudhachalam.The Charge against the accused was that on 22.05.2005 at about 14.30 hours, he along with Balamurugn had threatened the members of the general public near the bus stand.The Police party comprising the Head Constable Anwar, Sub Inspector of Police and others on information came to the spot to apprehend the accused.At that time, the Appellant herein attacked the Head Constable with Aruval and thereby prevented the Police from discharging their duties.Therefore, the respondent Police registered a case in Crime No.143/2005 on the file of the Virudhachalam Police, against the appellant and the said Bala Murugan for offences under Sections 324, 307, 341, 332 and 506(ii) of IPC.During the course of investigation both of them were arrested.Before the trial Court, the prosecution examined Pws 1 to PW12 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P10 were marked.On the side of the accused, no defence evidence was let in.The learned trial Court Judge found that the accused had committed the offences under Sections 332, 324 and 307 of IPC and thehttp://www.judis.nic.in accused were sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and 3 fine of Rs.1,000/- in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months, convicted them under Sections 324 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months, and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months respectively.They were directed to undergo the sentences concurrently.They were, however acquitted in respect of the offence under Section 506(ii) of IPC.Questioning the judgment dated 03.04.2007, this appeal has been filed by the first accused.Heard, the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) for the respondent.It is seen that the accused were arrested on 24.03.2005 and released on 15.07.2005 and they had been in jail for a total of 112 days.In this case, the Head Constable/PW3 suffered only simply injuries.Therefore, I am of the view that the sentence to be imposed on the appellant can be set off to the period already undergone by him.Even, while confirming the conviction given by the Court below in respect of the charge under Sections 332 and 307 of IPC.Hence, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.The Inspector of Police, Virudhachalam Police Station, Cuddalore District.http://www.judis.nic.in 6 G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.rli/dna Crl.A.No.400 of 2007
|
['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
152,843,844 |
The records prima facie reveal that the aforesaid crime was registered pursuant to the FIR lodged by Milind Saradbhai Adhararya, Manager of Atul Limited Company.A perusal of the FIR prima facie reveals that the company had engaged 10 containers for carrying Para Anisic Aldehyde chemical from the company premises at Ankleshwar to China, through Nhava Sheva JNPT.The complainant company received the said Chemical at China.This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. filed by the aforesaid applicant, who has been arrested in C.R. No. I-86 of 2018 registered at Nhava Sheva Police Station, Navi Mumbai for offences under Section 407, 411 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code.Heard Mr. Patil, the learned Counsel for the applicant and Ms. Lohokare, the learned APP for the State.I have perused the records and considered the submissions advanced by the learned Counsels for the respective parties.::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/10/2018 23:30:40 :::They sent e-mail to the company office at Ankleshwar stating that there was shortage of chemical weighing about 3690 metric tons, value of which is about Rs.17,69,700/- .Based on the said FIR the aforesaid crime came to be registered .In the course of investigation, the drivers of said trailers were arrested.The investigation revealed that the applicant herein was one of the receivers of the stolen chemical.He was therefore arrested for committing offence under Section 411 of IPC.The records reveal that the drivers who were involved in cheating/ mis-appropriating the said chemical have already beenpps 2 of 4 ::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/10/2018 23:30:40 ::: 911 ba 2757-18.doc released on bail.The offence under Section 411 IPC for which the applicant has been arrested is punishable for a maximum period of imprisonment of three years.The applicant was arrested on 15 th September, 2018 and is presently in judicial custody.He has been interrogated.The nature of the allegations leveled against the application would not justify further custody, hence in my considered view, the applicant is also entitled to be released on bail.Under the circumstances, the application is allowed on the following terms and conditions:::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/10/2018 23:30:40 :::(i) The applicant abovenamed who has been arrested in C.R. No. I- 86 of 2018 registered at Nhava Sheva Police Statiion, Navi Mumbai, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) with one or two local solvent sureties in the like amount;(ii) The applicant shall report to the concerned police station on the first Monday of every month until further orders;(iii) The applicant shall provide his permanent as well as temporary address, if any, and his contact details to the Investigating Officerpps 3 of 4 ::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/10/2018 23:30:40 ::: 911 ba 2757-18.doc and in the bail bond;::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/10/2018 23:30:40 :::(iv) The applicant shall not change his residential address without prior intimation to the Investigation Officer.::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/10/2018 23:30:40 :::
|
['Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
152,847,215 |
She deposed that the incident occurred 5 years ago i.e. on 10th Bhadra around 6 P.M. in front of her house.At the time of the incident, she was in the house.Sahajamal is the nephew of her husband.Sahajamal was returning to his house when Atahar Sk., Habol Sk., Sainul Sk., Tahasin Sk., Najimuddin and Sattar assaulted him on the left shoulder.The accused persons apart from Sattar Sk. were identified on dock.Sattar Sk. had died.While Sahajamal was being assaulted, he shouted for help.Her husband rushed to the spot.She also accompanied her husband and found Sahajamal was lying on the road.She saw blood oozing out from his shoulder.Her husband requested the accused persons not to assault Sahajamal.Thereupon, accused Habol assaulted him with iron rod on his head.Accused Tahasin assaulted him on his belly with a bhojali.Hearing her cries, Rajjak, P.W.5, Israil, P.W.7, Alauddin, P.W.3 and Bablu, P.W.2 came to the spot.Her husband died at the spot.Sahajamal did not lose his senses and was shifted to hospital.She came to Domkal P.S. along with Bablu Sk.riding on his motor cycle.Bablu wrote F.I.R. as per her direction.She put her L.T.I. thereon.She identified the wearing apparels and chappal of the victim.In cross-examination, she stated that at the time of incident she did not perform Namaj.He deposed that the incident took place on 28.08.2007 around 6/6.30 P.M. in front of the house of Vojali.He was returning home from the play ground when he heard shouts "Banchao, Banchao".He rushed to the place.He saw some people were fleeing away, but he could not identify them.On reaching P.O. he found Vojali lying dead.Sahajamal was standing there with an injury on his shoulder.He found the deceased had injuries on his right thigh, belly and on the thumb of his left hand.His intestine had come out from his stomach.He found Marjina, Masadul Sk.Alauddin Sk.Israil and Rajjak Sk.standing there.Sahajamal told him that his father-in-law Atahar had injured him on his shoulder and hand and when he cried out for help, his maternal uncle Vojali came there.Vojali was also assaulted.Sahajamal also told him that Atahar had assaulted Vojali on his thigh, Habol assaulted Vojali on his head with iron rod, Azizul assaulted him in his stomach and the others had also assaulted him with lathi.He identified the accused persons.He stated that Sattar had died.Sahajaml was taken to Raninagar Rural Hospital where from he was referred to Berhampore Hospital.P.W. 5 and P.W. 7 Rajjak Sk and Israil Sk.respectively are the relations of accused Najimuddin and they have also not supported the prosecution case.P.W. 6, Sukma Bewa, has also been declared hostile.She deposed that she is the sister of the deceased.She stated that her brother had been murdered five years ago.P.W. 8, Julfikaruddin Kayal, was a constable posted at Domkal Police Station on that date.He deposed that he carried the dead body of the victim to morgue for post mortem examination.P.W. 9 and P.W. 10 viz. Surajit Singha Roy and Badal Pal respectively were the signatories to the seizure list.They proved their signatures on the seizure list.P.W. 11, Dr. Obaidur Rahaman and P.W. 12, Dr. Utpal Chowdhury, were medical officers who were attached to Beharampore N.G. Hospital and Godhanpara BPHC under Raninagar Police Station respectively.P.W. 12 treated Sahajamal at BPHC and referred him to Berhampore N.G. Hospital.He found penetrative sharp cutting injury on the left scapula.P.W. 11 treated Sahajamal at Berhampore N.G. Hospital.On examination he found injuries measuring about 11" x 2" x bone deep with bleeding.He deposed the injuries were ante mortem and homicidal in nature.The injuries could be caused by bhojali and henso like sharp cutting weapon.Injury on the back side of scalp could have been caused by shabal or lathi like blunt object.P.W. 13, Dr. D. P. Majumder is the Investigating Officer in the instant case.He proved the formal F.I.R. (Exhibit-9) written by B.K. Biswas.He seized one pair of blue coloured sandal belonging to the deceased.He sent the dead body for post mortem examination.held that Azizul Sk. was born on 14.1.1991 and was a juvenile at the time of the incident.Mr. Roy, learned Senior Advocate with Mr. Datta argued that most of the prosecution witnesses have not supported the prosecution case.Evidence of P.W.1, the defacto complainant suffers from embellishment and/or contradictions.She has admitted in cross-examination that there was enmity between the families and some of her family members (witnesses in the present case) were accused of the murder of the son of appellant no.4 Najimuddin Sk.It is submitted that the appellants did not have any intention to kill the victim and ought not to have been convicted for committing murder of the victim.or appellant No.4 Najimuddin Sk.assaulted the victim, hence it cannot be said that the said appellants shared a common object to murder the victim.From the report of the trial judge, it appears that the appellant no.6 was a juvenile at the time of occurrence and, therefore ought not to have been tried as an adult along with the other accused persons.He further submitted that the names of the appellants had not transpired in the medical records of treatment of Sahajamal.Sahajamal had not been examined in the instant case.Accordingly, he prayed for acquittal of the appellants in the instant case.On the other hand, Mr. Ahmed, learned Additional Public Prosecutor along with Mr. Sur, argued that P.W.1 is an eye witness and she has graphically narrated the assault on her husband.The appellants had come in a body variously armed and had initially assaulted Sahajamal, son-in-law of appellant no.1 and when the victim, maternal uncle of Sahajamal, intervened he was brutally assaulted on vital parts of the body resulting in his death.The aforesaid evidence on record, therefore, established the charge against the appellants beyond doubt.He, however, did not dispute the fact that appellant no.6 Azizul Sk. was a juvenile in conflict with law at the time of occurrence.Accused Atahar assaulted him on his right side of leg with hansua.Accused Azizul assaulted him with pasli on the left side of the waist.Seeing this she shouted for help.Rajjak and Israil are Behai of the accused Najimuddin.He proved the written complaint.He signed on the inquest report as well as on the seizure list with regard to the seizure of blood stained blue coloured hawai chappal, blood stained earth, an old mat, two blood stained bamboo sticks, a blood stained white lungi and a blood stained ganji.He identified the wearing apparels of the victim.P.W. 3 Alauddin Sk.deposed that the incident happened five years ago around 7.00-7.30p.m.Hearing hue and cry and he came out of his house and found Vojali lying dead on the moram made road.He heard from the people assembled over there that Atahar, Sattar, Tahasin had committed murder of Vojali.P.W. 4, Masadul Sk., is the son of the victim.He stated that the incident occurred five years ago at around 7.00-7.30p.m.On hearing hue and cry he rushed to the place of occurrence and found Vojali lying dead on the moram road and his elder brother Sahajamal was also present with an incised injury on his left shoulder.He was declared hostile.He was cross-examined with regard to his previous statement to the police.He, however, denied that he was deposing falsely as the matter had been settled between the accused persons and themselves.They were grievous in nature.P.W. 14, Dr. S. Sen, was the medical officer attached to Berhampore Sadar Hospital.He held post mortem over the dead body of the Ajit Rahaman and found the following injuries:On dissection, he found one penetrating wound on the upper part of abdomen having area 15" x 2".One wound having area 3"x 1" being penetrative traverse at the mid clavicular (just behind the ribs of left chest).One wound having area 2" x 1" on right side of thigh which was 3" deep.He recorded the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.He collected post mortem report.He examined the injured person under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.On 14.09.2007 he collected the injury report.He recorded the statements of injured persons under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.He submitted charge-sheet.She has graphically described the incident and had specifically stated about the roles of the appellant no. 1, 2, 5 and 6 in assaulting the victim with sharp cutting weapons on various parts of the body including head, back, abdomen and thigh.P.W 3 is a post occurrence witness and stated that he heard that Atahar, Sattar, Tahasin had committed murder of Vojali.The said witness did not state from whom he received such information.Hence, I am unwilling to rely on his version which appears to be hearsay.Similarly injured witness, Sahajamal, had not been examined in the instant case.It is nobody's case that Sahajamal had died due to the injuries suffered by him in the course of the incident.Hence, the evidence of P.W. 2 that he had heard of the incident from Sahajamal also suffers from the vice of hearsay as Sahajamal had not deposed in the course of the trial as he had expired.Since Sahajamal had not died due to the assault upon him in the course of the incident, his reported version as deposed by P.W. 2 cannot be treated as admissible under Section 32 of the Evidence Act. Nonetheless, I find that the presence of P.W. 1 at the place of occurrence to be most natural and her evidence is convincing and has not been shaken in cross-examination.Hence I am inclined to rely on the evidence of P.W. 1, eye- witness to the incident, to hold that the appellant nos. 1, 2, 5 and 6 had mercilessly assaulted the victim resulting in his death.From the evidence of P.W. 1 I do not find any overt act attributed to the appellants no. 3 and 4 in the assault of the victim.I am not unmindful of the fact that the appellants had been called upon to answer a charge that they were members of the unlawful assembly who caused the death of the victim.Mere presence as a member of an unlawful assembly is sufficient to bring home the charge against them.However, if one visualises the genesis of the incident which arose out of a dispute between Sahajamal and his wife Fojila in the afternoon and the fact that the appellant nos. 3 and 4 are the relations of Fojila, it is possible that they rushed to the place of occurrence hearing the commotion between Sahajamal and his father-in-law, Atahar in the evening but did not share the common object of causing murder of the victim, who is the maternal uncle of Sahajamal.Hence, I am of the view as P.W 1 did not speak of any role played by appellant nos.3 and 4 in the assault on the victim and there is every possibility that the said appellants had come to the place of occurrence hearing the commotion between Sahajamal and his father-in-law, Atahar it cannot be said with certainty that they shared the common object to kill the victim with the other appellants.However, in view of the clear and cogent evidence establishing the specific roles of the other appellants, namely, appellant nos. 1, 2, 5 and 6 in assaulting the victim on the vital parts of his body causing in severe injuries on his abdomen, chest, head and thigh resulting in his death, I am of the opinion that the said appellants shared the common intention to murder the victim.It has been argued that the appellants were aggrieved by the conduct of Sahajamal towards his wife and were assaulting him when Ajit Rahaman alias Vojali intervened.Thereupon, the appellant nos. 1, 2, 5 and 6 assaulted Ajit Rahaman who succumbed to his injuries although the appellants had not intended to kill him.I am unable to accept such contention on behalf of the appellants.The appellant nos. 1, 2, 5 and 6 were armed with deadly weapons like pasli, hasua, vojali etc. They had used the said weapons to cause severe injuries on the abdomen, head, back and thigh of the victim.The injury on the abdomen was so severe that the entire intestine of the victim had come out resulting in his death.From the aforesaid facts and circumstances particularly the facts that the appellant nos. 1, 2, 5 and 6 came to the spot with deadly weapons, the nature and number of injuries inflicted by them on the vital parts of the body resulting in instantaneous death of the victim, I have no doubt in my mind that the said appellants shared a common intention to kill the victim.However, for the reasons as discussed above, I am inclined to hold that that appellant nos. 3 and 4 did not share the common object of committing murder of the victim as there is no evidence that they were armed or they had participated in the assault on the victim resulting in his death.Hence the appellant nos. 3 and 4 are entitled to be acquitted of the charges levelled against them.I, however, extend the benefit of doubt of appellant nos. 3 and 4 acquit them of the charges levelled against them.Coming to the issue of sentence while upholding the sentences awarded to appellant nos. 1, 2 and 5 for the commission of the aforesaid offence, I note that appellant no. 6 was a juvenile in conflict with law.He has already suffered imprisonment for more than three years.Hence, the sentence imposed on the appellant no. 6 is converted to the period already undergone and he is directed to be forthwith released from jail upon executing a bond to the satisfaction of the trial court for a period of six months in terms of section 437 Criminal Procedure Code.Appellant nos. 3 and 4 shall be discharged from their bail bonds after expiry of six months in terms of 437A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The appeal is, accordingly, partly allowed.Copy of the judgment along with LCR be sent down to the trial court at once for necessary compliance.Urgent Photostat Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied expeditiously after complying with all necessary legal formalities.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
38,096,900 |
This is first bail application filed on behalf of the applicant under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.283/2019 registered at Police Station Samnapur, District Dindori (M.P.), for the offence punishable under Section 376 (2)(<+) of the IPC.As per prosecution case, complainant/prosecutrix lodged a complaint against the present applicant stated that year 2008, present applicant met her and sated that he loves her, he has been committing sexual intercourse with her for about 11 years continuously due to false pretext of marriage with her.Thereafter, on refusal of the same by the present applicant, prosecutrix has lodged a complaint against the present applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent person and has falsely been implicated in this case due to complaint of wife of the present applicant.He also submits that on 29.07.2019 at about 09:00 am, when wife of the present applicant was going to answer the call of nature, prosecutrix came there, abused her filthily and also assaulted her by means of sickle.Thereafter, on the report of wife of the applicant, a case has been registered against the prosecutrix for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 294, 323 and 506 of the IPC.Later on, prosecutrix threatened the wife of the present applicant as well as present applicant to implicate in the false case.After that prosecutrix has lodged a complaint against the present applicant for the aforesaid offence.Conclusion of trial will take time to conclude.Therefore, learned counsel for the present applicant prays for grant of bail to the applicant.Per-contra, learned P.L. for respondent-State opposes the bail application.From perusal of case diary, it reveals that prosecutrix is consenting party, the present applicant developed physical relationship with the prosecutrix for more than 11 years and there is inordinate delay in lodging the FIR and no proper explanation has been given by the complainant/prosecutrix regarding the said delay.Looking to the whole facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the considered view that it would be appropriate to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail.It is directed that applicant-Chain Singh will surrender himself before Investigating Officer within ten days' from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and then in the event of arrest, he be released on bail on his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Authority.The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.He shall further abide by the other conditions enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of Cr.P.C.Certified copy as per rules.(RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) JUDGE sp SAVITRI PATEL 2019.08.27 18:20:42 +05'30'
|
['Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
38,100,517 |
Shri L.N. Sakle, counsel for the appellants.Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the State.Heard on I.A.No.Appellant No.2 stands convicted for offences punishable under Sections 148, 302, 307/149 and 323/149 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to R.I. for six month, R.I. for life, R.I. for five years and R.I. for six years respectively with total fine of Rs. 6000/- with default stipulations.It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the jail sentence of other co-accused persons have already been suspended by this Court and they are on bail.Earlier application of the appellant no.2 was dismissed only on the ground that he has caused incised wound on the left temporal region as a result of which the deceased died during the treatment on the same day.Considering all these facts and circumstances of the case, we allow the application (I.A.No.1823/2017).The custodial sentence awarded to the appellant no.2 shall remain suspended subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance in the Registry of this Court on 11.09.2017 and shall continue to do so on all such future dates as may be given in this behalf during the pendency of the appeal.on payment of usual charges.
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
38,106,999 |
Hence, these appeals.2) Such of the facts necessary for the decision of these appeals are as follows.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:27:18 :::Accused no. 2 Gurunath Rathod was working as a Police Constable.They were attached to Akluj outpost police station, Shripur, Taluka Malshiras.Both the accused were public servants.4) It is the case of prosecution that on 09/10/1993 at about 6.00 p.m., both the accused informed P.W. 4 Shrimant Jorwar that a complaint had been filed against them and that they should come to Shripur police station.P.W. 4 and his father Baliram had been to the outpost police station.Shrimant was informed that State Farming Corporation (Hereinafter referred as "SFC") had lodged a report against him and had initiated proceedings for cultivating the land block no. 23 which was in possession of SFC.Balwant Jorwar was in possession of 2 Acres and 5 Gunthas land in Block No. 37 and the remaining land was in possession of SFC.Hence, there was a civil dispute between SFC and Balwant Jorwar.Suit was pending before Civil Judge Junior Division, Malshiras.In the intervening period i.e. on 29/05/1993, Tahsildar, Malshiras had decided the ROR (Record of Rights) proceedings in favour of SFC and had further given direction that the name of SFC be included in the Record of Rights (7/12 ism ::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:27:18 ::: 4 26.570.97 apeal Extract) in the coloumn cultivation.5) It is the case of prosecution that on 16/09/1993, manager had filed an application to Akluj Police Station contending therein that Baliram Jorwar had devoid the orders passed by Tahsildar and was cultivating the land block no. 23 of village Mire.At the relevant time, both the accused were attached to Akluj outpost police station.On 09/10/1993 accused had been to village Mire and informed Baliram Jorwar about the report filed by SFC.They had taken Baliram Jorwar and his sons Shrimant, Kundalik and Pandurang to the police station.At that relevant time, Assistant Security Officer of SFC was also accompanying the accused as well as the members of Jorwar family.Accused had informed shrimant Jorwar that he would have to cause arrest of Balwant & Shrimant on the basis of report lodged by SFC.That Shrimant Jorwar had requested the accused not to take coercive steps.At that juncture, accused no. 1 had demanded a gratification of Rs. 5000/- in the eventuality that Jorwars do not wish to be arrested.That the amount was negotiated and reduced to Rs. 3000/-.It is also alleged that accused no. 1 had informed them that upon failure to pay Rs. 3000/- they would be taken into custody.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:27:18 :::On this condition Balwant and Shrimant were released from Police Station.6) That Shrimant Jorwar had no intention to pay illegal gratification and therefore, on 11/10/1993, he approached the office of Anti Corruption Bureau at Solapur and lodged a report.Report lodged by him was reduced into writing by Dy.S.P. Chavan.That Dy.S.P. of A.C.B.had decided to arrange for a trap and had taken effective steps for the same.The procedure for laying a trap and use of anthracene powder was explained to the complainant.S.P. had recorded the Pre-trap Panchanama and thereafter, raiding party had proceeded to lay the trap.Two Panchas were deputed, one was Shri.Khalase who was to act as shadow witness.Specific instructions were given to complainant Shri.Jorwar that he should part with the tainted notes in favour of the accused "Only on a specific demand made by the accused".::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:27:18 :::had noticed that police jeep parked on the road and accused no. 2 was seated in the jeep.Thereafter, accused no. 2 accompanied the complainant Shrimant and the shadow witness Panch no. 1 Khalase to the police station.Accused no. 1 was present in the police station.Initially there was a formal talk between the complainant and the accused and thereafter, accused no. 1 had specifically enquired with the complainant about the money and also enquired as to whether he had brought the amount as agreed.Complainant had answered in the affirmative.Thereafter, accused no. 1 had directed accused no. 2 to accept the said amount from the complainant.Thereafter, accused no. 2 had entered into the rear room.There he had accepted the amount from the complainant.Soon thereafter, complainant had given the pre-determined signal and raiding party had accosted the accused.It is the case of the prosecution that accused no. 2 had concealed the said tainted notes in a newspaper.The raiding party had thereafter taken stock of the tainted notes and examined the hands of accused no. 2 below ultra-violet lamp.The sparkling of blue light made it clear that ism ::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:27:18 ::: 7 26.570.97 apeal he had accepted the tainted notes as anthracene powder had been applied to the said tainted notes.16) P. W. 2 Popat Indarkar was the owner of the jeep bearing no. MH-He has deposed before the court that on 11/10/1993 he was at Shripur at about 5.30 p.m. He had parked his jeep at Shivaji Chowk and was standing near the jeep.Accused no. 2 was standing near the Pan stall.Accused no. 2 boarded the jeep and asked P.W. 2 to drive to Umbare.P.W. 2 had informed accused no. 2 that Dynama of the said jeep was out of order.It was also decided that amount should be paid at Shripur outpost.Accused no. 1 had specifically told P.W. 4 that in the eventuality he failed to pay the agreed amount, he and his father would be arrested and produced before the court.It is in these circumstances that P.W. 4 had agreed to pay the demanded amount on Monday i.e. after 2 days.P.W. 4 was not willing to extend illegal gratification and therefore, approached office A.C.B. at Solapur.he was apprised of the use of anthracene powder.Pre-trap Panchanama was recorded.He was given specific instructions and it was decided that a trap would be laid.jeep, the raiding party went to Shripur via Mohol-Pandharpur-Tondale Bondale.When they came to Shivaji Chowk, they saw one jeep was parked there.22) P. W. 5 Mohan Ambodkar was working as Assistant Security Officer with SFC.One of his duty was to prevent encroachment and remove encroachment.He used to maintain a diary.P.W. 5 has deposed before the court that on 09/10/1993, he was called by S.D. Patil the ism ::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:27:18 ::: 18 26.570.97 apeal then in-charge Manager.P.W. 5 was informed by Mr. Patil that Balwant Jorwar and his kins were attempted to sow Jawar in land Gat No. 37 owned by SFC and that he should remove the said encroachment.He had been to Gat No. 37 along with a surveyor Mr. Jangam.He had noticed that Jawar was scattered on the ground.An attempt was being made to cultivate the said land.(i) It is his case that he had not demanded the amount."On 11th I came at outpost from outside.Both persons were sitting in the outside room.I went to the inner room and I was drinking water.Somebody came from backside.I turned back but that person has disappeared while I was coming outside.I noticed bundle in the paper in the rack.Out of curiosity I picked up the same and opened.Accused/appellant no. 1 is convicted for offence punishable under section 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for the period of one and half years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months.He is also convicted for offence punishable under section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for the period of Six months and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for the period of three months.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:27:18 :::The denomination of the said notes tallied with the numbers mentioned in the Pre-trap Panchanama.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:27:18 :::8) Dy.S.P. Chavan lodged a report at Shripur Police Station on the basis of which crime no. 159 of 1993 was registered against both the accused.After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed.Prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused.9) P.W. 1 Narayan Nana Khalase has deposed before the court that in the year 1993 he was working as clerk in the office of Soil Conservation Officer, Solapur.On 11/10/1993, Superintendent of the office had deputed P.W. 1 to the office of A.C.B. on request.Another Panch Shri.Pyare had also been deputed to act as a Panch.That there was an unknown person at the police station.His report was reduced into writing.Pre-trap Panchanama was signed by him.Panchas were given ism ::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:27:18 ::: 8 26.570.97 apeal instructions.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:27:18 :::10) As far as incident in question is concerned, he has deposed before the court that on 11/10/1993 he was a member of raiding party.They had reached Shivaji Chowk.They found that a jeep was parked there.It was about 6.00 p.m. One person was sitting in the jeep by the side of the driver.Complainant informed P.W. 1 that the said person seated next to the driver was constable Rathod.P.W. 1 has identified accused no. 2 before the court.he reciprocated the same.Thereafter accused no. 2 had questioned the complainant and complainant had replied that he had come as suggested by Nadgire Saheb.Complainant, upon enquiry by accused no. 2 had also stated that his father had not come and that he was being accompanied by a relative.members of the raiding party were following them.They went to Shripur outpost.Officer was sitting in the police station.They had exchanged greetings.Two other persons were sitting in front of the ism ::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:27:18 ::: 9 26.570.97 apeal officer.Accused no. 1 had questioned the complainant about the identity of P.W. 1, upon which complainant had informed accused no. 1 that P.W. 1 is his paternal cousin.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:27:18 :::12) P.W. 1 has categorically stated in the examination-in-chief that accused no. 1 had asked the complainant as to whether he had brought money.Complainant answered in the affirmative.Then accused no. 1 gave signal to accused no. 2 to take the complainant to the rear room.Accused no. 2 went inside and gave a signal to the complainant to come in the rear room.13) P. W. 1 had attempted to follow the complainant but was directed by accused no. 1 to be seated.P.W. 1 observing the events happening in the inner room as there was clear visibility.Accused no. 2 counted the currency notes with both the hands.In the meanwhile, complainant had given the pre-determined signal.P.W. 1 has specifically stated that accused no. 2 had then picked up one waste newspaper lying in that room and concealed the currency ism ::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:27:18 ::: 10 26.570.97 apeal notes in that piece of paper and kept the bundle in his left palm.Within no time the raiding party entered into the inner room.P.W. 1 had informed the raiding party that accused no. 2 had accepted the tainted notes.Hands of accused no. 2 were seen under ultra-violet lamp and it showed presence of anthracene powder by emitting blue colour shining.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:27:18 :::14) Dy.S.P. Anti Corruption had then inquired with accused no. 1 to disclose his identity.He produced certain papers which were seized.S.P. had then inquired with other two persons who were sitting in the police station.Accused no. 1 was sitting on the chair which was adjacent to the eastern side wall.P.W. 1 has denied the suggestion that events in the inner room could not be seen from the place where he was seated.He has admitted that he did not enter into the inner side room and therefore he could not give the topography of ism ::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:27:18 ::: 11 26.570.97 apeal the inner room.It is pertinent to note that despite lengthy cross-::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:27:18 :::examination, defence has failed to make a dent in the substantive evidence of P.W. 1 as was narrated in his examination-in-chief, more particularly the aspect of demand and acceptance by accused no. 2 and the fact that accused no. 1 had given a signal to the accused no. 2 to accept the amount on his behalf.P.W. 1 has proved the Pre-trap Panchanama dated 11/10/1993 as well as Post-trap Panchanama.At that juncture, two persons had come near the jeep.They extended their ism ::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:27:18 ::: 12 26.570.97 apeal greetings to accused no. 2 and thereafter, accused no. 2 along with the said two persons went to the police outpost.P.W. 2 was not acquainted with the two persons whom accused no. 2 had accompanied.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:27:18 :::17) P.W. 3 Bhagwan Shinde happens to be the person who was in the police station at the relevant time.He has deposed before the court that on 11/10/1993, accused no. 2 and one Datta had met him at Malewadi.They informed him that the matter between P.W. 3 and Mulumbkar was not settled and hence, he was called by the police officer at Akluj.Accused no. 2 had asked P.W. 3 to inform the said fact to Nadgire i.e. accused no. 1 at Shripur outpost.Thereafter, P.W. 3 along with Mulumbkar went to Akluj and contacted Aba Patil who had settled their dispute.Aba Patil had made efforts to contact at police outpost but there was no contact.As suggested by Aba Patil, P.W. 3 and Mulumbkar had been to Shripur outpost to inform accused no. 1 that dispute between them is settled.He then went to Shripur.On the way he had met Humbe who accompanied him to Shripur outpost.P.W. 3 informed accused no. 1 that the dispute with Pandhari was settled.In the meanwhile two persons had come to the police outpost.After 10 minutes accused no. 2 had come.He went to the inner room.One person followed accused no. 2 to the inner room and returned within a short while and then 5 - 6 persons came running to the outpost.He has further deposed that accused no. 1 had not asked that person whether he has brought money.There was no talk between them.At this juncture, prosecution had declared him hostile.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:27:18 :::18) P. W. 4 Shrimant Jorwar is the original complainant who had set the law in motion.He has deposed before the court that on 09/10/1993 at about 6.00 p.m., head constable Nadgire and Constable Rathod had been to his village in the jeep of SFC and told him that SFC had filed a complaint against him and therefore he should come to Shripur Police Station.Pursuant to the said call, P.W. 4 and his father accompanied both the accused in the same jeep to Shripur outpost.They were taken to Akluj Police Station.There, accused no. 1 had informed P.W. 4 that on the basis of the report filed by SFC he would have to arrest P.W. 4 and his father.P.W. 4 had requested accused no. 1 ism ::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:27:18 ::: 14 26.570.97 apeal not to arrest him since his service and career was at stake.At that juncture, accused no. 1 had demanded Rs. 5,000/- for not arresting him and to close the matter.There was negotiation.P.W. 4 had informed accused no. 1 that he cannot give the amount for the following 2-3 days and therefore, accused no. 1 had granted him time up to Monday to pay the said amount.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:27:18 :::He was also instructed to pay the bribe amount to accused no. 1 only after a specific demand is made.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:27:18 :::Accused no. 2 was sitting in the jeep.P.W. 4 apprised the shadow witness P.W. 1 that the person seated in the jeep is accused no.At the outpost, accused no. 1 was seated in the chair and was facing West.P.W. 4 and Accused no. 1 had exchanged greetings.Two other persons were sitting on the bench.Thereafter, accused no. 1 gave a signal to accused no. 2 to go inside.To the court question, P.W. 4 has stated as follows:"A.No.1 had asked me whether I have brought money and I answered in the affirmative."20) P. W. 4 has further stated that accused no. 2 had called him by giving a signal by neck.He therefore followed accused no. 2 in the rear room.There, accused no. 2 demanded money.thereafter, P.W. 4 had given a pre-determined signal to the raiding party.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:27:18 :::The Dy.S.P. had informed accused no. 2 of his identity.P.W. 4 has reported that as soon as they entered into the police outpost, accused no. 1 had enquired with him as to whether he had brought money.It is admitted that on third day of arrest his brothers were released on jail.It is also admitted that accused no. 1 had sent charge-sheet against his brothers and the case is pending before the court.21) P. W. 4 has admitted that Tahsildar, Malshiras had recorded a finding that SFC is in possession of Gat No. 23, however, P.W. 4 has filed ism ::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:27:18 ::: 17 26.570.97 apeal an appeal challenging the said order.That the name of SFC is recorded in coloumn of occupant in the 7/12 extract.It is also admitted that SFC had filed civil suit no. R.C.S. No. 33 of 1993 against his father in respect of Block no. 23 for the relief of injunction and that the court had ordered to maintain Status-quo.The tenor of cross-examination of P.W. 4 would lead to suggest that the complainant P.W. 4 has implicated accused no. 1 since he was annoyed with him and nurtured a grudge against him.At this stage, the court cannot be oblivious of the fact that the tainted currency notes were found concealed in a newspaper in the inner room of Shripur outpost.Irrespective of the motive of the complainant, the principal allegation that the amount was demanded and accepted has been established.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:27:18 :::He therefore, approached Shripur outpost and informed accused no. 1 about the said matter.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:27:18 :::1 assured him that they would visit the land in the evening.P.W. 5 had requested the manager to give him the jeep in order to take accused no.1 to the said land and accordingly Mr. Patil had provided the jeep.They had been to the house of Shrimant Jorwar.Accused no. 1 had talk with the father of Shrimant Jorwar and asked them to come to Akluj in connection with the encroachment over SFC land.Balwant Jorwar and others accompanied P.W. 5, accused no. 1 & 2 in the same jeep to Akluj Police Station.Accused, complainant and his father went to P.S.O. room.Shrimant Jorwar and his father had not accompanied P.W. 5 while returning from the police station.P.W. 5 has produced the entries in ism ::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:27:18 ::: 19 26.570.97 apeal respect of the events that had taken place.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:27:18 :::23) In the cross-examination, P.W. 5 has admitted that at about 9.30 p.m. Advocate Prakash patil had been to the police station and P.W. 5 had informed him about the encroachment made by Balwant Jorwar.Prakash Patil had assured P.W. 5 and in view of the order of status-quo passed by the court, Balwant Jorwar should not indulge into such activities and that he would advise him accordingly.24) P.W. 5 was confronted with his previous statement and has denied to have made portion marked 'A' & 'B' in his statement to the effect that Prakash Patil had informed P.W. 5 that he would request accused no. 1 to settle the matter.P.W. 5 has stated that on 09/10/1993 he had not filed written application to the police station or outpost Shripur.P. W. 5 has admitted that Exhibit 31/1 is on the letter head of SFC and bears signature of Estate Manager Shri.25) P.W. 6 Suresh Kakkad was working as Superintendent of Police, Solapur, Rural.He was an Authority competent to appoint and remove the accused from their respective posts.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:27:18 :::26) In the cross-examination he has admitted that he had not verified whether the complaint application filed by SFC was received at Akluj Police Station.It is also admitted that draft of the sanction order was received along with papers.Sanction order was typed as per the draft.The date is not mentioned at the bottom of the sanction order and that P.W. 6 had signed the same and put the date.He has admitted in the cross-27) P. W. 7 Pandurang Bhosale was working as Maintenance Surveyor.It is suggested in the cross-examination that the map of scene of offence was not drawn as per the scale and that events in the inner room were not visible from the bench occupied by P.W. 1 at the time of incident.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:27:18 :::28) P. W. 8 Bhaurao Chavan was officiating as Dy.S.P. A.C.B. Solapur.He has deposed before the court about the steps taken by him in the course of investigation.(ii) He had not directed/signalled accused no. 2 to accept the amount in the inner room.(iii) He has been falsely implicated since he had arrested the brothers of the complainant Shrimant Jorwar.(iv) On 09/10/1993, he had arrested Pandurang and Pundalik Jorwar and Bharat Navgire and filed a chapter case against them.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:27:18 :::(vi) On 09/10/1993 when he arrested complainant's brother Pandurang Jorwar, he was abused and hence, had slapped Pandurang and therefore complainant has falsely implicated him.30) The defence of accused no. 2 is as follows.That time Anti Corruption Officers entered into inner room and they held me."31) In answer to question no. 98 in statement u/sec. 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, accused no. 2 has stated that on 9 th he had been to village Mire along with accused no. 1 and talked to brothers of complainant and his father.32) Hence, one thing is clear that accused no. 2 has admitted that he had been to village Mire and had a conversation with Pundalik and Bharat Jorwar, brothers of complainant.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:27:18 :::"It has further come in his evidence that on 09/10/1993 around 6.00 p.m. you accompanied by accused no. 2 came to his village in the jeep and told him that there was complaint filed by SFC and he should come to Shripur.What have to say about this evidence.Accused no. 1 had agreed to visit the land.They had been to the house of the complainant and the complainant, his father and brothers had accompanied them to Akluj Police Station.That accused, complainant and his father had been to P.S.O. room.It can therefore, be safely inferred that prosecution has proved that on 09/10/1993, accused no. 1, accused no.2 accompanied by P.W. 5 had been to village Mire, more particularly to ism ::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:27:18 ::: 24 26.570.97 apeal the house of Shrimant Jorwar and that Balwant Jorwar, Shrimant and other two brothers of Shrimant accompanied them to Akluj Police Station.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:27:18 :::35) That P.W. 4 had approached office of A.C.B. and set law into motion for laying a trap against accused no. 1 & accused no. 2 for demanding illegal gratification.36) P. W. 1 is an independent witness.He is a public servant whose services were solicited for acting as a shadow witness in the course of laying a trap.P.W. 1 has deposed before the court that on the way to Shripur outpost, they had met accused no. 2 seated in a jeep.P.W. 1 has deposed as follows:"One person was sitting in the jeep by the side of the driver of the jeep.Complainant pointed out to that person and told me that he was Rathod Constable.Complainant offered Namaskar to accused no. 2 and accused no. 2 reciprocated the same and asked the question whether they had come.Complainant replied with yes he has come as suggested by Nadgire Saheb."37) This part of the testimony of P.W. 1 has not been shaken in the cross-examination and therefore, an inference could be drawn that ism ::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:27:18 ::: 25 26.570.97 apeal Nadgire had asked P.W. 4 to come to the outpost.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:27:18 :::38) P. W. 1 has further deposed that :"Accused no. 1 then asked the complainant whether he has brought the money.Complainant replied in the affirmative.Then accused no. 1 gave a signal to accused no. 2 asking him to go to inner room.Accused no. 2 went inside and by giving signal by neck, accused no. 2 called complainant inside.Then complainant went inside.I stood up and tried to go inside at that time, accused no. 1 asked me to stay there."39) This part of the testimony also has not been shaken in the cross-All that is suggested that events which had taken place in the inner room were not visible to P.W. 1 from the place where he was seated.That he had not heard the conversation between accused no. 2 and the complainant and therefore according to learned counsel for the appellants the fact of demand has not been proved.It is not the case of accused no. 2 that amount was thrusted with him or that he was forced to accept the amount.The defence of accused no. 2 is that the tainted currency notes were concealed in a bundle of newspaper by someone and out of curiosity he had opened the same and at that time, he had ism ::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:27:18 ::: 26 26.570.97 apeal been trapped.The court cannot be oblivious of the fact that accused no.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:27:18 :::1 who was superior officer was seated in the outer area.The onus would lie upon the accused to rebut the said presumption or demonstrate the preponderance of probabilities to seek discharge/exoneration from the charges levelled against him.The evidence on record would clearly indicate that the tainted currency notes were found in the precinct of police station and more over accused no. 2 has specifically admitted that at the relevant time he was in the rear room and had opened the bundle out of the curiosity.It is strange that accused no. 1 who was ism ::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:27:18 ::: 28 26.570.97 apeal sitting just outside the rear room had not noticed a stranger entering into the rear room as the police station was manned by the police personnels only.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:27:18 :::49) This would be a far fetched submission.Unless accused no. 2 had ism ::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:27:18 ::: 34 26.570.97 apeal knowledge, he would not have accepted the tainted currency notes.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:27:18 :::W. 1 as well as P. W. 4 have categorically stated that after accepting the tainted currency notes, accused have concealed the notes in a bundle of newspaper.CBI, Coachin High ism ::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:27:18 ::: 35 26.570.97 apeal Court of Kerala [A.I.R. 2009 S.C. 2022] wherein it was held as follows :::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:27:18 :::That P. W. 1 and P. W. 4 have categorically described the gesture of accused no. 1 directing accused no. 2 to go in the inner room.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:27:19 :::59) Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that Sanctioning Authority has not deposed before the court that he had accorded sanction for prosecution of the appellants upon there being a subjective satisfaction and on this count the charges levelled against the accused shall necessarily fail.It is true that there has to be a valid sanction for prosecution.Hence, it would not be proper to consider the submission that appellants deserve to be acquitted for want of valid sanction.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:27:19 :::63) In the present case, prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.The court cannot travel beyond the evidence adduced by the prosecution, unless accused on the same set of evidence is able to present a different view of the matter.Only in such situation, where two views are possible, court may take a view in favour of accused.65) In the present case, there is no scope even to fathom that two views are possible.Accused have failed to rebut the presumption drawn under section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and therefore, appeal deserves to be dismissed.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:27:19 :::criminal appeal no. 570 of 1997 due to change of Advocate.Hence, the said appeal stands dismissed.(iv) Upon failure to surrender before the Special Court Solapur, the Special Judge shall issue non-bailable warrant against the appellants, calling upon them to serve the sentence.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:27:19 :::
|
['Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
381,318 |
JUDGMENT Y.K. Sabharwal, J.(1) Petitioner Ms.Neelam Mahajan Singh (for short 'Ms. Singh') lives in Flat NO.A 506 on the 5th floor of multistoried complex at Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi, popularly known as Curzon Road flats.The respondent No.5 Mr.(2) Ms. Singh, a television news correspondent in News Division of Doordarshan and whose late husband was an Indian Administrative Service Officer is living in that flat with her school going son.They would not have thought that a small incident would lead to such a legal tussle which would require examination and determination by a Full Bench at the very threshold.Singh's version of the incident, as stated in the petition, in brief, is as follows:-"ON28th September, 1992 at about 8 Am she came back from morning walk and while climbing the stairs leading to her flat she found her domestic help Mr.Narender Pal was loitering around the corridors of the second floor chatting with some other person who later on was learnt by her to be the servant, named, Mr. Khem Pal of Gupta.She told Narender Pal to return to her flat to attend to the work and not to loiter around there.Meantime, one middle aged woman who later on was learnt to be the wife of Gupta came out of the apartment on the varandah as she was already standing at the entrance of flat No.Gupta told Ms.Singh that since Khem Pal was leaving the work henceforth Narender Pal will work for her as her husband had already promised Narender Pal that he will get him regular job in his office in Intelligence Bureau.This was resented to by Ms.Singh and she told Ms.Gupta that since she is a working lady and has to be away from her flat she could hardly afford to relieve Narender Pal who was working for full time for her.She also deprecated the allurement of Gupta given to Narender Pal with intent to make him leave her job.While this conversation was going on in the presence of Narender Pal in the corridor which is common passage at the second floor of the apartment block Gupta also came out in the common corridors of the second floor and suddenly started abusing Ms. Singh in the filthiest and unprintable language and shouted at her that Narender Pal will no longer work for her.It is through your good local officers that I came to know the name of this man, as one Mr.Ashok Kumar Gupta, who works in C.B.I, and, therefore, the question is for an ineloquent with servants.Can this man call the local police and threaten to "take me to task" when I did not even speak to him.Sir, I would like to bring to your kind notice the telephonic conversation with your office, informing you of the offensive and "unreasonable" behavior of Mr. Gupta who wrongly called the local police to show his . "muscle" and by the time, the P.C.R. van was called, the "super cop of C.B.I. Mr.In the purview of law he should be punished and warned not to "abuse to woman so much so if he works in C.B.I. Thanking you, sd/- (NEELAM Mahajan SINGH)"(11) Further it seems that when Asi Gurdeep Singh visited the spot and contacted Ms. Gupta she did not attach much importance to the incident which had taken place and seems to have told Asi Gurdeep Singh that matter has been resolved.Singh, however, chose to give the aforesaid written complaint to Asi Gurdeep Singh.However, there have been a number of instances of misbehavior, violent and other obnoxious conduct on her part from time to time and I am sure the old police records or residents of Curzon Road Apartments should corroborate this.She boasts of her connections with some politicians and senior bureaucrats and has threatened to teach me a lesson.(29) Reverting to the incident there is no doubt that it had taken place involving Ms. Singh and her servant on the one hand and Gupta, his wife and servant on the other hand.According to each person other hurled abuses.A.K.Gupta (for short 'Gupta') lives in Flat No.A-206 on second floor in the same complex.In the mean time he also called his Driver from the ground floor and asked him to throw down Ms. Singh.Gupta also threatened to teach Ms. Singh a lesson which she would remember throughout her life.The conduct of Gupta was most uncivilised, more so, when he was stated to be high ranking police officer.The abuses and the gestures that Gupta made were highly derogatory and made with full intent/knowledge to outrage the modesty of Ms. Singh."(3) MS.SINGH claims that after the incident she went to Police Station Tilak Marg at 9 Am and submitted her complaint and left the police station thereafter.The copy of the complaint said to have been made at the Police Station at 9 Am has,however, not been filed by her.She further says that at around 10.15 Am Asi Gurdeep Singh visited her residence and she apprised him of the incident and also gave complaint in writing.A copy of this complaint has been filed with the petition.(4) The version of the incident, as stated by Gupta in his counter affidavit, in brief, is as follows:- Ms.Singh at about 9 Am entered into his apartment and started shouting at his domestic servant Khem Pal Singh on the suspicion that he was trying to entice away her domestic servant Narender Pal.Apparently Ms.Singh suspected that Gupta's servant Khem Pal Singh was leaving the job and was enticing her servant to join service of Gupta.Singh in a very aggressive mode threatened Khem Pal Singh and hurled filthy abuses.Gupta's wife,however,intervened in the matter and apprised Ms.Singh that neither Khem Pal Singh was leaving the service nor respondent No.5 was ever interested or would be interested to keep Ms.Singh's servant.This statement of Ms.Gupta, however, did not appease Ms.Singh and she kept on using the threatening, abusive and filthy language unbecoming of a civilised person.Although Gupta had heard from the neighbours regarding the quarrelsome nature of Ms.Singh yet this was Gupta's first encounter with Ms.Singh during his stay of over six and a half years in the apartment.Since Ms.Singh continued with her aggressive behavior Gupta requested her to behave and put forth her grievance only after verifying the facts.Singh, however, continued to behave in an unreasonable manner, hurling abuses and letting out threats.Gupta then asked Ms.Singh to leave his apartment.On this Ms.Singh became more aggressive and she dared Gupta to physically remove her from his apartment.Gupta thus had no choice but to summon police assistance from Police Control Room to intervene in removing the trespass.On seeing Mr.Gupta making a call for police station Ms.Singh misbehaved more violently and forcibly took away Khem Pal, the servant of Gupta and showered all sorts of abuses on Gupta and his family.Singh openly claimed her connections with the politicians and senior bureaucrats and threatened Gupta to teach a lesson (5) On the complaint of Gupta First Information Report No.478 of 1992 dated 28th September 1992 was registered under Sections 452 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code which was later converted into First Information Report under Section 448 Indian Penal Code Ms.(6) The writ petition was heard by Division Bench comprising of Mahindar Narain and Jaspal Singh, JJs.(7) Mahindar Narain J. in his opinion has come to the conclusion that the incident was trivial and the principles of Section 95 Indian Penal Code were applicable and the First Information Report deserves to be quashed.(10) Before we deal with the contentions of the learned counsel a few more facts may be noticed about which there does not seem to be any controversy.We may notice that before the Police could reach the spot, on Gupta having rung up the police, he had left for his office.When Si Gurdeep Singh came to the spot he could contact only Ms.Gupta and Ms. Singh.Singh handed over to Asi Gurdeep Singh at about 10.45 Am a written complaint.The said complaint reads as under:- "TOSHO, P.S. Tilak Marg, New Delhi.From: Ms.Neelam Mahajan Singh, A-506, Curzon Road Apartments, New Delhi.Sir, A.S.I. Mr.Gurdip Singh came to my residence at 10.00 hrs on the morning of 28.9.1992, on the telephonic complaint of one Mr.Ashok Kumar Gupta, resident of A-206, who, I am told by your officer, he works in Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.).After this he disappeared and did not meet the local police.I do not know what complaint he has against me.I have never known nor met Mr.Ashok Kumar Gupta or his wife, in my life, so there is no reason for me to go to their house, as he has complained to your officers.The problem was about the servants, (a) my servant named Narinder Pal Singh (whose police registration has been done by your beat constable) and (b) the servant of A-206, Khempal, who was instigating my servant Narinder Pal to leave the work from me and go and work at A- 206, since Khempal, as he told me, is leaving Delhi.However, I brought both the boys face to face so that they can resolve the matter.However, a middle aged lady, who I understand was the lady of the house, told me that she will not keep Narinder Singh, my servant.So the question was of servants and not owners.In the meanwhile, this fair looking bald man came and told me to "get out" while I was still in verandah only.He even refused to tell me his name and both husband and wife heckled me and abused me."She is a mad woman," said the man and then he called his driver and told him, "Esse Utha Kar Fenko, Yeh To Pagal Aurat Hai." All this while I was talking only to the servants.Later on Gupta had sent a written complaint at about 1.30PM from his office to Sho of Police Station Tilak Marg.(12) The First Information Report against Ms.Singh was registered on the basis of the complaint lodged by Gupta.It seems that though in the beginning Guptas were not interested in pursuing the matter but later, Gupta must have thought that since Ms.(14) The Deputy Commissioner of Police Mr.Asad Farooqui (respondent No.2) in the evening on 28th September, 1992 passed an order as follows:- "There is a serious complaint against Smt. Neelam Mahajan R/o Kasturba Gandhi Apartment, from Sh.A. K.Gupta, Dig, IB.(15) The aforesaid order was addressed to Assistant Commissioner of Police and it appears that the Assistant Commissioner of Police marked it to the Station House Officer who marked it to the Investigating Officer Si Ashok Kumar.The Commissioner of Police states in his affidavit that the aforesaid order of Mr.Farooqui reached the police station at 8.20 pm whereas the First Information Report had already been registered against Ms. Singh.' (16) We may also make reference to the factual report dated 8th October 1992 made by the Station House Officer, Police Station Tilak Marg, New Delhi, regarding the arrest of Ms.A copy of that report has been placed on record by Ms.We do not know how she got a copy of that report.Be that as it may, the said report shows that at about 5 Pm the Assistant Commissioner of Police had ordered the Sho on the directions of Deputy Commissioner of Police to register a case against Ms.Singh under Section 452/506 Ipc and that it was on account of the "clear order of DCP/ND" that the case was registered at 5.30pm.Farooqui had not only telephonically ordered the Sho to arrest Ms.Singh but had even expressed his displeasure over the delay in effecting the arrest.It also shows that Ms.Singh was called to the police station by Mr.Farooqui on the pretext of getting the matter resolved and it was then she was put under arrest.(17) Reference may also be made to daily diary reports No.27A and 29A. A perusal thereof shows that lady police officials as per orders of Dcp, New Delhi, had reached the police station at about 8.10pm for performing the duties and that at 9.20pm Ms.Singh was arrested but was provided the usage of office telephone by Sho regarding bail etc. (18) We may also notice that in her complaint handed over to Asi Gurdeep Singh, Ms.Singh desired serious action against Gupta for harassing, intimidating and threatening her.She alleges in para 5(h) of the petition that she personally met Balbir Singh, Sho, Police Station Tilak Marg and Acp Connaught Place at about 5.00 Pm same day to find out as to what action had been taken on her complaint.Then she learnt that Gupta had also lodged a complaint.But she was assured by both the aforesaid Officers that since it was a petty matter they were not taking any action on the basis of the complaint filed by Gupta and, therefore, she came back to her flat.Singh arrested.It is claimed that harm, if any, caused from the alleged incident was so slight that no person of ordinary sense and temper would complain of such harm.(20) We will take up the second contention first.The offence alleged to have been committed is of criminal trespass.The First Information Report has been registered against the petitioner under section 448 of the Indian Penal Code for having committed criminal trespass.Section 441 of the Indian Penal Code which defines criminal trespass reads as under:- Section 441: "Whoever enters into or upon property in the possession of another with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession-of such property; or having lawfully entered into or upon such property, unlawfully remains there with intent thereby to intimidate, insult or annoy any such person, or with intent to commit an offence, is said to commit "criminal trespass."Singh walked into his flat, misbehaved with him and hurled various abuses and left only after Gupta rang up the police.The version of the incident as given by Gupta in the counter affidavit has been noticed above.Since the First Information Report was registered against Ms.Singh on the basis of the complaint of Gupta it may be useful to extract Gupta's version in his own words as given in the complaint which reads as under:- "This morning (around 09.00 hours) one Ms.Neelam Mahajan, a resident of A-506, Curzon Road Apartments trespassed into my apartment (A-206) and started shouting on my domestic servant Khem Pal Singh for his alleged attempt to entice away her domestic servant.According to her, Khem Pal Singh asked her domestic servant to work in A-206 as he himself (Khem Pal Singh) was going to join some other job.She kept on threatening and abusing my domestic servant using unprintable unparliamentary language.She in the process also indirectly threatened and abused me and my wife.I then asked her to leave my house but she refused.It is also not possible to accept the contention of Mr.Aggarwal that the petitioner has not pleaded triviality as a ground for quashing the First Information Report.In these natters the pleadings cannot be construed in the strict and hyper technical manner.The challan was filed in the court of the Metropolitan Magistrate after filing of this writ petition.No orders were made on the application for stay.The Division Bench commenced hearing arguments from 9th February 1993 and then from 2nd March, 1993 onward from almost day to day and that seems to be the reason for the Bench not making any orders on Cr.P.P.Sharma & another, .Finally, we are at a loss to understand as to why and on what reasoning the High Court assumed extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India at a stage when the Special Judge was seized of the matter.He had heard the arguments on the question of cognizance and had reserved the orders.The High Court did not even permit the Special Judge to pronounce the orders.The Directors of the firm who are also accused persons in this case had approached the Rajasthan High Court for the quashing of the Fir and prosecution against them.The Rajasthan High Court dismissed the writ petition with the following order:- "Sri Bhandari states that in this matter Chalan has already been filed in court.The writ petition has, therefore, become infructuous.The writ petition is dismissed as having become infructuous.No order as to costs.The above order was brought to the notice of the Patna High Court but the High Court refused to be persuaded to adopt the same course.
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
38,132,807 |
Heard on this first application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the petitioner Sonu @ Rakesh and Sonu Vanshkar in crime no.338/2017 registered by P.S.-Amanganj District Panna under Sections 363, 366 and 506-B of IPC.As per the prosecution case, petitioners stole motorcycle belonging to the victim Dinesh Yaduvanshi from a field.Later they dismantled the motorcycle and divided the parts amongst themselves.On the disclosure statement made by the petitioner, parts of the motorcycle were seized from their possession.Consequently, this first application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the petitioners Sonu @ Rakesh and Sonu Vanshkar is allowed.It is directed that the petitioners shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one solvent surety each in the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before that Court on all dates fixed in the case and for complying with the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Certified copy as per rules.(C. V. Sirpurkar) Judge Loretta Digitally signed by LORETTA RAJ Date: 2017.12.01 10:53:29 +05'30'
|
['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
127,441,879 |
32.Nevertheless, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, having regard to the conflictviews taken by the coordinate Benches of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matterof suppression particulars of involvement in a criminal case, in the judgementreported in 2010(2) MLJ 508 (SC) in the matter of Kamal Nayan Mishra vs. Stateof Madhya Pradesh and 2011 (6)CTC 440 : 2011(4) MLJ 1006(SC) in the matter ofthe Commissioner of Police vs. Sandeep Kumar, decided to refer the issue to theLarger Bench.In the event of the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Courtcomes to a conclusion that suppression of such particulars in the applicationform or in the verification roll regarding the involvement in criminal casewould not render the person disqualified on that account and directing theDepartment to take the merits of the case of each individual, considering thenature of the offence for appointment and if these petitions were dismissed atthis stage, that would cause serious prejudice to the petitioners. .....Following the said judgement, the afore-said 15 writ petitions areallowed and the petitioners' selection is subject to the final judgement to berendered by the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as per the referencemade in the judgement reported in (2012)7 MLJ 68 (SC) in the matter of JainendraSingh vs. State of U.P. Tr.Section Home and Others, and in the event theHonourable Supreme Court decides that suppression of involvement in the criminalcase would dis-entitle the petitioners from getting a job in the police force,their appointment shall liable to be set aside at the discretion of therespondents.Accordingly, a direction is issued to the respondents to issueappointment orders to these petitioners in the above terms.W.P.(MD).No.4455/2013 alone comes under Category (iii) case, i.e.,Selection was denied on the ground that the petitioners faced criminalprosecution, though they were juvenile at the time of commission of offence.In this case, the petitioner was a juvenile, when he committed theoffence under Sections 147, 341, 324, 323, 294(b) and 506(II) IPC on 03.10.2007and he was studying in the Government Higher Secondary School, Uthumalai.Thepetitioner and others bet some other students who studied with them.It wastried by the Juvenile Court and it was found that the charges were not provedand they were acquitted in J.C.No.5/2008 by the judgement dated 04.08.2010 bythe Juvenile Justice Board, Tirunelveli District.This case comes under category5 of the judgment dated 26.03.2013 in W.P.(MD)No.474 of 2013 etc. batch.The persons coming under the categories 4 and 5, namely personsinvolved in Petty Offences, cannot also be denied of selection on the simpleground that they have suppressed their involvement, considering the nature ofthe offence in which they were found guilty.Therefore, in my opinion, the persons coming under the 1stfive categories cannot be found guilty of suppression of facts, either in theapplication form or in the verification roll and rejection of those candidatescannot be justified."Following the above-said judgement the writ petition inW.P.(MD).No.4455 of 2013 is allowed and a direction is issued to the respondentsto provide him appointment as Grade-II Police Constable.The following cases come under Category (iv) i.e. Selection was deniedon the ground that the petitioners faced criminal prosecution, though action wasdropped or charges were quashed by this Court:-As per the details given by the learned Additional Government Pleader,the proceedings initiated under Section 109 Cr.P.C against the petitioner inW.P.(MD).No.5137/2013 and the proceedings initiated under Section 107 Cr.P.C. inrespect of the petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.3327/2013, were dropped.Though a case was registered against the petitioner inW.P.(MD).No.5003/2013 under Sections 143, 341, 188 and 353 IPC, the same wasquashed by this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.4360/2008 as per the details furnishedby the learned Additional Government Pleader.Likewise, though a case was registered against the petitioner inW.P.(MD).No.1519/2013 under Sections 324 and 326 r/w 34 IPC, the same wasquashed by the Kerala High Court, by the order dated 17.12.2012, inCRl.M.C.No.3871 of 2012, as per the details furnished by the learned AdditionalGovernment Pleader.Similarly, though a case was registered against the petitioner inW.P.(MD).No.5371/2013 in Cr.No.653/2012 on the file of Avaniyapuram PoliceStation for the offences under Section 147, 341, 294(b) and 307 IPC, later on,at the time of filing alteration report, his name was removed from the chargesheet.A copy of the alteration report is found place in the typed set.Though a case was registered against the petitioner inW.P.(MD)No.6217/2013 in Cr.No.30 of 2012 on the file of the Masarpatti PoliceStation for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 341, 506(i) and307 IPC, the petitioner filed Crl.O.P.(MD).No.15974/2012 and the proceedingrelating to the aforesaid crime number in P.R.C.No.28 of 2012 was quashed on thebasis of the compromise entered into the parties.These cases come under category III of the order dated 26.03.2013 inW.P.(MD).No.474/2013 etc., batch of this Court.Therefore, following the judgement dated 26.03.2013, inW.P.(MD).No.474 of 2013 etc. batch , the following writ petitions, namely6.W.P.(MD)No.6217/2013 are allowed and a direction is issued to therespondents to provide appointment to these petitioners.W.P.(MD).No.4188/2013 and W.P.(MD)No.5011/2013 come under Category (v)i.e.Selection was denied on the ground that the petitioners faced criminalprosecution though the involvement of the petitioners was in a petty offenceunder Section 75 of Madras City Police Act.In W.P.(MD)No.4188/2013, the petitioner was charged under Section 75of the Madras City Police Act and was fined Rs.500/-.Foremost amongthem being traffic, municipal and other petty offences under the Indian PenalCode, mostly committed by the young and/or the inexperienced.The cruel resultof a conviction of that kind and a fine of payment of a paltry sum on plea-bargaining is the end of the career, future or present, as the case may be, ofthat young and/or inexperienced person, putting a blast to his life and hisdreams.This type of cases come under category 4 of the order dated 26.03.2013in W.P.(MD).No.474/2013 etc., batch writ petitions.The following passage inparagraph 21 of the said judgement in W.P.(MD)No.474/2013 etc. batch, isextracted hereunder:-"The persons coming under the categories 4 and 5, namely persons involvedin Petty Offences, cannot also be denied of selection on the simple ground thatthey have suppressed their involvement, considering the nature of the offence inwhich they were found guilty."Following the judgement, these two writ petitions are allowed and adirection is issued to provide appointment to the petitioners.In the result, the following writ petitions coming under categoriesThe following writ petitions coming under category (ii) is allowed anda direction is issued to the respondents to give appointment orders to thepetitioners on condition that the appointment is subject to the result of thedecision of the Larger Bench of the Apex Court referred to above :1. W.P.(MD)No.6014/20132. W.P.(MD).No.4733/20133. W.P.(MD).No.4732/20134. W.P.(MD).No.5125/20136. W.P.(MD).No.5581/20139. W.P.(MD).No.1277/201315.W.P.(MD).No.5975/2013 No costs.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.jikr/ggTo3.The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai.D.HARIPARANTHAMAN,J.
|
['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
127,453,666 |
2.1 Santhosh Kumar (A1) got married to the deceased Amulu on 14.09.2005 and after marriage, it is alleged that he ill-treated her along with his mother Kala (A2), subjected her to cruelty and demanded more dowry, unable to withstand which, Amulu doused herself with kerosene on 03.01.2006 around 8.15 a.m. and set fire to herself.She was rushed by her relative Kabali (not examined) to the Government Hospital, Royapettah, where, she was examined by Dr. Subramani (P.W.10) at 8.30 a.m. and the copy of the accident register was marked as Ex.In the cross-examination of Dr.Subramani (P.W.10), he has said that Amulu was conscious.Therefore, I went to my aunt's house and complained to her.My 6/10http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A. No.207 of 2012 aunt commiserated with me and sent me back with my husband.In the night also, my husband quarreled with me.Today, 03.01.2006, my husband once again abused me in foul language.The time then was 8.15 a.m. So, I took kerosene from my house, poured on myself and set fire.1/10http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A. No.207 of 2012 2 The gist of the facts leading to the filing of the instant criminal appeal are as under:She was admitted as in-patient in the Burns Department of Government Hospital, Royapettah and the police were intimated of the incident.2.2 Jayakumar (P.W.14), Sub-Inspector of Police, went to the Government Hospital, Royapettah and in the presence of Dr.Sridevi (P.W.8), recorded the statement of Amulu (dying declaration) which was marked as Ex.P.16, based on which, Jayakumar (P.W.14) registered a case in Cr. No.2 of 2006 under Section 306 read with Section 511 IPC and prepared the printed F.I.R. (Ex.P.17).2/10http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A. No.207 of 2012 2.3 On request, Thirumagal (P.W.11), VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, came to the hospital and recorded the dying declaration of Amulu at 4.00 p.m. on 03.01.2006 in the presence of Dr. Rosy (P.W.9), who certified that Amulu was fully conscious and was in a fit state of mind to give the dying declaration.The dying declaration recorded by Thirumagal (P.W.11) was marked as Ex.2.4 Investigation of the case was taken over by Balasubramaniam (P.W.16), Assistant Commissioner of Police, who requested Sivakumar (P.W.12), Executive Magistrate/Tahsildar, to conduct inquest over the body of Amulu, since the death had occurred within seven years of marriage.2.5 Sivakumar (P.W.12) conducted inquest over the body of Amulu and in his evidence as well in the inquest report (Ex.P.14), has stated that the death of Amulu was on account of dowry harassment.2.6 Dr. Baskar (P.W.15) conducted autopsy on the body of Amulu.He, in his evidence as well in the post-mortem certificate (Ex.P.21), has stated that Amulu would appear to have died of “shock due to extensive mixed burns”.3/10http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A. No.207 of 2012 2.7 After examining various witnesses and collecting reports, the police completed the investigation and filed a final report in P.R.C. No.67 of 2006 before the VII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, George Town, Chennai, under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC or alternatively under Section 306 IPC against Santhosh Kumar (A1) and his mother, Kala (A2).2.8 On appearance of the accused, the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. were complied with and the case was committed the Court of Session in S.C. No.54 of 2007 and was made over to the Mahila Court, Chennai, for trial.2.9 The trial Court framed charges under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC and also framed an alternative charge under Section 306 IPC.When questioned, the accused pleaded not guilty.2.10 To prove the case, the prosecution examined 17 witnesses and marked 24 exhibits and 2 material objects.2.11 When the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on the incriminating circumstances appearing against them, they denied the same.On the side of the accused, four witnesses were examined and one document was marked.4/10http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A. No.207 of 2012 2.12 After considering the evidence on record and hearing either side, the trial Court, by judgment and order dated 14.02.2012 in S.C.No.54 of 2007, acquitted Kala (A2) of the charges under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC or alternatively under Section 306 IPC and Santhosh Kumar (A1) of the charge under Section 304-B IPC, however, convicted and sentenced Santhosh Kumar (A1) as under:Provisions under which convicted Sentence S.498-A IPC One year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment.2.13 Assailing the aforesaid conviction and sentences passed by the trial Court, Santhosh Kumar (A1) is before this Court.3 Heard Mr. K. Shanmugam, learned counsel for the appellant and Mrs.5/10http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A. No.207 of 2012 4 The prosecution has proved beyond cavil that Amulu got married to Santhosh Kumar (A1) on 14.09.2005 and she committed suicide by self- immolation on 03.01.2006 and died on 04.01.2006 at 11.15 p.m. 5 The appellant has been acquitted of the charge under Section 304- B IPC, assailing which, the State has not preferred any appeal.The question that requires to be decided in this appeal is whether there are materials to show that the appellant had inflicted cruelty on Amulu and whether such cruelty had triggered Amulu's suicide.6 The prosecution case rests mainly on the two dying declarations given by Amulu, i.e., Ex.P.16 that was given to the police and Ex.P.12 that was given to the Magistrate.7 The free English translation of what Amulu stated in the dying declaration (Ex.P.16) given to the police is as under:“I am residing in the above address.My father is no more.My marriage with Santhosh Kumar was solemnized in October 2005 in the presence of elders and family members.From the time of marriage, there used to be petty quarrels between us.My husband will beat me.Yesterday, 02.01.2006, since morning, my husband was quarreling with me and was abusing me in filthy language.Now, I am in the Government Hospital, Royapettah, under treatment.My husband and my mother-in-law Kala are responsible for my self-immolation.Action should be taken against them.” 8 Similarly, the free English translation of what Amulu has stated in the dying declaration (Ex.P.12) given to Thirumagal, Magistrate (P.W.11) is as under:“I have studied upto VIII standard.I am residing in Sathya Nagar.I got married four years ago.I do not know what job my husband is doing.My mother-in-law is working as a daily wager .Whenever I go for cleaning vessels, my mother-in-law and my husband will secretly confabulate.On seeing me, they will stop their discussions abruptly.Thereafter, my husband will beat me.Day before yesterday, after my mother-in-law left home, my husband assaulted me with a plank.I got riled and went to my aunt's house.In the evening, my aunt mediated and sent me back with my husband.Yesterday, my husband brandished a knife and abused me saying that he will kill me and get married again and that I cannot do anything.Therefore, I got irked and quarreled with him.Around 8.00 a.m., when none was there at home, I poured kerosene on myself and set fire.” 7/10http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A. No.207 of 2012 9 Apple @ Krishnaveni (P.W.3), Amulu's aunt, has, in her evidence, stated that she (P.W.3) had arranged the marriage of Amulu with Santhosh Kumar (A1); after their marriage, the couple used to quarrel frequently; at the time of marriage, Amulu's mother had promised to give seven sovereigns of gold, but, did not keep up her word and that used to be the subject matter of the quarrel; she used to console Amulu; Santhosh Kumar (A1) used to beat Amulu; on 02.01.2006, around 5.00 p.m., Amulu came to her house and told her (P.W.3) that Santhosh Kumar (A1) had assaulted her and asked her to intervene; on the same evening, around 7.00 p.m., Santhosh Kumar (A1) and his mother came to her house and after compromise talks, Amulu was sent with them; on 03.01.2006, she received information that Amulu was admitted in the hospital and hence, she went there to call on Amulu; Amulu died the next night.In the cross-examination, this witness has admitted that Amulu's family was poor and the marriage expenses were borne by the accused.Even in the cross-examination, she has reiterated the fact that on 02.01.2006, Amulu came to her house at 5.00 p.m and around 7.00 p.m., the accused came to her house and after compromise talks, Amulu was sent back with them.A. No.207 of 2012 a plea that Amulu was not interested in marriage and that Amulu was in love with someone else.But, none of the witnesses has even stated the name of the person with whom Amulu was in love and has merely given a general statement to that effect.In fact, in the cross-examination of Gomathi (D.W.1), she has stated that she does not directly know about Amulu's love affair and that she had heard so only on grapevine.It is very easy to defile the character of a dead woman by making such insinuations.However, to subserve the interests of justice, the sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment is reduced to three years rigorous imprisonment.9/10http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A. No.207 of 2012 P.N. PRAKASH, J.cad In the result, this criminal appeal stands dismissed.
|
['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
127,456,093 |
CRL.M.C. 5173/2014 Page 1 of 8This petition has been moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of FIR No. 49/2011 registered under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act at Police Station Harsh Vihar on 27.03.2011 on the ground that the matter has been settled between the partiesAfter the framing of charge before the court below and at the instance of the parties concerned, the matter was referred to mediation by the court below and on 04.01.2014, a settlement was arrived at between the parties before the Delhi Mediation Centre, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, setting down all the terms and conditions of the settlement.A copy of the said settlement has also been attached with this petition.I am of the considered opinion that the circumstances of the case require that a quietus be given to the matter, where the parties have amicably resolved all their disputes which are primarily of matrimonial and domestic nature, and where the complainant has resolved all her differences with the petitioners with a view to keeping her marriage intact and is no longer interested in supporting the prosecution thereby diminishing its chances of success.Consequently, the petition is allowed and the FIR No. 49/2011 registered under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC at Police Station Harsh Vihar and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, and all the proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed.CRL.M.C. 5173/2014 Page 7 of 8The petition stands disposed off.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
127,463,988 |
The applicant-accused is directed to join the investigation immediately and fully co-operate with the investigation.He shall further abide by the other conditions enumerated in sub- section (2) of Section 438 of Cr.P.C.Certified copy as per rules.(J. P. GUPTA)Hence, he may be granted anticipatory bail.If he failed to do so, the affect of this order shall be vacated automatically.
|
['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
127,464,403 |
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.The applicant has an apprehension of his arrest in connection with Crime No. 218/2007 registered at Police Station Dehat District Bhind for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 427, 147, 148, 149, 506-B and 395 of IPC and Section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is serving in Army and he has submitted an affidavit that in the period of 01.07.2007 to 31.07.2007, he was not on leave and he was working in the territory of Jammu and Kashmir.Looking to that certificate and also the fact that nothing was done by the police against the applicant since the year 2007 when the case was registered, it would be appropriate to accept the application filed by the applicant Virendra Singh.2 M.Cr.C. No. 14235/2015C.C. as per rules.
|
['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
127,467,403 |
Heard on 7177/2017, an application for suspension of sentence and for grant of bail on behalf of appellant No.2-Nasrat Khan.The appellant No.2-Nasrat Khan has been convicted under Section 302/149 of the IPC (four counts) of the IPC and sentence to undergo Life Imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/-in default of payment of fine 2 years additional R.I. and under Section 325/149 of the IPC and sentence to undergo 3 years R.I. and fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default of payment of fine 6 months additional R.I. and under Section 147 of the IPC and sentence to undergo 2 years R.I. and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default of payment of fine 6 months R.I.On due consideration of statements of material prosecution witnesses particularly the admission made by Nusrat Bi (PW/3) [ eye witness] in her statement, wherein specific allegations have been made against appellant with regard to causing injuries to the deceased.No ground as prayed for suspension is made out, accordingly, IA No. 7177/2017 is hereby rejected.Certified copy as per rules.
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
128,095,304 |
O.P.(MD).No.2006 of 2020 06.02.2020This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the entire records connected with the case in Crime No.17 of 2018, pending on the file of the first respondent and quash the same is illegal insofar as the petitioner is concerned.Suppressing the earlier marriage, the first accused had married this petitioner.The petitioner is working as Teacher in Thiruthani which is 300km for away from her place of occurrence and A-1 was living at Thiruvallur.Though A-1 has executed several documents admitting the receipt of the amount, the petitioner has not received any such documents.If the petitioner could have been present in the scene of occurrence, she would have also executed documents.He would further submit that the petitioner did not commit any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR.Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case as against the petitioner in Crime No.17 of 2018, for the offences under Sections 417, 420, 2/6http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.2006 of 2020 506(1) of IPC r/w Section 34 of IPC.Hence, he prayed to quash the same.She would further submit that the investigation is still pending and this petition is in premature stage and hence, he prayed for dismissal of this petition.Perused the materials available on record.6.It is seen from the First Information Report that there are specific allegation as against the petitioner, which has to be investigated.Further, it cannot be quashed in the threshold.3/6http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.2006 of 2020 This Court finds that the FIR discloses prima facie commission of cognizable offence and as such this Court cannot interfere with the investigation.The investigating machinery has to investigate, grab and unearth the crime in accordance with the procedures prescribed in the Code.Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.Further the respondent police is directed to complete the investigation and file final report before the concerned Court within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.District Crime Branch Police Station, Thiruchi District.2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.5/6http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.2006 of 2020 A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA,J.sji Crl.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
128,099,047 |
sdas allowed C.R.M. No. 11091 of 2019 In Re.: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 26.11.2019 in connection with Uluberia Police Station Case No. 423 of 2019 dated 12.11.2019 under Sections 376/417/354B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4/8 of the POCSO Act.And In Re: Ajada Mallick @ Saheba Khatun & Anr...... petitioners Sk.Md. Ashik Iquebal .....for the petitioners Mr. Saibal Bapuli, learned A.P.P., Mr. Arani Bhattacharyya ....for the State It is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners that they have been falsely implicated in the instant case.Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest the petitioners shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- each, with two sureties of like amount each, to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and also be subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and on further condition 2 that they shall appear before the court below and pray for regular bail within a period of four weeks from date.This application for anticipatory bail is, thus, allowed.
|
['Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,280,993 |
They stayed in a house where he had sexual intercourse with her three times.On 19-4-1985, he took her to his village Rampur and kept her in his house.There was old tear of her hymen.She had prepared two slides from vaginal discharge.In her opinion the girl was used to sexual intercourse and, therefore, no opinion could be given whether she has recent sexual intercourse.According to the evidence of Sharda Prasad, Head Constable (PW-15) he had recovered the girl from the house of the accused on 24-4-1985 as per Ex P-10 and had sent her for medical examination.According to this report seminal stains and human spermatozoa were found on sari, saya, underwear and the slides (A-1, A-2, B, C-1 and C-2).From the testimony of the prosecutrix and the medical and forensic evidence, it is established that the accused had sexual intercourse with her albeit with her consent.The accused had kidnapped her and kept her for eight days and, therefore, he must have had sexual inter-course with her many times as deposed by her.JUDGMENT S.P. Khare, J.The prosecution case is that Chandeshwari (PW-4) aged about 14 years was a student of Class VIIIth in the Middle School, Chiranga and the accused was a teacher in that school.He developed infatuation towards her.a.m. the accused came to her house with Hero Majestic Moped.He asked her to sit on the pillion seat of the moped and took her to Ambikapur.There he had sexual intercourse with her several times.The accused pleaded not guilty.His defence was that he has been falsely implicated.The trial Court held that the prosecutrix was less than 16 years of age and she was kidnapped and raped by the accused.In this appeal, Shri S.C. Datt, Senior Advocate has raised twofold arguments : (a) the prosecutrix was not less than 16 years, and (b) She was a consenting party.These are two points which arise for decision in this appeal.5. Age :--Chandeshwari (PW-4) was examined as a witness on 23-11-1987 and on that date her age was estimated by the trial Court as 16 years.Her father Harihar Prasad Singh (PW-5) has deposed that her age in the year 1985 when she was studying in the Middle School, Chiranga in Class VIII, was 14 years.In para 13 in cross-examination, he has stated that actually the date of birth of his daughter is 2-10-1972 and in the school certificate it is wrongly mentioned.At that time her name was Batni.At the time of admission in the school her name was written as Chandeshwari.His son had taken her for admission in the school.She was admitted in the school when she was 5-6 years of age.He has no daughter younger to Chandeshwari.Bhinsari alias Kothhin (PW-8) is mother of the prosecutrix.She has deposed that her daughter's name was Batni in her childhood.She was aged 14-15 years when she was kidnapped.She was born in village Chiranga.Arun Kumar (PW-3) is brother of Chandeshwari (PW-4).His age was 18 years on 23-11-1987 when he gave his evidence.According to him the age of his sister was 151/2 years on the date ofhis deposition.R.C. Sen (PW-7) is Record-keeper in the office of the Collector, Ambikapur.He produced the birth register of the year 1972 of village Chiranga.In this register at serial number 1636, there is an entry that a female child was born to Harihar and her name is Batni.Ex. P-9 is the extract form that birth-register.In cross-examination he has stated that he does not know the person who made this entry in this register.The entry Ex. P-9 records the name of Kothhin Bai as the mother of the child.This register is of the office of the Directorate of Economics and Statistics of the Government of M.P.Ex. P-9 is the certified copy of the birth register and it has been duly proved by the Record-keeper also.The identity of the girl is established by the evidence of the parents.She was named as Batni when she was born and she was named as Chandeshwari when she was admitted in the school.It is argued on behalf of the appellant that in the FIR it was not stated by Harihar Prasad (PW-5) that the name of Chandeshwari is Batni also, and therefore, the testimony of the parents on the point that Chandeshwari (PW-4) is Batni should not be believed.In the opinion of this Court the evidence of the parents on this point is trustworthy and the omission in the FIR that Chandeshwari was Batni at the time of her birth is not very significant.The father gave the current name of his daughter in the FIR.He was not expected to do more than that in the situation he was placed in.Again in Harpal Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1981 SC 361:(1981 Cri LJ 1), it has been held that a birth entry made in the discharge of official duty can be proved by mere production of that entry and it is not necessary to examine the person who made it.The learned counsel for the appellant has cited Brij Mohan v. Priya Brat Narain Sinha, AIR 1965 SC 282, in which it was held that an entry of birth made in an official record maintained by an illiterate Chowkidar by somebody else at his request does not come within Section 35 of the Evidence Act. But that is not the case here.In the present case the entry in the birth register was made by an official in discharge of his public duty and its identity has been established by the oral evidence of the parents of the girl.On the basis of the entry in the birth register Ex.In the school certificate Ex.P-5 the age of the girl has been gi ven as 8-9-1970, but that is not correct.It is argued on behalf of the appellant that in such a situation both the entries should be discarded and the girl should be held to be major.That easy course is not permissible for the Courts as it has a duty to ascertain the truth on the basis of the material on record.As already held birth entry must prevail as that is the conclusive evidence.Point (b) -- Kidnapping Chandeshwari (PW-4) has deposed that on 18-4-1985 at about 8 a.m. she was near her house and she was called by the accused.She went to him and she was asked to sit on his Hero Majestic Moped.He took her to Ambikapur and had sexual intercourse with her, several times.It is writ large in her testimony that she was the consenting party.She was recovered by the police on 24-4-1985 from the house of the accused in village Rampur.Her recovery from the house of the accused is proved by the prosecution evidence and that is not disputed on his behalf.She was thus "taken" from village Chiranga to Ambikapur by the accused to have illicit intercourse with her.Her consent was wholly immaterial as she was minor less than 18 years of age.Her father's consent was not taken.In T.D. Vadgama v. State, AIR 1973 SC 2313 : 1973 Cri LJ 1541 the Supreme Court held that the word "takes" does not necessarily connote taking by force.This word means "to cause to go", "to escort" or "to get into possession".Even if the evidence relating to use of force or fraud is excluded the accused must be held to have taken the prosecutrix from her lawful guardianship for the purpose of having sexual intercourse with her and, therefore, he has been rightly held guilty for the offence under Section 366, IPC.12. Rape.Chandeshwari (PW-4) has deposed that the accused had sexual intercourse with her several times at Ambikarpur and Rampur.In cross-examination she has stated that the accused kept her with him for eight days and did not leave her alone even for one hour.He had given her clothes to wear.She had no injury on her person or on her genitals.She was less than 16 years of age and, therefore, her consent was immaterial.The Supreme Court has held in Harpal Singh v. State, AIR 1981 SC 361 : 1981 Cri LJ 1 that if once it was proved that the girl was below 16 years of age, the question of consent did not arise and the fact that no injury was detected on the private parts of the girl or that she was found to have been used to sexual intercourse also become irrelevant.State v. Gurmit Singh, AIR 1996 SC 1393 : 1996 Cri LJ 1728 has laid stress on the point that in such a case/inferences have to be drawn from a given set of facts and circumstances with realistic diversity and not dead uniformity.The trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant under Sections 366 and 376, Indian Penal Code and the sentences are also according to law.The appeal is dismissed.
|
['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
128,100,514 |
On behalf of the applicants, this repeat petition is preferred under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail as they are in custody since 18.6.2014, in connection of Crime No. 144/14, registered at Police Station Sainkheda, District Narsinghpur for the offence under Sections 279, 337 and 304 of I.P.C., under Sections 10 & 11 of Animal Cruelty Act and Sections 66/192, 3/181 and 5/180 of Motor Vehicles Act.It is noted that their earlier application filed in this regard was dismissed as withdrawn and not pressed vide order dated 18.07.2014 in M.Cr.C. No.9735/14, by extending a liberty to revive the prayer after filing the charge-sheet.In continuation he said that, according to prosecution case, these applicants only instigated the driver of the alleged vehicle (Eicher) namely; Guddu to run over the witness by the alleged truck and as alleged on such instigation the incident was happened.He further said that the offence relating to cruelty towards the Animal is made bailable under the law and, therefore, in such circumstance even if the offence of Section 304 of I.P.C., is prima facie inferred even then, such actual act was not committed by the present applicants.With these submissions he prayed for extending the benefit of bail to the applicants by allowing this petition.On the other hand, responding the aforesaid arguments, learned Panel Lawyer with the assistance of Shri Vishwakarma, leaned counsel for the objector-complainant argued that this is a very serious offence in which the Social worker working for Goraksha to save the animal like Cow and others, was killed at the instigation of the present applicants by the co-accused Guddu by running over the truck on the motorcycle of the deceased so also caused the injuries to others.It is directed that on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty thousand) by each of the applicants along with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court the applicants-Sakir and Sabir shall be released on bail with direction to appear on each and every date of the trial.Their single non-appearance shall cancel the bail automatically without any further order of this Court.Certified copy as per rules.(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge Pb
|
['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
128,106,820 |
And In the matter of: Reshma Begum @ Tamanna Petitioner- versus -The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Mr. Krishnendu Bhattacharya Mr. Tapodip Gupta For the Petitioner Mr. Madhusudan Sur For the State The Petitioner, apprehending arrest in connection with Tiljala Police Station Case No. 520 of 2013 dated 27.06.2013 under sections 498A/307/313/34 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.The Petitioner is the second wife of one Sk.The complaint against her has been lodged by his first wife.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Kanchan Chakraborty, J) 2
|
['Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
128,108,002 |
Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing.This is first application filed under section 439 Cr.P.C seeking bail in connection with Crime No.243/20 registered at police station City Kotwali, district Mandsaur for the offence punishable under sections 302 & 201 of the IPC.As per prosecution story on 29.05.2020 Police Station City Kotwali, Mandsaur received an information that the dead body of deceased Sunil is lying in Ramghat slum area.On the basis of the said information Marg was registered and during investigation it was found that deceased Sunil had a love affair with the sister of Manish.Manish used to object about his affair with his sister but the deceased continued to talk with his sister.On the date of the incident allegedly Manish saw his sister in a compromising position with Sunil due to which he lost his temper and he strangulated the neck of Sunil and committed his murder.Later on the dead body was disposed of by Manish, his father and mother (present applicant).-2- MCRC No.25480/2020 Shri Dave, learned counsel for the applicant submits that Police has recorded the statement of accused Manish under section 27 of the Evidence Act in which he admitted that he committed the murder of Sunil by strangulating him putting his leg on his neck.As per the postmortem report the cause of death is also found to be due to fracture of thyroid----.The only allegation against the applicant is that she assisted Manish to dispose of the dead body which is punishable under section 201 of the IPC and is bailable.Except a mobile phone of her daughter nothing has been recovered from the present applicant.The investigation is complete and charge sheet has been filed.No further custodial interrogation of the applicant is required in the matter, hence prays for release of the applicant on bail during trial.Shri Siddharth Jain, learned Panel Advocate submits that initially the FIR was registered under section 302 IPC but later on the offence under section 201 IPC was also added and the present applicant was made accused in the case.An offence under section 302/34 IPC is also made out against the present applicant, therefore, she is not entitled for bail.Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.It is correct that initially the FIR was registered against accused Manish under section 302 IPC but at a later stage-3- MCRC No.25480/2020 the present applicant was made accused in the case by adding 201 IPC in the case.The applicant is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for her regular appearance before the trial Court during trial with a condition that she shall remain present before the Court concerned during trial and shall also abide by the conditions enumerated under section 437(3)C.c as per rules.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
128,108,505 |
This petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.439 of 2017 registered by the first respondent police for offences under Sections 147, 448, 323, 506(ii) IPC and Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1959 as against the petitioner.2.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.Without any base, the third respondent police registered a case in Crime No.439 of 2017 for the offences under Sections 147, 448, 323, 506(ii) IPC and Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1959 as against the petitioner.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.http://www.judis.nic.in 2/8 Crl.O.P.No.15451 of 2017Heard Mr.N.Manokaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.9. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel and examined the material on record, we are of the considered view that the High Court ought not to have set aside the order passed by the Trial Court issuing summons to the Respondents.A perusal of the complaint discloses that prima facie, offences that are alleged against the Respondents.The correctness or otherwise of the said allegations has to be decided only in the Trial.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.However, considering the crime is of the year 2017, the first respondent is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.439 of 2017 and file a final report within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate, if not already filed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.14.07.2020 Internet: Yes mshttp://www.judis.nic.in 6/8 Crl.O.P.No.15451 of 2017The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.2.The Inspector of Police, Perundurai Police Station, Erode District.http://www.judis.nic.in 7/8 Crl.O.P.No.15451 of 2017 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.ms Crl.O.P.No.15451 of 2017 and Crl.M.P.No.9664 of 2017 14.07.2020http://www.judis.nic.in 8/8
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
128,109,032 |
This is Second (repeat) application filed under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of the custodial sentence and grant of bail to the appellant-Ram Shah @ Bhaiya Lodhi.The appellant stands convicted for the offences punishable under Section 366(a) of Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 02 years with fine of Rs. 500/- and Section 376 (2)(n) & (i) of Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 07 years with fine of Rs.500/- and Section 6 POCSO Act and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with fine of Rs.500/-with default stipulations respectively .Learned counsel for the appellant submits that prosecutrix was a major at the time of the incident and she lived with the appellant on her volition and lived there for three years with the appellant.When police brought the prosecutrix, she lodged a report against the appellant on the basis of pressure of her parents.It is further submitted that the disposal of the appeal will take considerable time, 2 therefore, he prays for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State vehemently opposes the bail application and submits that prosecutrix was minor, she was below the age of 14 years at the time of the incident, consent is not material but learned trial Court has not committed any error in convicting and passing of sentence against the appellant and prays for dismissal of this application.Heard learned counsel for both the parties.Perused the record of the trial Court.After perusal of the record, as per the school record, prosecutrix was 14 years old at the time of the incident and the vagina smear slides of prosecutrix sperm were found.List this case for final arguments in due course.(Vishnu Pratap Singh Chauhan) Judge Nitesh Digitally signed by NITESH PANDEY Date: 2019.07.12 18:04:17 +05'30'
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
128,109,700 |
The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; andThe applicant will not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court.Certified copy as per rules.(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) JUDGE VS Digitally signed by VARSHA SINGH Date: 23/11/2019 18:28:24
|
['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
128,109,722 |
The second petitioner was allegedly subjected to physical assault and certain other offences including theft, mischief by certain other persons described as anti-social elements on 17.10.2013, the incident becoming subject matter of First Information Report (FIR) no.232/2013 of police station Nabi Karim involving offences punishable under Sections 379, 147, 148, 149, 427, 308, 34 IPC.The said FIR was entrusted for investigation to the second respondent, then employed as Sub-Inspector in Delhi Police posted in the area.The petitioner had some grievance against the second respondent - that is the investigating officer of the aforementioned FIR and made complaint to the Commissioner of Police and to the Metropolitan Magistrate having the jurisdiction over the area to which the matter related.It appears certain inquiries were made of the second Crl.M.C. No.323/2016 Page 1 of 3 respondent by the Metropolitan Magistrate followed by directions to the effect that the grievance of the petitioner were treated as a criminal complaint.The Metropolitan Magistrate held pre-summoning inquiry and, on that basis, issued summons against the second respondent finding prima facie grounds to proceed against him for offences punishable under Sections 166A and 506 (1) of IPC.M.C. No.323/2016 Page 1 of 3The second respondent challenged the said order in the court of the Sessions invoking its revisional jurisdiction by petition (Crl.Revision No.12/2015).PC wherein he was obliged to first offer to the second respondent as to whether he wished the inquiry into the matter to be held by another Magistrate and, if any such objection was raised, to transfer the matter to another Magistrate through the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.The petitioners having felt aggrieved by the aforementioned order of the Sessions judge in revision have approached this court Crl.M.C. No.323/2016 Page 2 of 3 under Section 482 Cr.The petition and the application filed therewith are, therefore, dismissed.
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 190 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
128,114 |
Deceased Vijaysingh was having a son named Deepak and a daughter Alka from his first wife.His son and daughter are married and they are residing at Bombay.Since the time of his retirement, deceased Vijaysingh was residing at Jalgaon in his bungalow named as "Ghazal Bungalow".The said bungalow is quite spacious and there is one quarter in the premises of the said bungalow which is meant for watchman.Watchman namely Kamalakar Dusane (P.W. 1) was living along with his wife, small child and his mother in the said out house in the premises of the said bungalow.The incident occurred on the intervening night of 10th and 11th February, 1993 in the said bungalow.Since three months prior to the said incident, one Zoharabai (P.W. 13) was working as a maid servant in the said bungalow.It is alleged that deceased Vijaysingh was addicted to liquor.The accused Mangalabai was not putting well with deceased Vijaysingh.On many occasions accused Mangalabai left the bungalow for her parents' house at Bombay on account of differences between her and her husband.She was suspecting that her husband Vijaysingh was indulging in extra-marital activities with some females and lastly with Zoharabai, who was working as a maid servant in the said bungalow.With a view to redress her grievance, Mangalabai approached Madhukar Patil (P.W. 10) the brother of deceased Vijaysingh in the month of September, 1992, requesting him to intervene in the matter and to keep her husband away from the vices, however, Madhukar Patil (P.W. 10) did not pay any heed to the request of accused Mangalabai.Deceased Vijaysingh had continued to indulge in the said activities.Therefore, Mangalabai left for Bombay at her maternal house.During her stay at Bombay, she used to receive phone message from deceased Vijaysingh disclosing that he had improved himself and, therefore, she should come to Ghazal bungalow to live with him.Relying on the assurance given to deceased Vijaysingh, Mangalabai came to Jalgaon on 2.2.1993 to live with her husband.She came to know that Zoharabai left the Ghazal bungalow on the day on which she came there and her husband Vijaysingh had illicit relations with Zoharabai and she had also noticed that her husband had not given up the habit of drinking liquor.It is alleged that under the influence of liquor, deceased used to utter that he will leave his wife (accused No. 1 Mangalabai) and will marry with Zoharabai and he will transfer his all the properties in the name of Zoharabai.Accused No. 1 Mangalabai thought that if deceased Vijaysingh transfers his properties in the name of Zoharabai she will be deprived of getting any property of Vijaysingh and, therefore, is alleged that she made apian to cause murder of her husband and for that purpose she took the watchman Kamalakar Dusane (P.W. 1) in confidence and conspired to do away with deceased Vijaysingh Patil by causing his murder.It is alleged that accused Mangalabai had promised to spend quite huge amount for the said purpose for engaging services of hired murderers for killing her husband Vijaysingh.She had given temptation to Kamalakar Dusane that she will pay Rs. 20.000/- in cash to him and transfer the quarter meant for watchman situated in the said premises of the bungalow in his name.Kamalakar told her that his two friends who are residents of Itarsi would be in a position to carry out this task.Accordingly, Kamalakar Dusane went to Itarsi (M.P.) on 3.2.1993 and brought his two friends - accused No. 2 Banty @ Sadashiv and accused No. 3 Rakeshsingh @ Minty to Jalgaon on 8.2.1993 and took them to Nandra (Bk.).Then on 9.2.1993 Kamlakar Dusane had brought the accused Nos. 2 and 3 at Ghazal bungalow at Jalgaon.Mangalabai had a talk with accused Nos. 2 and 3 about the task that was to be carried out by them to finish Vijaysingh.Thereafter accused Nos. 2 and 3 were directed to stay in the lodge at Jalgaon till they receive further instructions from her.In the evening of 10.2.1993, accused Mangalabai had given Pani Puri and Dahi Wada - edible articles to deceased Vijaysingh.In the said food, one sedative tablet was mixed.Thereafter, liquor was offered to deceased and deceased went to sleep.Thereafter, accused Mangalabai called accused No. 2 Banty and accused No. 3 Minty through the watchman Kamalakar Dusane.Accordingly, on 10.2.1993 at about 11.30 p.m. the accused Nos. 2 and 3 were brought by Kamalakar Dusane to Ghazal bungalow.At that time amount of Rs. 10,000/- was paid to them towards part consideration and cash amount of Rs. 4000/- was given to Kamalakar Dusane and the balance was assured to be paid after the task was over.Accused No. 2 Banty and accused No. 3 Minty along with Kamalakar Dusane were sent to the bed-room where deceased Vijaysingh was sleeping.Thereafter accused No. 1 Mangalabai left the place and went to the out-house where mother and wife of Kamalakar Dusane were sleeping and accused Mangalabai stayed in the out-house.Thereafter within a short time she heard shouts of her husband.Mother and wife of Kamalakar had brought this fact to the notice of Mangalabai, but Mangalabai told them that her husband had habit of raising shouts as 'Mangal Mangal' under influence of liquor.Thereafter at about 1.00 a.m. Kamalakar Dusane came to the out-house and met with accused No, 1 Mangalabai and informed her that the task was over.Thereafter accused Mangalabai went to the bed-room of deceased along with Kamalakar Dusane.At that time she had noticed the dead body of deceased Vijaysingh lying on the cot in a pool of blood.It is further alleged that at that time the accused Mangalabai in order to create a show that somebody had caused murder, arranged a teapoy and put three glasses, and liquor bottle on the said teapoy in the bed-room of deceased.This arrangement was made to create an impression to believe that friends of deceased were sitting along with him and they caused murder of deceased.It is further alleged that thereafter accused Mangalabai and watchman Kamalakar Dusane came out from the bungalow and locked the bungalow.Kamalakar Dusane was asked to go away from the home and to come back after 3-4 days as by that time everything would be set right.Accused Banty and Minty also left the said bungalow.Thereafter early in the morning the accused Mangalabai came to the bungalow, opened the lock which was put on the rear door and thereafter she gave telephone ring to the Police Station informing that her husband was murdered in the bungalow.On the basis of the information given by her, the Police Station Officer had taken entry in the station diary at about 5.55 a.m. Immediately Police Inspector Khan (P.W. 18) received telephone message from the P.S.O. and he rushed to the spot.Accused Mangalabai lodged oral report which was reduced into writing by Shri Khan.In the report, she told the Police Inspector that on 10.2.1993 after finishing meals her husband had been to his bed-room for sleeping.The front door of the bungalow used to be locked.She left the bungalow at 12.00 midnight by locking the rear side door of the bungalow and went to the out house and slept there for whole night and early in the morning when she came back to the bungalow, and opened the lock with the key and when she visited the bedroom of the deceased, she found the dead body of deceased.On the basis of the report of Mangalabai, offence was registered at C.R. No. 53 of 1993 for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code at Zilla Peth Police Station, Jalgaon.Shri Khan took up the Investigation.Immediately he held inquest on the dead body of deceased Vijaysingh in presence of two panchas and drew inquest panchanama.The dead body of deceased Vijaysingh was referred to the Medical Officer for postmortem examination.Thereafter Police Inspector Khan (P.W. 18) attached the bed sheet, pillow stained with blood.In the said room wine bottle and glasses were found.In the meanwhile, Shri Khan the Police Inspector (P.W. 18) recorded the statements of inmates of the outhouse, i.e. Vijaya (P.W. 12) the wife of Kamalakar Dusane and Radhabai the mother of Kamalkar.He recorded statements of some other persons, namely, Zoharabai, Madhukar Patil Kishor Narkhede, Dashrath Patil, however, watchman Kamalakar Dusane was not found on that day.During the course of investigation, accused Mangalabai made a statement that she wants to make confession.It is to be noted that Mangalabai is a graduate lady.She made application to the Police Inspector about her intention to make confession and as such on the basis of the said application, Police Inspector Khan produced her before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Shri Harpale (P.W. 8) on the very day.While he was in police custody, he made a disclosure that he wanted to point out the place where he had concealed the knife.Therefore, two panchas were called.At the time of arrest, it is noticed that accused No. 2 was having injury on his fingers.He was examined by Medical Officer.The fact that deceased Vijaysingh Patil died unnatural death on the intervening night of 10th and llth of February, 1993 at his residential bungalow "Ghazal" has not come to be disputed in any manner by or on behalf of the appellants.His dead body was noticed early in the morning.At about 5.55 a.m. Zilla Peth Police Station received phone message that the deceased Vijaysingh was murdered.Accused No. 1 Mangalabai in her confessional statement has narrated the story since the time of her marriage with Vijaysingh Patil in the year 1984 and stated that he was addicted to liquor and he illtreated her on several occasions and with a view to get rid of illtreatment and harassment to her, she was required to visit her parents' house at Bombay every now and then.He further stated that at that time Mangalabai requested him to accompany her to Jalgaon to tell Vijaysingh Patil to be on proper path and as such she requested him to settle their dispute.But he told Mangalabai that he was unable to intervene in the dispute and declined to accompany her to Jalgaon, therefore, Mangalabai went to Bombay to her maternal house.Thereafter during her absence, Zoharabai (P.W. 13) was staying in Ghazal bungalow and this fact is fairly established from the statement of Zoharabai (P.W. 13), so also from the evidence of Vijaya Dusane (P.W. 12).Accused Mangalabai in her confessional statement further stated that she stayed at the residence of her parents for two months, however, during that period, deceased Vijaysingh telephoned her and informed her that he had stopped drinking liquor and he drove out Zoharabai from his house and he gave assurance to her (Mangalabai) that he would treat her properly and requested her to come to live with him and, therefore, on 2.12.1992 she came back to Jalgaon and started living with her husband at Ghazal bungalow and at that time she did not find Zoharabai.However, she came to know that deceased had continued contacts with Zoharabai.She further stated that she had also noticed that her husband did not stop drinking liquor and he had continued his habit to remain under influence of liquor throughout the day.She further stated that under influence of liquor deceased used to tell her that she wanted to marry Zoharabai (P.W. 13) and transfer the property in her name.Therefore, she thought that she would be deprived of the property of her husband to which she was entitled to.Therefore, she decided to finish her husband.For this purpose, she took Kamalakar Dusane, who was staying in the out-house and working as watchman for the said bungalow, in confidence and disclosed him her plan to finish her husband and for that purpose she sought assistance of Kamalakar Dusane (P.W. 1) and made a proposal to him that if he engaged hired murderers, she would pay Rs. 40000/- to them and Rs. 20000/- to him and also transfer the said out-house where he was living, in his name.In this regard, the evidence as regards the arrival of accused Nos. 2 and 3 at Jalgaon before commission of the murder finds support in the testimony of Vijaya Dusane (P.W. 12) the wife of Kamalakar Dusane (P.W. 1).She further stated that all of them took lunch at her residence on that day.She identified accused Nos. 2 and 3 during the identification parade held by Tahsildar Deelip Mahajan (P.W. 16) in presence of the panch witnesses Malojirao (P.W. 14) and Ramesh Gavali (P.W. 15) to be the same persons who were accompanying her husband for taking lunch in her house.She further stated that after taking lunch, accused Nos. 2 and 3 left her house with her husband and thereafter on inquiry with her husband she came to know that they were staying in Prakash Guest House.He had also identified both of them during the identification parade.He has produced the register bearing the name of accused No. 3 to be a person who booked the room in the said Guest House along with his friend Banti to be his companion staying in the said room.In her confessional statement accused Mangalabai stated that on 9.2.1993 Kamalakar Dusane had brought his two friends namely Rakeshsingh and Banty in Ghazal bungalow and at that time there was a talk amongst the two friends of Kamalakar and Mangalabai.At that time the plan was explained to them and for that purpose she agreed to pay amount of Rs. 10000/-to accused Nos. 2 and 3 in advance and Rs. 4000/-to Kamalakar as part consideration for causing murder of deceased Vijaysingh and promised to pay Rs. 40000/- to the accused Nos. 2 and 3 after the task was over and thereafter she advised the accused Nos. 2 and 3 to stay in lodge at Jalgaon and wait for instructions from her.As regards the actual occurrence of the incident on 10.2.1993 she stated that in the evening Dahi Wada and Pani Puri were brought from the market by Kamalakar at her instance and one sedative tablet was added by her in Dahi Wada and these eatables were given to her husband and she offered liquor to him.After taking Dahi Wada and consuming the liquor her husband went fast asleep and thereafter she sent Kamalakar to call his friends and in pursuance to the said directions, Kamalakar along with accused Nos. 2 and 3 came to the Ghazal bungalow for executing the task.She further stated that as per the agreement she paid Rs. 10000/- to accused Nos. 2 and 3 and Rs. 4000/- to Kamalakar and sent them to the bed-room where deceased Vijaysingh was sleeping.After issuing necessary instructions to them, she went to the outhouse where mother and wife of Kamalakar were sleeping and stayed in the out-house and at that time it was time of about 12.00 midnight.She further stated that after some time in midnight she heard shouts as, "Mangal Mangal" in the voice of Vijaysingh from the bungalow and on hearing the said shouts, mother and wife of Kamalakar enquired as to what happened and why Saheb shouted.She told them not to pay attention and let him to shout and switched off the light buttons and went to bed.In this regard also there is corroboration from the statement of Vijaya (P.W. 12) the wife of Kamalakar Dusane who heard the shouts.This is a very important circumstances.Mangalabai further stated that at about 1.00 a.m. Kamalakar came to the out-house.She took him out of the house and enquired him and on inquiry he told her that the task was over.It was high time to remain awake at such late hours.Only the person who had some work will not be sleeping and that has happened in this case in respect of the accused Mangalabai and Kamalakar indulging in conspiracy but not in respect of Vijaya and her mother-in-law, therefore, under such circumstances, it is not expected to seek corroboration on each and every aspect of the statement of accused Mangalabai from Vijaya who could not notice further happenings which occurred after she slept.Mangalabai further stated that when she along with Kamalakar went to the bed-room of deceased Vijaysingh, she found Vijaysingh lying in a pool of blood and he was not alive.She stated that thereafter she arranged three steel glasses and liquor bottle on teapoy so as to create a show that her husband took liquor with his friends and his friends committed his murder and ran away.She further stated that thereafter she locked the bungalow and told Kamalakar not to disclose the occurrence to anybody, else he would be implicated in the crime and thereafter she went to the out-house and slept there and early in the morning went to the bungalow and informed the police on phone.Shivdas Borkake (P.W. 17) who was attached to Zilla Peth Police Station, Jalgaon on 11.2.1993 stated that he received phone message from Mangalabai at about 5.55 a.m. about murder of Vijaysingh, the retired Deputy Superintendent of Police.He informed the Police Inspector Khan about the information received by him.JUDGMENT D.S. Zoting, J.These two appellants along with one more accused namely Rakeshsingh @ Minty Tukmansing Bhadoriya, aged about 20 years were tried before the Sessions Court for offence punishable under Section 302 r/w Section 120B and in the alternative under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.Both the appellants along with Rakeshsingh were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and each of them was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- in default to suffer further R.I. for one year.In addition to the above imprisonment awarded to the appellant Mangalabai, she is also convicted for offence punishable under Sections 194, 210, 203 of the Indian Penal Code and she is cumulatively sentenced to suffer R.I. for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- in default to suffer further R.I. for one year.All the sentences awarded to the appellant accused Mangalabai were directed to run concurrently.The prosecution case in brief is as under :Accused Mangalabai was the second wife of deceased Vijaysingh Patil.She had married to the deceased Vijaysingh in the year 1984 and since then she was cohabiting with him.They were preserved for the purpose of seeking finger print expert's opinion.Medical Officer Shri Chavan (P.W. 3) conducted autopsy on dead body of Vijaysingh on the same day.The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, after satisfying that Mangalabai wanted to make confession, cancelled her police custody and remanded her to the Magisterial custody and sent her to District Prison at Jalgaon.On the same day, he issued order to the effect that she be produced before the Special Judicial Magistrate, Bhusawal appointed for recording the confessional statement.Pursuant to the said direction, dated 16.2.1993, accused Mangalabai was taken to the Special Judicial Magistrate, Shri Sarode (P.W. 7).After following due procedure as laid down in Chapter I of Criminal Manual issued by the High Court for the guidance of the officers recording the confessions, and after ascertaining that the accused wanted to make the statement voluntarily, the learned Magistrate had given 24 hours time to Mangalabai to think over in the matter and warned her about consequences of such confession and then direction was issued to the Jailor to produce her on the next day i.e. 17.2.1993 after expiry of 24 hours.Accordingly, on 17.2.1993 accused Mangalabai was taken to Special Judicial Magistrate Shri Sarode (P.W. 7) by two female police constables.It was found stained with blood.It was found hidden under the earth.It was attached and panchanama to that effect was drawn.Thereafter on 11.4.1993, accused No. 3 Minty who was absconding was also arrested.During investigation, sample of blood of deceased was collected.His blood was also collected for chemical analysis.The blood stained clothes of deceased Vijaysingh, the blood stained bedsheet, pillow and other articles which were found stained with blood of accused No. 2 and knife were sent to the Chemical Analyser for chemical analysis.In the mean time, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalgaon tendered pardon the accomplice Kamalakar Dusane on a condition of his making full and true disclosure of the whole of the circumstances, within his knowledge.Thus out of four accused, as Kamalakar Dusane was made approver, charge-sheet was submitted against only three accused i.e. Mangalabai, Banty and Minty.As the offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalgaon, committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial according to law.The accused were produced before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon.Charge under Section 302 r/w Section 120B and in the alternative for an offence punishable under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against all the three accused.The accused No. 1 Mangalabai was further charged for having committed offence punishable under Sections 194, 201 and 203 of Indian Penal Code.Charge was read over to all the accused.They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.The defence of accused No. 1 Mangalabai and Banty accused No. 2, as it can be gathered from their say and the cross-examination, the prosecution witnesses and the statements made by them in their examination under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, was one of innocence and of false implication in the crime.Appellant Mangalabai has given her say in writing vide Exh. 143 while recording her statement under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code and at that stage she had resiled from her confessional statement.Both the appellants have not adduced any evidence in their defence.The defence of both the appellants will be discussed while discussing the evidence at appropriate stage.During trial, 19 witnesses have been examined including the approver Kamalakar Dusane (P.W. 1).The learned Additional Sessions Judge heard the arguments advanced by both the parties, and on going through the evidence of prosecution witnesses, and the defence of accused persons, the learned Additional Sessions Judge held all the three accused guilty of the offence under Section 302 r/w 120B of the Indian Penal Code and in addition to this the accused No. 1 Mangalabai is held guilty for other offences punishable under Sections 194, 201, 203 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted and sentenced all of them In the manner as already stated above.Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the original accused Nos. 1 and 2 have preferred these appeals.The third accused Minti had also preferred appeal but he died during pendency of the appeal hence his appeal stands abated.We have heard the arguments advanced by Shri V.J. Dixit, learned Counsel for the appellant No. 1 Mangalabai, Shri S.P. Brahmas, learned Counsel for the appellant No. 2 Banty and the learned A.P.P., Shri N.N. Jadhav, appearing on behalf of the State/Respondent.Police Inspector Shri Khan visited the spot immediately after receipt of the information.He had noticed several incised wounds on the person of deceased Vijaysingh.Dead body of deceased was referred to Medical Officer for postmortem examination.Dr. Ranjit Chavan (P.W. 3) conducted autopsy on the dead body of deceased Vijaysingh Patil on 11.2.1993 from 5.20 p.m. to 7.20 p.m. On external examination, he noticed as many as 30 injuries.Those are as under :Incised wound right arm upper third anterior lateral aspect 2 cm x 1-1/2 cm muscle deep with clean cut, edges.Incised wound right arm anterior axillary line upper third size 2 cm.x 1 cm.sharp edges, muscle deep.Incised wound anterior axillary fold near axilla 1 cm.x 1/2 cm.sharp edges, muscle deep.Incised wound three in number, 4 and half below lateral end of clavicle right side size 1" x 1/4", each one above the other transversely placed over the chest wall right side, bone deep, with sharp edges.Incised wound right line 3 and one third" x 1/4" above right nipple transverse, bone deep.Incised wound external and right clavicle 1" x 1/4" bone deep.7. 5 incised wounds in right supra clavicular fossa 1" x 1/2" muscle deep.Incised wound right anterior triangle of neck near right carotried sheath, 1" x 1/2" deep into tracheas.Incised wound in midline of the neck anterior aspect 3" above strnoid notch about 3" x 1" tracheas out.Incised wound near sternal end of left clavicle superiorly about 1" x 1/2" cm muscle deep.Incised wound that two in numbers, below sternal and of left clavicle, muscle deep, about 1" x 1/4" transverse.Abrasion over the chest wall left side 3 and half above left nipple, mid clavicle line size 1 and half cm.x 1/2 cm.Incised wound left supra scapular region about 12" x 1/4" muscle deep.Four linear abrasions in posterior triangles of neck left side about 1 and half x 1/4 cm.Incised wound in anterior triangle of neck near mid line on left side about 12" x 1/5" muscle deep.Incised wound 2 in numbers, in sub-mental region left side, about 1 and half x 1/2" muscle deep transversely placed one above the other.Incised wound left angle of mandible, 1" x 1/2" bone deep transverse.Incised wound 2" below angle of mouth left side, about 1" x 1/2" bone deep.Incised wound over chin left end about 2" x 1" bone deep, abrasion linear extending medially from wound about 2" in length.Incised wound in right anterior triangle of neck, 2 and half below right angle of mandible about 1" x 1/2" muscle deep oblique.Incised wound near right angle of mandible about 1" x 1/4" bone deep transverse.Incised wound 1" x 1/2" anterior to right ear lobule muscle deep.Incised wound anterior to right trague, 1" x 1/2" x 4" deep obliquely placed.Incised wound through right ear lobule about 1" x 1/4".Incised wound pinna right ear splitting the pinna 1 and half x 1/2".Incised wound half inch anterior to right mastroid behind right ear pinna about 1 and half x 1/2" deep upto survicle spine.C-3, carotid right partial tear present, (internally)Incised wound 1" x 1/2" below right mastroid 4" deep.Incised wound 1" x 1/2", 1" below and anterior to right mastroid 4" deep.Incised wound 1 and half below right ear pinna about 3/4" x 1/4", 4" deep transverse.Incised wound in the posterior mid line, mid servical region, transversely placed, muscle deep.He opined that all these injuries are antemortem and are on the vital part of the body.In his opinion, the cause of death of deceased Vijaysingh is hemorrhagic shock due to multiple injuries.He opined that all these injuries are sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death of the person.He has categorically stated that these injuries are possible with sharp cutting instrument like knife article No. 17 before the Court.He has been cross-examined but his evidence remained unshattered.Having regard to all this evidence of incontrovertible nature, there cannot be any doubt in this case that deceased Vijaysingh died homicidal death.Now the vital question that arises for consideration is whether the prosecution has succeeded in proving that the appellants were amongst the authors of the crime, in other words, whether the conviction recorded by the Trial Court can be sustained or not.In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as 19 witnesses.P.W. 17 Shivdas Barkake P.H.C. No. 201The proper way to approach a case of this kind is, first, to marshal the evidence against the accused excluding the confession altogether from consideration and see whether, if is believed, a conviction could safely be based on it.In such an event the judge may call in aid the confession and use it to lend assurance to the other evidence and thus fortify himself in believing what without the aid of the confession he would not be prepared to accept.Keeping in view the above principles, we may now proceed to consider the case of the appellants.On perusal of the said statement, it appears that it has been recorded in question and answer form and there is a certificate of the Magistrate at the foot of the confession.As the conviction of the appellants is based mainly on the confession of Mangalabai recorded by the Special Judicial Magistrate, it is necessary to see whether the said confession is voluntary and truthful.In this regard, the Special Judicial Magistrate Premchand Sarode (P.W. 7) gave evidence that on 16.2.1993 the accused Mangalabai was brought before him by two female police constables from Jalgaon in view of the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalgaon.He further stated that he had inquired with those female police constables as to whether they are concerned with the investigation in crime in question and they informed that they were not concerned with the investigation in the matter in any way.Thereafter he informed accused Mangalabai that she was not in police custody and that she was free from police pressure.He further stated that thereafter he made inquiry about illtreatment, if any from the police to the accused and the accused answered the same in negative.He further stated that putting certain questions he had also ascertained as to whether she was pressurised by police to give her confession or that she had been instigated by police to give her confession and he had satisfied that she was neither pressurised nor instigated to make confession before him.He further stated that he informed her that she was not bound to give her confession and if she makes the confession, the same will be used against her during trial.He further stated that she was informed that she will not be given in police custody after recording her statement and that she will be kept in Magisterial custody in the prison.He had ascertained whether she gave application to the Police Officer Shri Khan expressing her desire to make disclosure voluntarily and the accused told him that she had given such application voluntarily.He further ascertained whether the accused is in a good state of mind to make the statement and for that purpose he asked her the reason to make a disclosure of the facts, to which she told him that she was repenting of her acts and that is why she wanted to make disclosure of the truth.After recording the reply given by accused No. 1 Mangalabai in question and answer form, then he informed the accused Mangalabai that she can think over of her idea to give confession before him and for that purpose she was given time of about 24 hours and she was informed that she will be produced before him on the next day, therefore, he directed the police to produce her on the next day.Premchand Sarode (P.W. 7) further stated that on the next day i.e. on 17.2.1993, accused Mangalabai was produced before him by two police constables from the District Prison, Jalgaon.He has made it clear that those two police constables were not the same who produced the accused on the previous day.On production of the said accused before him on that day, he again repeated the same procedure as followed by him on the previous day by putting same questions to the appellant/accused No. 1 Mangalabai.He has also made it clear that he made inquiry with the female police constables whether they have any role in the investigation and he was satisfied that they were not concerned in any way with the investigation in the matter.Thereafter on satisfying that accused Mangalabai was disclosing voluntarily, he started recording the confessional statement as per her version in his own handwriting and then read over the confession to the accused.Accused admitted the same to be true and correct as per her version and thereafter the accused Mangalabai put her signature thereon.He has also made endorsement regarding his satisfaction after putting the questions to the accused to ascertain the voluntary nature of the confession including the precaution taken by him that no police was present in or near the room.He had also made endorsement to the effect that two female police constables who produced the accused before him for recording the confessional statement were present outside the room to guard her.He has categorically denied the suggestion made by the defence in his cross-examination that both the police constables were present by the side of accused Mangalabai at the time of recording the statement.It is to be noted that the quarter of the Magistrate consists of three rooms, one behind another and one Veranda and the office of the said Magistrate is in the middle room.He had categorically stated that the female police constables were placed in front of that room to guard the accused and not inside the room.Appellant was not questioned as to why he wants to make the statement.He had put all the questions which were expected to be put by the Magistrate for recording the confessional statement.Pursuant to this message, Police Inspector Khan (P.W. 18) rushed to the spot and found the dead body of deceased Vijaysingh lying in a pool of blood on the cot.Immediately he recorded the detailed report of Mangalabai as per her version.After drawing inquest panchanama, he had drawn the spot panchanama in presence of the panchas.At that time, he found liquor bottle and four glasses on the teapoy.He preserved all these articles with a view to obtain report as regards the finger prints to find out the culprits.It is pertinent to note that no finger prints were found on the glasses which show that precaution was taken to cause dissapearance of the finger prints.As regards finger prints on the bottle, they tallied with the finger prints of the accused Mangalabai.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that there were no other finger prints noticed on the bottle.As the finger prints of accused Mangalabai were found on the liquor bottle it indicates that she had played a game of creation of false evidence i.e. to create a show that friends of deceased might have committed murder.In para 6 of the said statement, it has been stated that on 10.2.1993 friends of deceased Vijaysingh came to Ghazal bungalow for enjoying liquor party with him and they were enjoying the same, however, there was no sign to finish that party till 12.00 midnight, therefore, she went to the out-house of the watchman and slept there along with the mother and wife of the watchman and on the next day early in the morning when she visited the bed-room of the deceased, she noticed that he was murdered and hence she went back to the out-house and enquired about Kamalakar and as he was not found she had shown suspicion on him and therefore, both of them got annoyed at her and threatened her that if she utters a single word against Kamalakar, they would see her and therefore, she had not shown suspicion on any person and simply made a report that in the morning she noticed that her husband was murdered.If the story regarding the liquor party enjoyed by Vijaysingh in the company of his friends was the factual position, she might not have forgotten to mention this fact In the report lodged by her early in the morning.It is pertinent to note that she has specifically mentioned in the first information report that the front door of Ghazal bungalow used to be locked always and at midnight when the party was going on and when she left the bungalow she locked the rear side door.In her confessional statement, she herself admitted that early in the morning she opened the rear side door of the bungalow and entered into the house.If both the doors of the bungalow were locked, then the question will arise as to how the friends of deceased came out of the bungalow.It is pertinent to note that no door or window or any lock of the bungalow was found broken.If it was a fact then finger prints of other persons would have appeared on the glasses which were found on the teapoy.Thus the defence appears to be after thought and false and therefore, deserves to be rejected.False defence is one of the circumstance which also goes against the accused.It is not a statement made to a Police Officer during the course of investigation.Section 162 of Criminal Procedure Code does not bar its admissibility.The report is an admission of the accused of certain facts which have a bearing on the question to be determined by the Court, viz., how and by whom the murder of Vijaysingh was committed, or whether the appellant's statement in Court denying the correctness of certain statements of the prosecution witnesses is correct or not.Admissions are admissible in evidence under Section 21 of the Act. Section 17 defines an admission to be a statement, oral or documentary, which suggests any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact, and which is made by any of the persons, and under the circumstances, thereafter mentioned, in the Act. Section 21 provides that admissions are relevant and may be proved as against a person who makes them.In view of this position, the admission given by the accused Mangalabai in the said report can be taken into consideration and these admissions also falsify the defence of the accused as discussed above.Apart from the judicial confession of Mangalabai, there is also extra-judicial confession.Therefore, now we would like to deal with the extra-judicial confession made by Mangalabai before witness Vijaya (P.W. 12) who is the wife of watchman Kamalakar and the other circumstances.As already stated, on the fateful night of the incident, it has come in evidence of Vijaya that at about 12.00 midnight Mangalabai came to the out-house where she along with her mother-in-law and child was staying.She stated that Mangalabai knocked the door, hence she opened the door.She has also admitted this fact in her confessional statement made before the Special Judicial Magistrate.Vijaya further stated that after the visit of Mangalabai to her house at midnight, after some time she heard shouts as, "Mangal Mangal" in the voice of Saheb.It is pertinent to note that she used to address deceased Vijaysingh as Saheb.She further stated that her mother-in-law told Baisaheb (Mangalabai) that she was being called by Saheb.At that time, Baisaheb told that Saheb was shouting under influence of liquor and, therefore, they all should sleep calmly.She further stated that on the following morning at about 5.30 a.m. she was awakened by mother-in-law and informed her that Baisaheb had along gone to the bungalow and, therefore, she should go and sit with her.In this regard, anxiety of mother-in-law of Vijaya is consistent with the human conduct especially in the circumstances under which Mangalabai stayed in her house.It is to be noted that Mangalabai came to the house of Vijaya to stay there during night time under the pretext that her husband consumed excessive liquor and he was fully drunk and was abusing her, so she got afraid of him.Under such circumstances, conduct of mother-in-law of Vijaya to send Vijaya to the house of Mangalabai to accompany her appears natural.She further stated that when she went to the bungalow she saw dead body of Vijaysingh lying in a pool of blood and Mangalabai sitting in the room on the ground floor.She was alone but she was not weeping though her husband was lying in a pool of blood.This subsequent conduct of Mangalabai speaks volumes against her.Any woman of ordinary prudence would have immediately started crying and weeping on seeing her husband lying dead in a pool of blood.Her silence speaks for her guilty conscious.She further stated that Saheb was calling her at midnight, and when she heard the shouts of Vijaysingh, she (Mangalabai) ought to have gone to him.She further stated that having heard this Baisaheb told her not to teach her by uttering words, "tu mala shahanpana shikawu nakos".However, seeing the conduct of Mangalabai, she being not satisfied, again she -enquired with Mangalabai as to where she had sent her husband (Kamalakar) on earlier night, as her husband was not present during night time in the house.She stated that Baisaheb replied to her that she should not talk any more and her husband shall return home after 2-3 days.In view of this statement, she suspected in Mangalabai and in view of the said suspicion she enquired her as to whether she is behind the murder of Saheb and at that time Mangalabai made extra-judicial confession by giving reply that she had managed to cause murder of Saheb.She further stated that Mangalabai threatened her that she should not talk any more otherwise she would also be involved along with her husband in the murder of Saheb.It is to be noted that this witness was cross-examined at length.There appears no contradiction as regards the conversation between this witness and accused Mangalabai.Shri Dixit, leraned Counsel for the appellant contended that no servant would have questioned the employer in this manner and, therefore, what Vijaya (P.W. 12) states as regards the extra judicial confession alleged to have been made by the accused No. 1 Mangalabai should not be believed.In this regard, it is to be noted that what this witness says is not in respect of the extra-judicial confession only but she narrated the entire sequence of occurrence that had taken place since arrival of accused No. 1 from her parental house to Ghazal bungalow eight days prior to the incident and also as regards the visit of her husband Kamalakar and bringing of his two friends accused Nos. 2 and 3 along with him, so also all the events that had occurred and noticed by her including the shouts of husband of Mangalabai and disappearance of her husband during the said fateful night of the incident.Under such circumstances, what Vijaya stated as regards extra-judicial confession cannot be said to be unnatural.It is to be noted that this disclosure is made before Vijaya first in time immediately after the intimation of murder was given by Mangalabai to the Police Station.Vijaya made the statement when she was not knowing about the involvement of her husband.Her evidence in this regard, in view of the circumstances noted above, inspires full confidence and we are inclined to accept the same.Thereafter, she was declared hostile.It is difficult to believe that a woman will expose herself by admitting the illicit relations.Similarly, the fact that no cash was found in the building during search cannot and does not negative the value of the confessional statement pertaining to the promise to pay the amount to the accused Nos. 2 and 3 after the task was over.The Investigating Officer Khan (P.W. 18) stated that when the accused was in custody of police for the purpose of investigation, he had volunteered that he wanted to make a statement as regards the weapon and, therefore.Khan (P.W. 18) called two panch witnesess.The fact disclosed that knife was concealed under the earth in the premises of Ghazal bungalow was within the exclusive knowledge of the accused.At the time of attachment of this knife blood stains were found on it.The Chemical Analyser reported that human blood was found on the said knife.He has also noticed that there were blood stains of blood group 'A' as well as blood group 'B' on the said knife.The accused was referred to the Medical Officer.The medical certificate is at Exh. 105, the genuineness of which was admitted by the accused.It is pertinent to note that in this certificate, doctor opined that each of these injuries was caused within one month.It is pertinent to note that the accused was also arrested within one month of the incident of the murder.It is also pertinent to note that there were as many as 30 injuries on the person of deceased.Therefore, the possibility of getting injury on his finger while inflicting repeatedly with knife injuries on the person of deceased cannot be overruled and the accused could not explain the existence of blood group 'B' on the knife.Dr. Chavan (P.W. 3) opined that the injuries on the person of deceased Vijaysingh are possible by means of this knife article No. 17 and, therefore, the discovery of the knife at the instance of the accused while in custody is relevant and admissible in evidence.In addition to this circumstance, there are several circumstances including the presence of this accused along with accused No. 3, and their stay at the Prakash Guest House during the relevant period of the incident at Jalgaon.In addition to these circumstances, there is confessional statement of the co-accused Mangalabai which lends assurance to this discovery and the other evidence already discussed above to show involvement of the accused No. 2 to be one of the authors of the crime.It is also pertinent to note that he has relied upon the letter written by Kamalakar to his mother, in which there is a reference of receipt of amount of Rs. 4000/- for his friends i.e. accused Nos. 2 and 3 for going to other city.This reference together with the above evidence as already discussed is also the circumstance against this accused (Accused No. 2 Banti).In this regard, it is to be noted that while deciding the Sessions case, the Trial Court has completely ignored the statement of the approver, as the approver resiled from his earlier statement and as such the learned Additional Sessions Judge found him not to be trustworthy in any way.We find that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly ignored that evidence and as the said evidence is not at all to be considered in the Sessions case, no question of causing any prejudice to the accused persons arises in this matter and as such, non-examination of the approver by the Magistrate before committal of case cannot and does not in any way affect the merits of the prosecution case.Thus on overall consideration of the facts and circusmstances of the case, the evidence on record and the important features which have been noted by us above, we find that there is ample, cogent and trustworthy evidence as discussed above to sustain conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.Therefore, we find that both the appeals preferred by original accused Nos. 1 and 2 being appeal Nos. 57 of 1995 and 199 of 1995, respectively are devoid of any substance and they deserve to be dismissed.In the result, the judgment and order dated 14.2.1995 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge convicting and sentencing the above appellants for the aforesaid offences stand confirmed.Order accordingly.Both appeals are dismissed.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
128,654,411 |
The petitioner has filed the present Criminal Revision challenging the order dated 18/10/2019 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Dhar in S.T.No.69/2019 whereby the court has framed charges under Sections 420/1200B, 465/120-B, 467/120-B, 468/120-B and 471/120-B of the IPC against the petitioner.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
128,656,785 |
This is the second application under section 439 of Cr.P.C for an offence under Sections 354, 354-A, 354-B, 354-C, 363, 294 and 34 of IPC and under Sections 7 / 8 of POCSO Act, 2012 in connection with Crime No. 492/2017 registered at Police Station Timarni District Harda.The first one having been dismissed vide order dated 06-02-2018 passed in M.Cr.C No. 4845/18 with liberty to file afresh after the statement of the prosecutrix is recorded before the learned court below.C.C as per rules.(Atul Sreedharan ) Digitally signed by PARMESHWAR Judge PG/ GOPE Date: 2018.02.27 10:51:11 +05'30'
|
['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
128,663,651 |
He lastly submitted that the applicant who is in jail since 29.04.2020, is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity.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.The submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, prima facie, quite appealing and convincing for the purpose of bail only.Let the applicant Shanti, 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.(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.
|
['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.
|
128,681,915 |
The convicted accused is the revision petitioner herein.2.The respondent Police has filed final report, alleging that on 08.03.2006 at about 01.15 P.M, when the deceased Kabir was traveling in Honda Activa, Scooter bearing registration No.TN-41-B- 4057 from Pollachi to Coimbatore, a Maruthi Car, bearing registration No.TN-37-AF-7813 driven by the accused, dashed against the Scooter from behind and thereby the victim Kabir sustained severe head injury.Immediately, he was admitted for treatment at Arun Hospital, Pollachi.Thereafter, he was shifted to PSG Medical College Hospital, Coimbatore for better treatment, from where he was sent to the Government Hospital, Coimbatore on the same day.On the next day, i.e.,09.03.2006, he was declared as dead.Based on the complaint given by Asaraf Ali / P.W.1, a case was registered in Mahalingapuramhttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 Police Station in Crime No.75 of 2006 for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 IPC by the Head constable and subsequently, on the death of the victim, the offence under section 337 was altered into 304(A) IPC.The prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.15 and Exs.P.1 to Exs.P.8 were marked.On the side of the defence, no witness was examined or no document was marked.4.The suggestive case of the witness as could be seen from the cross-examination that the prosecution witnesses have stated that the deceased was traveling in the Honda Activa Scooter bearing registration No.TN-41-B-4057, while his son, aged about 11 years was standing in front of the Scooter and the accident as projected by the prosecution was not proved in the cross examination.It is specific case of the defence that due to overlapping portion of mud road and thaar road, on skid, he lost his balance and fell on the road.At the same time, a Car came from behind suddenly dashed against the Scooter.Hence, the accused has approached this Court by way of filing this revision case.7.The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner / accused would contend that P.W.6 to P.W.8 are chance witnesses, as they were not near the scene of occurrence.P.W.15, Investigating Officer's report shows that neither P.W.1 nor P.W.6 to P.W.8 were never in the scene of occurrence and it is the handiwork made by the police to make it believe as a possible story.8.The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has also drawn my attention to the evidence of P.W.8 that during the cross-examination, he would probabilise the suggestive case of the defence.12.As stated supra, P.W.2 to P.W.5 are the hearsay witnesses.P.Ws.10 and 12 are the Motor Vehicle Inspectors, official witnesses,http://www.judis.nic.in 6 who could depose for issuing the motor vehicle reports, which shows that the accident has taken place not due to any mechanical defect of the vehicle.P.W.13 is the Doctor, who deposed regarding conducting of postmortem on the body of the victim and issuance of Ex.P.8, Postmortem Certificate, shows that the deceased died due to the injuries sustained in the accident.13.After perusing the prosecution witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.15 and after perusing the documentary evidence Exs.P.1 to P.8, it is seen that P.Ws.2 to 5 are hearsay witnesses and one of the independent witnesses P.W.9 was treated as hostile.P.W.10 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector, who had issued Ex.P.2 M.V. Report, while P.W.12 is another Motor Vehicle Inspector, who has given M.V. Report under Ex.P.4, regarding the accused vehicle and P.W.11 has attested the Observation Mahazar Ex.P.3 and P.W.13 is the Doctor, who had conducted postmortem and issued Ex.P.5 postmortem report, which shows that the deceased died due to the injuries sustained in the accident.P.W.14 and P.W.15 are the police witnesses, who deposedhttp://www.judis.nic.in 7 regarding the receipt of Ex.P.1 complaint and registration of Ex.P.6 First Information Report and filing of the charge sheet, after completion of the investigation.14.Thus, now it has to be considered that whether the evidence of P.W.1, who is projected as eyewitnesses and other witnesses namely, P.Ws.6 to 8, who are projected as chance witnesses happened to see the accident is reliable and trust worthy or not?.15.On going through the evidence of P.W.1, who is the brother of the deceased, he had categorically stated that the deceased was driving his scooter, while his son was standing in front of him and the offending vehicle driven by the accused hit from the behind the right side rear portion of the scooter and thereby, the victim lost his balance and fell down and sustained injury.During the cross-examination of P.Ws.1, 6 to 8, it is specifically suggested by the accused that the scooter driven by the victim was on the overlapping portion of the mud road and thar road and in the process, he lost his balance and fell down and the car hashttp://www.judis.nic.in 8 not dashed against the scooter travelled by the deceased.In this regard, the prosecution witnesses have denied the said fact.17.During the cross-examination of P.Ws.6 to 8, it is elicited that they are belongs to the very same village of the victim and they are distant relatives to the victim and as chance witnesses, as they have happened to witness the accident.P.W.6 Mariappan deposed in the cross-examination that while he along with P.W.7 Liyagath Ali was standing near the scene of the occurrence, they have witnessed the accident and they described the color of the offending vehicle as black color and they have not disclosed any adequate reason as to why they have come to the alleged scene of the crime, which assumes significance.According to P.W.6, from whom it is elicited in the cross-examination, he has accompanied the injured to the hospital in the offending car.It is also to be stated that the Inspector of Police has stated that prior to the inquest report they have been enquired.However, the names of P.Ws.1, 6 and 7 were not reflected in Ex.P.8 inquest report, which also causes serious doubt as to the very presence in the scene of the occurrence.31.In this view of the matter and on the re-evaluation of the evidence as discussed supra, I find that the suggestive case of the defence is more probabilised than the prosecution theory and the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Pollachi in C.C.No.259 of 2006 dated 19.02.2009 as confirmed by the learned Additional District Cum Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, full in-charge, Coimbatore.in C.A.No.41 of 2009, dated 09.07.2009 is hereby set aside.32.In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed.The revision petitioner is acquitted.18.12.2018 Index: Yes / No Internet: Yes / No Myrhttp://www.judis.nic.in 16 To1.The Additional District cum Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, full in-charge, Coimbatore.2.The Judicial Magistrate No.2, Pollachi.4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Madras.http://www.judis.nic.in 17 RMT.
|
['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
128,686,984 |
DATE : 4TH DECEMBER, 2013 ORAL JUDGMENT [PER NARESH H. PATIL, J.] :Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.During the pendency of the Application, prayer clauses were amended and it was further prayed that criminal proceedings bearing S.T.C. No.554 of 2008 (S.C.C.No.554 of 2008 "State vs. Sitaram and ors.) pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:32:31 ::: cra327.06 3 Class, Ambad for the offences punishable under Section 354 read with 34 of I.P.C., be quashed and set aside.::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:32:31 :::The learned Single Judge had granted interim stay in terms of prayer clause (C) on 1st February 2006, which reads as under:"C) During the pendency and hearing of this application the police inspector, police station Ambad be directed not to arrest the applicant and he be further directed to release on bail in the event of their arrest in crime No.5 of 2006 and obliged."By an order dated 28th March 2007, Application was admitted with further direction that, in so far as the offence punishable under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, there shall be stay to the proceedings.::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:32:31 :::A separate affidavit is filed by the Respondent No.3/complainant - Tarabai w/o Babasaheb Kalunke.In the affidavit in Para 3, 5, 6 and 7, Respondent No.3/ complainant states as under:I submit that the dispute arose between me and the applicants on the trifle ground and due to misunderstanding.During the period of 6 years, the relation between me and the applicants have became cordial and therefore I want to settle the matter amicably.I submit that, I myself and the applicants want to maintain cordial ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:32:31 ::: cra327.06 5 relation and desire to put an end to the litigation and reside peacefully.::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:32:31 :::I submit that, myself and the applicants do not have any previous dispute and enmity and want to maintain brotherly and good relations among ourselves.I submit that, I want to settle the matter amicably and do not want to proceed the matter bearing S.T.C. no.554/2008 which is pending before the J.M.F.C. Ambad."In the compromise purshis, it is stated that during the last six years relations between the Applicants and the complainant were cordial.They are resident of the same village and they decided to settle the matter amicably.Learned counsel for the Applicants places reliance on the following reported Judgments:::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:32:31 :::3) Mansur A. Khan vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2004 ALL MR(Cri) 1911,It was submitted by the learned counsel for the Applicants that considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the affidavits filed before this Court, it would be in the interest of justice to quash the proceedings.Learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.3 submits that the parties be permitted to settle the dispute and the proceedings be quashed ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:32:31 ::: cra327.06 7 and set aside.::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:32:31 :::The Apex Court observed that the High Court while exercising powers under Section 482 of the Code of ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:32:31 ::: cra327.06 8 Criminal Procedure, must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime and the same has to be exercised in accordance with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court.::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:32:31 :::sheet came to be filed for an offence punishable under Section 354 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.Considering the afore mentioned facts, circumstances, nature of allegations made, ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:32:31 ::: cra327.06 9 submissions advanced and the contentions raised in the affidavits filed by the parties, we are of the opinion that the proceedings initiated on complaint filed by Respondent No.3 and consequent filing of the charge-sheet pending before the J.M.F.C. Ambad, needs to be quashed and set aside in exercise of inherent jurisdiction of this Court conferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:32:31 :::O R D E R (I) The first information report registered at Crime No.5 of 2006 registered with Police Station Ambad, Dist-Jalna for the offences punishable under Section 3(1)(xi) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, is quashed and set aside.::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:32:31 :::cra327.06 10 (II) Criminal Case bearing S.T.C.No.554 of 2008 (S.C.C. No.554 of 2008 "State vs. Sitaram and others") filed for the offences punishable under Section 354 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ambad, Dist-Jalna, is quashed and set aside.(III) Rule is made absolute in the above terms.[M.T. JOSHI,J.] [NARESH H. PATIL,J.] asb/DEC13 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:32:31 :::::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:32:31 :::
|
['Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,289,980 |
The four appellants before us were tried along with others for an offence punishable under Sections 307 read with 34, 326 read with 34, 324 read with 34 IPC.The trial court convicted the four appellants.Their appeal was dismissed by the High Court.So far as appellant Harpal Singh is concerned, his case was tried differently because he was child and he was dealt with under the East Punjab Children Act. Therefore, it may be necessary to deal with his case separately.Then there remains the case of Ram Singh, Balkar Singh and Jagir Singh.All the three were convicted under Sections 307 read with 34, 326 read with 34, 324 read with 34 and were sentenced to imprisonment for 2 years, 2 years and 2 years and 1 / 1/2 years respectively.Some injuries were found on the appellants also.Then the question is whether the prosecution has properly explained the injuries on the accused.The High Court referred to the evidence of Bachan Singh as well as the other witnesses and gave a finding that the prosecution in a way has explained the injuries.The learned Counsel for the appellant, however, submits before us that there is no proper explanation and therefore the necessary inference is that the prosecution has not come forward with the true version and on that ground the convictions and sentences should be set aside.We see no force in his submission.The next question is whether all the three appellants namely Balkar Singh, Jagir Singh and Ram Singh have participated in the crime.So far as Balkar Singh and Jagir Singh are concerned the evidence is clear.PW-1 has deposed that the appellant Balkar Singh caused injury on the left hand of Satnam Singh who was one of the witnesses.Likewise Jagir Singh also caused injury to Darshan Singh and so far as appellant Ram Singh is concerned, PW-1 Bachan Singh, principal witness, stated in his deposition that Ram Singh and Avtar Singh, the acquitted accused, have caused injuries to Darshan Singh.No other particulars are mentioned.Even the weapon in Ram Singh's hand is not mentioned.What kind of injuries and on what part of the body, nothing is mentioned.Free fight appears to have taken place during which some of the PWs and some of the appellants received injuries.Some persons in quite good numbers gathered at the place and the said occurrence took place and under the circumstances mentioned above, it is presumed that Ram Singh was also present there.Therefore, the case of Ram Singh can be distinguished.His mere presence cannot constructively make him liable and both the Courts below have simply applied Section 34 without taking into consideration whether any specific overt act is proved against the appellant Ram Singh.His appeal is also dismissed.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
129,000,339 |
Both the sentences have 2 CRA-408-2008 been directed to run concurrently.(2) Before adverting to the facts of the case, it is necessary to refer to certain important facts.(Passed on 28/02/2019) Per Justice G.S. Ahluwalia This criminal appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the judgment and sentence dated 15.02.2008 passed by Special Judge (MPDVPK Act), Shivpuri in Special Sessions Trial No.60/2004 thereby convicting the appellant under Section 365/34 of IPC and sentencing him for rigorous imprisonment of seven years and a fine of Rs.1,000/- with default imprisonment and under Section 364-A/34 of IPC and sentencing him for life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000/- with default imprisonment.Earlier the charge-sheet was filed against the appellant and the other co-accused persons namely Dayaram Gadariya, Rambabu Gadariya, Prakash Gadariya, Sobran Gadariya for offence under Sections 364-A, 365/34 of IPC and Section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act by showing him to be absconding.Accordingly, the warrants of arrest were issued.On 26.06.2006 the warrant of arrest issued against the appellant was received back with an information that the dead body of the present appellant has been received.The said report was submitted along with the postmortem report and the identification memo of the appellant and, accordingly, by order dated 26.06.2006, the Trial Court after relying upon the report of the police, held that the appellant has expired and accordingly his name was deleted from the charge-sheet.Thereafter, another report was submitted by the police to the effect that the co-accused Dayaram and Rambabu have also died.The report submitted by the police in respect of Dayaram and Rambabu was also accepted and the names of Dayaram and Rambabu were deleted from the charge-sheet.Subsequently, it was informed that in fact, the present appellant had not expired and he was lodged in Shivpuri jail and accordingly, on 01.11.2007 a supplementary charge-sheet was filed against the appellant for offence under Section 365, 364-A/34 of 3 CRA-408-2008 IPC and under Section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act. It is submitted by the counsel for the State that earlier the dead body of one dacoit was found in the forest area in a highly decomposed condition and because of one "mala" found on the dead body of said dacoit, it was identified that the dead body is of appellant.Although initially, it was mentioned by the police in the postmortem requisition form itself that for establishing the identification of the deceased, it is necessary to conduct the DNA report, but because of subsequent identification of the body, no DNA was conducted and on the basis of "mala", which was found on the dead body, one Jagram identified that it is the body of the present appellant.Under these circumstances, initially the police had filed the report that the appellant has expired.However, later on, it was found that in fact, the appellant is still alive and lodged in Shivpuri jail in connection with some other case, therefore, on 05.10.2017 permission was sought to formally arrest the appellant and accordingly, the supplementary charge-sheet was filed.(3) The necessary facts for the disposal of the present appeal in short are that on 07.03.2003 at about 01:00 in the night, when the abductees Badam Singh, Kalyan Singh, Veer Singh and Jaswant Singh were irrigating their field, then they were abducted by four miscreants along with Prakash and Gokul.As Prakash and Gokul were belonging to Dhobi caste, therefore, they were released by the dacoits, but abductee Badam Singh, Kalayan Singh, Veer Singh and Jaswant Singh were taken to the forest area, where they were kept in 4 CRA-408-2008 captivity for a period of one month and they were released after taking the ransom amount.The police after investigating the matter filed the charge-sheet against the appellant and other co-accused persons for offence under Sections 364-A, 365/34 of IPC read with Section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act. Initially, the charge-sheet was filed under Section 299 of Cr.P.C. and later on, it was found that the appellant was in Shivpuri Jail in connection with some other offence, therefore, a supplementary charge-sheet was filed as the appellant was earlier declared as dead.(4) The Trial Court by order dated 01.11.2007 framed the charges under Section 364-A/34 of IPC read with Section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act and Section 365/34 read with Section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act.(5) The appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded not guilty.(6) The prosecution in order to prove its case examined Prakash (PW-1), Gokul (PW-2), Badam Singh (PW-3), Jaswant Singh (PW-4), Veer Singh (PW-5), Kalyan Singh (PW-6), Ramprasad (PW-7), Gyaneshwar Sharma (PW-8), Kailash Babu Arya (PW-9) and Vinod Kumar Sharma (PW-10).(7) The appellant did not examine any witness in his defence.(8) The Trial Court by judgment and sentence dated 15.02.2008 passed in Special Sessions Trial No.60/2004 convicted the appellant for offence under Section 365/34 of IPC read with 5 CRA-408-2008 Section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act (2 counts) and 364-A/34 of IPC read with Section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act (4 counts) and sentenced him to undergo the rigorous imprisonment of seven years and a fine of Rs.1,000/- with default imprisonment (on 2 counts for offence under Section 365/34 of IPC) and awarded life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000/- with default imprisonment (on 4 counts for offence under Section 364-A/34 of IPC) and no separate sentence was awarded for offence under Section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act.(9) Challenging the judgment and sentence passed by the Court below, it is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence available on record in its proper perspective and prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.(10) Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the State that all the four abductees have supported the prosecution case and the identification of the appellant by them has been established beyond reasonable doubt.(11) Heard the learned counsel for the parties.Though an explanation was offered that out of fear they did not name the offenders, the fact remains, on the next day of the incident, the Executive Magistrate and top-level police officers were camping in the village for quite some time.Jaswant Singh (PW-4) has stated that on the date of incident, it was about 11:00 in the night, five armed miscreants came to his hut along with other abductees namely Badam Singh, Veer Singh, Kalyan, Gokul and Prakash and he was abducted.The appellant was identified by this witness in the dock.The recovery panchanamas Ex. P-4 was signed 19 CRA-408-2008 by this witness.He has specifically stated that he was abducted for ransom and he was released after taking amount of ransom.A short cross-examination was done.In the cross-examination, it was stated that as the present appellant was one of the miscreants, therefore, he has identified him.He has denied that the present appellant has not abducted him along with Rambabu.He further denied that at the instance of the police, this witness has falsely implicated the appellant.He further denied that he was not abducted for ransom.No further question was put to this witness.Accordingly, it is held that Jaswant Singh has identified the appellant in the dock.Veer Singh (PW-5) has also narrated the same incident in his evidence.He has further submitted that he was released by the miscreants after 32-33 days and an amount of rupees fifty thousand was paid by his family members by way of ransom to the dacoits.The present appellant was one of the miscreants.The present appellant was identified by this witness in the dock.A short cross-examination was done.He admitted that at the time of abduction, the appellant was having beard and on the date of recording his evidence, he was not having beard.However, he specifically denied that the appellant was not amongst the miscreants.He further denied that since the appellant is standing all alone, therefore, he has identified him.He further denied that the appellant had not demanded any ransom.He further denied that the witness is making a false allegation at the instance of the police.No further question was put to 20 CRA-408-2008 this witness in the cross-examination.Similarly, Kalyan Singh (PW-6) has identified the appellant as one of the miscreants, who had abducted them.He has further stated that his family members had given an amount of rupees one lac fifty thousand by way of ransom.He further stated that at the time of abduction, the appellant was having long hairs.In cross-examination, this witness has denied that the appellant was shown to this witness in the police station.He further denied that he has identified the appellant at the instance of the police.He specifically stated that as he remained in the company in the dacoits for a period of one month, therefore, he has identified him.He further denied that the appellant was not amongst the miscreants.He further denied that as the appellant is standing all alone, therefore, he has identified him.He further denied that no ransom amount was given.No further question was put to this witness.Ramprasad (PW-7) has stated that his brother Kalyan Singh had gone to fetch water from a well and he did not return back.At about 04:00 in the morning, he was told by Prakash and Gokul that his brother has been abducted by the dacoits.He was further informed that Jaswant Singh, Veer Singh and Badam Singh were also abducted.An information was given to the police by this witness.This witness has further stated that he had paid rupees one lac twenty five thousand to Rambabu by way of ransom and only thereafter, his brother Kalyan Singh was released.When he went to give the amount of ransom, then he had met with all the five dacoits and the present 21 CRA-408-2008 appellant was one of them.Gyaneshwar Sharma (PW-8) working on the post of constable had proved the counter FIR of crime N. 22/2003 as Ex. P-5 and its photocopy is Ex.The counter of the FIR was sent to the concerned Court by entry No. 223 in the inward and outward register which is Ex. P-6 and photocopy of the same is Ex. P-6c.The acknowledgment is Ex. P-7 and its photocopy is P-7c.Kailash Babu Arya (PW-9) is the Investigating Officer.Prakash (PW-1) has stated that he and Gokul, Badam, Veer Singh, Kalyan Singh and Jaswant were abducted by miscreants and later on, he and Gokul (PW-2) were released by the miscreants.However, this witness has turned hostile on the question of identity of the miscreants.Similarly, Gokul (PW-2) has also supported the case of the prosecution so far as it relates to the abduction of Badam Singh, Jaswant Singh, Veer Singh and Kalyan.However, he has also turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case on the question of identity.(23) Thus, it is clear that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing beyond reasonable doubt that Badam Singh (PW-3), Jaswant Singh (PW-4), Veer Singh (PW-5) and Kalyan Singh (PW-6) were abducted by the miscreants.Badam Singh (PW-3) could not identify the appellant in dock.However, Jaswant Singh (PW-4), Veer Singh (PW-5) and Kalyan Singh (PW-6) have specifically identified the appellant in the dock.Ramprasad (PW-7), who had paid the 22 CRA-408-2008 ransom amount, has also identified the appellant in the dock.The abductees have also specifically stated that Baiju @ Vijay was one of the dacoits.(24) In absence of any serious challenge to the evidence of the witnesses, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant along with other dacoits had abducted Prakash (PW-1), Gokul (PW-2), Badam Singh (PW-3), Jaswant Singh (PW-4), Veer Singh (PW-5) and Kalyan Singh (PW-6).Prakash (PW-1) and Gokul (PW-2) were released by the dacoits immediately.However, Badam Singh (PW-3), Jaswant Singh (PW-4), Veer Singh (PW-5) and Kalyan Singh (PW-6) were kept as hostages for a period of one month and they were released only after ransom amount was paid by the family members of these abductees.(25) Accordingly, it is held that the appellant is guilty of committing offence under Section 365/34 read with Section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act and under Section 364-A/34 of IPC read with Section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act.(26) So far as the question of sentence is concerned, the appellant was one of the member of the dacoits.Cash reward was also declared on the appellant.The Trial Court has awarded rigorous imprisonment of seven years for offence under Section 365/34 of IPC and life imprisonment for offence under Section 364-A/34 of IPC.The minimum sentence for offence under Section 364-A of IPC is 23 CRA-408-2008 imprisonment for life.Therefore, the sentence awarded by the Trial Court does not call for any interference.Hence, the judgment and sentenced dated 15.02.2008 passed by the Special Judge (MPDVPK Act), Shivpuri in Special Sessions Trial No.60/2004 is hereby affirmed.(27) The appellant is in jail.He shall undergo the jail sentence.(28) The appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
129,001,697 |
Shri Mukesh Shrivastava, learned counsel for the objector.Heard with the aid of case diary.This is an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.638/2013 registered at Police Station Garha, District Jabalpur for the offence under Sections 302, 364 and 120-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.He submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated at the subsequent stage of investigation on the basis of statement of wife of the deceased recorded on 14.9.2014 i.e. after more than one year of the recovery of dead body of the deceased.In the first information report lodged by her, she named only Pawan Patel and had stated that the deceased went with Pawan Patel on his motorcycle; whereas, on 14.9.2014 in her case diary statement, she named co-accused Manoj Choudhary to also with the deceased only and she did not say anything about the present applicant Arjun.On the other hand, Shri R. S. Shukla and Shri Mukesh Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State and the objector respectively have opposed the application.Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the evidence collected in the case diary, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for grant of bail.Accordingly, the application is allowed.On applicant's furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jabalpur for securing his presence before that Court on all the dates of hearing to be fixed in this regard during trial, applicant Arjun be released on bail The applicant shall abide by the conditions enumerated in Section 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Certified copy as per rules.(SHANTANU KEMKAR)
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
129,004,949 |
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI BAIL APPLN.2211/2020 Page 1 of 7 Signing Date:31.08.2020 14:59:17(vi) Female Under trial prisoners (above 60 years of age) facing trial in a case except the ones excluded hereunder and are in jail for more than six months with no involvement in any other case;"The minutes further exclude certain categories of under-trial prisoners from being considered for interim bail, recommending, in that regard, thus:"It has further been resolved that following category of UTPs, even if falling in the above criterion or the criteria adopted in the earlier Meetings, should not be considered :-(i) Those inmates who are undergoing trial for intermediary/ large quantity recovery under NDPS Act;(ii) Those under trial prisoners who are facing trial under Section 4 & 6 of POCSO Act;(iii) Those under trial prisoners who are facing trial for offences under section 376, 376A, 376B, 376C, 376D and 376E and Acid Attack;Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI BAIL APPLN.2211/2020 Page 2 of 7 Signing Date:31.08.2020 14:59:17BAIL APPLN.2211/2020 Page 2 of 7(iv) Those UTPs who are foreign nationals ;The applicant has been in custody, except for the period from 25th October, 2019 to 7th December, 2019, when he was granted interim bail for undergoing a medical procedure.The nominal roll of the applicant has been requisitioned from the Jail Superintendent, and the conduct of the applicant, during custody, is reflected as "satisfactory".Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI BAIL APPLN.2211/2020 Page 3 of 7 Signing Date:31.08.2020 14:59:17BAIL APPLN.The applicant shall also furnish the mobile number of at least two responsible individuals who could be contacted by the investigating authorities, or the police authorities, at all times, should the occasion arise.These mobile numbers should belong to persons who are available in the vicinity of the applicant and who are staying at Delhi and the numbers should be kept active during the period of interim bail.The applicant is also restrained from leaving the territory of Delhi, during the period of interim bail, without the permission of this Court, or the learned trial court.The applicant should also ensure that he conducts himself with all due propriety during the period of his interim bail and does not seek to establish contact with any of the witnesses, who have been cited by the prosecution as witnesses before the learned trial court, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI BAIL APPLN.BAIL APPLN.2211/2020 Page 1 of 7(v) Male Under trial prisoners (above 65 years of age) facing trial in a case except the ones excluded hereunder and are in jail for more than six months with no involvement in any other case;(v) Those under trial prisoners who are facing trial under Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act) / PMLA, MCOCA; and(vi) Cases investigated by CBI/ED/NIA/Special Cell of Delhi Police, Crime Branch, SFIO, Terror related Cases, Riot cases, cases under Anti-National Activities and Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act etc."It is further recommended, in the said minutes, that applications for interim bail, of under-trial prisoners, falling in the aforesaid eligible categories, in order to be considered for the grant of interim bail, should have a certificate of good conduct during their period of custody, from the Jail Superintendent.There is no dispute about the fact that the present applicant is facing trial only for having allegedly committed an offence, relatable to Sections 302/120B/201/34 IPC.He is not facing trial for having committed any other offence; neither has any other FIR been registered against him.2211/2020 Page 3 of 7A status report, in response to the present application, has been filed by the SHO, P.S. Khyala.The hearing has been conducted through Video Conferencing.After some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to withdraw this petition.3. Leave granted.2211/2020 Page 6 of 7 Signing Date:31.08.2020 14:59:17 and whose evidence remains to be recorded.No attempt to influence the witnesses or hinder the investigation process shall be made by the applicant.BAIL APPLN.2211/2020 Page 6 of 7The police authorities are also at liberty to visit the applicant's premises, at all times, and ensure due compliance, by the applicant, with the aforesaid conditions of interim bail.The application stands allowed accordingly.C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
129,005,759 |
This is the first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.178/2017 registered at Police Station Gurh District Rewa for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.According to him, there is inordinate delay in lodging the FIR and the statements of the witnesses have been recorded thereafter.The applicant has three children & the youngest one is only one and half year old and there is no one to take care of those children.It is also submitted that there is no likelihood of applicant absconding and tampering with the prosecution evidence and her further custody is not required in this case.On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel for the applicant has prayed that the applicant be released on bail.Per contra, learned Government Advocate opposing the submissions made on behalf of the applicant has prayed for rejection of the bail application.(AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) JUDGE vinod Digitally signed by VINOD VISHWAKARMA Date: 19/03/2019 04:32:29
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
129,007,049 |
Appeal No. 78/2003 Page 1 of 13He corroborated the version of his daughter.He deposed that on 13.06.2000, he left the house for work with his wife; when they returned in the evening, their daughter disclosed the incident to them.The matter was reported to the police.Her MLC Ex.PW-4/A was prepared by Dr. Anjali Singh (PW-4).On local Crl.Appeal No. 78/2003 Page 2 of 13 examination, hymen was found torn and there was some tenderness present around the vagina.Vaginal swab was also preserved.The CFSL vide its report Ex.PW-5/A and Ex.PW-5/B, proved through Dr. D.S. Chakoutra examined as PW-5, had detected semen stains on the vaginal swab.Appeal No. 78/2003 Page 2 of 135 The accused was arrested on the pointing out of the victim.She has on oath deposed that on 13.06.2000 at about 12:30 PM when she was sleeping in her house and was alone, the bolt of the door was forcefully opened; it was loose; the appellant entered her room.He was a married man and was the son of her landlord.17 Be that as it may, in a further part of her cross-examination, PW-1 denied the suggestion that she had sexual intercourse with the appellant with her consent.She further denied the suggestion that affidavit Ex.PW-1/DA was voluntary; submission being that it was obtained under pressure.18 PW-2 Bulaki Ram has deposed on the same lines as his daughter.He has stated that they had taken this room on rent just two days prior to the incident i.e. 11.06.2000 from the father of the appellant.In the Crl.PW-5/A which had detected semen stains on the vaginal swab of the victim which had been taken on 14.06.2000 and had been preserved and thereafter sent to the CFSL for examination.However no blood grouping of this semen was possible.1 This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order of sentence dated 10.12.2002 and 12.12.2002 respectively wherein appellant Sunil was convicted under Sections 376/506-II/452 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for two years for the offence under Section 376 of the IPC; for the offence under Section 452 of the IPC, he was sentenced to undergo RI for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for one year; for the offence under Section 506-II of the IPC, he was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo SI for one year.Her version was that on 13.06.2000 at about 12:30 PM when she was alone at home, the appellant entered her house and committed rape upon her.She was known to the appellant as her father was a tenant in the house of the father of the appellant, meaning thereby that the appellant was the son of the landlord and the victim was the daughter of the tenant.The initial complaint of the complainant was proved as Ex.Submission was that this delay was for the reason that the victim was threatened by the appellant not to disclose the incident to anyone.He was medically examined by Dr. Anand Aggarwal and Dr Bipul Bohra.The MLC Ex.He had recorded the statements of the witnesses and prepared the site plan.7 The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.PC.In this version, he set up a plea of alibi; he stated that as on fateful day at the relevant time he had gone to visit his sister Rekha who had been admitted in the clinic of Dr. Sunil Anand and he was present throughout the day and had returned home only at 10:30 pm; he was innocent and had been falsely roped in.Appeal No. 78/2003 Page 3 of 138 In defence, one witness ASI Ramjan Ali (DW-1) had come into the witness box to prove Ex.DW-1/A to Ex.DW-1/F, of which Ex DW1/A is the complaint of the prosecutrix, and Ex DW 1/B to Ex DW 1/E are the statements of prosecutrix, father of appellant Pratap Singh, cousin of prosecutrix Mahender and SI Naresh Singh, the Investigating Officer.His report was Ex DW 1/F.9 The evidence, both oral and documentary, had been considered by the trial Judge to arrive at the aforenoted finding of conviction qua the appellant.10 On behalf of the appellant, arguments have been addressed in detail.The incident had taken place on 13.06.2000 but the complaint was of 14.06.2000 and for that, there is no explanation.The MLC of the victim (Ex.PW-4/A) does not evidence any injury; there is no injury on the MLC of the accused either.If it was a forceful act of rape, scuffle marks which would be evident from bruise or injury would have been noted.Semen was also not detected on the clothes of both prosecutrix and appellant.The semen detected on the vaginal Crl.Appeal No. 78/2003 Page 4 of 13 swabs was not grouped and thus cannot be traced to the appellant.Submission being that this is a clear case of false implication as this was initially a landlord-tenant dispute and in order to ward off the right of the landlord who was seeking eviction of his tenant (father of the victim) this false case had been set up.Further submission being that Ex.DW- 1/A to Ex.DW-1/F also substantiate the stand of the appellant; vigilance inquiry been conducted by the police clearly shows that this case has been falsely set up by the victim only to extort money from the appellant.The appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt on the basis of the aforenoted documentary evidence.The prosecution having failed to prove its case to the hilt, he is entitled to benefit of doubt.11 Arguments have been refuted.It is pointed out that the version of the prosecturix (PW-1) is fully supported by her father (PW-2) as also the medical evidence (Ex.PW-4/A) as also the scientific evidence (Ex.PW-5/A).The plea of alibi which has been set up in the statement of the accused recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.PC did not find mention in the cross-examination of the witnesses of the prosecution.Appeal No. 78/2003 Page 5 of 13 The defence of the accused is confused.He is taking up a false plea.On no count, does the impugned judgment call for any interference.12 Arguments have been heard.He undressed PW-1 and after undressing himself, he committed rape upon her.While leaving, the appellant threatened to kill her if she disclosed the incident to anyone; PW-1 was frightened.She related the incident to her parents when they returned home in the evening.PW-1/A was lodged.Appeal No. 78/2003 Page 4 of 13Appeal No. 78/2003 Page 5 of 1314 Relevant would it be to note that the complaint was lodged on the same day i.e. in the intervening night of 13.06.2000 but the FIR had been registered in the early morning of 14.06.2000 after the formalities had been completed.Thus, by no stretch of imagination can it be said that there was any delay in lodging the FIR.Appeal No. 78/2003 Page 6 of 1315 Further version of PW-1 was that on 20.07.2000, some persons had come to her house and informed her father that the accused had engaged an Advocate and he wanted to inquire something from her; she signed on a blank paper as she was asked by the Advocate; the Advocate assured her that this paper would not be misused; PW-1 was illiterate.16 In her cross-examination, she admitted that document Ex.PW- 1/DA bears her signatures and had been notarized by a Notary Public; she signed the register.This document, purportedly written by her and duly signed by her, was to the effect that the matter stood settled with the appellant and she had no grievance against him.Appeal No. 78/2003 Page 7 of 13 morning, he had gone for work along with his wife.When he returned in the evening his wife (to whom the incident had been narrated by his daughter PW-1) informed him.Police complaint was lodged.In his cross-examination, he admitted that his daughter was illiterate and had studied only up to 2nd standard.Appeal No. 78/2003 Page 7 of 13Her hymen was found torn; there was tenderness present but there was no bleeding around the vagina.The other incriminating circumstance against the appellant was the CFSL report Ex.20 The Investigating Officer Narender Singh (PW-12) in his cross- examination admitted that a copy of Ex.PW-1/DA was filed by the appellant along with his bail application and under the directions of the High Court, he had been directed to investigate this affidavit.The statement of the accused recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.PC had Crl.Appeal No. 78/2003 Page 8 of 13 set up a plea of alibi but this had not been proved.The trial Court has also correctly noted that this plea of alibi in his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.PC appeared to be an afterthought as in the entire cross- examination of the witnesses of the prosecution no such question had been put to any of the PWs.Appeal No. 78/2003 Page 8 of 13He had brought the summoned record from the Vigilance department.As per record, he deposed that on 04.04.2001, a complaint of 'HL', received in their office had been marked to him to enquire into.This complaint was Ex.DW- 1/A. Parties were called in the office and their statements i.e. statement of the victim (PW-1), father of the appellant, Pratap Singh, cousin of the prosecutrix, Mahender and also of the Investigating Officer SI Naresh Singh were recorded and which were Ex.DW-1/B to Ex.DW- 1/E. His report Ex.DW-1/F was prepared.As per his conclusion, this complaint was made by the victim falsely for the purpose of extortion of money.He denied the suggestion that this report had been concocted.Appeal No. 78/2003 Page 9 of 13 22 The version of PW-1 is wholly cogent and coherent.It is also corroborated by the version of her father (PW-2).The MLC Ex.PW-4/A had noted a torn hymen as also tenderness; PW-1 had been examined just a few hours after the alleged time of incident.The CFSL had also detected semen on her vaginal swabs.It is but clear that the incident of 13.06.2000 as has been deposed to by the prosecutrix had taken place.It would be difficult to believe that within two days, the victim had become so friendly with the appellant that she consented to this act of sex with him.Moreover the victim in her statement had categorically stated that the appellant was a married man.She knew this fact.It would again be difficult to perceive that a young girl would think of entering into a relationship with a married man.The trial Court had rightly rejected this argument.PC was recorded.The accused at that time had set up a plea of alibi.His version then was that at the time of the incident, he had gone to visit his sister Rekha who had been admitted in the clinic of Dr. Sunil Anand; he was absent throughout the day and had returned home only at 10:30 pm and was not present at the time of the incident.This contradictory stand again throws a doubt on the version of the defence.24 Inquiry conducted by DW-1 is of little relevance.The prosecutrix in her examination-in-chief has explained that on 20.07.2000, she being an illiterate girl and having studied only up to the 2 nd standard (as is clear from the version of PW-2 as well) had signed certain papers on the asking of an Advocate which as was informed to her would not be misused.It was these papers which had been misused and an affidavit had been procured on a blank paper bearing her signatures wherein it was stated that the victim had compromised the matter with the appellant.Appeal No. 78/2003 Page 9 of 13Appeal No. 78/2003 Page 10 of 13Appeal No. 78/2003 Page 11 of 13 sufficient to nail the accused.Appeal No. 78/2003 Page 11 of 13Minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies should not be a ground for throwing out an otherwise reliable prosecution case.A prosecutrix complaining of having been a victim of the offence of rape is not an accomplice after the crime.Her testimony has to be appreciated on the principle of probabilities just as the testimony of any other witness; a high degree of probability having been shown to exist in view of the subject matter being a criminal charge.However, if the court finds it difficult to accept the version of the prosecutrix on its face value, it may search for evidence, direct or substantial, which may lend assurance to her testimony. " 27 At the cost of repetition, the version of the prosecutrix is fully corroborated by the version of her father (PW-2), as also the medical and scientific evidence.The defence set up by the respondent is wholly Crl.Appeal No. 78/2003 Page 12 of 13 unconvincing.Appeal No. 78/2003 Page 12 of 13He has almost completed the sentence.Accordingly, he be released on the period already undergone by him.Appeal No. 78/2003 Page 13 of 13
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
129,015,919 |
The concerned Regional Officer (ex-officio) is the Member Secretary to this Committee.Normally this Committee advise the Council on the various requirements/data/appraisal of the Technical Education in the particular Region.As per the Approval Process Hand Book there is a Regional Committee Sub-Committee consisting of one Member of the Regional Committee and the Regional Officer as Convenor of this Committee.Even as per the counter filed before this Court, it is maintained by the prosecution that he also stands on the same footing as A.6 Prof.D.R.Kohli, as both were members of the Hearing Committee while 'not recommending' as well as 'recommending'.The materials against A.6 Prof.D.R.Kohli and the left out accused Dr.Venkateswara Rao are one and the same, but sanction for prosecution has been granted for one accused and not granted for the other accused.One had been set at liberty at the initial stage being not challenged by the prosecution wherein other accused who stand in the same footing are to undergo the ordeal of trial.Further, in the instant case, the order of declining sanction to prosecute Shri P.Venkateshwara Rao, Adviser-I, AICTE, New Delhi was also not challenged by the respondent.Regulation 6 of the AICTE Regulations, 1994 deals with conditions for grant of approval.At this juncture, it would be appropriate to incorporate the details and roles of various committees.Regional Committee:There is a Regional committee of 17 members constituted by the Competent Authority at AICTE, Hqrs for each Regional Office.The Committee scrutinizes the proposals submitted by various Trust/Societies for the establishment of New Technical Institutions with respect to the checklist provided in the Approval Process Hand Book.This scrutinization takes place on the basis of the xerox copy of the various documents supplied in the proposal by the applicant Trust/Scoeity.In case the RC sub Committee finds the proposal in order then it is forwarded to the Headquarters for further necessary action otherwise the deficiencies are communicated to the applicant society/trust for rectification.Also as per the Approval Process Hand Book the applications submitted by the existing technical institutions for increase in intake/variation/introduction of additional courses are also processed by the RC Sub Committee with respect to the check list and forwarded to the AICTE Hqrs if the proposal is found in order otherwise the deficiencies are communicated to the institution by the Regional Officer for rectification.Hearing Committee A Hearing Committee is constituted at AICTE Hqrs for considerations of the proposals submitted for the establishment of New Technical institution for the consideration of the issuance of Letter of Intent [LOI].The Constitution of this Committee consists of an academician/professional of repute as Chairman, 3 Expert Members at the level of Professor and Adviser/Director of AICTE Hqrs as the Convenor.Expert Committee It is the duty of the expert committee to verify all the infrastructural, academic and related facilities as per the norms and standards provided by the Council from time to time and record or ask the convener to record their specific observations.The role of convener is to fix a date of the visit in consultation with the concerned educational institution and call upon the experts on the finalised date of visit.2.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 228 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
129,016 |
It would be relevant here to note in brief the facts of the case.The prosecution story as unfolded by the contractor Shri R.S Sharma(PW 1) is as follows.Shri R.S. Sharma in the year 1972-73 was carrying, on the business of build- ing contract in the name of 'R.S. Sharma and Company' in partnership with his son and three other persons.In July, 1972, he got building contract for the construction of Lower Income Group Houses (Group No. 1) in Kalkaji Colony.In February, 1973, he got another contract for the construction of Lower Income Group Houses (Group No. 2).Further the additional items work in respect of these houses were also executed, and a sum of rupees two lacs was payable to them which amount was outstanding.The appellant, he stated, was the Executive Engineer in charge of the works.He further stated that of the previous bills pertaining to the work which had been executed by them, a sum of rupees one lac had been kept by the department as security.He asked the appellant on 3/4 occasions to release the security amount of rupees one lac by getting bank security as was done in the other divisions.He also asked the appellant to sanction the amount due on "' account of the extra work.Thereafter he approached the appellant 3/4 times and repeated his requests for releasing the security amount and the amount in respect of extra work.On 30th October, 1973, he stated, he met the appellant at his office when his son, Shri U.S. Sharma (Public Witness 2) was with him on the way in the office building he met Shri Sehgal, Accounts Officer, working under the appellant.He also requested Shri Sehgal to help him in the release of the security amount.He then stated that he reiterated his request to the appellant for early payment, expressing his financial difficulties in carrying on with the execution of the Work.The appellant asked him if he could pay Rs. 5.000.00 .The witness represented that he had no money even to carry on with his work.Thereupon, the appellant is alleged to have asked him to bring Rs. 2,500.00 for payment to him at his house that evening and that on payment of that amount he would consider the matter.The appellant is further stated to have told him that he would have to pay further amount of Rs. 2500.00 after refund of the security amount and payment in respect of extra items.Telling the appellant that he will see him at his house in the evening and his son came out of his room.They came to the ground floor of the building and deliberated over the matter.They did not want to pay the bribe as they thought that in case they paid the bribe once their further work will not be done without payment of further bribe.They then thought of rushing to the bank to withdraw Rs. 2,500.00 and any further steps that were to be taken would be considered later as otherwise the bank would be closed.They then went to their bank, Syndicate Bank, G.B. Road and withdraw Rs. 2,500.00 from there account with the bank.He further stated that he asked the Manager to give the money in the form of Rs. 100.00 currency notes.He also asked the Manager of the Bank to issue certificate regarding payment by mentioning the number of the currency notes.The requisite certificate was issued by the Manager.(3) After withdrawing the amount they mutually decided to go to the 'Central Bureau of Investigation.They went there at 4 or 4.15 p.m. and met the Superintendent 'of Police.The witness presented complaint.Exhibit P.W.I/D, to the Superintendent of Police.The complaint, he stated, is in the hand of his partner Pothi Singh and bears his signatures at point 'A'.(4) The Superintendent of Police, he stated, called the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Chaudhry, and gave him some instructions.The Deputy Superintendent of Police took them to his room.They accompanied him.The Deputy Superintendent of Police went through the complaint and called two independent witnesses.They were introduced as Shri R. L.Verma and Shri R. N. Khanna.The witness were told the facts and the purpose for which they were called.The name of the appellant was, however, not disclosed to them.He produced twenty-five hundred currency notes.The Deputy Superintendent of Police prepared a memorandum and noted the numbers of the currency numbers.The memorandum was checked by the two independent witnesses.Thereafter, he stated, the currency notes were treated with some powder.The Deputy Superintendent of Police asked Shri Verma to touch the notes which he did.Thereafter, some solution was prepared by making use of water and some Chemical.The hand of Shri.Verma was dipped in that solution which turned reddish.(5) He further stated that' this person was searched and he was not allowed to carry anything, with him.The currency notes were given to him with instructions to keep them wife him and take out the amount only,at the time when he would be required to pay.On seeing the currency notes, Exhibits P/l to P/25 and comparing their numbers with those mentioned in the memorandum, he stated, that these were the same notes which were produced by him and treated by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Chaudhry, with the powder and returned to him.He also stated that it was agreed before leaving the office of the C. B. I. that some sweets and fruits would be purchased on the way and on reaching the house of the appellant he' and his son would go into the house while the other members of the raiding party would remain inside the car.It was also agreed that after a talk with the appellant, his son would come out to take the sweets and fruits from the car and that at the same time Shri Verma would accompany him into the house.He further stated that it was also agreed that the currency notes (P/ I to P/25) would be given in the presence of Verma and thereafter he would cough loudly which would be a signal for other members of the raiding party to come in.He proved the handing over memorandum, ' Exhibit P. W. I/E by which the currency notes Wire handed 'over to him, staling that the same bears his signatures at point 'A'.at 5.30 p.m. in two cars.On reaching Greater Kailash they purchased sweets and fruits.They then went to the house of the appellant.On enquiry it was found that he wa$ not there.-Accordingly they waited.At about 7.30 p.m. he found the appellant coming to his house in his car.The appellant came out of the car and after parking it on the road went up to his house on the first floor.After waiting for five minutes he and his son went up into the house of the appellant who asked them to sit in the drawing room.He started talking about his difficulty and the non-payment of his dues.The appellant asked him if he had brought what had been talked in the office in the morning.He told him that he brought the money which had been' demanded and besides that they had also .brought some sweets and.fruits as they could not visit on the day of 'Diwali.He asked his son to bring the .sweets.His son went down.His son and Verma brought the sweets and, the fruits in the room.The witness then placed the fruit basket and the .cartons containing sweets in the room.The witness took out the currency notes (P/l to P/25) and gave the same to the appellant who took them into his left hand.From the left hand the appellant put the currency .notes in his right hand and then placed them in the pocket of his shirt by his right hand.Immediately, the witness coughed and instantaneously the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Khanna and one or two other persons rushed in from the stairs where, he guessed, they appeared standing behind, a. door.The appellant was apprehended and was caught by the arms.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Chaudhry, after disclosing his identity and identity of others, asked Verma to search him.The search was conducted and nothing was found oil the person of the Deputy Superintendent of Police.Thereafter, the Deputy Superintendent of police took out the currency notes (P/1 to P/25) from the pocket of the bushrt (Exhibit P/2"))of the appellant which he was wearing at that time.He further stated that the Deputy Superintendent of Police prepared some solution and the left and right hands of the appellant were separately dipped in the colourless solution and each fun; the solution turned pink.The solution was transferred into bottles, Exhibits P/27 and P/2 which were corked and sealed.He further stated that the pocket of the bushirt of the appellant was dipped in the colourless solution separately and it turned pink.The appellant, it was contended, was specially selected for the job because of his high integrity and his sense of devotion to work.Those bills included payments on account of extra items.According to bill No. 9, Rs. 5998.22 were paid to R.S. Sharma & Co. by Housing Division No. 1 on account of extra items.He further stated that according to bill No. 15 dated 17th October, 1973, total work done by the contractor was for Rs. 26,08,463/- and that the value of extra items paid to the contractor up to that date was approximately Rs. 1,84,000/-.Out of this amount, he stated, an amount of Rs. 30,000/- or so was paid towards extra items in the month of October.He also stated that on 17th October, 1973, cheque in the sum of Rs. l,12,223/- was given to the contractor.The appellant had no occasion on this count to demand bribe from the complainant.(31) The other accusation against the appellant was that despite the furnishing of the bank guarantee by the contractor, the appellant did not release the security money in the sum of Rs. 1 lac deducted from the running bills of the contractor.There is no dispute with regard to the fact that amounts from the running bills were deducted towards the security amount that was required to be furnished by the contractor.(32) According to P.D. Sehgal security in the amount of rupees one lac was demanded from the contractors.It was accordingly submitted that the story of the complainant having met the appellant in his office at I p.m. and the appellant demanding bribe from him was unacceptable The complainant no doubt admits about the scheduled visit of the Prime Minister and the fact that on that day in the morning at 9 or 10, almost all the officers including the appellant were present at the site and that work was in progress at full speed at the site.He, however, denied that all the officers remained there that day till 2 p.m. He left the site at I I a m. His leaving the site by I I a.m. is indicative of the fact that firm message by that time of the Prime Minister cancelling her visit had been received, otherwise he being the concerned contractor could not afford to leave the site when the visit of the Prime Minister was concerning the work executed by him.Appellant alone was not present at the site.Other officers were also present.Appellant could have examined any one of them in support of his claim that he left the site after 1.30 p.m. This he has failed to do.(46) It was then submitted that a serious doubt is cast on the fairness of (he investigation and that efforts were made to procure evidence at later stages, suiting Ihe convenience of the prosecution.This submission was sought to be fortified from the statement of the complainant that he produced certified of the Bank to the police on 6th November, 1973, when his statement was recovered, it w.is contended, if the certificate was procured on 30th October, 1973, (her; was no reason why it was not produced before the police along with the complaint.The manager had proved cheque Exhibit Public Witness Pw 5/A. that the complainant got encashed from ihe Bank on 30th October, 1973, and the certified Exhibit P.W. 1/GI which the Manager prepared mentioning the numbers of the currency notes and handed it over to the complainant.(47) The case of the complainant is that he on 30th October, 1973, had seen the appellant at I P. M in his office and expressing his financial difficulty in carrying on with the execution of work, had asked for the release of the security amount and for passing the amount due on account of extra items when the appellant asked him if he could pay Rs. 5500/-.The complainant represented that he had no money to carry on even with his works, whereupon the appellant asked him to bring Rs. 2.500/- for payment to him at his house that evening, adding that on payment of that amount he would consider the matter.The appellant it is alleged, further said that the complainant would have to pay further amount of Rs, 2.500/- after refund of the security amount and payment, in respect of extra items.Oncoming out of the room the complainant and his son pondered over the matter, and then went to the bank wherefrom they withdrew the money.They decided to report the matter to the C. B. I. Accordingly they went there and presented their complaint Exhibit P.W. I/D to the Superintendent of Police who called Chander Bhan Deputy Superintendent of Police (PW 14) to his office and handing over the complaint to the Deputy Superintendent of Police directed him to register a complaint.First Information Report Exhibit Pw 14/A was registered on this complaint.The Deputy Superintendent of Police secured two independent witnesses, R. L. Verma (PW 3) and R. N. Khanna (PW 11) through the Vigilance Officer, Regional Settlement Commissioner's office. .(48) The Deputy Superintendent of Police organized a raiding party consisting of the two independent witnesses.Inspector V. P. Sharma, Mr. Yadav and Assistant Sub-Inspector Ram Chander.According to the testimony of the Deputy Superintendent of Police Chander Bhan (PW 14), the complainant produced Rs 2500/ in 25 currency notes of Rs. 100/- each, Exhibits P 1 to P 25 which money was to be given as bribe to the appellant on account of the demand made by him He prepared binding over note Exhibit Public Witness Pw I/E wherein the numbers of the currency notes were recorded.These notes were treated with phenol the lene powder and the usual demonstration that the hands of anyone touching the notes when dipped in clear solution of sodium carbonate, the solution would turn pink, was given.The notes were returned to the complainant after searching his person and ensuring that he had no other cash with him.The complainant was directed to pass on that amount to the appellant on demand.R. L. Verma (PW 3) was asked to act as shadow witness.The complainant was directed to give signal by way of coughing on the passing of the bribe to the appellant.(49) The Deputy Superintendent of Police stated that it was decided that the complainant and his son will go to the appellant's house in the first instance, and if the appellant was found present, the son of the complainant would return and inform the raiding party, then one basket of fruits and two packets of sweets, which were to be purchased from the market, would be taken by the complainant's son and R. S Verma to the appellant.It was also decided that the money may be paused by the complainant to the appellant in the presence of R. S Verma.(50) The raiding party the Deputy Superintendent of Police stated left for Greater Kailash in two cars at about 6 p.m. In the way from the market fruits and sweets were purchased for which U S.Sharma paid.They reached the house of the appellant at 7 p.m. The appellant was not present in his house They waited outside the house.The appellant came at about 8 p.m. Immediately, thereafter, the complainant and his son went to his house which was situated on the first floor.The sweets and fruits laying in the car of the complainant were taken later by U.S.Sharma, on return from the appellant's house, with the assistance of Rs Verma, to the appellant's house.U.S.Sharma carried the sweets while Verma carried fruits.U.S.Sharma had informed them that his father and the appellant were in the drawing room of his house.The Deputy Superintendent of Police further stated that they followed U.S. Sharma and R.L Verma to the staircase of the house and took positions there.Within one or two minutes, both U.S. Sharma and R.L.Verma came back and informed them of bribe-money having passed to the appellant.They also heard the signal by way of coughing.Immediately, thereupon all of them rushed to the drawing room.(51) He further stated that he disclosed his identity to the appellant and caught hold of him by his arms near the elbows towards the wrists.The appellant was nervous.After giving his search to the witnesses, the Deputy Superintendent of Police searched the person of the appellant and recovered notes Exhibits P/l to P/25 from the left side pocket of the bushirt, Exhibit P/26,worn by the appellant.The numbers of the currency notes were compared with the numbers recorded in Exhibit P.W.I/E, and they tallied.The two hands of the appellant were separately put in two clear solutions of sodium carbonate and the soil tion turned pinkish.The hand washes were transferred to two separate bottles.The absence of the appellant at his house at 7 p.m., the agreed time would not militate against recovery.(1) The appellant, Shri G.V. NanJundiah,was tried by Shri 0.P. Singla, Special Judge, Delhi, for having committed an offence punishable under section 161, Indian Penal Code and sections 5(l)(d) and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act on the allegation that be being a public servant as Executive Engineer, Central Public Works Department, Housing Division, Delhi Development Authority, New Delhi, on 30th October, 1973, at his house No. R-1/57, Greater Kailash, New Delhi, accepted a sum of Rs, 2.500.00 from one Shri R.S. Sharma, contractor as gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward for releasing the security amount of the contract in the sum of rupees one lac and to approve and sanction for extra substituted work executed by the contractor for construction of double storied houses for Lower Income Group in D.I.S. Block at Kalkaji and being a public servant on the aforesaid date and place thus by corrupt or illegal means by otherwise abusing his position obtained for himself a pecuniary advantage of Rs. 2.500.00 .The Trial Court finding the appellant guilty of having committed the offence sentenced him to six months' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. l,000.00 by its order dated 26th October, 1977, under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter called 'the Act').The appellant was also sentenced to six months' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5000.00 under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code.Both the sentences were, however, ordered to run concurrently.In default of payment of fine, the appellant was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two months.The sentence in default of payment of fine was ordered to run consecutively.(2) The appellant feeling aggrieved by his conviction and sentence has challenged the same in this appeal, both on facts and on question of law.The solution was put in bottles Exhibit P/29 which was corked and sealed by making use of wrapper.On 6th November, 1973, he stated, the police seized document Exhibit Public Witness .G1, certificate issued by the bank, vide seizure memorandum Exhibit P. W. 1/G and an 14th January, 1974, the police seized document Exhibit P.W. 1/HI vide memorandum Exhibit Public Witness .1/H.(6) The prosecution examined 14 other witnesses in support of their case that the appellant was not releasing the sum of rupees one lac deducted by way of security from the contractor's running bills on security being furnished and that the payment in respect of additional items of works was being delayed as the appellant demanded bribe of Rs. 5,000.00 from the contractor and in fact had received Rs. 2,500.00 as bribe on 30th October, 1973, which amount was recovered from the appellant by Chander Bhan, Deputy Superintendent of Police, who apprehended the appellant immediately after the receipt of the said amount by organising a raiding party on the complaint filed by R.S.Sharma.(8) The trial Court further found the following facts in favor of the appellant: (1)That the appellant made payment of extra items up to the limit of his power, i.e.. Rs. 25.000.00 ; (2) That he also made payment up to October, 1973, in the amount of more than Rs. l,84,000.00 ; (3) That pending sanction of extra items payments were made to the extent of 70 % in the running bills being within bids competence; (4) That P.D. Sehgal (Public Witness 8) was not a reliable witness as he was inimical to the appellant who insisted that Sehgal should be punctual in attending the office which he was unable to do because he was pre-occupied in the construction of his house at the relevant time ; (5) That the complainant, R.S. Sharma, and his son U.S.Sharma also were inimical towards the appellant and wanted to im plicate the appellant in a false case to get rid of the appellant's strait supervision and insistence on good quality work in respect of constructions of Lower Income Group quarters.(9) In the premises the Trial Court held that the story of demand of bribe put forth by the complainant and his son could not be believed without corroboration and that P.D.Sehgal's statement could not be said to furnish corroboration because he was inimical towards the appellant.The trial Court, however, placing reliance on the testimony of the two independent witnesses, ramely, R.L. Verma (Public Witness 3), R.N. Khanna (Public Witness 11) and Chander Bhan, Deputy Superintendent of Police (Public Witness 14), believed the prosecution case regarding the recovery of the money from the pocket of the bushirt of the appellant and held that the statements of the said witness lent corroboration to the case of the complainant RS.The trial Court rejected the version of the appellant that K.S.Sharma and his son U.S.Sharma on 30th 0ctober, 1973, came to his house around 8 p.m. and tried to foist the money on him and he was trying to resist with his both hands, the police raiding party entered the drawing room and tried to over-power him despite his strong protest and that the currency notes Exhibits P/1 to P/25 were not recovered from the pocket of his bushirt but in fact they were snatched from the hand of R. S. Sharma by the police who had falsely implicated him.Raising the statuto, presumption under section 4(1) of the Act against the appellant and accepting the prosecution version regarding the recovery of the money, viz, Rs.2,500.00 Exhibits P/l to P/25 in 100 rupees currency notes from the appellant, the trial Court observed fiat the recovery lent corroboration to the case of the complainant R.S Sharma regarding the demand and acceptance of bribe or illegal gratification by the appellant.In the result, the Court held that the charges for the offence punishable under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 5(2) read with section 5(l)(d) of the Act stood proved against the appellant, and accordingly sentenced the appellant to 6 month's simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. l,000.00 for the offence punishable under section 5(2) of the Act, besides sentencing him to six month's simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code, in default of payment of fine the appellant was sentenced to further undergo simple imprisonment for two months in respect of each sentence of ne.The substantive sentences awarded were ordered to run concurrently while the sentences in default of payment of fine were ordered to run consecutively.(10) Shri R.K.Garg, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, strenuously contended that the prosecution story as alleged was unacceptable and unnatural and that the appellant was made the victim of the unscrupulous contractor and overzealous investigating officer who had ready access to stock trap witnesses too wiling to support the false prosecution case.It was contended that Shri H.D. Sharma Executive Engineer who was earlier in charge of the work of the complainant was not satisfied with the execution of work by the complainant and had brought to the notice of the complainant the unsatisfactory quality of the work done by him.This infuriated the contractor who threatened to blackmail the staff and get them remove.This was borne out from Shri H D Sharma's letter to the contractor, copy of which was endorsed to the Chief Engineer (Housing) D.D A. vide Exhibit Public Witness 12/DB.It was accordingly submitted that because of the bullying behavior of the contractor and the substandard work done by the contractor, it was thought fit to take out the construction work of 326 Lower Income Group dwelling houses from Housing Division No. 1 and create a separate Division, Housing Division No. Xii to deal more effectively with the said construction work.(12) The above-noted contention sought to be urged on behalf of the appellant being not supportable from the record, cannot be sustained.(13) On the contrary the case of the prosecution is that amounts to the extent of approximately rupees two lacs on accounts of extra item and substituted items of work due to the contractor were not paid, besides withholding the security amount in the sum of rupees one lac despite furnishing a bank guarantee bond and that provided the motive in extracting the bribe Of money.(14) In support of its case the prosecution placed relianced on the various bills regarding substituted items and extra items of works is stated to have been executed by the contractor, which bills, it was alleged, were not forwarded to the Superintending Engineer for being sanctioned for payment or where it was competent for the appellant to sanction them, he did not do so.These bills are Exhibits P:W.4/A,P.W. 4/C, Public Witness 6/A, Public Witness .6/C, Public Witness .6/E and Public Witness .8/A and Public Witness .8/E. Before dealing with these bills individually, it would be relevant there to note that the bills were prepared by the department on the basis of the measurements recorded in the measurement book. .The bills were to be scrutinized by Shri S.K.. Jain, Section Officer (Technical), P.W13, before they were put up to the appellant for appropriate orders.That the bills were to be so scrutinized is borne out from the testimony 'of B.M.Banerji (Public Witness 12) and indeed is accepted by S.K.Jain.(15) I first take up bills Exhibits P W.4/A andP:W.6/A as they can be dealt with together.Shri R.S.Mathur, (Public Witness 4) who at the relevant time was Assistant Engineer dealing with the construction work in question Oh being shown substituted items statement.Exhibit Public Witness .4/A stated that it was prepared by Shri Anil Kumar Duggal (Public Witness 6) Junior Engineer who was ^ working under him at that time.The said statement was put up to him.He scrutinized it and signed the same at point 'A'.He forwarded it to the Executive Engineer for sanction vide his letter Exhibit Public Witness 4/B. He identified his signatures on the said letter and point B. Sanction in respect of this bill was not received during the period of 3 months he was there.Anil Kumar Duggal supported the statement of Shri Mathur to the extent that he prepared the statement.Exhibit Public Witness .6/A, was partly prepared by him and partly by B. M.Banerji.He proved his own signatures on it at point A and that of Banerji at point B. This statement Was forwarded to the Executive Engineer vide letter dated 10th May, 1973, Exhibit P.W.6/B. The said letter, he stated, bears the signatures of Banerji at point B. B M.Banerji fully corroborated the above-noted statement of Duggal, adding that no sanction had been issued on this statement.(16) JK.JAIN, Public Witness .13, checked the statement.He proved his endorsement and signatures on it at point X. He stated that he had gone once or twice to the appellant for showing it but the appellant asked him to came later on as the appellant told him that he was busy otherwise.The statement remained pending with him under those circumstances.On being shown statement Exhibit Public Witness /A with its forwarding letter.Exhibit Public Witness 6/B,Shri Jain stated that it was received in the office of the Executive Engineer and was made over to him on 15th May, 1973, for checking.He checked it on 22nd May, 973, and gave it to the appellant.He proved his endorsement with his signatures at point X on letter Exhibit Public Witness .6/B. He proved the appellants endorsement in date 24th' May, 1973, at point Yon the letter Exhibit P. W.6/B for sending the statement to the Superintending Engineer for approval.Shri Jain further stated that later the appellant verbally told him not to send that statement to the Superintending Engineer till further orders, so the statement remained pending.(17) Shri Jain's deposition does not inspire confidence.In fact he stands discredited by his cross-examination.According to him it was on 24th May, 1973, itself that the appellant asked him not to send statement Exhibit P.W.6/A to the Superintending Engineer.He, therefore, did not deal with the said statement after 24th May, 1973, and it remained pending with him.He, however, admitted that he rechecked the statement.Exhibit Public Witness .6/A, on 3rd August, 1973, as per his endorsement in note Exhibit Public Witness 13/DA when he found that in item No. 5 of the statement only partial quantity was substituted.He accordingly wanted Assistant Engineer (J) to furnish details of the measurements.He further admits that the Assistant Engineer (1) did not send a reply and, therefore, after 3rd August, 1973, the statement (Exhibit P.W.6/A) remained pending with him.He went to the length of staling that the Assistant Eng'neer (1) did not come to have a discussion on the statement in question but he had to beat a retreat admitting that there is an endorsement of discussion in date 25th September, 1973, of the appellant with Assistant Engineer (1) and the explanation furnished by the latter was attached.He admitted that on the basis of the above-mentioned discussion he prepared modified statement, copy Exhibit Public Witness .He further admitted that he did not .put up the modified statement to the appellant till 22nd October, 1973, because of other work.He admitted that the explanation attached to the endorsement of discussion between the appellant and the Assistant Engineer (1),was not forthcoming on the file.There was thus no question of the statement remaining pending with the witnesses because the appellant had asked him to come later on as he was otherwise busy.The witness further conceded that it may be that he did not put up statement Exhibit Public Witness .4/A to the appellant after 25th September, 1973, there being no record about-his putting it up to the appellant.(18) On perusing the statement of this witness, the question of placing any reliance on him does not arise.It is no doubt true that the appellant had made endorsement at point 'Y' in date 24th May, 1973, on letter Exhibit P. W.6/B indicating his approval for forwarding it to the Superintending :Engineer but the stand of the appellant that he had asked the witness to recheck it before doing so, stands vindicated by the rechecking actually done by the witness despite his denying the suggestion put to him to the said effect.His averment that it may he when be found statement No. 2 incorrect in some respects he felt obliged to check statement Exhibit P\V 6/A does not ring true as he does not say, how and in what respect statement No. 2 was incorrect.(19) It may bear mention here that as per statement Exhibit P.W. 6/A a sum of Rs. 18,447/- is shown as payable while after discussion with Assistant Engineer (1) according to modified statement.Exhibit P.W. 13/DB, prepared by S.K.. Jain a lesser amount in the sum of Rs. 13.989.84 was found due.The appellant was, therefore, justified in asking S.K. Jain to recheck the statement despite his having made endorsement by signing the letter Exhibit P.W. 6/B at point 'Y' at which the statement Exhibit Public Witness Pw 6/A was received.Perusal of statement Exhibit P.W. 4/A, shows only the sum of Rs. 1572.40 was payable.(20) The two statements Exhibits Public Witness Pw 4/A and modified statement Exhibit Public Witness Pw 13/DB pertaining to statement Exhibit Public Witness Pw 6/A having not been put up to the appellant till 22nd October 1973, as admitted by S K. Jain and there being no record about his having put up statement Exhibit Public Witness Pw 4/A again on his own admission, the appellant cannot be held guilty of having failed to procure the sanction from the Superintending Engineer.It was put up to him.He signed it at point A on 4th September, 1973, and forwarded it to the Executive Engineer vide letter Exhibit P. W. 4/D of the same date.The appellant, he staled, sanctioned some of the items as per statement Exhibit P.W.4/E received with forwarding letter Exhibit P.W. 4/F. He identified the appellant's signatures on both the said documents at point 'A'.Anil Kumar Duggal admits having prepared statement Exhibit P.W. 4/C jointly with R.S. Mathur.P.D. Sehgal, Public Witness Pw 8, who was accountant in Housing Division No. Xii, stated that on 30th October, 1973, the appellant gave him extra items statement No. 2, Exhibit Public Witness Pw 4/E, and asked him to examine if he was competent to sanction it.Public Witness Pw 4/E, he stated, is an excerpt of Public Witness Pw 4/C. He examined the same and told the appellant that he was competent to sanction it.The appellant accorded sanction and sent the same to the Assistant Engineer (1) vide letter dated 31st October, 1973, Exhibit P.W. 4/F. A perusal of statement Exhibit P.W. 4/C shows it pertained to three items, viz.The recommendation for payment of Rs. 7,035.80 against item No. 1I on scrutiny was not approved and the amount was reduced tors.35/-.Out of this amount, the sum of Rs. 7363.60 against item No. (i) was sanctioned vide excerpt P.W.4/E. Thus a sum of Rs. 1775/- only remained for payment against statement Exhibit P.W.4/C. It is no doubt true, Exhibit P.W.4/C was submitted to the Executive Engineer vide letter dated 4th September, 1973, Exhibit P.W.4/D and payment of Rs. 7363.60 was sanctioned on 30th October, 1973, there being a delay of really two months but this circumstance was not put to the appellant in his examination recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a view to afford an opportunity to him to explain the position.Not according section to this petty amount till 30 th October, 1973, pales into insignificance when we find that a far larger amount in the sum of Rs. l,12,223/- was paid to the contractor by cheque on 17th October, 1973, as admitted by P.D.Sehgal in his Gloss-examination as also by the complainant.If that amount could be paid without any hinderance, no discernible reason is forthcoming on the record to hold that sanction in respect of statement Exhibit Public Witness Pw 4/C was withheld for any ulterior motive.(22) Substituted items statement No. 1I, Exhibit P.W.6/C, was prepared by Anil Kumar Duggal (PW 6).He proved his signatures on it at point 'A', which was checked by O.P.Gupta (PW 9).Anil Kumar proved the signatures of O.P.Gupta on it at point 'B'.He further stated that it was sent to the Executive Engineer, Housing Division No. Xii vide letter dated 11th June, 1973, Exhibit P.W.6/D, signed by 0 P. Gupta.He also stated that the appellant approved this statement vide his signatures at point 'C' below endorsement 'approved'.O.P.Gupta (PW 9) corroborating the testimony of Anil Kumar proved his signatures at point 'A' on the letter Exhibit P.W.6/D with which the statement in question was forwarded to the Executive Engineer.He, however, stated that though the approval was given by the appellant on 1st October, 1973, the sanction was conveyed on 30th October, 1973, vide letter Exhibit P.W.8/B. He proved the signatures of the appellant on this letter.Exhibit Public Witness Pw 8/B, at point X. In this respect the statement of P.D.Sehgal (PW 8) is that Exhibit P.W.6/C is the manuscript pertaining to the substituted items statement No. 1, Exhibit P.W.8/A, (2 sheets).This statement was received by the appellant vide forwarding letter Exhibit P.W.6/D on 14th June, 1973, as per his (appellant's) endorsement.Exhibit Public Witness Pw 8/C, on it in the said date.He further staled that the appellant gave the statement.Exhibit P.W.8/A, of which Exhibit Public Witness Pw 6/C is the manuscript, to him on 30th October, 1973, for examining if he was competent to award sanction on it.According to the witness, he examined the statement and submitted the same to the appellant within half an hour telling him that he was competent to award sanction.The witness proved his initials on the statement (Exhibit PW8/A)atpointX. From the above-noted testimony of the prosecution Witnesses, it is evident that the case of the prosecution is that although manuscript statement.Exhibit Public Witness Pw 6/C, was received on 14th Jane, 1973, as per endorsement of the appellant on the forwarding letter Exhibit Public Witness Pw 6/D, the appellant sat over it till 30th October, 1973, and after ascertaining from the accountant, Shri Sehgal, awarded sanction to the statement which sanction was conveyed vide letter dated 30th October, 1973, Exhibit Public Witness Pw 8/A.(23) The story so put is falsified from the documentary evidence on the record.But the appellant above his signatures bad passed an order "S 0(T)/ACC, may check".J.K.Jain, Section Officer (Technical) examined this statement and put up his note in date 28th September, 1973, Exhibit Pw 8/DC to the appellant to accord his sanction.In face of the documentary evidence, the statement of J.K. Jain that he after checking this statement on 14th June, 1973, vide his endorsement at point X on Exhibit Public Witness Pw 6/C had taken the same with the file to the appellant once or twice but he did not accept it saying he was otherwise busy cannot be accepted in view of his own note Exhibit Public Witness Pw 8/DC.There can be no doubt that he has no compunction in telling a lie.(24) P.D.SEHGAL in his cross-examination when confronted with the above mentioned note of J.K.Jain in date 28th September, 1973, had to concede that scrutiny note.Exhibit Public Witness Pw 8/DC, was in the hand of S.K .Jain and was in respect of statement Exhibit Public Witness Pw 6/C. He also proved endorsement on the said note.Exhibit Public Witness Pw 8/DD to be in the hand of the appellant, bearing his signatures.P.D.Sehgal's statement that he was given the fair statement Exhibit Public Witness Pw 8/A, of which Exhibit P. W. 6/C is the manuscept, by the appellant on 30th October, 1973, for scrutiny stands discredited from the above documentary evidence.He is inimical to the appellant and had allowed his zeal to over-run his regard for truth to male a statement which is falsified by the record.It is no wonder that he obliged the prosecution by putting his initials on statement Exhibit Public Witness Pw 8/A at point X.(25) Sehgal at the relevant time was having his house built in Janakpuri.The case of the appellant is that the witness because of his preoccupation with the construction of his house used to come to the office after lunch break and had to be warned on that account because his work in the office was suffering.The witness admits that his house was under construction during those days but denied that he used to attend office after lunch break.He, however, admits that on one or two occasions he came late to office.He further admits that once he was asked to explain in writing.On the state of evidence on record the contention of the appellant that he had taken exception to Sehgal's coming late to office because of his preoccupation with the construction of his house and that offended Sehgal, appears to be probable one.(26) The prosecution also places reliance on Statement No. 3 of the substituted items of work.He proved his signatures on it at point 'A'.Before proceeding on leave in the month of May, 1973, Banerji personally submitted this statement in duplicate in the office of the Executive Engineer.This statement was checked by Anil Kumar Duggal (PW 6) who signed the same at point B.(27) None of the witnesses says that this statement was put up to the appellant.The statement does not bear the signatures or initials of the appellant from which it may not be a wrong inference to draw that this statement never came to the notice of the appellant.In respect of this statement the solitary testimony of P.D.Sehgal is that "This statement too was not sent to the Superintending Engineer".Why and under what circumstances it was not sent, he does not say.The other witnesses say nothing on this point.In the circumstances, it would be a legitimate inference to draw that somebody in the office was negligent in putting up this statement to the appellant, who cannot be made to pay for the lapse of the office.The mere fact that a sum of Rs. 84,676/- was recommended for payment, cannot be made a ground to penalise the appellant when there is no evidence that the appellant was instrumental in withholding its payment.Infact he had prepared the analysis rates Exhibit Public Witness PW13/A and B in respect of this statement on 22nd October, 1973, itself and that these had not been submitted to the appellant.In face of this categorical statement of Jain it is absurd on the part of the prosecution to indict the appellant for non-payment of this amount.(27) Lastly, we are left with extra items statement No. 2, Exhibit Pw 8/E which is for the sum of Rs. 11,484/-.This statement was got proved from P.D. Sehgal (PW 3).He stated that statement Exhibit Public Witness Pw 8/E bears signatures of A.K. Duggal, Sectional Officer, and B.M. Banerji, Assistant Engineer.All that has has stated in respect of this statement was that as per record no sanction was accorded by the office of Executive Engineer in regard to this statement.He does not say when it was received in the office, who dealt with it and whether it was put up to the appellant or not I have perused the said statement, it does not bear signatures or initials of the appellant.S.K. Jain (PW 13) whose duty it was to check all statements and put them before the appellant for orders says nothing about it.Obviously, he had not dealt with it and had no occasion to put up the said statement before the appellant.The inference is obvious that the office sat over the statement and did not deal with it.The omission on the part of the office cannot be fastened to the appellant and make him pay for their sins of omission and commission.(33) Now the case of the complainant is that he asked the appellant on 3 or 4 occasions to release the security amount of Rs. I lac by getting bank security as was done in the other Divisions.He submitted copy of guarantee bond.Thereafter he approached the appellant 3/4 times and repeated his request for release of security amount but no action was taken on his requests.(34) P.D.SEHGAL supporting this aspect of the case stated that application, Exhibit Public Witness Pw 1/C, letter from Syndicate Bank, Exhibit Public Witness Pw 1/B, and draft indemnity bond, Exhibit P.W.I/A, we. e submitted by R.S.Sharma and Company in their office.He proved the endorsement at point P. W.8/F to be in the hand of the appellant bearing his initials.He scrutinized the papers and made note Exhibit Public Witness PW.8/G which he stated was in his hand and bears his signatures.He recommended that the draft was in order and it may be accepted.It was put up before the appellant on the said date.He proved endorsement Exhibit Pw 8/H to be in the hand of the appellant who initialled it at three places.He went to the appellant to seek direction for issuing letter to R.S.Sharma and Company but the appellant asked him to keep the papers and further told him that.he would himself inform the contractor.He further stated that in those days it was not necessary to seek confirmation from the Reserve Bank of India in regard to the Indemnity Bond.(35) Again this aspect of the prosecution case is against the weight of the record.There is a discrepancy in the statement of the complainant who says that he submitted the above-said papers to the appellant personally while P.D.Sehgal says they were received in the office.(36) The case of the appellant is that these papers were received in the office and he on 17th October, 1973, marked them to the accountant with the remarks in the margin "Bond not enclosed.It is an advance copy".He agreed to the suggestion of the accountant and returned the papers' to him on 19th October, 1973, having put his initials in token on his agreement.He further stated that thereafter the papers were never put up to him.The accountant, as already noted above, says that he went to the appellant on 19th October, 1973, to seek direction for issuing letter to R.S.Sharma and Company but the appellant asked him to keep the papers, further telling him that be would himself inform the contractor.Let us examine which is a more probable version.Sehgal in his cross-examination admits that his statement was recorded by the police twice.(37) To a question whether he remembered that he had told the police in his first statement that the appellant had told him that he would himself inform R.S.Sharma and Company regarding the indemnity bond, he evaded the answer stating that he did not remember.On being confronted with his statement.Exhibit Public Witness Pw 8/DE, he had to concede that the version given by him in the Court was not record id in his first statement to the police.This incidentally be speaks fof the necessity of recording the supplementary statement of Sehgal to bring his version in conformity with the prosecution story.(38) A perusal of the note Exhibit Public Witness PW8/G put up by the accountant Shri Sehgal, reveals that though the draft guarantee bond was in accordance with the approved specimen prescribed in the C P.W.D. Manual, Volume It, but there were some mistakes in spellings and other inaccuracies which the accountant had corrected.The accountant suggested that the corrected draft be given back to the contractor for giving the guarantee on proper stamp paper and in accordance with the corrections made.The suggestions made by Sehgal were approved by the appellant on 19th October, 1973, as evidenced by his order Exhibit Public Witness Pw 8/H. That being so, there was no occasion for Sehgal to go the appellant on 19th October.1973, seeking his permission to write a letter to the contractor to do the needful.The permission had already been given vide Exhibit Public Witness Pw 8/H. The statement of Sehgal is not worthy of credence.He is a witness who has no regard for truth.He readily agreed to make a supplementary statement to fit in the prosecution story.I accordingly hold that what was required to be done by the appellant in regard to the release of the security money, proper orders were passed by him and any delay occasioned in executing order Exhibit P.W. 8/H passed by the appellant was entirely due to the office.The Trial Court, as already noted above, accepting the testimony of the independent witnesses R. L. Verma and R. N. Khanna and that of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Chander Bhan, regarding the recovery of twenty-five marked currency notes of Rs. 100/- each.Exhibit P/1 to P/25, from the pocket of the bushirt of the appellant, Exhibit P/26, raising the statutory presumption under section 4(1) of the Act, rejecting the plea of the appellant that the money was snatched by the Deputy Superintendent of Police from the hand of the complainant and planted on him, observed that the recovery of the amount from the possession of the appellant lends corroboration to the case of the complainant regarding the demand and acceptance of the bribe or illegal gratification by the appellant and in consequence convicted and sentenced the appellant as noted in an earlier part of the judgment.(40) On behalf of the appellant it was strenuously contended that the prosecution evidence bristles with inconsistency and contradictions, besides inherent improbabilities.The Trial Court having come to the conclusion that the service record of the appellant shows him to be an officer of integrity which was unquestioned all through his career and that the integrity was certified to be so by the highest officers in the department ought to have rejected the evidence of the trap witnesses who were not reliable, more so when the complainant had a motive to entrap the appellant.It was further submitted that the complaint of R. L. Sharma (PW 1) founded on allegations that the appellant was not refunding his security amount and paying a sum of Rs. 2 lacs allegedly due to the firm in respect of additional items of work, having not been supported by evidence on record, except the mere ipse dixit of the complainant, the defense version should have been accepted.(41) That the complainant had a motive to implicate the appellant in a false case because of the rigid supervision enforced by the appellant who also insisted on the use of better quality of material, was sought to bs reinforced from the testimony of Anil Kumar Duggal (PW 6) and B. M. Banerji (PW 12) and the appellant's inspection rotes Exhibits Public Witness PW9/DA to Pw 9/DF, on the working of the contractor.It is Do doubt true that these witnesses admit that the appellant's supervision was more strict than that of his predecessor Shri H. D. Sharma but that would not provide a motive to implicate the appellant, "the inspection notes of the appellant are of the routine type.P. Gupta (PW 9) were minor and promptly attended to.According to Shri Gupta there was no complaint against R. S Sharma about his work being sub-standard.No capital can be made out of letter Exhibit Public Witness Pw 12/DA, portion A to Al, as according to B. M. Bsnerji (PW 12) only at that particular period the complaint was correct.Futher, according to this witness there was no trouble with R. S. Sharma and Company.Besides, this argument fails to take note of letter dated 1st August, 1973, Exhibit Public Witness Pw I/HI given by the appellant to the contractor recording appreciation of its work stating that their organising capacity was quite good and they can easily handle big construction jobs.This latter cf recommendation is incompatible with the appellant's case that the contractor was not doing the job well.(42) It was then contended that the version given by R.S.Sharma (PW 1) and his son U.S Sharma (PW 2) regarding the alleged demand of bribe by the appellant in his office on 30th October, 1973, is highly discrepant and that the witnesses have charged the entire story of raid.The story of sweets and fruits was an after-thought to suit the changed version of the witnesses otherwise there was no reason if in Fact the sweets and fruits were carried, they be not mentioned in the recovery memorandum.(43) It was submitted that according to the complainant on 30th October, 1973, he met the appellant in his office.His son U.S.Sharma, Public Witness PW2, was with him at that time.On the way in that building they met Sehgal accounts officer working under the appellant.The complainant is stated to have requested him to help him in the release of his security.But in his cross-examination the complaint contradicts himself stating that there was no specific talk regarding the security bond or extra items/substituted items statement Sehgal just talked about papers and added that payment would be made after papers were received from the appellant.His son, it was submitted, has a different story to tell According to the son on that day they met Sehgal, accountant, on their way to the appellant or on their way back and explained to him their difficulty.The accountant told them that he would expedite the payment if orders were made by the appellant.It was also submitted that the complainant in cross-examination had changed his earlier stand of having met the accountant in the building on their way to the appellant.in cross-examination, he had stated that he did not recollect whether they met the accountant before seeing the appellant or after seeing him that day.(44) The accountant, Shri Sehgai (PW 8), it was contended has an altogether different story to tell.According to Sehgal on 30th October, 1973, he met the complainant and his son when he was climbing up the stairs of the office and they were coming down.He further stated that they had exchanged greetings.Thereafter, R.S.Sharma said to him that he had seen the appellation connection with the refund of security deposit and sanction of extra items but the appellant was not agreeing.Sehgal also stated that Sharma asked him to speak to the appellant on which he (Sehgal) told him that the appellant was his officer and that he could not speak to him on their behalf.Discrepancy noted above in the statements of R.S. Sharma and his son are not material to detract from the prosecution case.P.D. Sehgal appears to have given an embellished version but that would not militate against the recovery of currency notes Exhibits P/l to P/25 from the pocket of the bushirt of the appellant if otherwise the evidence regarding recovery is reliable and trustworthy which evidence shall be examined on its own intrinsic worth.The bottles were duly sealed.The witness proved bottles Exhibit P/27 to P/29 to be the said bottles.The seal impression was taken on recovery memorandum Exhibit Public Witness Pw 1/F. The witness proved his signatures on it at point X. The seal after use was given to R.N.Khanna.The fruit basket and packets of sweets were taken away by U.S Sharma.(53) The complaint had no motive to involve the appellant in a false case.If the work was really sub-standard or otherwise not good the contractor would not have been paid Rs,l,12,223/- on 17th October 1973, or allowed to complete work to the tune of Rs.26,08,463/- as per bill No. 15 dated 17th October, 1973, against the total sanctioned amount of Rs. 36 lacs and odd.(54) The prosecution story as unfolded by the complaint finds support from the testimony of the Deputy Superintendent of Police and is fully corroborated by the other witnesses, viz., U.S.Sharma, R.S. Sharma and R.N.Khanna and is backed by the recovery of numbered notes Exhibit P/l to P/25 from the bushirt Exhibit P/26, worn by the appellant the time of recovery.(55) The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there were glaring discrepancies in the version given by the witnesses and that it was not possible to sustain the conviction on its basis.He further submitted the .No ostensible reason is forthcoming on the record as to why R. S Verma be not believed that the complainant gave currency notes lo the appellant who "accepted the same in his left hand and then put them in his right hand and then put them in the left pocket of his bushirt".He corroborates the version of complainant and his son.
|
['Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,290,160 |
The first information report was lodged at 7.45 p.m. the same day at police station Awagarh, Etah, at a distance of three miles from the place of occurrence.The above pedigree has been elicited during the statement of P.W. 1, Ospal and is not disputed by any of the parties.It will thus be clear that deceased Gangaram and Ospal (P.W. 1) who were real brothers were the first cousins of accused persons Rajpal, Babu and Rajbir and second cousins of Sukhbasi, Hira and Hardayal.The evidence is that they had a common ancestral house in which they had separate portions.They were all residents of village Jinavali which lies within the area of police station, Awagarh, district Etah.It is not disputed again that on the question of a wall there was some sort of marpit between Gangaram on the one hand and Sukhbasi Hardayal and Hira -- three of the present appellants and one other person (Rakshpal) on the other.Gangaram had received an injury from a GANDASI in that fight and had lodged a report under Sections 324 and 452 of the Penal code.This happened on 5-2-1977 i.e. one day before the occurrence.It is also in evidence that in connection with the investigation of that case, a sub-inspector from the Thana had come to the village at about 5 p.m. on 6-2-77 and after making some investigation had already left the village, when at about sunset this occurrence took place.It may also be mentioned here that sun-set on 6-2-1977 in Allahabad was at 17.50 hours.The prosecution case is that near about sun-set one Thakur Ramvir Singh of the village came to the house of Gangaram and called him and his brother Ospal.The police came into motion almost at once and the Investigating Officer reached the village.He found Gangaram lying badly injured and therefore, arranged to send him to the District Hospital at Etah.The injured was admitted in the hospital Injuries Nos. 1 to 3 were kept under the observation.Injury No. 4 was found to be simple and caused by some friction.The remaining three injuries were caused by some blunt weapon like lathis and they were about a quarter day old.In the same night at 1.32 a.m. it appears that Gangaram died and on 7-2-1977 at 2 p.m. The post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased was conducted, by Dr. S. Prasad, Superintendent, District Hospital, Etah.The doctor found the same four injuries on his body which he had earlier found at the time of the examination during life.The internal examination, however, revealed the scalp deeply congested under the surface.JUDGMENT V.P. Mathur, J.This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 22-4-1978 passed in Sessions Trial No. 372 of 1977 by Mr. Rati Ram Jatav, the then III Additional Sessions Judge of Etah, whereby he has convicted the six appellants mentioned above on a charge under Section 147 and 302/149, I.P.C. and sentenced each one of them to one year's rigorous imprisonment on the first count and to imprisonment for life on the second.The occurrence in question took place on 6-2-1977 at about sunset in village Jinavali to which the appellant as well as the deceased Gangaram and his brother Ospal (P.W. 1) belonged.When these brothers came out, the Thakur told them that they were required to be present at the house of Udaipal where one Gajandra Singh of Bathua had come to arrange compromise between Gangaram and the accused appellants, Gangaram entered into talks with Thakur Ramvir Singh and in that way he moved a few steps till both of them came to the Kharanja just in front of the chhappar of Kunwarpal Ospal and Gangaram's wife Smt. Patra were also accompanying Gangaram, Gangaram ultimately told Thakur Ramvir Singh that a compromise could not be made without intervention of the Daroga, because he had already lodged a report and the Daroga had come to the village to make an investigation.Upon this the Thakur told him that he will have to enter into a compromise otherwise he will be ruined.Suddenly from out of the chhappar of Kunwarpal, the six appellants of this case all armed with lathis emerged.One of them Babu exhorted the others to kill Gangaram and Ospal and all of them fell upon Gangaram and started giving him a beating with their lathis.Smt. Patra was standing at some distance.Ospal ran away from the spot and cried for help.Witnesses collected including Udaivir (P. W. 3), Mahesh Chand (P.W. 4) and others and at their intervention, the appellants ran away from the spot.Ospal arranged to bring the injured to his house.He could not make any arrangement for the transport of the injured to the thana.He, therefore, himself covered the distance of three miles on foot and reached police station Awagarh, where he lodged the first information report at 7.45 p.m.He was first taken to the P.H.C. Awagrah where the doctor saw him and immediately advised him to go to Etah and did not himself give him any treatment.In the District Hospital at Etah Dr. S. Prasad (P.W. 7) examined the injuries of Gangaram the same night (7-2-77) at 1.10 a.m. He found : (1) A lacerated wound 6.5 cm.X 0.5 cm.X muscle-bone deep on the right side of the head obliquely placed 8 cms.above the right eye brow.Blood was oozing.(2) Contused swelling 12 cms.X 3.5 cms.on the right side of the forehead covering the eye and the cheek in such a manner that the right eye had closed and could not be opened without difficulty.(3) Contused swelling 5 cms.X 4.5 cms.on the right collar bone along with a lacerated wound 2 cm.(4) Abrasion 1.5 cm.X 1.5 cm.on the front surface of the left knee.There was depressed fracture on the right side of the front parietal bone in an area of 8 cms.X 5.0 cms.Membranes were lacerated on the right side top and congested.Brain was lacerated and congested on the right side top of the vertabrae at multiple places in an area of 6 cms.X 4.5 cm.There was fracture on the base of the skull, of the anterior cranial fossa and the middle cranial fossa.In the opinion of the doctor, the death was due to coma as a result of the head injury which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.In the beginning, the case was registered under Section 307, I.P.C. Information was communicated on 7-2-1977 to the Thana where the case was altered to one under Section 302, I.P.C.The prosecution has examined in this case four eye-witnesses namely Ospal first informant (P.W. 1), who was accompanying Gangaram at the time of this occurrence, Smt. Patra wife of Gangaram (P.W. 2) who was also accompanying the deceased at some distance from him.P.W. 3 Udaivir and P.W. 4 Mahesh Chand, who saw the occurrence and intervened.Besides them, the doctor, the Investigating Officer and the Police Head Constable have been examined as formal witnesses.There is no dispute again as regards the facts that in connection with the investigation of that case, a sub-inspector of police had come to the village and was there at about 5 p.m. and had then left the village for the Thana.Undoubtedly, so far as the branch of Narayan comprising of appellants Rajpal, Babu and Rajvir is concerned, there was no enmity between them on the one hand and Gangaram and Ospal on the other.They had not taken part in the marpit, which had taken place a day earlier.The accused appellants in the present case however contend that they have been falsely implicated and they were not responsible for causing injuries to Gangaram in the evening of 6-2-1977 nor responsible for his death.A suggestion was given on their behalf that Gangaram's wife Patra was having illicit relationship with gangaram's brother Ospal (P.W. 1) and they were responsible for the murder of Gangaram and in order to save their skin, they have falsely implicated the accused appellants on a cooked up charge.No evidence in defence has been adduced.In the statement of P.W. 1 Ospal which was recorded in the Court on 24-2-1978, it was elicited from him that after demise of Gangaram the parents of Smt. Patra are insisting that he should adopt her as his wife and that Smt. Patra is also keen for it, but Ospal has still not decided about the matter.He however admitted that Smt. Patra was pregnant at the time of his statement and that it may be his child that she is carrying.This only shows that about one year after the occurrence Ospal and Smt. Patra had sexual relations because the parents of Smt. Patra wanted him to accept her as his wife.The parties are dhobis by caste and it is not disputed that amongst dhobis widow's remarriage takes place and since Smt. Patra is a young lady, it is not unnatural that her parents might be desirous of seeing that Ospal married her.But this is no reason to believe that even during the lifetime of Gangaram there was illicit relationship between Ospal and Smt. Patra.Even if there was such relationship, it does not necessarily mean that Ospal and Smt. Patra would plan for the murder of Gangaram and will execute it.In support of such a suggestion given by the learned counsel to the witness, there is no evidence whatsoever.On the contrary the two witnesses Udaivir and Maheshchand who have not supported the prosecution version in whole, clearly make out one thing that the occurrence took place on the Kharanja just close to the chhappar of Kunwarpal and not very far away, from the house of the deceased Gangaram, and that Rajpal, Babu, Sukhbasi and Hardayal at least were present in this marpit, according to P.W. 3 Udaivir.It may however be mentioned here that Udaivir and Mahesh Chand say that this occurrence had taken place after it had become dark and Maheshchand simply says that he saw Gangaram lying badly injured and then he was removed to his house by Ospal and Smt. Patra.His statement, therefore, is of no avail at all.Udaivir, however, says that it all happened when it was dark and he saw a marpit going on amongst dhobis.He clearly saw Rajpal, Sukhbasi.Hardayal, Babu and Gangaram (deceased) involved in this marpit.There were some other persons but their names he could not know.One of the appellants was armed with a lathi.It appears that this witness tried to support two of the appellants namely Hira and Rajvir by not naming them and also tried to support the defence by saying that the occurrence took place when it was dark.Without the permission of the Court, the witness was cross-examined by the prosecution and a joint affidavit filed by him earlier with Mahesh Chand vide, Ext. Ka 3 was put to him and to Mahesh Chand.Both the witnesses admit their signatures and also giving of this affidavit in the Court but denied its contents.Whatever may be the position, these two witnesses Udaivir and Mahesh Chand are wavering witnesses and are hostile to the prosecution and their testimony cannot be accepted except in that part in which it finds corroboration from the other witnesses.10-A. Ospal and Smt. Patra are very closely related to the deceased.The first is the real brother of the deceased and the second is his wife.A day earlier Hardayal.Hira and Sukhbasi had caused injuries to Gangaram.Admittedly there was no enmity between Gangaram on the one hand and Rajpal, Babu, and Rajvir on the other and therefore, it will be too much to think that they could have been falsely implicated for no reason whatsoever, unless they had joined hands with Hardayal, Hira and Sukhbasi in assaulting Gangaram.The testimony of Ospal and Smt. Patra finds complete corroboration from the first information report and the circumstances of the case.These two witnesses have been thoroughly cross-examined and have not been shaken in their statements.They recite the incident which took place a day earlier and then they say how and in what manner the present occurrence took place, when at the call of Thakur Ramvir Singh the deceased Gangaram entered into a talk with him and moved a few steps from his Darwaza and came on the Kharanja.We have very carefully gone through the evidence of these two witnesses.We have also considered the statement of P.W. 3 Udaivir which at least finds corroboration to this extent that there was a fight going on between the dhobis including Rajpal.Sukhbasi, Hardayal and Babu on the one hand and Gangaram on the other, who was being beaten by them.The presence of at least one lathi is also spoken to by Udaivir.He claims to have challenged the appellants as to why they were continuing to beat Gangaram, as there was every likelihood of his death, the first information report in this case cannot be said to be delayed.There was sufficient motive for the commission of this occurrence, at least so far as Hardayal, Hira and Sukhbasi are concerned : why the three other appellants joined them, is not clear.How the mind of an accused works and what prompts him to commit the offence cannot sometimes he even a subject of imagination or guess work.Injuries were sustained by Gangaram not when it was dark but some time before the sunset when there would be sufficient light on the spot.The assailents were all known persons and close relatives.Under these circumstances it could not be a case of mistaken identity at all.It has been argued that there is a mention of other witnesses having seen this occurrence and they have not been examined.In this respect there is sworn testimony of Ospal that the Thakurs of the village are helping the appellants and had influenced the other witnesses.That appears to be the reason why Udaivir and Mahesh Chand are not whole heartedly supporting the prosecution case now.The time and place of occurrence are clearly established and we are in agreement with the learned Sessions Judge, that the six appellants of this case did assault Gangaram with lathis and caused him severe injuries, as a result of which he died in the hospital.We have only to see as to under what sections of the Penal Code, these persons will be liable to punishment, they all came together armed with lathis and started the assault.They all remained on the spot all through till some village people intervened and saved the further assault and then they all left together, they have thus been guilty of the offence under Section 147, I.P.C. Their conviction on that charge, therefore, is perfectly justified and has to be upheld along with the sentence of imprisonment for one year awarded by the learned Sessions Judge.In order to come to a conclusion whether they would also be guilty of the offence under Section 302/149, I.P.C. we have to see as to with what intention they started the marpit.The evidence on the record as well as the first information report go to show that the original intention of the accused appellants was to somehow force Gangaram to enter into compromise with respect to the incident which had taken place on 5-2-1977 between him and three of the appellants.With that view one Thakur Gajendra Singh of village Bathuwa had come to the house of Udaipal and sent Thakur Ramvir Singh to fetch Gangaram and Ospal so that a compromise may be arranged.It was in this manner that they started the assault on Gangaram.Gangaram and went astray.Two injuries were sustained by the deceased on his head.They of course resulted in his death and were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause his death.But if the intention of the appellants had been to kill him, they would have persisted in giving him blows after blows on his head and other vital parts of his body, which has not happened in this case.Under these circumstances, while we will uphold the conviction and sentence of the appellants under Section 147, I.P.C. as returned by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, we will alter the conviction under Section 302/149, I.P.C. to one under Section 304, Part II read with Section 149, I.P.C. and also the sentence of imprisonment for life to one of rigorous imprisonment for five years in the case of the appellants.In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.The conviction of the appellants under Section 302/149, I.P.C. is altered to one under Section 304, Part II read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and on this charge, each one of the appellants is awarded rigorous imprisonment for a term of five years.
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
8,909,913 |
Apart from the aforenoted two convicts there was a third person namely Shobha Devi (wife of Rajnish) who was also convicted under Section 201 of the IPC.This Court has been informed that she has undergone the sentence which had been imposed upon her and she has since been released.2 The version of the prosecution is that on 17.5.2010 at about 5.38 AM an information was received from the PCR that a dead body was lying at Lal Bagh, Kaushal Puri, Delhi pursuant to which DD No.8A was recorded.Constable Naveen (PW-9) reached the spot.The dead Crl.Appeal Nos.1009/2012 and 700/2013 Page 2 of 22 body was lying wrapped in a "gathri" which was of a boy aged 16-17 years.Blood clots were found near the mouth.Injuries and strangulation marks were found near the neck.Inspector Brij Pal (PW-Appeal Nos.1009/2012 and 700/2013 Page 2 of 2221) had also reached the spot.The dead body was identified by Pintoo Yadav (PW-13), the brother of the deceased, as that of his deceased brother.The two other brothers of the deceased namely Sushil Yadav (PW-12) and Chhotey Yadav (PW16) also reached the spot.Their statements were recorded.As per the version of the three brothers their deceased brother was last seen in the company of Rajnish and Hans Raj.This was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW-17/F. Crime team had been called to the spot and photographs of the spot and dead body were taken by PW-11 (Inder Pal); the photographs were proved as Ex. PW-11/X. Constable Parvinder Singh (PW-3) had also taken the photographs of the dead body.PW-12, PW-13 and PW-16 were the brothers of the deceased.Appeal Nos.1009/2012 and 700/2013 Page 6 of 2211 PW-12 had deposed that on 16.5.2010 he had returned to his house at about 9.00PM.On asking about his deceased brother (Rohit) he was informed by his other brother Chhotey Yadav (PW-16) that Rohit had gone towards the station.PW-12 along with PW-16 went towards the station for a walk.There they noticed that appellants Hans Raj and Rajnish (both of them who were known and were friends of their deceased brother) were talking to their deceased brother.The three of them were walking towards Kaushal Puri, Lal Bagh.PW-12 and PW-16 returned home.On the following day PW-12 learnt about the dead body of his brother lying near the station.He identified his dead body.In his cross-examination PW-12 admitted that his deceased brother was in bad company and he used to wander and loiter around the station most of the time.He sometimes used to sleep at the station and sometimes with the accused.He admitted that the accused were also good friends of their deceased brother.They were all known to one another.He denied the suggestion that he is falsely implicating the accused.12 PW-13 Pintoo Yadav, the second brother of the deceased had also Crl.He had disclosed that they were five brothers including the deceased.PW-13 and PW-16 used to work in Azad Pur Mandi and their other brothers including PW-12 used to ply rickshaw.The deceased Rohit was jobless; he was having bad habits and also was in the habit of drinking.On 16.5.2010 he had gone out to sleep and on the following morning on 17.5.2010 he learnt about the dead body of his brother lying near the railway station.He was informed by his brother i.e. PW-12 and PW-16 that they had seen their deceased brother last in the company of the appellants on the intervening night of 16-17/5/2010 when they had come to their house.In the cross-examination they admitted that their house is near the Railway Station.On some occasions after taking a drink Rohit used to sleep at Railway Station.They were aware of this fact.He admitted that on most occasions he had seen the appellants and Rohit in the company of one another.He denied the suggestion that they had falsely implicated the appellants and that PW-12 and PW-16 had not told him that they had last seen Rohit in the company of the appellants.The deceased was their elder brother and he used to take liquor very often.16 That apart the testimony of Sudama (PW-14) is also of extreme relevance.He was an independent eye-witness to this circumstance.He was not related either to the deceased or to the accused persons.In fact he was living in the same vicinity of Lal Bagh.He knew both the appellants and the victim and their family.He deposed that he was the Pradhan of the juggi Kaushal Puri, Lal Bagh.He knew the appellants and also their residence.He had deposed that on the intervening night of 16-17.5.2010 at about 1.30 - 2.00 AM he had seen the appellants carrying a "gathri".It was in this gathri that the dead body was recovered in the following morning.It is not the version of PW-14 that he had suspected the accused at that point of time.His not identifying the gathri which they were carrying in the middle of night would in no manner affect his credible version.At the cost of repetition, it is noted that he was an independent witness and known both to the victim and the appellants.18 His testimony is extremely relevant and is a closing link in the theory of last seen i.e. brother of the deceased having last seen the accused in the company of their deceased brother at the railway station which was at about 10.00 PM.The dead body having been recovered on the following morning at 5.38 AM.The time of death being reported at about 1.00 AM.The dead body being carried in a gathri and being Crl.Appeal Nos.1009/2012 and 700/2013 Page 13 of 22 deposited near the railway station at about 1.30 - 2.00 AM clinches this circumstance.The arguments of the learned defence counsel on this score (detailed supra) have no weight.Appeal Nos.1009/2012 and 700/2013 Page 13 of 2219 The appellants could not be apprehended.They were absconding.They had revealed the name of the third co-accused namely Shobha Devi.She is the wife of Rajnish.Pursuant to her disclosure statement Ex.PW-17/D she had got a salwar recovered, which was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW-17/F. This was from a Kuredan.The accused Rajnish and Hans Raj had got recovered certain articles belonging to the deceased which included his purse.This was at Parmeshwari Park, Opposite H.P.Petrol Pump, G.T. Karnal Road.The recovery memo of the salwar Ex.PW-17/F was witnessed by H.C.Pritam Chand, Constable Rahul Tyagi and Lady Constable Minthesh.1 These are two appeals filed by the two co-convicts Rajnish and Hans Raj.Vide the impugned judgment and order of sentence dated 12.4.2012 and 24.4.2012 both the convicts stood convicted under Sections 304 Part-I and 201 of the IPC.Each of them had been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default, to undergo SI for a period of 1 month for the offence under Section 304 Part I of the IPC.For their second conviction they had been sentenced to undergo RI for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to undergo SI for 15 days.Both the sentences were to run concurrently.In the course of investigation, statement of Sudama (PW-14) was also recorded.His version was that he had seen the appellants i.e. Rajnish and Hans Raj on the previous night i.e. on the intervening night of 16- 17.5.2010 at 1.30 - 2.00AM carrying a gathri.Efforts to trace the accused did not materialize.They were apprehended on 21.5.2010 from Anand Vihar Bus Stand vide arrest memo Ex. PW-16/A and Ex.16/B respectively.Their disclosure statements were recorded vide memo Ex.PW-16/E and Ex.PW-16/F respectively.The name of the third co- accused Shobha Devi surfaced in their disclosure statement.She was also apprehended and arrested vide memo Ex.PW-17/B. Pursuant to the Crl.Appeal Nos.1009/2012 and 700/2013 Page 3 of 22 disclosure statement of Rajnish, he had got recovered the articles of the deceased including the purse of the deceased which was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW-19/A. Pursuant to the disclosure statement of Shobha Devi she had got recovered a salwar which was alleged to be the weapon of offence i.e. the cloth by virtue of which the deceased had been strangulated.Constable Subhash (PW-8) was also a part of the crime team.SI Manohar Lal (PW-2) had prepared the scaled site plan Ex.PW-2/A. The medical evidence included the report of the post mortem doctor Dr.Kul Bhushan Goel (PW-7) of the BJRM Hospital.The cause of death was asphyxia consequent to a ligature strangulation.Four injuries were noted.All injuries noted were reported to be ante-mortem in nature.Four injuries were noted.The scientific evidence was Crl.Appeal Nos.1009/2012 and 700/2013 Page 4 of 22 proved through Ms.Poonam Sharma, the Senior Scientific Officer (PW-Appeal Nos.1009/2012 and 700/2013 Page 3 of 22Appeal Nos.1009/2012 and 700/2013 Page 4 of 2210) vide her reports Ex. PW-10/A and Ex. PW-10/B.3 In the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. both of them had pleaded innocence.They stated that they had been falsely implicated.prosecution the accused persons stood convicted and sentenced as aforenoted.This Court shall now discuss which of them and the arguments propounded by the learned counsels for the parties on this score.He deposed that they were all living Crl.Appeal Nos.1009/2012 and 700/2013 Page 8 of 22 as a family at Kaushal Puri, Lal Bagh.He used to stay in the house of Hans Raj.The appellants Hans Raj and Rajnish were friends of his brother.On the fateful night of 16.5.2010 Rajnish and Hans Raj had come to their house at 9.30 p.m. to call Rohit.At that time Rohit was not present at the house and he told them that his brother was not present at the house and might be sitting at the Railway Station.Rajnish and Hans Raj left his house.After sometime PW-16 and PW- 12 went for a walk towards the railway bridge where they found their brother in the company of Rajnish and Hans Raj.In the following morning he was informed by his brother that the dead body of their brother was found near the house of Rajnish wrapped in a shawl.In his lengthy cross-examination he admitted that his brother was in bad habit and was also habitual of committing petty offence and theft but no case was registered against him.He did not intervene in their talks.He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely.Appeal Nos.1009/2012 and 700/2013 Page 7 of 22Appeal Nos.1009/2012 and 700/2013 Page 8 of 22Appeal Nos.1009/2012 and 700/2013 Page 9 of 22 testimony of all the aforenoted witnesses upon which reliance has been placed by the prosecution to establish the circumstance of last seen are, interest witnesses being brothers of the deceased and their evidence cannot be relied upon.This submission of the learned defence counsel is not quite correct.There is no doubt that the testimony of interested witnesses has to be examined with a greater scrutiny and a greater circumspection but it cannot be said that their testimony is to be disregarded for this reason alone.The cumulative effect of their versions has to be taken into account.Moreover, the probability of these witnesses being at home at that time was most natural.As per the version of the prosecution, the appellants had come to call their deceased brother from their home.PW-12, PW-13, and PW-16 were residing in the same house.Being night time i.e. between 9.00 to 9.30 PM they were all at home.This was most the normal.In such a situation, it cannot in any manner be said that these witnesses were interested witnesses and merely because they were closely related to the victim, would be no ground to per se reject their testimony which is otherwise wholly reliable.They have all consistently deposed that the deceased was on friendly terms with the appellants.They were in bad Crl.Appeal Nos.1009/2012 and 700/2013 Page 10 of 22 company and most of the time they used to be found loitering around.Rohit also committed petty offences and often he used to sleep at the railway station sometimes and in the house of Hans Raj.It is not the case of the defence that there was any enmity that the the witnesses had against the appellants; in fact all categorically stated that their deceased brother was on friendly terms with the appellants.15 They have honestly deposed upon the circumstance of last seen.PW-12 and PW-13 had last seen their brother at about 10.00 PM at night on the railway track along with appellants.In this context, the medical evidence which is the post mortem report is also an important document.The dead body of the victim was found in the following morning at 5.38 AM near the railway track.The theory of the time gap thus assumes great importance and the intervening gap between the last seen version i.e. the appellants being in the company of the deceased and the dead body having been recovered seven hours later from near around the same Crl.Appeal Nos.1009/2012 and 700/2013 Page 11 of 22 vicinity i.e. near the railway track and the time of death as per the medical evidence being 1.00 AM in the morning the onus shifted upon the accused to have explained as to what happened in this intervening period.They have failed to furnish any sufficient explanation.It is also not the defence of the appellants that they were not in the company of one another on that intervening night.It is also not their case that they were not friends and not known to one another.They had simpliciter taken plea of a false implication without any further explanation.In his cross-examination he had admitted that the gali from which the appellant had crossed is about 2 Crl.Appeal Nos.1009/2012 and 700/2013 Page 12 of 22Appeal Nos.1009/2012 and 700/2013 Page 9 of 22Appeal Nos.1009/2012 and 700/2013 Page 10 of 22Appeal Nos.1009/2012 and 700/2013 Page 11 of 22Appeal Nos.1009/2012 and 700/2013 Page 12 of 22-3 feet wide.He was not able to identify the colour of the gathri.This was the gathri in which the dead body of the victim was recovered by the investigating team.PW-9 had first reached the spot.This was at 5.38 AM.20 The conduct of the appellant in not joining investigation and trying to flee from the place is also a circumstance which was rightly read against the appellant.21 The submission of the learned defence counsel that the appellant had gone to attend a wedding has not been explained or answered in any part of the record.There was enough opportunity for the learned defence counsel to pick up this line of defence.Had it been true, it would have found either in the cross-examination of the witnesses and particularly in the cross-examination of the Investigating Officer that the appellants could not be apprehended as they gone to attend a marriage party.Neither in the cross-examination of the witnesses and nor in the statement of the accused persons recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., this defence of appellant having gone to attend a wedding party is found.Appeal Nos.1009/2012 and 700/2013 Page 14 of 22 This was also thus an adverse circumstance rightly read against the appellants.Appeal Nos.1009/2012 and 700/2013 Page 14 of 2222 The appellants were arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW-16/A and Ex.PW-16/B. Their disclosure statements were recorded.Appeal Nos.1009/2012 and 700/2013 Page 15 of 22 the articles having been allegedly recovered on 21.05.2010 and put to TIP only on 03.6.2010 also throws doubt on the proceedings is also an argument which deserves little merit.The recovery memo has been proved as Ex.PW-19/A. PW-13 Pintoo Yadav had identified these articles and these articles included the purse of the deceased having a diary containing 11 pages.Appeal Nos.1009/2012 and 700/2013 Page 15 of 2224 The medical evidence is also another very important circumstance.The post mortem report Ex.PW-7/A had noted four injuries on the person of the deceased.These injuries reads herein as under:Both lips are bruised all over externally as well as orally.2. Ligature mark.There is ligature pressure centered abroded mark running horizontally all around the neck on below apple of adam with different margins and linear lines in between the LM width of LM is about 1.5 to 2 cm is parch mentioned.Centered abrasion 3 X 0.75 cm over Rt molar region.Vertical grasing seen over back of Ct Forearm and elbow in total area 22 X 7 CM.Postmortem anti marks were seen scattered at places over the chest, abdomen, thighs and face etc. 25 Injury no.1 was bruises over the lips.Injury no.2 was the ligature mark running horizontally all around the neck on below apple of adam Crl.Appeal Nos.1009/2012 and 700/2013 Page 16 of 22 measuring 1.5 to 2 cm.Injury no.3 is centered abrasion 3 X 0.75 cm over Rt molar region and injury no.4 was vertical grasing seen over back of left Forearm and elbow.The doctor had opined injury No.2 to be sufficient to cause death.It had also been opined that a salwar could be the weapon of offence.Appeal Nos.1009/2012 and 700/2013 Page 16 of 2227 The prosecution has been able to establish all the aforenoted circumstances.This had happened two days ago.This was probably the reason for this offence having been committed.The accused persons having been decided to take vendetta upon the victim.Appeal Nos.1009/2012 and 700/2013 Page 17 of 22They be released forthwith, if not, required in any Crl.Appeal Nos.1009/2012 and 700/2013 Page 21 of 22 other case.INDERMEET KAUR, J JULY 22, 2015 ndn Crl.
|
['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
89,106,590 |
No.758/2015 Page 4 of 4No.758/2015 Page 4 of 4This appeal impugns the award of compensation dated 23.07.2015 passed by the learned MACT in MACT No. 21/2011 on two grounds (i) that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased which ought to have been apportioned while computing amount of compensation payable(ii) that the compensation awarded is on the higher side.2. Apropos the first ground, it is contended that the motor accident occurred at noon, in the middle of the road, as seen from the Site Plan prepared by the Investigating Officer.A perusal of the rough sketch of the Site Plan shows that the offending truck bearing registration no. HR-38M- 9282 loaded with bricks was coming from the opposite side of the road.It evidently had no business to be driven in the middle of the road, it should MAC.APP.No.758/2015 Page 1 of 4 have been driven in its left side of the road.Albeit, there was no eye- witness to the accident but the police has recorded and formed an opinion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending truck.An FIR was registered under Section 279/304-A/427 IPC at P.S. Loni, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh and criminal proceedings were initiated.The impugned order has found the offending truck guilty of rash and negligent driving on the principle of preponderance of probabilities.It held as under:-No.758/2015 Page 1 of 4"Petitioner no. 1 has examined herself as PW1 and Sh.Deepak as PW2 however, they were not an eye witness to the accident.No evidence has been led on behalf of respondents on this aspect.Respondent driver has not stepped into the witness box to state as to how accident occurred and to depose that he was not at fault and was not driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner.It was further held that the proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to the proceedings in a civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in this regard.Further, in Kaushnumma Begum and others v/s New India Assurance Company Limited, 2001 ACJ 421 SC, the issue of wrongful act or omission on the part of driver of the motor vehicle MAC.APP.No.758/2015 Page 2 of 4 involved in the accident has been left to a secondary importance and it was held that, mere use or involvement of motor vehicle in causing bodily injuries or death to a human being or damage to property would made the petition maintainable under section 166 and 140 of the Act. It is also settled law that the term rashness and negligence has to be construed lightly while making a decision on a petition for claim for the same as compared to the word rashness and negligence as finds mention in the Indian Penal Code.What emanates from the above is that in law and in fact there was sufficient reason and evidence for the learned Tribunal to conclude that the offending truck was at fault.No.758/2015 Page 3 of 4 crystallized on the day her son died, upon whom she was dependent.In due course what may be adjudicated is that the compensation granted to her in the claim petition, be shared between her successors.No.758/2015 Page 3 of 4The statutory amount, along with interest accrued thereon, be deposited into the 'AASRA' Fund created by this Court for the treatment and rehabilitation of burn victims.NAJMI WAZIRI, J JANUARY, 22, 2020 kb MAC.APP.
|
['Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
89,109,021 |
It is submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents that on the complaint of the petitioner, a case was registered in Crime No.404/2014 on 14.8.2014 for offence under sections 294-B, 323, 324, 355 IPC.Recording the same, the petition is closed.1.The Superintendent of Police, Krishnagiri District.2.The Inspector of Police, Pochampalli Police Station, Krishnagiri District.3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.CRL.O.P. No.5632 of 2015
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
89,112,731 |
(i) The criminal appeal is allowed.(ii) Judgment and order of conviction dated 8.8.2005 passedby learned 2nd Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha inSessions Trial No.9/2005 is hereby set aside.(iii) The accused is acquitted of offences under Sections 363, .....8/-::: Uploaded on - 06/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2019 22:34:18 :::Judgment apeal425.05 21 8366, and 417 of the Indian Penal Code.(iv) The accused is on bail.His Bail Bonds stand cancelled.JUDGE!! BRW !! ...../-::: Uploaded on - 06/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2019 22:34:19 :::
|
['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
89,117,658 |
The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; andNone for the respondent No.2 though served.Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.The applicant has filed this application under Section 438 of Cr.On these grounds, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and prayed for rejection of this bail application.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and perusal of case diary, but without expressing opinion on merits of the case, I deem it appropriate to allow this application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. It is hereby directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty thousand only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of Arresting Authority.This order will remain operative subject to following 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC.46865/2018 (Mehboob Khan Vs.The applicant shall appear on every Monday for cooperation in the investigation before Investigating Officer concerned between 4 PM to 6 PM till filing of charge sheet and any default in appearance on Monday shall dis-entitled him to avail the instant benefit.A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.as per rules.(Anand Pathak) Judge Rks.Digitally signed by R. K. SHARMA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF M.P.BENCH GWALIOR, ou=P. S., postalCode=474011, st=Madhya Pradesh, SHARMA 2.5.4.20=fddb839268e92e8a7e213279c 322478eb4761365df45a6e590a0c9b59 957024a, cn=R. K. SHARMA Date: 2018.12.17 16:49:24 +05'30'
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
891,209 |
The relevant facts are as follows : Kumari Apte, who is a film actress and who acts on the stage, visited Nagpur in April 1954, for acting in certain Marathi dramas.She was accompanied by her brother and private secretary Baburao.They were accompanied by some police constables.At about 4-30 a. m. the police party tried to get the door of the sitting room of the applicants' suite opened with the help of the manager Ramlingam (P. W. 6) and other persons.They also knocked at the door several times and called out to the applicants asking them to open the door.As, however, they failed to open it, the police party forced open the door and went inside.The applicants then came into that room and questioned the authority of the police party to make the search without a warrant.It may be mentioned that the police party wanted to search the bed-room after entering the sitting room.ORDER Mudholkar, J.The applicants Kumari Shanta Apte and her brother Baburao were convicted off an offence under Section 13(a) of the Central Provinces and Berar Prohibition Act by Shri R. G. Bajpai, Magistrate, first class, Nagpur, and each of them was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- or in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.Kumari Shanta Apte was also charged under Section 332 of the Indian Penal Code, but was acquitted of that offence.In appeal, the Sessions Judge, Nagpur, affirmed the conviction of each of the applicants under Section 13(a) of the Prohibition Act but reduced the fine to Rs. 250/-.While at Nagpur, she stayed at the Mount Hotel.Upon receiving information that the applicants were taking liquor without holding a permit under the Prohibition Act and were also in possession of liquor, the Town Inspector Mahajan accompanied by Station Officer Ghatpande of Sitabuldi police station went to the Mount Hotel at about 3-30 A. M. on 7-4-1954 for making a search of the suite of rooms in the occupation of the applicants.According to the prosecution, the applicants obstructed the police party from searching the premises, bodily pushed some of them and caused an injury to Town Inspector Mahajan.Further, according to the prosecution, Kumari Apte assaulted Ghatpande, the Station Officer, by flinging a chappal at him.The applicants denied having obstructed the Station Officer or assaulted any police officer or having used any force whatsoever against them.They challenge the authority of the police officers to make the search without a warrant of the magistrate.Coming back of the City Superintendent of Police to the P. S. after Gast checking.Sending of the Station Officer, the Town Inspector along with the police party, on receipt of information about (drinking) liquor secretly, in a police van (bus).Sd/- Dhanraj, Head Constable.It will thus be seen that this is a record of certain information by Head Constable Dhanraj.
|
['Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
89,124,823 |
-: 1 :- Misc.HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH; BENCH AT INDORE Misc.(Rambharose @ Rohit s/o Chotelal Gohar v/s State of Madhya Pradesh) Indore, Dated : 21.08.2019 :-Shri Virendra Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant - Rambharose @ Rohit.Shri Yogesh Kumar Gupta, learned Public Prosecutor for the Non-applicant/State.Submissions were made on this second application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking bail in connection with Crime No.6/2019 registered at Police Station Jeevajiganj, Ujjain for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201/34 of IPC.The applicant is facing trial under Section 302 of IPC having caused murder of deceased Geetabai who was the grand-mother of Chandani.The murder was caused as there was affair between the present applicant and Chandani both and this was objected against by the deceased and both decided to do away with Geetabai.In consequence of this planning, the applicant throttled Geetabai to death.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that all the relevant witnesses who were projected as last seen witnesses, have been examined and turned hostile.He filed copies of depositions of Nitin (PW-1), Akhilesh (PW-2), Vishnubai (PW-3), Umesh (PW-4), Ku.Bhavna (PW-5), Pooralal Parmar (PW-6), Aarti Gohar (PW-7) and Subhash (PW-8).All these witnesses have turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case.Learned counsel has sought bail on these circumstances developed after the order passed in the first application.The conclusion of trial is likely to take time, hence prayed for release of the applicant on bail.-: 2 :- Misc.Learned counsel for the State was also heard.The applicant is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000-00 [Fifty Thousand Rupees] with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his regular appearance before the Trial Court during trial with a condition that he shall remain present before the Court concerned during trial and shall also abide by the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Cc as per rules.[ Shailendra Shukla ] JUDGE (AKS) Anil Digitally signed by Anil Kumar Sharma DN: c=IN, o=High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench Indore, Kumar postalCode=452001, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=753b65d225a9746e99a 75a441cdc964aa7a158d438793e Sharma 7f32467b355745f3ae, cn=Anil Kumar Sharma Date: 2019.08.22 09:39:57 +05'30'
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
8,912,506 |
Dinesh Maheshwari, J.Leave granted.In this appeal, the accused-appellant has called in question the judgment and order dated 05.06.2018 in Criminal Revision Petition No. 2859 of 2004 whereby, the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam upheld the judgment and order dated 23.09.2004 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thodupuzha in Criminal Appeal No. 253 of 2002 affirming the judgment and order dated 04.12.2002 by the Judicial First ClassSignature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by Magistrate, Idukki in CC No. 126 of 1999 whereby, the accused-appellantASHOK RAJ SINGHDate: 2019.05.0917:08:41 ISTReason:was found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 326 of the Indian 1 Penal Code (‘IPC’) and was sentenced to simple imprisonment for one yeartogether with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and default stipulation.The background aspects, so far relevant for the present purpose,could be noticed, in brief, as follows:The prosecution case has been that the accused-appellant and theinjured victim Sunil Kumar (PW-1) were neighbours.On 26.11.1997 at about6 p.m., while the victim PW-1 was passing through Mannathara-Thopramkudy Panchayat Road, the appellant along with his wife (accusedNo. 2) poured acid on the victim from a ridge on the left side of the road.Allegedly, the appellant and the victim had previous enmity due to which, theappellant poured acid, causing serious injuries over the head, neck, shoulderand other parts of the body of the victim.The accused persons were charge-sheeted by the Sub Inspector of Police, Murikkassery Police Station in CrimeNo.PW-1, the injured victim, in his testimony stated that the accused-appellant poured red-coloured liquid upon him from a yellow bucket while hewas coming back from Thopramkudy; that the liquid was poured upon himfrom a height on the left side of the body due to which, his body began toburn, he tore off his shirt and dhoti and screamed; his mother (PW-2) camerushing to him crying; they ran towards a tea shop; and PW-4 and PW-5 took 2 him to hospital where he remained as inpatient for 3 months.In response tothe question if he was capable of doing his daily routine by himself duringthose 3 months, he replied in the negative.The testimony of PW-1 wascorroborated by his mother PW-2, who was walking a few strides behind himat the time of the incident.He further statedthat there was a chance of disfigurement of the injured area.In cross-examination, the doctor stated that the victim could carry on his daily affairswhile under treatment; that there was no disfigurement at the time of drawingthe wound certificate (Ex. P/5) as the skin was healing and that scars woulddevelop only later.After scrutinizing the relevant evidence, the Judicial Magistrate FirstClass, by his judgment and order dated 04.12.2002, convicted the appellantfor the offence under Section 326 IPC and sentenced him as mentionedhereinbefore.However, the accused No. 2, wife of the appellant, wasacquitted for absence of evidence against her.The appeal preferred by the accused-appellant before the AdditionalDistrict and Sessions Judge was dismissed by judgment and order dated23.09.2004 with the observations that the injuries inflicted by using corrosivesubstance were grievous in nature and it was reasonable to think that thevictim was unable to follow his ordinary pursuits during the period ofhospitalisation.Further, the revision petition preferred by the accused-appellant wasdismissed by the High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam after finding no ground tointerfere in the concurrent findings of the subordinate Courts.Hence thisappeal.It may be pointed out that in the petition seeking leave to appeal, theprayer of the accused-appellant seeking exemption from surrendering wasgranted at the initial stage but, on 13.08.2018, after considering the matterfor admission and while issuing notice, this Court recalled the order grantingexemption from surrendering; and notice was also issued to examine thequestion as to whether any case for enhancement of the sentence wasmade out, having regard to the nature of offence alleged.We have heard learned counsel for the parties on the merits of appealas also on the question of sentence.
|
['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
89,125,865 |
A.No.600/2000 Page 1 of 26Notice of the appeal was issued to the State.The trial Court record has been requisitioned, received and perused.Vide order dated 11.12.2006 of this Court the sentence of imprisonment of the appellant has been suspended as per the condition imposed thereby of furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount.Aashaa Tiwari,.The prosecution version set forth through the charge-sheet instituted on 24.06.99 before the court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, which was vide order dated 13.08.1999 committed to the Court of Sessions, is to the effect that on 22.03.1999 at about 10:25 AM at House No.235 Khumra Mohalla, Ghonda, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Bhajanpura, the accused/the appellant herein had committed rape on the prosecutrix (AB- pseudo name ) and committed an offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC, 1860 in relation to which, the charge of allegations was framed on 16.09.1999 to which the accused/the appellant herein, pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.The prosecution version set forth through Ex. PW-2/B the complaint, made by the mother (CD- pseudo- nym) of the prosecutrix (AB hereafter), is to the effect that her daughter, the prosecutrix-AB was born on 07.09.1983 and since birth was unable to speak and was mentally retarded and that on 22.03.1999 at about 10:00 AM when the mother of the prosecutrix-AB was unable to find the prosecutrix-AB at home, Crl.A.No.600/2000 Page 2 of 26 she began looking for her and whilst searching for her, CD i.e. the mother of the prosecutrix reached the house of her brother-in-law (Devar- i.e. her husbands younger brother) and she heard the noise of a scuffle coming from the upper room and thus she went to the upper room and saw that the doors of the room were shut which she opened and saw the accused/the appellant herein Sanjay S/o Veer Singh i.e. her brother-in-laws son lying on AB, her daughter prosecutrix and doing galat kaam i.e. a wrong act and that she also saw the prosecutrix trying to save herself whereupon she, CD, the motherof the prosecutrix (AB) started shouting loudly on which Subhash Chand S/o Dal Chand who also was the resident of the same area of Purani Abadi, Khumra Mohalla, Ghonda came up and apprehended Sanjay, the accused/the appellant herein who was trying to abscond and he also telephoned the police.The complainant (CD) i.e. the mother of the prosecutrix complained further that the accused/the appellant herein had committed galat kaam i.e. rape of the prosecutrix without her consent.A.No.600/2000 Page 2 of 26On the basis of the telephonic call made by Subhash Chand S/o Dal Chand, DD No. 12A is indicated to have been registered at 11:50 AM at PS Bhajanpura on 22.03.1999 on receipt of the information from the wireless operator of commission of rape on an unknown girl at House No. 235, Khumra Mohalla, Ghonda and that the police be sent whereafter SI Jitender Singh alongwith Ct.Ved Prakash No.1164 North East and W/Ct.Amrik Kaur No. 1553 North East went to the spot.As per Ex.PW-10/A, the endorsement, made by the IO SI Jitender Singh on the basis of the statement of the complainant (CD) i.e the mother of the prosecutrix, he sent the rukka through Ct.Ved Prakash to PS Bhajanpura for the registration of the FIR, which as per Ex.PW-6/C, the endorsement made by the Duty Officer HC Madhvi, is indicated to have been registered vide DD No. Crl.A.No.600/2000 Page 3 of 26 12A at 11:50 AM.As per the charge-sheet the IO got the medical examination of both, the prosecutrix and the accused/the appellant herein conducted and obtained their MLCs No. A-1041/99 and B-1030/99 respectively.The IO SI Jitender Singh , as per his testimony on examination as PW-10 has also testified to the arrest of the accused/the appellant herein vide memo Ex.PW-10/B and to having conducted his interrogation and to the recording of the disclosure statement of the accused/the appellant herein which is Ex.PW-2/C and having prepared the pointing out memo Ex.PW-2/D on the pointing of PW-2, the complainant.The IO also testified to having given intimation regarding the arrest of the accused at his house vide memo Ex. PW-10/C and to having recorded the statement of other witnesses and having deposited the case property with the MHC(M) on his return to the PS.The exhibits i.e one Kameez and Salwar (i.e. clothes of the prosecutrix) Ex.P1 and P2 respectively and the vaginal swab are indicated to have been handed over by the doctors at the GTB hospital to HC Rajender in a sealed condition along with the slide and sample seal along with the blood sample of the accused/the appellant herein and semen sample of the accused/the appellant herein which were seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW-2/F. The clothes of the accused/the appellant herein i.e. Pant, Shirt, underwear Ex.PW-10/B.A.No.600/2000 Page 3 of 26During the course of investigation, the statement of the complainant (CD) i.e. mother of the prosecutrix and of Subhash Chand (PW-5) is also indicated to have been recorded by the IO.The forensic examination result i.e. CFSL/EE/99/DEL-290 dated Crl.A.No.600/2000 Page 4 of 26 03.08.1999 on the record indicates presence of human semen on Ex.1(A) (Kameez) with reddish brown stains and starchy whitish stains and Ex.1(B) the Salwar, also tested positive for human semen and was found having reddish brown stains and starchy whitish stains.Blood of the group 'AB' is indicated to have been found as per the Serological Section Biology Division report dated 06.09.1999 on the kameez, salwar i.e. clothes of the prosecutrix and the cotton swab i.e. control blood sample and also cloth cutting i.e. control semen sample and also on the shirt cuttings, all of human origin.The report dated 06.09.1999 of the CFSL, Calcutta was prepared by the Senior Scientific Officer of the CFSL, and thus in terms of Section 293 of the Cr.P.C. 1973, is per se admissible in evidence.Furthermore, PW-11 Mrs.G. Bhattacharya, the Junior Scientific Officer, CFSL, Calcutta through her unchallenged testimony proved the report Ex.PW-11/A and Dr.I. Haque, PW-12 Senior Scientific Officer, CFSL, Calcutta through his unchallenged testimony also proved the report of the Serological Divison/Biological Division Ex.PW-10/D.A.No.600/2000 Page 4 of 26The MLC of the accused/the appellant herein, Ex.The MLC of the accused/the appellant herein, also indicates that the pant and underwear worn by the accused/the appellant herein, and his blood group sample were taken and handed over by the doctor to the IO.The said MLC Ex.PW-1/A prepared by the Dr. T.R. Ramtek, Chief Medical Officer (CMO), GTB hospital, examined as PW-1 has not been assailed by cross-examination on behalf of the accused/the appellant herein.The MLC of the prosecutrix (AB), Ex.PW-3/A dated 22.03.1999 indicated the age of the prosecutrix to be 16 years and showed her hymen to be torn.The MLC Ex. PW-3/A prepared by PW-3 Dr. Sandhya Gupta, Senior Resident, GTB Hospital also showed that the under-clothing of the Crl.A.No.600/2000 Page 5 of 26 prosecutrix was stained with blood; that the prosecutrix was mentally retarded, deaf and dumb since birth and as per the testimony of PW-3 and as per the MLC Ex.PW-3/A, she was conscious with altered behaviour and she was bleeding from the vagina after the act.PW-3 Dr.Sandhya Gupta through her testimony has also testified to the effect that she had found the hymen of the patient to be freshly torn and that the patient did not allow internal examination and that the vaginal swab was taken, sealed and handed over to the constable for examination and under-clothing stained with blood were sealed and handed over the constable.On being cross- examined on behalf of the accused/the appellant herein, Dr.Sandhya Gupta who examined the prosecutrix, stated that she had examined the patient i.e. prosecutrix immediately without loss of time when she had reached her for medical examination and she further deposed that she has found fresh blood and the hymen was torn.Though this witness stated that blood on the under-clothing could also be of the menstruation cycle, on being cross- examined by the learned APP for the State, Dr.Sandhya Gupta PW-3 testified to the effect that though it was true that blood on the under- clothing could be because of menstruation cycle but in this case there was a freshly torn hymen and there was a history of sexual assault and thus in her opinion in all probabilities, blood on the under-clothing of the patient was on account of freshly torn hymen in relation to which aspect there was no cross-examination conducted on behalf of the accused/the appellant herein despite opportunity granted.The complainant (CD), the mother of the prosecutrix, categorically testified to the effect that the prosecutrix was born on 07.03.1983 and was mentally retarded from birth and since birth had been unable to speak, unable to hear and unable to understand anything despite regular treatment since birth.The testimony of the complainant PW-2 (CD) is categorically to the effect that on 22.03.1999 at about 9:00AM she was cooking at her house and after she had finished cooking at about 10:00 AM she found that her daughter was not at the house and she searched for her daughter everywhere in the mohalla and in the process of searching her, she went to the adjacent house of her brother-in-law (Devar) and she reached the first floor of that house where she heard the noise of a scuffle (hathapai) and she pushed the door and the door opened and she saw accused/the appellant herein, son of her brother-in-law (Devars son), whom she also identified as being present during trial, having laid her daughter (the prosecutrix) down on the floor and she also saw him committing rape on her.The complainant (CD) PW-2 also testified categorically to the effect that her daughter was making noise and was crying and was screaming and there was blood on the floor which was flowing and there were spots of blood on the wall and on seeing this she started making a loud noise and came down and on hearing her sound, another brother-in-laws son (Devars son) Subhash Chand S/o Dal Chand came and apprehended Crl.A.No.600/2000 Page 7 of 26 Sanjay, accused/the appellant herein who was trying to run down and thereafter the police came to the spot and made inquiries from her and she had told the police everything and had signed her statement Ex.PW-2/A, whereafter she testified that the accused/the appellant herein, was also arrested and her daughter was taken to the GTB hospital where she was medically examined and her clothes had also been taken by the doctor and seized by the police.In her testimony PW-2, the complainant (CD), the mother of the prosecutrix identified the clothes of her daughter Ex.A.No.600/2000 Page 7 of 2615. PW-5 Subhash Chand S/o Dal Chand testified to the effect, that on 22.03.1999 at about 10.30 AM he was passing by in front of House No. 235, Khumra Mohalla, Ghonda, Delhi when he heard the noise of a lady coming from upstairs which on being questioned as to what kind of sound it was, he clarified to the effect that the sound was of Pakro pakro and on hearing the sound he went up to the first floor and he saw the complainant, the mother of the prosecutrix trying to surround the accused/the appellant herein and the accused/the appellant herein was trying to run away and thus he- PW-5 Sh.Subhash Chand had apprehended Sanjay and then the complainant (CD) i.e. the mother of the prosecutrix informed Subhash Chand that the accused/the appellant herein had committed rape on the prosecutrix (AB).As per the testimony of this witness he went inside and saw that the girl (the prosecutrix) was lying on the floor and her clothes were on the floor which was blood stained, and that he PW-5 brought the accused/the appellant herein by holding him with his hand down and informed the police and the police came to the spot and thereafter he, - i.e. PW-5 had handed over the accused/the appellant herein to the police, who then conducted the investigation and also recorded his statement.This witness further categorically stated that the complainant (CD) was the real Aunt (Chachi) of the accused/the appellant herein and stated that Crl.A.No.600/2000 Page 8 of 26 the prosecutrix cannot speak and cannot understand anything and that she was disabled, both physically and mentally.The cross-examination of PW-5 is further to the effect, that when he had gone up to that house from where he had heard the noise coming, he found the complainant i.e. mother of the prosecutrix at the door and she had stopped the accused/the appellant herein who was within the room.The cross-examination of PW-5 is categorical to the effect that when he reached up, he found the clothes of the prosecutrix open and dishevelled and he also saw blood on the floor where the prosecutrix was lying and also saw stains on the clothes of the prosecutrix.He stated that he did not see any blood stains on the wall of that room.He stated that the police reached the spot after about one hour of his having telephoned the police.The witness categorically denied that he had testified falsely being a friend of the father of the prosecutrix.He also stated that he was at the hospital where the accused and the prosecutrix had been taken, for about 1 hour.A.No.600/2000 Page 9 of 26Ved Prakash sent by SI Jitender.The carbon copy of the FIR is exhibited as Ex.PW-6/B.19. PW-7 put forth in the witness box was HC Rajinder Singh, the Duty Officer at GTB on 22.03.1999 who testified to the effect that four sealed parcels and two sample seals were handed over by the doctor to him i.e. one by the doctor who examined the girl and the other by the doctor who examined the boy and he handed over the said sealed parcels to the IO in the same condition in which the same were delivered to him, which were seized vide seizure memo Ex.The concerned Superintendent at the Tihar Jail, New Delhi where the appellant shall be incarcerated for the remainder of the term of imprisonment as hereinabove directed shall consider an appropriate programme for the appellant ensuring, if feasible :appropriate correctional courses through meditational therapy;educational opportunity, vocational training and skill development programme to enable a livelihood option and an Crl.A.No.600/2000 Page 24 of 26 occupational status;A.No.600/2000 Page 24 of 26involvement in sports activities and creative art therapy shaping of post release rehabilitation programme for the appellant well in advance before the date of his release to make him self-dependent, ensuring in terms of Chapter 22 clause 22.22 (II) Model Prison Manual 2016, protection of the appellant from getting associated with anti - social groups, agencies of moral hazards (like gambling dens, drinking places and brothels) and with demoralised and deprived persons;adequate counselling being provided to the appellant to be sensitized to understand why he is in prison;ANU MALHOTRA, J.This judgment shall dispose of Criminal Appeal No.600/2000 filed on 30.09.2000, whereby the appellant Sanjay S/o Veer Singh has assailed the impugned judgment dated 19.09.2000 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Shahdara, in State Case 78/99 in FIR No. 153/99, PS Bhajanpura whereby the appellant was convicted for the commission of rape on the prosecutrix as defined under Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "IPC") and was convicted thereunder.The appellant has also assailed the impugned order on sentence dated 20.09.2000 in the said case whereby he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and was held liable to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of the payment of the fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for six months with the direction that he would be entitled to the benefit of the period of the detention already undergone being set off under Section 428 of the Criminal Code of Procedure, 1973 Crl.A.No.600/2000 Page 1 of 26 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.) both during trial, investigation and enquiry.As per the nominal roll, received from the Superintendent Jail-1, Tihar, New Delhi, the appellant had undergone a period of 7 years, 7 months and 27 days of incarceration till his release on 13.12.2006 on bail.Arguments were addressed on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellant, Mr.P-3,4 and 5 are indicated to have been seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW-4/A and were sealed with the seal of JKS and all the exhibits were stated to have been sent by the IO on 16.06.1999 to the CFSL, Calcutta through Ct.Brij Pal in relation to which the CFSL result is Ex.A.No.600/2000 Page 5 of 26In support of the prosecution version set forth in the charge-sheet, the State examined 12 prosecution witnesses.PLEA OF DEFENCEThe accused/the appellant herein led no evidence in defence but admitted Crl.A.No.600/2000 Page 6 of 26 that he was the son of the real brother-in-law (Devar) of the complainant but claimed innocence and denied the commission of any offence of rape, though he admitted that he was medically examined.The accused/the appellant herein further claimed that he had been falsely implicated due to enmity over property between him and father of the prosecutrix and stated that the prosecution witnesses had testified falsely and were interested witnesses.A.No.600/2000 Page 6 of 26He also stated that they all i.e. he and the accused/the appellant herein and the prosecutrix and the complainant, were residents of the same village.On being cross-examined on behalf of the accused/the appellant herein, this witness stated that he knew the father of the prosecutrix since childhood though he was not his friend as there was a large age difference between him and the father of the prosecutrix (PW-2, the mother of the prosecutrix, as per her testimony is indicated to have been aged 43 years on the date of her testimony recorded on 30.09.1999 and Subhash Chand examined as PW-5 is indicated to be aged 36 years on the date of his testimony recorded on 25.10.1999 making this statement of PW- 5 that there was a age gap between the father of the prosecutrix and himself i.e. PW-5 and thus there was no scope for friendship between them,The testimony of PW-4 HC Amrik Kaur, who went to the spot along with the IO and Ct.Ved Prakash corroborated the factum of the prosecutrix being unable to speak and to production of the accused by Subhash Chand- PW-5 before the police and to his arrest and to the seizure of the clothes of the prosecutrix and the accused by the IO, after their medical examination was conducted at the hospital.18. PW-6 put forth in the witness box by the State, was HC Madhvi, the Duty Officer at PS Bhajanpura, who testified to having recorded the DD No. 12 A at 11:50 AM, copy of which was exhibited as Ex.PW-6/A and who testified to having handed over the copy of the said DD entry to SI Jitender Singh and to having registered the FIR No. 153/99, PS Bhajanpura on receipt of the rukka brought by Ct.20. PW-8 put forth in the witness box, was Ct.Ved Prakash who testified to having accompanied Ct.Amrik Kaur and SI Jitender Singh to House No. 235 Khumra Mohalla, Ghonda, Delhi on 22.03.1999 on receipt of call at 11.15 AM and he corroborated the prosecution version in relation to the recording of the statement of mother of the prosecutrix, to the registration of the FIR, to the arrest of the accused and his disclosure statement and pointing out by the accused, to the seizure of the clothes of the accused and of the prosecutrix after Crl.A.No.600/2000 Page 10 of 26 their medical examination and to the identification of the clothes seized.This witness through cross-examination testified that there was fresh blood lying at the spot of the occurrence which was in the nature of the blood spots on the floor though it was not flowing.A.No.600/2000 Page 10 of 26The prosecutrix was produced on 16.11.1999 during trial but as observed by the then learned ASJ, the witness did not understand any questions even as to her name, parentage or any residential address and it was informed by the learned APP that the witness was mentally retarded and speech impaired.The said witness was discharged by the learned trial Court as being incompetent to testify.FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL COURTThe learned trial Court vide its impugned verdict dated 19.09.2000 has categorically observed to the effect that the prosecution has been able to prove the allegations against the accused/the appellant herein beyond a reasonable doubt through the testimonies of prosecution witnesses examined.The learned trial Court also observed to the effect that there was no plausible defence that had been put forth on record by the accused/the appellant herein, apart from immaterial contradictions pointed out by the counsel for the defence which as observed by the learned trial Court, did not in any manner lend any assistance to the accused/the appellant herein.It was also observed by the learned trial Court that there was nothing on record to substantiate the defence of the accused/the appellant herein that there was any dispute over any property between the father of the prosecutrix and his brother nor was there anything on record to substantiate the bald suggestion put to the mother of the prosecutrix i.e. to the complainant that the father of the accused was killed by the father of the prosecutrix by burning him with oil and rather PW-2 had volunteered that the father of the accused had died by burning himself and that the said aspect was Crl.Ved Prakash nor by IO, nor by PW-5 Subhash Chand, the same was just an exaggeration which does not affect her deposition on the merits of the case.The learned trial Court did not give credence to the contention raised on behalf of the accused/the appellant herein as to how a deaf and mute girl can cry and shout at the time of alleged rape, observing that even a mute person can cry and shout in his own way.The absence of external injuries on the person of the prosecutrix and absence of abrasions on the private part of the accused/the appellant herein were also held inconsequential by the learned trial Court, in view of the testimony of PW-3 Dr.Sandhya Gupta, Senior Resident, GTB who examined the prosecutrix and had categorically deposed that blood on the undergarments of the prosecutrix was on account of a freshly torn hymen and not due to a menstrual cycle.Delay in the medical examination of the prosecutrix was also held to be not fatal by the learned trial Court, while observing to the effect that through the evidence it was brought forth that it was quite possible that it took time for the legal formalities to be completed before the actual medical examination of the prosecutrix to be conducted.A.No.600/2000 Page 12 of 26The non-examination of Ct.Brij Pal who deposited the sealed parcels at the CFSL and the non-examination of the MHC(M) in the facts and circumstances of the instant case where the CFSL reports Ex. PW-10/D and PW-11/A indicated that the parcels were found to be packed on receipt with description of seals intact, when they were received, - was also held to be insufficient to falsify the prosecution version, - especially in view of the categorical testimonies of the complainant PW-2 and other witnesses examined.The learned trial Court also observed to the effect that the consent of the prosecutrix was not so material in this case, she being of unsound mind and thus naturally not able to understand the nature and consequence of the act, and that apart from the same, the mother of the prosecutrix had categorically testified to the effect that the prosecutrix was resisting the commission of the offence by shouting and screaming.CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANTThrough the present appeal the accused/the appellant herein, has put forth the very same submissions that were made before the learned trial Court in relation to the :qua the delay in registration of the FIR qua the aspect that the complainant did not give the name of the perpetrator of the crime at the hospital and qua the aspect that the medical examination of the accused/the appellant herein also allegedly disproved the allegations against the appellant that the prosecutrix was the cousin sister of the appellant and it was thus Crl.A.No.600/2000 Page 13 of 26 highly unbelievable and rather revolting to suggest that the appellant would ravish his own sister;A.No.600/2000 Page 13 of 26that there was no report to indicate that the copy of the said report i.e. complaint/information was sent to learned MM; that the CFSL report qua the medical evidence did not support the prosecution version;that the judgment of the trial Court was based on conjectures and surmises and that in any event the sentence awarded to the appellant was harsh.To similar effect, were the submissions made on behalf of the appellant by Mr.M.L.Yadav, learned counsel for the accused/the appellant herein during the course of arguments of the present appeal.CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT/STATEThe State on the other hand, through the learned Addl.Sandhya Gupta whose testimony brought forth categorically that the blood stains on the clothes of the prosecutrix were due to the hymen being recently torn and who testified also through her testimony on oath that there was vaginal bleeding.On a consideration of the entire available record and rival pleas put forth on behalf of either side, it is brought forth that the testimonies of PW-2, the mother of the prosecutrix, PW-5, the witness who prevented the accused/the appellant herein from absconding when he heard the noise of Pakro-pakro being shouted by the mother of the prosecutrix and who also saw the prosecutrix lying on the floor with open and dishevelled clothes, who saw blood spots on the floor, coupled with the factum that the accused/the appellant herein, took advantage of the factum that the prosecutrix was mentally retarded, deaf and dumb since birth and a minor, coupled with the CFSL reports on the record which stand proved through the testimonies of, PW-11 Dr.G.Bhattacharya and PW-12 Dr.I.Haque, which establish the existence of human semen on the clothes of the prosecutrix and also bring forth that the human semen of blood group AB which was as per the serological report Ex.PW10/D and Ex.He would have been around thirty years of age on 4th December, 2006 when his sentence was suspended.We have no information regarding the financial status of the appellant or as to how his family is positioned.Is he married and does he have the responsibility of looking after a family ?It could be argued that if the appeal had been heard expeditiously, even if the order of life sentence had been maintained, the appellant would have long Crl.A.No.600/2000 Page 23 of 26 ago been able to seek executive pardon.A.No.600/2000 Page 23 of 26his family members as per the Jail rules and in accordance with the Model Prison Manual.Furthermore, it is directed that a Bi-annual report is submitted by the Superintendent, Tihar Jail, New Delhi to this Court till the date of release, of the measures being adopted for reformation and rehabilitation of the appellant.Copy of this judgment be also sent to the Director General, Prisons, Delhi and to the Secretary, Law, Justice and Legislative Affairs, GNCTD, Delhi to ensure compliance of the above directionsThe accused/the appellant herein who is on bail in terms of order dated 11.12.2006 of this Court and was released as such on 13.12.2006 as per the nominal roll received from the Superintendent Central Jail-1, Tihar, New Delhi, Crl.The learned trial Court (or the successor Court) and the SHO of PS Bhajanpura shall take suitable steps to ensure the compliance of this judgment.A.No.600/2000 Page 25 of 26The impugned order on sentence dated 20.09.2000 of the learned ASJ, Karkardooma, Shahdara in State Case No. 78/99 in relation to FIR No.153/99, PS Bhajanpura is modified accordingly.Criminal Appeal No.600/2000 is disposed off accordingly.The Registry shall ensure that the copy of this judgment is forthwith served on the appellant and his learned counsel Sh.M.L. Yadav.The record of the trial Court be returned forthwith.A.No.600/2000 Page 26 of 26
|
['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.
|
89,128,194 |
Case diary is available.This is first bail application filed by the applicant-accused under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.3/2015 registered at Police Station Lavkush Nagar, District Chhatarpur for offence under Sections 458 and 380/34 of the IPC.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant-accused has been falsely roped into this case as he belongs to the same village where the victim Malti Bai resides.As per prosecution story, when the victim Malti Bai was at home in the mid night of 2.1.2015, co-accused Betu Ahirwar, Jagdish and two other unknown persons entered her house by breaking into it and assaulted her and robbed her of the articles kept in a box.Moreover, the applicant-accused was arrested on 3.4.2015, but no identification parade was got conducted by the prosecution.Counsel further contends that in the victim's statement recorded on 10.1.2015 M.Cr.C. No.9025/ 2015 during investigation she has deposed against the applicant- accused about his involvement in the alleged incident.But the said statement is not reliable because if the applicant-accused had been involved in the alleged incident, his name would have been mentioned in the FIR also.Besides it, it has not been explained by the victim as to how she came to know the involvement of the applicant-accused in this incident without his identification parade having been conducted in this case.Counsel further submits that a stolen property costing Rs.1,200/- was seized from the possession of the applicant-accused on 2.4.2015 on the basis of which more or less an offence under Section 411 of the IPC can be made out against the applicant-accused.The said offence is punishable with imprisonment upto three years.On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel has prayed for grant of bail.Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposing the submissions made on behalf of the applicant-accused has prayed for rejection of the bail application.On perusal of the case diary, it is evident that a written report was submitted by the victim on 3.1.2015 wherein the name of the applicant-accused who belongs to the same village has not been mentioned in it.No identification parade was got conducted by the prosecution in this case.After eight days i.e. 10.1.2015, the statement of the victim was recorded during investigation wherein the victim has deposed about the M.Cr.C. No.9025/ 2015 involvement of the applicant-accused in the alleged incident.Considering the allegations made in the FIR and the averments of the witnesses, offences under Sections 450 and 394 of the IPC are made out.Provisions of Section 437 (3) of Cr.P.C. shall apply to the applicant.C. stands disposed of.Certified copy as per rules.
|
['Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 450 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
901,824 |
ORDER V.K. Agarwal, J.This petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code has been preferred for quashing the order dated 3-12-1988 in Criminal Case No. 843/88 of J.M.F.C. Baloda Bazar and the order dated 21-7-1997 in Criminal Revision No. 413/88 by Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar, whereby the application filed by the petitioners under Section 182(2) of Criminal Procedure Code was dismissed.On account of maltreatment by petitioner No. 1 she was compelled to reside separately.The matter was reported by non-applicant to the police, thereafter, a private complaint was filed by her, which after due enquiry has been registered by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Baloda Bazar, Distt.Raipur and process under Section 204 of Criminal Procedure Code was issued for the petitioners/accused.The present petition has thereafter been filed praying that the order dated 3-12-1988 and that of revisional Court dated 21-7-1997 be quashed.
|
['Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 494 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
902,661 |
No.1342, Home (Prison C) Department6 months516.6.1999G.O.Ms.No.1259, Home (Prison C) Department6 months614.9.2000G.O.Ms.No.1013, Home (Prison C) Department6 monthsTotal remission36 monthsIt is the contention of the petitioner that the total period of remission as per the above Government Orders, comes to three years and the period spent by him in prison till 10.12.2010 is seven months and that hence his sentence has to be treated as undergone, and he should be released from Prison immediately.C.NAGAPPAN, J.2.The petitioner while working as Deputy Superintendent of Police at Ootacamund, Nilgiris District, was implicated in the case registered in Crime No.260 of 1987 on the file of B1 Police Station, Ooty and he was convicted by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Ooty, by judgment dated 14.1.1992, in Sessions Case No.11 of 1989 and sentenced to undergo three years Rigorous Imprisonment for an offence under Section 366 read with 109 IPC; one year Rigorous Imprisonment for an offence under Section 419 read with 109 IPC and one year Rigorous Imprisonment for an offence under Section 119 IPC.The petitioner preferred a criminal appeal in C.A.No.64 of 1992, and this Court by judgment dated 7.6.2002, dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence.The petitioner was readmitted in Central Prison, Coimbatore on 7.9.2010 and is now undergoing the sentence.3.The petitioner claims that he is entitled to the benefit of remission granted in six Government Orders as detailed below:DateGovernment Order NumberPeriod of Remission123.2.1992G.O.Ms.No.279, Home (Prison C) Department6 months220.2.1993G.O.Ms.No.296, Home (Prison C) Department6 months323.2.1994G.O.Ms.No.205, Home (Prison IV) Department6 monhs412.9.1996G.O.Ms.It is his further contention that his request for his release made in a representation dated 23.11.2010 submitted to the first respondent Government was not complied with and hence his detention has become illegal and violative of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.Mahender Singh & Others ((2007) 13 SCC 606).8.Per contra, Mr.P.Kumaresan, learned Public Prosecutor submits that Sub-Section 5 of Section 59 of the Prisons Act, 1894, empowers the State Government to make Rules and accordingly, the Tamil Nadu Prison Rules, 1983 has been made; that Rule 239 stipulates that the period spent by a prisoner outside the prison on bail, shall not count towards sentence and the petitioner who was enlarged on bail, cannot claim the benefit of remission for the period during which he was on bail, for the purpose of counting the period of sentence already undergone to become eligible for the remission given by the Government; that he is not entitled to claim benefit of remission given by the six Government Orders as he was on bail when the Government Orders were issued and that he, having enjoyed his liberty is dis-entitled to claim the benefit of any one of the aforesaid Government Orders.In support of his submissions, he relies on the following decisions:Mahender Singh & Others ((2009) 1 SCC (CRI) 221) and(4) Gladys L. Paulsamy Vs.DIG of Prison, Chennai Range & Another ((2009) 1 MLJ (CRL) 531).9.We considered the rival contentions on merits.(vi) Suspension of sentence for police investigation(vii) Violation of conditional release(viii) Extradition"An accused was tried for an offence under Section 326 IPC.During trial period he was allowed to remain on bail and the trial prolonged up to, say, 3 years.Finally the court convicted him and sentenced him to imprisonment for three years.2.The Inspector General of Police, Chennai
|
['Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
9,035,687 |
::: Uploaded on - 06/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2018 01:44:00 :::and Mr. N.H. Jawade, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondents.4 The petitioner is assailing the order dated 20.9.2017 passed by the learned Special Judge (MCOCA) and Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati in Crime 437 of 2017 allowing the application of the Investigating Agency and thereby cancelling the bail granted to the petitioner - accused in Misc.5 Factual matrix:-The petitioner was arrested by Police Station Yavatmal on 6.7.2017 in Crime 437 of 2017 for offence punishable under section 307, 364-A, 365, 397, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and under section 3 and 4 read with section 25 of the Arms Act. The petitioner was released on bail by and under order dated 14.8.2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Yavatmal in Misc.6 The affidavit in reply of the State and the ::: Uploaded on - 06/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2018 01:44:00 ::: 3 Investigating Officer asserts that during investigation, it was revealed that the petitioner is a member of organized crime syndicate led and controlled by co-accused Akshay Rathod.Offences under section 3(1)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of the MCOC Act were additionally registered against six accused in Crime 437 of 2017 including the petitioner.::: Uploaded on - 06/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2018 01:44:00 :::7 The Investigating officer, pursuant to permission granted by the competent authority under the MCOC Act filed the charge sheet on 8.12.2017 before the Special Judge.The Investigating Officer moved an application before the Special Court seeking cancellation of bail in view of the registration of offences under the MCOC Act. This application is allowed by the order impugned.Ms. Sarkar would submit that cancellation of bail only on the ground that offences under MCOC Act are additionally registered subsequent to the order of bail impinges upon the constitutional rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.::: Uploaded on - 06/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2018 01:44:00 :::9 Per contra, Mr. N.H. Joshi, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor states that the accused in Crime 437 of 2017 abducted the complainant, and after subjecting him to brutal assault snatched 27 gram gold chain, a gold ring, ATM card, Aadhar Card and cash.Due to the brutal assault the complainant become unconscious and was admitted to Critic Care Hospital, ::: Uploaded on - 06/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2018 01:44:00 ::: 5 Yavatmal and was then shifted to Life Care Hospital, Nagpur.On the basis of First Information Report lodged on 2.6.2017, offences punishable under section 307, 364-A, 365, 397, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and under section 3 and 4 read with section 25 of the Arms Act were registered against the accused including the petitioner.One pistol was recovered at the instance of the petitioner and it is revealed that the said pistol was given to the petitioner by the leader of the organized crimes syndicate Akshay Rathod.One vehicle Sumo Grand bearing registration number MH 29-V-2938 belonging to the sister of the leader of the organized crime syndicate Akshay was also seized from the petitioner.10 This Court, by order dated 8.11.2017 stayed the effect and operation of the order impugned.The interim order was ::: Uploaded on - 06/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2018 01:44:00 ::: 6 modified by order dated 12.3.2018, paragraph 5 of which order reads thus:::: Uploaded on - 06/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2018 01:44:00 :::::: Uploaded on - 06/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2018 01:44:00 :::"5 In the interregnum, the interim order of this Court shall stand modified.While the petitioner shall continue to be protected from arrest, he shall remain present at Yavatmal City Police Station from 13.3.2018 from 11.00 a.m. to 6.00 p.m. every day without fail till the petition is heard after two weeks.The petitioner is put on notice that any breach of this order shall ipso facto lead to withdrawal of the protection from arrest".The brother of the petitioner has however filed an affidavit dated 25.3.2018 that during the pendency of the petition, petitioner was arrested in Crime 28 of 2018 on 23.2.2018 and since then he is in judicial custody.The affidavit reveals that Crime 28/2018 is registered at Police Station Mangrul Dastagir for offence punishable under section 143, 385, 436, 323 and 507 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.11 In Sarang Arvind Goswami Vs.L.J. 774 a learned Single Judge of this Court observes thus:Relying on the aforesaid judgments, it is contended that in the present case, the prosecution was aware about the pending criminal cases against the applicant and that ::: Uploaded on - 06/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2018 01:44:00 ::: 7 material was not relied upon on the earlier occasion, If it is so, it cannot be made basis for cancellation of bail.It is contended that offence under provisions of MCOC Act is invoked mainly on the basis of the offences already registered against the applicant of which cognizance is taken by the Court of competent jurisdiction.Accordingly, as the MCOCA offence is founded on past criminal record of the applicant, that cannot be the basis to cancel the bail operating in favour of the present applicant.::: Uploaded on - 06/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2018 01:44:00 :::This submission overlooks the fact that the offence which has been added to the pending C.R. against applicant is under the special enactment namely, M.C.O.C. Act. The said offence could be registered by the police only after formal approval is given by the competent authority.The applicant was already ordered to be released on bail before the proposal for formal approval was accorded.It is only upon grant of such formal approval that the offence under MCOC Act could be registered and investigated into and not otherwise.This is obviously a subsequent development which can be and ought to be considered by the court for cancellation of bail.The fact that the offences under the provisions of MCOCA are founded on the previous offences will make no difference.::: Uploaded on - 06/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2018 01:44:00 :::12 In Vijendra Molchand Kuril Vs.State of Maharashtra and another - Criminal Application 7 of 2016 ::: Uploaded on - 06/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2018 01:44:00 ::: 9 decided on 12.9.2017 relying on Sarang Arvind Goswami Vs.State of Maharashtra the learned Single Judge observes thus:::: Uploaded on - 06/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2018 01:44:00 :::The applicant is directed to surrender before the law immediately.Else, the investigating officer is free to cause arrest of the applicant in the said crime".::: Uploaded on - 06/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2018 01:44:00 :::Needless to state, that the petitioner is at liberty to apply for bail to the Special Court, which application if moved is bound to be considered by the Special Court on its own merits keeping in view the provisions of the MCOC Act.15 The petition is sans merit and is rejected.JUDGERS Belkhede, PA ::: Uploaded on - 06/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2018 01:44:00 :::::: Uploaded on - 06/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2018 01:44:00 :::
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
90,434,411 |
He has been falsely implicated in the instant case.There was a love affair between the petitioner and the de facto complainant.Subsequent to the filing of the F.I.R. in October, 2015 marriage has been solemnised between the de facto complainant and the petitioner.Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.( Patherya, J.) ( Debi Prosad Dey, J. ) 3
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
90,501,175 |
Heard on admission.Learned Government Advocate for the respondent State accepts notice on behalf of the State; as such, no further notice is required.Heard on I.A. No.17601/2017 under section 389 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to appellant Dal Singh Lodhi.A perusal of record reveals that the appellant stands convicted under Sections 324 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code and he has been sentenced to undergo effective rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and a fine in the sum of Rs.2,000/- with default stipulations.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was on bail during trial and his sentence of imprisonment has been suspended by the learned trial Court under Section 389 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure till 25.09.2017; therefore, it has been prayed that the substantive jail sentence of the appellant be suspended.Learned Government Advocate for the respondent State on the other hand, has opposed the bail application.Keeping in view the quantum of jail sentence imposed upon the appellant coupled with the fact that disposal of appeal is likely to take time, I.A.No.17601/2017 is allowed.It is directed that on depositing the fine amount, if not already deposited, and furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- with one solvent surety in the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 02.05.2018 and all other subsequent dates fixed by the Registry in this regard, the remaining part of the substantive jail sentence imposed upon the appellant shall stand suspended and he shall be released on bail.Certified copy as per rules.(C V SIRPURKAR) JUDGE taj
|
['Section 389 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.
|
90,578,146 |
on advance notice.Since no relief can be granted to the petitioner, the petition stands dismissed.No costs.(SANJAY YADAV) JUDGE vinod
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
90,642,412 |
1 Serial No.194(M/L).SG Allowed CRM 11567 of 2018 In Re.An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.In the matter of:Sankar Halder and othersThe State of West Bengal Mr Bitasok Banerjee Mr Pankaj Halder ... for the petitioners.Mr Gautam Banerjee ... for the State.The petitioners seek anticipatory bail in connection with Raidighi Police Station Case No.479 of 2018 dated December 11, 2018 under Sections 447/427/323/325/307/354B/506 /34 of the Indian Penal Code.The State produces the case diary and refers to the injury report.Considering the minor injury suffered and the circumstances pertaining to the incident, there may not be any need to take the petitioners into custody at this stage.In addition, the petitioners will report to the investigating officer at such time and place as may be specified by the concerned police officer, till the investigation is completed.The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed on the conditions indicated above.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioners, subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.( Sanjib Banerjee, J. ) ( Suvra Ghosh, J. ) 3
|
['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
90,672,691 |
The complainant has taken the loan of Rs.17,97,000/- for purchasing the truck.The complainant has not deposited the installment of loan in due course, therefore, the Finance Company has taken possession of the said vehicle.This is first application under section 438 Cr.P.C seeking anticipatory bail.The applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with crime No.800/14 registered at Police Station Tukoganj, Indore for the offences punishable under sections 406, 120-B/34, 420. 467, 468 & 471 of IPC.As per the prosecution case complainant Chandrakant Patil has purchased a Tata truck Chasis No.3118 from Sanghi Motors, A.B.Road, Manglia, Indore.For purchasing the said vehicle the applicant and co- accused Mushtaffa Khan has received Rs.5,85,530/- from the complainant for sanctioning the finance but out of the said amount they have deposited only Rs.1,50,000/- in the L&T Finance Company and by that act they have committed-2- MCRC NO.29002/17 criminal breach of trust.On that basis Police has registered a case against the applicant and co-accused under sections 406, 120-B/34 IPC and later on offence under sections 420, 467, 468 & 471 IPC has also added.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated in the case.The applicant has not received any amount from the complainant.However, the case was registered in the year 2014 and after that Police called the applicant for interrogation and after his satisfying reply Police has not taken any action but due to the pressure of the complainant Police is now again trying to arrest him in the matter.There is no allegation against the applicant that he has fabricated any document, therefore, no offence under sections 467, 468 & 471 is made out against-3- MCRC NO.29002/17 him, hence prayed for anticipatory bail in the matter.Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application and prayed for its dismissal.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available and considering the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the application is allowed.It is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with the aforesaid crime, he be released on bail upon his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.75,000/- (rupees seventy five thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer.This order shall be governed by the conditions No.1 to 3 of sub section (2) of section 438 Cr.P.C.C.c as per rules.(S.K.AWASTHI) JUDGE hk/ Digitally signed by Hari Kumar Nair Hari Kumar DN: c=IN, o=High Court of Madhya Pradesh, ou=Administration, postalCode=452001, st=Madhya Pradesh, Nair 2.5.4.20=297e891894a3c0a72fe336151e4 5300982d99410547d92f39d7bb69ecedca f7c, cn=Hari Kumar Nair Date: 2018.01.12 01:15:34 -08'00'
|
['Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
90,808,176 |
The complainant lodged the FIR, on that basis crime under the aforementioned offence has been registered against unknown person.During the course of investigation, applicant was taken into custody.On interrogation, he has admitted the commission of offence and given information regarding selling of one mobile phone of Spice Company.On his information and instance one mobile of OPPO company was recovered from his possession.Case diary is available.Heard on this first application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the applicant in connection with Crime No.635/2018 registered at Police Station Hanumantal, Jabalpur, under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code.The case of the prosecution is that, on 14.08.2018 at about 02:15 am when complainant Ameenuddin Ansari, who was sleeping in his house situated at South Motinala, under the jurisdiction of Police Station Hanumantal, Jabalpur with his family, in between 04:00 am to 05:20 the applicant trespassed the house of the complainant from the roof, stolen cash Rs.50,000/-, gold ring worth Rs.5,000/- and two mobile phones worth Rs.11,315/-, the total stolen property amounting to Rs.66,315/-.Charge-sheet has been filed and the trial of the case will take time to conclude.Certified Copy as per rules.(Mohd. Fahim Anwar) Judge taj.Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Date: 15/09/2019 22:19:05
|
['Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
9,086,378 |
Appellant/petitioner has been directed to be removed from the District of Raisen and the adjourning Districts of Bhopal, Vidisha, Hoshangabad, Sehore etc for a period of one year.State of Madhya Pradesh and others subjective satisfaction arrived at by the District Magistrate based on the report submitted by the Superintendent of Police does not call for any interference now, particularly when the Appellate Authority namely - the Commissioner and the Writ Court, have refused to interfere into the matter.Learned counsel for the State submits that once the appellant/petitioner is found to be involved in more than 32 cases, during the period of time, action undertaken cannot be faulted with.6- We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also gone through various judgments cited before us and relied upon by Shri D.K. Jain.7- We find that action was taken against the appellant/petitioner on the basis of a report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, detailing involvement of the appellant/petitioner in 32 cases.Action was initiated against the appellant/petitioner by issuance of a show-cause notice on 17.4.2014, when the Superintendent of Police submitted the list of cases.In the year 2014, appellant/petitioner was involved in four cases, two under sections 110 and 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; and, two for offence under sections 353, 294, 186, 56, 294, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
|
['Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
90,968,823 |
According to the facts of the case, an FIR dated 29.01.2018 under Sections 341, 354, 376(2) (n) and 506 of IPC 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8 of POCSO Act, 2012 and unde Section 3 (2) (v), 3 (1) (w) (i) and (ii) and 5 (j) (ii) of S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act has been registered against the present applicant.The allegation of rape is made against him.It has come on record that the complainant became pragnant.With the aforesiad, the present petition stands disposed of.
|
['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
825,180 |
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.4.82 of theOrissa High Court in Crl.C.S.Sromovasa Rao for the Appellant.A.P. Mohanty for the Respondents.The Judgment of the Court was delivered by K. RAMASWAMY, J. The two respondent Dambru Naiko (A1)and B. Sankara Rao (A2) and two others were charged inSessions Case No. 6/78 of Asst.Sessions Judge, Jeypore foroffences under section 366/34 and 376 read with s. 34 I.P.C.kidnapping and committing rape of Manguri Bhotruni, PW.1 onOctober 21, 1978 at about 4.00 p.m. By judgment datedNovember 26, 1978 the trial court convicted the respondentsand sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for aperiod of three years on each count and the sentences weredirected to run concurrently.He acquitted the other twowhich became final.On appeal it was confirmed by theSessions Court.In Crl.Revision No. 152 of 1981 byjudgment dated April 19, 1982, the High Court acquitted themof th charges.Thus this appeal by special leave.The case of prosecution is that on the fateful day thevictim Bhotruni alongwith other girls, PWs.2 to 4 went toPapadahandi to witness Dasahara festival.At about 4.00p.m., while they were returning home, PW.1, the victim wasahead of them and when they reached inside the forest, theappellants and two others gagged the mouth of PW.1 andkidnapped into the forest, covered her eyes with a piece ofcloth and threatened to kill her if she would raise cries.They made her to lie down on the ground and raped her oneafter another.2 to 4 ran back Papadahandi andreported, to the police on duty in the festival, of theincidence and PW.5, the constable came alongwith them.Theyfound the victim's eyes covered with a piece of cloth andthat she was crying.She was taken to Papadahandi.Shelaid the complaint (Ext. P.1).The accused were arrested onOctober 31, 1977 and in the identification parade conductedby the Executive Magistrate, PW. 13, PW.1 to 4 identifiedthe accused, PW.1 identified the respondents and oneanother, PW.2 to 4 identified some as per Ex. P.10 reportthe details of which are not necessary as it is admitted bythem that before the identification parade was conductedPWs.2 to 4 had opportunity to see the accused.So the trialcount did not rely upon the evidence of PWs.But itaccepted the evidence of PW.1, the victim and convicted therespondents.The High Court acquitted the respondents onthe grounds, namely, that PW.1 identifying these respondentswould not be relied on and that there is no corroboration toher evidence.When there is a gang rape there could beseveral injuries on the person of the victim 396which are absent.Therefore she was consenting party.Weare at a loss to understand the reasoning of the High Court.The vehement contention of the learned counsel for therespondents that the reasoning given by the High Court iscogent and needs no interference absolutely lacks substance.Though PW.1 was a stranger to the accused is the victim ofdastardly offences of kidnapping and gang rape and it wasdone in broad day time.Therefore, when she was kidnappedinto forest by the accused she had opportunity to see themthough later her eyes were closed with a piece of cloth.When she was made to lie down on the ground at the threat ofher life and gang rape was committed, she was absolutelyhelpless.The medical evidence amply corroborates that shehad injuries on her private parts and so there is yet enoughresistence put up by her to the gang rape committed oneafter the another.When it was done at the threat of herlife, she cannot be expected to go on resisting except toresign to her fate and succumb to their assault.PW.1 alsoidentified the respondents in the identification parade.Since there is no appeal against the others, we need not gointo their acquittal.But suffice to state that she hadenough opportunity to identify the persons who committedrape on her.It is not necessary that there would becorroboration to the evidence of the victim of rape.If herevidence inspires confidence to be truthful that itselfwould be sufficient to convict the accused.She was a simplevillage girl and she will not leave out her own assaillantsand implicate falsely other innocent persons with theallegation that she was raped by them.Even if we seek forcorroboration the injuries on her private parts; medicalevidence of the doctor and her first information reportprovide such corroboration.We have carefully scanned herevidence.We wholly accept her evidence as truthful.Theapproach adopted by the High Court shall not be allowed tostand for a moment.The appeal is accordingly allowed.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
82,520,632 |
The earlier application has been dismissed vide order dated 7.3.2019 passed in M.Cr.According to prosecution case, an enquiry was conducted by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jaora, District Ratlam regarding the case in which 5 girls ran away from one Kundan Kutir Aashram which is managed and operated by Kundan Welfare Society.During the enquiry, it was found that the Manager of the Safety home, Smt. Rachna Bharti abused and ill treated the girls and she kept the girls against the prescribed rules.It is also alleged that the husband of Rachna Bharti had sexually assaulted the girls.On the basis of enquiry report, FIR bearing crime No. 59/2019 was registered at police station Industrial Area, Ratlam for the offence punishable under sections 376(2)9d), 354, 323, 120-B, 34 of IPC r/w section 5-D, 6,7,8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and sec.The applicant was also implicated in the present crime on the basis that he was working on the post of secretary of the Kundan Kutir Aashram.In these circumstances, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant.Although learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application by contending that applicant has neglected his duties as a secretary of Kundan Welfare Society, however he has fairly admitted that during the investigation police has not collected any document regarding duties of the present applicant as secretary of the aforesaid society.After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on due consideration of the evidence available on record, but without commenting on the merits of the case, the application filed by the applicant is allowed.The applicant is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.75,000/-(Rupees Seventy Five Thousand Only), with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court, for his regular appearance before the trial Court during trial with a condition that he shall remain present before the Court concerned during trial and shall also abide by the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of Cr.P.C.This order shall be effective till the end of the trial, however, in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.Certified copy as per rules.(S. K. AWASTHI) JUDGE mk MUKTA KAUSHAL 2019.04.02 18:33:17 -07'00'
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
82,522,228 |
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.The applicant is in custody since 30/3/2015 in connection with Crime No.37/2015 registered at Police Station Jaso District Satna for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 147, 148, 149 452of IPC.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a youth of 22 years of age, who has no criminal past as such.3-4 minor cases were registered against the applicant in the past, but he was not convicted in any of the case.In the present case, it is alleged against the co-accused Dhiru that he assaulted the victim Amit causing fractures on his head.It is not alleged against the applicant that he assaulted the victim on any vital part of the body or he intended to kill the victim.No offence under Section 307 of IPC is made out against the applicant either directly or with the help of Section 149 of IPC.At the most offence under Section 323 of ICP may constitute, which is bailable.The applicant is in custody without any reason.Under these circumstances, she prays for bail.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 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.